CHI Workshop

Very happy to have par­ti­cip­ated in the CHI 19 con­fer­ence work­shop:
Explor­ing the Inter­sec­tion of Philo­sophy and HCI

Ann Light and I wrote a short piece for the work­shop:

Figure from paper: Figure 1: Multispecies, multiscalar relations.

ABSTRACT: This short piece, far too short for the space it demands, spins togeth­er a lively and unwieldy story about meth­ods — the prac­tices we in design and design research fol­low to both know about the world and to have an affect on it. We spec­u­late on a mode of doing design inflec­ted with ques­tions about what we are doing when we study and inter­vene in the world. This is a pro­ject full with the hope of renewed design­erly meth­ods that make more of/in the world; that pro­mote a flour­ish­ing of dif­fer­ence; and that might just lead to mod­est but bet­ter ways of liv­ing and dying togeth­er. Our philo­sophy (if that is not too grand a word for it) comes less from a stand­ing on the shoulders” of any one per­son, and more a think­ing through and with fem­in­ist ways of know­ing, doing, and being. Weav­ing into a mesh of ideas from the likes of Barad, Der­rida, Dewey, Durkheim, Hack­ing, Har­away, Law, Stengers, and so on, we find there to be troubles between the ways we come to know the world (doings, meth­ods or prac­tices), and what we know (know­ings or the­or­ies). The prob­lem­at­ic dis­tinc­tion between such doings and know­ings, and the murky worlds between them, open up a space for thinking‐doing a world oth­er­wise. When we come to accept that what we do and what we know are always already togeth­er, and that this togeth­er­ness’ is all the world can be, then we, in design, are left with a begin­ning: What worlds do we want to do‐know?

Down­load PDF

Leave a comment