Dreamcatching: introducing a reflexive tool to facilitate situated complexity in urban co-design practices

References

• Adams, D., M. Smith, P. Larkham, and J. Abidin. 2020. “Encounters with a Future Past: Navigating the Shifting Urban Atmospheres of Place.” Journal of Urban Design 25 (3): 308–327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Appleyard, B. 2022. “Designing the Humanity of a Place: From the Human-Centered to the Ecosystem Scale.” Journal of Urban Design 27 (1): 39–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Argyris, C., and D. Schön. 1975. Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Arnstein, S. R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35 (4): 216–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berleant, A. 2011. “Negative Aesthetics and Everyday Life.” Aesthetic Pathways 1 (2): 75–91.
   Google Scholar
• Bresciani, S. 2019. “Visual Design Thinking: A Collaborative Dimensions Framework to Profile Visualisations.” Design Studies 63: 92–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 2019. “Systems Thinking and Design Thinking.” SheJi: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 6 (3): 386–407.
   Google Scholar
• Carmona, M., T. Heath, T. Oc, and S. Tiesdell. 2010. Public Places- Urban Spaces - the Dimensions of Urban Design. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Carvalho, L., and P. Goodyear. 2018. “Design, Learning Networks, and Service Innovation.” Design Studies 55: 27–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Castello, M. 2014. ”Situatedness.” In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, edited by T. Teo, New York, NY: Springer. 1757–62.
   Google Scholar
• Clancey, W. 1997. Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representation. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Craig, D. L. 2001. ”A Comparison of Research Strategies for Studying Design Behavior.” In Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education, edited by C. Eastman, M. McCracken, and W. Newstetter, pp. 13–35. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Cresswell, T. 2015. Place. An Introduction. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Design Thinking Methods Catalogue. n.d. Empathise: 5 Whys. Accessed June 22 2022. https://www.designthinking-methods.com/en/1Empathie/5-warum.html
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. 1997. Describing Design. Delft: TU Delft.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. 2015. Frame Innovation: Create New Thinking by Design. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Drew, C., C. Robinson, and J. Winhall. 2021. System-Shifting Design. An Emerging Practice Explored. London: Design Council & The Point People.
   Google Scholar
• Dube, A., A. Helkkula, and T. Strandvik. 2014. “Dream Catching for Innovation to Sustain Healthy Lifestyles: From Use Experiences to Dream Experiences.” The 24th annual RESER Conference proceedings: Services and New Societal Challenges: Innovation for Sustainable Growth and Welfare, Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Gadamer, H. 1975. “Hermeneutics and Social Sciences.” Creativity Research Journal 2 (4): 307–316.
   Google Scholar
• Gehl, J. 1987. Life Between Buildings. Vol. 23. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
   Google Scholar
• Haraway, D. 1988. “Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14 (3): 575–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, K. 2019. “The Legend of the Dream Catcher,” Accessed September 1 2022. https://historydaily.org/the-legend-of-the-dream-catcher
   Google Scholar
• Hårsman Wahlström, M., K. Kourtit, and P. Nijkamp. 2020. “Planning Cities4people–a Body and Soul Analysis of Urban Neighbourhoods.” Public Management Review 22 (5): 687–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hollander, J. B. 2012. “Intelligent Participation: Engaging Citizens Through a Framework of Multiple Intelligences.” Community Development 43 (3): 346–360.
   Google Scholar
• Interaction Design Foundation. n.d. 5 Whys. Accessed June 22 2022. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/topics/5-whys#: :text=The%205%20Whys%20method%20is,causes%20and%20explore%20effective%20solutions
   Google Scholar
• Jabareen, Y. 2009. “Building a Conceptual Framework: Philosophy, Definitions, and Procedure.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 8 (4): 49–62.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random.
   Google Scholar
• Jungk, R. 1987. “Social Innovation and Experiments in Critical Times.” EEC Conference on Social Experiments with Information Technology and the Challenges of Innovation, Odense, Denmark, 31–48.
   Google Scholar
• Jungk, R., and N. R. Mullert. 1989. Håndbog I Fremtidsvaerksteder. Kobenhavn: Politisk revy.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, A., and A. Jalakas. 2013. Equality Next! Community Planning from a Gender Perspective (In Swedish: Jämställdhet nästa! Samhällsplanering ur ett genusperspektiv). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindberg, M., J. Gelter, and H. Karlberg. 2017. “Tourism Networking for Regional Place Innovation in Swedish Lapland.” International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development 7 (4): 257–272.
   Google Scholar
• Lynch, K. 1960. The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müllert, N. 2017. ”Zukunftsverstatt.” In Methodenhandbuch Bürgerbeteiligung-Passende Beteiligungsformat Wählen, edited by P. Patze-Diordichychuk, J. Smettan, P. Renner, and T. Föhr, pp. 150–160. München: Oekom Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, H. G., and E. Stolterman. 2012. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B. N. 2002. ”From User-Centered to Participatory Design Approaches.” In Design and the Social Sciences, edited by J. Frascara, Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group. 18–25.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E.-B.-N., and P. J. Stappers. 2008. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.” Co-Design 4 (1): 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B. N., and B. Westerlund. 2011. “Experiencing, Exploring and Experimenting in and with Co-Design Spaces.” Nordes Design Research Conference, Helsinki, Finland: Nordes, 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Sim, D. 2019. Soft City: Building Density for Everyday Life. Washington, DC.: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. 1996. The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Simonsen, J., C. Svabo, S. Strandvad, K. Samson, M. Hertzum, and O. Hansen. 2014. Situated Design Methods. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sleeswijk Visser, F. 2009. Bringing the Everyday Life of People into Design. Rotterdam: Se Niewe Grafische.
   Google Scholar
• Stolterman, E. 2008. “The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design Research.” International Journal of Design 2 (1): 55–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strydom, W., K. Puren, and E. Drewes. 2018. “Exploring Theoretical Trends in Placemaking: Towards New Perspectives in Spatial Planning.” Journal of Place Management and Development 11 (2): 165–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suchman, L. 2002. “Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems 14 (2): 7.
   Google Scholar
• Swedish Government Offices. 2018. Politics for Designed Living Environments. Sweden: Ministry of Culture.
   Google Scholar
• Think. n.d. Five Whys. Accessed June 22 2022. https://think.design/user-design-research/five-whys/
   Google Scholar
• van der Bijl-Brouwer, M., and B. Malcolm. 2020. “Systemic Design Principles in Social Innovation: A Study of Expert Practices and Design Rationales.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 6 (3): 386–407.
   Google Scholar
• Wikberg Nilsson, Å. 2022. ”Situated Design Thinking.” In Different Perspectives on Design Thinking, edited by Y. Eriksson, Boca Raton: CRC Press. 41–66.
   Google Scholar
• Wikberg Nilsson, Å., M. Eronen, J. Sjöholm, E. Hidman, S. Molnar, L. Andersson, T. Crossler Ernström, and K. Haugen. 2022. A Place for Life: Handbook for Design of Co-Created, Inclusive and Attractive Living Environments (In Swedish: En plats att leva på: handbok för design av samskapade, inkluderande och attraktiva livsmiljöer). Luleå: Luleå University of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• Wikberg Nilsson, Å., and M. Jahnke. 2018. “Tactics for Norm-Creative Innovation.” SheJi: The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation 4 (4): 375–391.
   Google Scholar
• Zamenopoulos, T., B. Lam, K. Alexiou, M. Kelemen, S. De Sousa, S. Moffat, and M. Philips. 2021. “Types, Obstacles and Sources of Empowerment in Co-Design: The Role of Shared Material Objects and Processes.” CoDesign 17 (2): 139–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar