שיטות עיצוב בלימודי מדע, טכנולוגיה וחברה

שיטות עיצוב בלימודי מדע, טכנולוגיה וחברה
Design methods in Science, Technology and Society studies
ד"ר דניסה קרה רשף | מדע טכנולוגיה וחברה

מס הקורס | 278606-01
 

סוג הקורס: סמנריון
היקף נ"ז: 2
שנת לימודים: תשפ"ה
סמסטר: שנתי
יום ושעה ראשון 16:00-18:00
שעת קבלה: בתאום
מייל מרצה: Denisa.reshef@biu.ac.il

 

תיאור הקורס ומטרות למידה 

תקציר הקורס 
 

STS and design research share common themes of democratization and public engagement in science and technology along the challenges of "post-normal" science, which include "boundary objects," "wicked problems," and complex social-material and onto-political issues (hyperobjects, the stack, assemblages, actor networks). We can call them "post-ELSI" challenges because they involve multiple stakeholders, scales, units as well as macro-, meso-, and micro-levels of analysis. They not only identify the "ethical, legal, and social" issues and implications of science and technology (ELSI paradigm), but also emphasize the urgency of linking critical thinking with a call to action, theoretical insights with practice, and policy with design. In this course, we will explore the various ways in which we can apply design methods and research in the STS context and use STS insights to improve design practice. While STS strengthens reflection and critical distance, design offers experimental methods to operationalize various concepts of agency and materiality. The combination of design and STS thus defines an approach that works across different "scales" (from human to non-human - planetary, molecular, mineral) and helps us test different concepts of the whole (stacks, hyperobjects, cosmopolitics, actor networks, assemblages, etc.).

 

מטרות/תוצרי הלמידה 

The course provides students with an understanding of design and STS research and methods applied to specific use cases. Students will be encouraged to combine theoretical research with prototyping and apply their knowledge to open and facilitate public debates about the social, cultural, and ethical implications of new and future infrastructure, explore alternative futures with stakeholders, and engage them in the decision-making process through prototyping. They will develop critical thinking about emerging technologies by engaging directly with the technologies and then applying their knowledge to test creative (mis)applications. We will use close reading of primary and secondary texts, future scenarios (forecasting methods), and critical and speculative design practices (design fiction, critical making, humanistic HCI, RtD - research through design, participatory design) to support independent research and team-based design projects. The instructional part, discussions, and learning-by-doing sessions will introduce students to the methods they will use in group projects and later reflect on the material and data in their individual work and reflections. Through individual and team-based research, students will critically evaluate design prototypes and STS issues..

 

ידע 

Knowledge:

Students will gain a solid understanding of design and Science, Technology, and Society (STS) research methods. They will learn to combine theoretical research with practical prototyping to explore the social, cultural, and ethical implications of emerging technologies. Key areas include critical and speculative design practices, forecasting methods, and the analysis of primary and secondary texts.

 

Skills:

The course will equip students with skills in prototyping, critical thinking, and creative application of technologies. They will learn to facilitate public debates, engage stakeholders in decision-making processes, and conduct both independent and team-based research. Reflective practice and the ability to critically evaluate design prototypes are also emphasized.

 

Values:

The course values an interdisciplinary approach, integrating design, technology, and societal considerations. Ethical considerations and public engagement are prioritized, ensuring students are mindful of the broader impacts of their work. Innovation, collaborative learning, and reflective practice are central to the course, fostering a comprehensive and critical understanding of emerging technologies..

מיומנויות

 

למידה פעילה - תכנון מהלך השיעורים: 

 

*ייתכנו שינויים בסילבוס בהתאם לקצב ההתקדמות ואפקטיביות הלמידה

ציון סופי 

 

דרישות הקורס

 

Participation in class discussions, in-class assignments, and peer assessment, including opening and leading a discussion topic (week): 60%

Students will be expected to read the papers before class, participate in discussions, and engage in in-class assignments (including peer assessment and feedback). They will individually select a week to open and lead class discussion by preparing a 20-minute presentation summarizing the main questions and positions of the papers assigned for that week. They will be encouraged to find a creative way to present the material and engage the class with 3-5 discussion points.

 

Final paper (reflection of the process and results): 40%

Assessment criteria include the ability to meet the formal criteria of a policy memo (explained in class and separate document), define and address the appropriate audience, provide empirical evidence (based on research of papers and data), provide a comprehensive, balanced, and focused argument, clearly defined scope, and recommendations.

 

דרישות קדם
 

ביבליוגרפיה: תכנים לקריאה, צפיה והאזנה 

Balmer, A. S., Calvert, J., Marris, C., Molyneux-Hodgson, S., Frow, E., Kearnes, M., Bulpin, K., Schyfter, P., MacKenzie, A. and Martin, P. (2015) “Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on Working in Post-ELSI Spaces in the UK Synthetic Biology Community”, Science & Technology Studies, 28(3), pp. 3–25. doi: 10.23987/sts.55340. 

Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2015). Humanistic HCI. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-02214-2 

Blomkamp, E. (2018). The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77(4), 729–743. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12310 

Brassett, Jamie. “Poised and Complex: The Becoming Each Other of Philosophy, Design and Innovation.” Deleuze and Design, edited by Jamie Brassett and Betti Marenko, Edinburgh University Press, 2015, pp. 31–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g0b1kb.4. Accessed 9 Sep. 2022. 

Bratton, B. H. (2016). The Stack: On Software and Sovereignty. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262029575.001.0001 

de Saille, S. (2015). Innovating innovation policy: The emergence of ‘Responsible Research and Innovation.’ Journal of Responsible Innovation, 2(2), 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2015.1045280 

Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. MIT Press.

Friedman, B., Hendry, D. G., & Borning, A. (2017). A Survey of Value Sensitive Design Methods. Foundations and Trends® in Human–Computer Interaction, 11(2), 63–125. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000015 

Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J., 1993. "Science for the post-normal age", Futures, 31(7): 735-755. 

Galison, P. (1997). Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/I/bo3710110.html 

Jasanoff, S. (2003). Technologies of Humility: Citizen Participation in Governing Science. Minerva, 41(3), 223–244. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025557512320 

Latour, B. (1992) 'Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts', in Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds) Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, pp. 225-58. 

Law, J. 1992. Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity in Systemic Practice and Action Research 5 (4), 379-393.

Myskja, B. K., Nydal, R., & Myhr, A. I. (2014). We have never been ELSI researchers – there is no need for a post-ELSI shift. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 10(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-014-0009-4 

Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects. Philosophy and Ecology after the End of the World, University of Minnesota Press

Pereira, Â., & Funtowicz, S. (2003). Methods for Citizen Involvement in New Governance. Reflections Based on Three Empirical Cases. TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis, 12(2), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.12.2.57 

Pfaffenberger, B. (1992). Technological Dramas. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(3), 282–312. https://philpapers.org/rec/PFATD

Rabinow, P., & Bennett, G. (2012). Designing human practices: An experiment with synthetic biology. The University of Chicago Press. 

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning." Policy sciences, 4(2), 155-169. https://urbanpolicy.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Rittel+Webber_1973_P…;

Rozendaal, M. (2016). Objects with intent: A new paradigm for interaction design. Interactions, 23(3), 62–65. https://doi.org/10.1145/2911330 

Sanders, E. Peter Kwok Chan: Emerging Trends in Design Research http://www.maketools.com/articles-papers/EmergingTrends1_Sanders_Chan_0…;

Spaniol, M. J., & Rowland, N. J. (2019). Defining scenario. FUTURES & FORESIGHT SCIENCE, 1(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.1002/ffo2.3 

Star, S. L. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.https://www.jstor.org/stable/25746386 

Star, Susan; Griesemer, James (1989). "Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39" (PDF). Social Studies of Science. 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001. 

Stengers, Isabelle: The cosmopolitical proposal—PhilPapers. (n.d.). Retrieved September 9, 2022, from https://philpapers.org/rec/STETCP-4 

 

Villa Alvarez, D. P., Auricchio, V., & Mortati, M. (2022). Mapping design activities and methods of public sector innovation units through the policy cycle model. Policy Sciences, 55(1), 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09448-4 

Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121–136. https://faculty.cc.gatech.edu/~beki/cs4001/Winner.pdf 

Wilkinson, A., & Kupers, R. (2013, May 1). Living in the Futures. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures 

Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704