Transition Lenses: Perspectives on futures, models and agency

Abstract

This paper explores certain dimensions of designers' roles within transition design, in particular, the nature of imagined futures and visions, models of human behaviour, mindsets and human agency. These are aspects drawn from the provocations offered to Transition Design symposium participants, but the paper also responds to, and builds on, issues raised by contributors to the special issue of Design Philosophy Papers (Vol 13, No 1) arising from a previous symposium.

Full text

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
1
Transition Lenses:
Perspectives on futures, models and agency
Dan Lockton
Royal College of Art
dan@danlockton.co.uk
Abstract
This paper explores certain dimensions of designers’ roles within transition design, in
particular, the nature of imagined futures and visions, models of human behaviour,
mindsets and human agency. These are aspects drawn from the provocations offered
to Transition Design symposium participants, but the paper also responds to, and
builds on, issues raised by contributors to the special issue of Design Philosophy
Papers (Vol 13, No 1) arising from a previous symposium.
Transition design and futures
It’s a curious phenomenon of linguistic ambiguity—of which I’m not
knowledgeable enough to know the correct name—that phrases such
as transition design can be interpreted in multiple different senses.
Among others, it could be ‘the design of transition’, ‘designing for
transition’ (DiSalvo, 2015, p.54), or it could be an imperative: ‘you had
better transition (the subject of) design (or else)!’; verbing weirds
language, as they say (Watterson, 1993). But, actually, this last sense
is quite useful; if I understand the emerging mission of transition
design (Irwin et al, 2015), it is also about transitioning ‘design’ itself to
something different, through educating a new generation of designers
with different assumptions and mindsets, with the abilities, motivation,
and vision to “facilitat[e] social change toward[s] more sustainable
futures” (Tonkinwise, 2015, p.85).
What would it mean to transition (as a verb) design (as a noun)? One
approach could be to teach, and present, the practice of design as
being less about solving assumed static problems, and more about
understanding complexity, understanding what agency is possible
within the systems we are in, and speculating in an informed way
about how things could be different. It would recognise that design
which adopts a singular, linear vision of ‘the future’, and future human
behaviour, does not deal adequately with the complexities of
humanity, culture and society, let alone our place within the ecological
systems of the planet.
Thus, design needs to tackle ‘the future’ in a more nuanced and
exploratory way, not the conventional approach of “trying to pin the
future down” in Dunne & Raby’s words (2013, p.2), but adopting the
mantle of offering at once both propositions and statements, ‘This?’
and ‘This!’ as Dilnot (2015) puts it. Design could be treated as “a
conversation for action… [about] what to conserve and what to
change, a conversation about what we value” (Dubberly & Pangaro,
2015, p.74). This would be a plural field, a flowering of alternatives
which opens up discussion of, and provides examples—and
potentially even ‘patterns’ for—different futures, with different voices,
humble in its certainty, but confident in its challenge to existing
paradigms.
Both design and sustainability are about futures—bringing into being a
world where humanity and other forms of life will “flourish on the
planet forever” (Ehrenfeld, 2008, p.6) or where we can ‘go about our
daily affairs… [knowing] that our activities as civilised beings are
expanding our future options and improving our current situation’
(Sterling, 2005, p44). Design might be one of the mechanisms by

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
2
which much of our current predicament has come about (Papanek,
1971), but perhaps ‘the future with a future for “us” can only be
reached by design’ (Fry, 2015, p8).1
There are lots of trite things one can say about futures, and ‘the
future’. But some which, if true, are fairly fundamental, and yet
somehow easy to forget, are the notions that:
i) there is no ‘future’, as if it were a destination at which we
arrive collectively, any more than the same ‘tomorrow’
exists when the clock strikes midnight;
ii) even if we think about ‘future’ as ‘a state we are
continuously transitioning towards’, this is again something
that is an ongoing, perpetual (but not smooth) process in
which that ‘next state’ is itself changing, rather than
something fixed to arrive at;
iii) even taking the concept of ‘future-as-a-state-we-are-
continuously-transitioning-towards’ as useful, there is no
more one future for all of us, than there is, experientially,
one present, or one past.
And yet, the power of imagined future(s), the imagined state(s)-that-
we-are-transitioning-to, is immense. They motivate, inspire, horrify,
provoke action, set people on political careers and secure venture
capital funding. They may be presented as desirable futures,
undesirable warnings, somewhere in between, or not given an explicit
intended valence by their authors. They may become self-fulfilling, or
worm their way into our collective minds to become staple, if not
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 It is worth contrasting alternatives in which humanity does not survive – and
reflecting on what they might mean for design. For example, Wiener (1954, p.40): “In a
very real sense we are shipwrecked passengers on a doomed planet. Yet even in a
shipwreck, human decencies and human values do not necessarily vanish, and we
must make the most of them. We shall go down, but let it be in a manner to which we
may look forward as worthy of our dignity.” As Tonkinwise (2015, p.86) points out, the
global sustainability crises are “slow motion crashes”.
stable, tropes in our culture. The act of presenting, or proposing, one
future of the infinite that could have been proposed immediately
makes it into an object, a thing to address. Many of these imagined
futures have (traditionally) come from literature, and, in the last
century, film, rather than design; as Dunne & Raby (2013, p.189) point
out, as the field has developed, speculative design proposals are often
“closer to literature than social science”.
One tension here, then, is perhaps also a fairly basic one: should
transition design, in aiming to produce “more compelling future-
oriented visions… to inform and inspire projects in the present” (Irwin
et al, 2015, p.8), be only about creating ‘desirable’ visions, ‘preferred
situations’ (Simon, 1969)?2 Or should it also aim to provide critical
“complicated pleasure” in Dunne & Raby’s (2013, p.189) term,
“highlight[ing] dilemmas and trade-offs between imperfect
alternatives”, or explicitly provoking agonism or revealing hegemony
(DiSalvo, 2012), instead of only suggesting ways to transition to more
sustainable states of being, for society and the planet? Should
transition design be “about doing politics, attempting to give voice to
the powerless and celebrating the notion that there are different social
productions of nature that are possible?” (White, 2015, p.43); should
the “compelling future-oriented visions” extrapolate from current
examples of novel (I hesitate to say ‘best’, because that misses the
point) practice at a community level, locally situated and emergent, but
globally relevant, such as the initiatives of the Transition movement?
We can perhaps see experiments in the present—whether framed as
speculative design, provocations, or practical, local, social innovation
projects—as pragmatic thought experiments for transition design, in
the sense of “contemporary society [being] seen as a huge future-
building laboratory” (Manzini, 2015, p.58). These “alternatives in the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 Of course, this is on one level problematic in the ‘preferred for whom?’ sense, as
Scupelli (2015) points out, but there is also the fundamental question of whether we
know what a ‘sustainable’ society would look like, to transition towards.

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
3
present” (DiSalvo, 2015, p.51) can be, in a sense, experiential futures,
not just presented as visions, but perhaps even possible to inhabit.
The idea of ‘living labs’ (e.g. Keyson et al, 2016) not primarily as
venues for testing new technologies, but for studying changes in social
practice in everyday life (Scott et al, 2012) or even through enacting
new political or social structures, is a tantalising one for transition
design. ‘Prototype districts’, perhaps enabled at a city scale (e.g.
Mexico City’s Laboratorio para la Ciudad (Gómez!Mont, 2016), in
Eindhoven (Jain, 2015), or many Finnish examples described by Hill
(2012)) could act as iteratively refined, liveable examples for a future
‘pattern language’ for transition, recognising the specifics of local
contexts and needs (Doordan, 2015).
Plural visions, behavioural models and mindsets
‘An interventionist is a man struggling to
make his model of man come true.’
(Argyris and Schön, 1974, p.28)
Practically, it may be that, as Hardin (1985) put it, “you cannot do only
one thing”. Any kind of proposal or narrative put into the world
changes it, whether the designer or author intended it to be a vision of
a preferred future or not (compare “1984 was not supposed to be an
instruction manual!” (e.g. Reddit, 2015)). By reifying certain ideas,
embodying certain assumptions and not giving a voice to others,
design becomes a form of prediction about the future which can be
self-fulfilling: design to some extent ‘creates’ the future which it
predicts (whether it claims to do so or not). A system designed around
a presupposition of a singular, linear vision or narrative of the future
perhaps ends up bringing it into being: if we design for a presumed
economic or political model, we probably end up thinking within the
constraints of that model: as Kossoff (2015, p,25) considers, “[o]ur
hopes and politics are largely the result of a given framework”.
This suggests that to avoid this, transition design needs to emphasise
complexity rather than shy away from it, to make it very clear that what
is proposed are possibilities, and—perhaps—we may then benefit
from the very same effect, by enabling multiple ways of doing things to
flourish. Just as we now have both William Gibson’s ‘unevenly
distributed’ pockets of ‘the future’ (NPR, 1999) alongside—and
interacting with—pockets of ‘the past’, it is likely that next year, or in
fifty years, we will also have an unevenly distributed, complex reality
for humanity. We must abandon the concept of a singular ‘now’,
devoid of history and histories, and the same for everyone, which
means that the popular device of the ‘futures cone’ (e.g. Bland &
Westlake, 2013), while useful for opening up our vision, is politically
and socially reductive, and potentially obscures important issues
about the ‘present’, and what has come before, even as it seeks to
provoke plurality in future thinking.
Many visions of sustainable futures assume large-scale changes in
human behaviour and social practices, and design will be part of this:
as Tonkinwise (2015, p.86) puts it, “[t]he ways in which designs
influence how people act, making certain activities and their
associated product ecologies inertial, are central to explaining how our
societies are so unsustainable—just as they are crucial to shifting our
societies out of current crises”.
However, the current field of design for behaviour change, behavioural
design, and design for sustainable behaviour—in which I have been
working now for the last decade (Lockton et al, 2010; 2013)—is
arguably bound up with assumptions and determinism (Lockton,
2012), often embodying, even if not consciously, a singular vision for
future human behaviour (Brynjarsdóttir et al, 2012), predicated on a
normative vision of ‘streamlined’ people as engineered entities acting
in predictable, specified ways. People are essentially considered to be
components in a system, with known properties, which, if made legible

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
4
(Scott, 1999) to the system’s controller3, whether algorithmic or human
(Dutson et al, 2015), can be treated as ‘solved’. We are seeing this
reductiveness applied in visions of our everyday domestic life (Fantini
van Ditmar & Lockton, 2016), our health (Whitson, 2015), ‘smart’ cities
(Galik, 2016) and in the workplace (Moore & Robinson, 2015)—which
can all be read as attempts at aligning the behaviour of populations
with a particular model of ‘best practice’, both biopolitical and
ideological. As Ranner et al (2016, p.1) put it, “in drafting a normal,
everything else is treated as defective.” But as reflective, thoughtful,
engaged designers, we must challenge this, and open up more
pluralistic approaches.4
This is recognised within transition design—Irwin et al (2015, p.8)
criticise the “modernist pitfall of the imposition of static images of a
rigid future”—but from the point of view of educating designers to
think differently, an important aspect of engaging with the issue is to
be consciously reflective on, and critical of, the models of human
behaviour and human nature which are being employed (Lockton et al,
2012; Tonkinwise, 2015): assumptions about people, how they (will)
live, how they (will) make decisions, and what (will) motivate and
persuade them to do things differently. All design is modelling
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
3 In a cybernetic sense, this is inherently about reducing variety (Conant & Ashby,
1970) and attempting either to simplify the complexity of human action, or simply to
ignore it (Greenfield’s (2013) “willed blindness”). I would argue (not here), that while
transition design already makes good use of ‘systems thinking’, “provid[ing] a set of
heurisms for seeing the world in synchronic, visual and diagrammatic ways… [and]
provid[ing] designers with a means of abstracting from the messy complexities of
socio-political world” (White, 2015, p.40), there are aspects of an explicitly cybernetic
approach, such as understanding of circularity, the practical implications of requisite
variety (Beer, 1974), a second order epistemology, and the concept of design-as-
conversation (Dubberly & Pangaro, 2015) which can offer much more for transition
design, perhaps even enabling “a heurism for understanding power and politics”
(White, 2015, p.42).
4 People’s lives are not just there to be made ‘legible’ to authorities (or indeed to
corporations); and yet, as we will see, legibility of the system, of policy and politics,
could be something that can work from the other direction—to empower transition and
change by the people.
(Alexander, 1964; Dubberly & Pangaro, 2007); every technology
embodies a hypothesis about human behaviour (Greenfield, 2013); and
designers cannot escape having a model of humans (Froehlich et al,
2010). But approaches which enable a pluralistic treatment of futures,
in combination with being explicit about the assumptions being made,
can help to open up, and explore variety and complexity in human
behaviour and potentially unanticipated side-effects (Ranner et al,
2016).
The idea of mindset, as a core area of transition design (Irwin et al,
2015), is related, since changing the way designers think about the
future, themselves, their agency, their role, is interwoven with changing
the models of humanity which are espoused. There are, as Willis
(2015, p.70) puts it “heavy investments, not least psychological, in
keeping things as they are”, and those psychological investments
need something quite persuasive to break them, perhaps “induct[ion]
into understanding theories of power, social structure and social
change, and the like” (Willis, 2015, p.73).
Equally though, design can change the way that the public (recognised
as diverse) thinks about and imagines futures. Whether Dunne &
Raby’s “social dreaming” or something more explicitly about (exploring
and) changing mental models (Gutman, 1993), and facilitating
recognition of agency within those changed understandings of futures,
setting this as a goal could have great value as part of transition
design. After all, the power of the Transition movement, in many ways,
has been to enable, through living demonstration, changed mindsets
about the possibilities of the future and the agency that groups of
people working together locally can have.
Agency for transition
Agency is important, both the agency that designers believe they have
to change things, and the agency which design can enable in others:

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
5
“the basis for action in the world—to assist the process of transition to
a sustainable society” (Kossoff, 2015, p.26). Design affects both what
people do, and what people perceive they can do. It also, over time,
affects how we think, and how we understand the world that we are
part of, both individually and together as a society. White (2015, p.44)
asks whether transition design can be “about unleashing human
agency to facilitate a different and political (not natural) making of
nature?”
I have written elsewhere (Lockton, 2015) how ‘designing agency’, as
part of transition design or otherwise, could be the end stage in a
sequence of design research and practice, progressing (transitioning?)
from understanding to action.
The first stage may involve using design tools to understand the world
as it is (for example, ethnography or contextual enquiry, or how
systems are operating in everyday life); the second involves
understanding people’s understanding of the world (exploring mental
models, imaginaries and mindsets); the third, using design to help
people understand the world differently, perhaps through making
systems, power structures, and relationships legible (Moles, 1986) and
comprehensible in new ways; the fourth, using design to help people
understand their agency in the world, might respond to transition
design’s “need [for] a strategy for politicizing people” (Willis, 2015.
p.73); while the final stage, of helping people use their agency, is about
design for behaviour change, but from the other way around—helping
people to change the behaviour of the systems we are in. That might
include designed interventions focused on “re-designing patterns of
ownership and control” (White, 2015, p.49), or other practical ways in
which people can intervene in, and change, the ways that the world
operates. Within a transition design context which recognises the
diversity of contexts, different techniques would be effective at
different stages. Some design work would be investigatory research,
some practical, some speculative or critical. Some would give us tools
for understanding and learning, some tools for doing, some
provocations for reflection.
However, transition designers need not just humility about their ability
to enact change within a complex world, but recognition that their
decisions, of what to model, what to measure, and what possibilities
are considered, are themselves being influenced by their positions
within the system and the history of their previous actions. There are
no detached observers: what a designer seeks to ‘control’ inevitably
ends up controlling his or her actions, in turn, just as a thermostat
‘controlling’ the temperature of a room is in turn controlled by the
room temperature it leads to (Glanville, 1995). In this sense, perceived
agency is perhaps valuable in itself, as a way of “facilitating social
change toward[s] more sustainable futures” (Tonkinwise, 2015, p.85),
since so much of what we do is bound up with what we believe is
possible—which is why the power of imagined futures, the imagined
states-that-we-are-transitioning-to, can be so important for transition
design.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Veronica Ranner, Gyorgyi Galik and Delfina
Fantini van Ditmar for discussions which have led to some of these
ideas, and the ways of framing them.
References
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional
effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beer, S. (1974). Designing freedom. London, UK: Wiley.

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
6
Bland, J. and Westlake, S. (2013). Don’t Stop Thinking About Tomorrow: A modest
defence of futurology. London, UK: NESTA.
Brynjarsdóttir, H., Håkansson, M., Pierce, J., Baumer, E.P.S., DiSalvo, C., and
Sengers, P. (2012). ‘Sustainably unpersuaded: How persuasion narrows our vision
of sustainability’. Proceedings of CHI 2012, Austin, Texas
Conant, R. C., & Ashby, W. R. (1970). ‘Every good regulator of a system must be a
model of that system’. International Journal of Systems Science, 1(2), 89-97.
Dilnot, C. (2015). ‘History, Design, Futures: Contending with what we have made’. In:
Fry, T., Dilnot, C & Stewart, S.C., Design and the Question of History. Bloomsbury,
London, 131-272.
DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design. MIT Press, Cambridge.
DiSalvo, C. (2015). ‘Three reflections on the Transition Design Symposium
provocations’. Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 51–55.
Doordan, D. (2015). ‘Professional skills and local engagement: the challenge of
Transition Design.’ Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 63–67.
Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2007). Cybernetics and service-craft: Language for
behavior-focused design. Kybernetes, 36(9), 1301-1317.
Dubberly, H. and Pangaro, P. (2015). ‘Cybernetics and Design: Conversations for
Action.’ Cybernetics and Human Knowing, 22(2/3), 73-82
Dunne, A. & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative Everything. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Dutson, C., Fantini van Ditmar, D. & Lockton, D. (2015). ‘The Performance of
Nonhuman Behaviour.’ Workshop at Nordes 2015: Design Ecologies: Challenging
anthropocentrism in the design of sustainable futures, 7-10 June 2015,
Stockholm, Sweden
Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2008). Sustainability by Design. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Fantini van Ditmar, D. and Lockton, D. (2016). ‘Taking the code for a walk’. Interactions
23(1), 68-71.
Froehlich, J. E., Findlater, L., and Landay, J. A. (2010). ‘The design of eco-feedback
technology’. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, 1999-2008. New York, NY: ACM.
Fry, T. (2015). ‘Whither Design / Whether History’. In: Fry, T., Dilnot, C & Stewart, S.C.,
Design and the Question of History. Bloomsbury, London, pp1-130.
Galik, G. (2016). ‘Citizen Engagement in and Beyond ‘Smart Cities’’, in Pipkin, L. (ed.),
The Pursuit of Legible Policy, Agency and Participation in the Complex Systems of
the Contemporary Megalopolis. Buró Buró, Mexico City.
Glanville, R. (1995). ‘A (cybernetic) musing: Control 2’, Cybernetics & Human Knowing
3(2), 43–46
Gómez!Mont, G. (2016). ‘Prototyping the City’, in Pipkin, L. (ed.), The Pursuit of
Legible Policy, Agency and Participation in the Complex Systems of the
Contemporary Megalopolis. Buró Buró, Mexico City.
Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the Smart City. Do Projects, London.
Gutman, J.A. (1993). ‘Developing cases and scenarios for anticipatory learning’.
Journal of Management Development 12(6), 53–60.
Hardin, G. (1985). Filters Against Folly. London: Penguin.
Hill, D. (2012). Dark Matter and Trojan Horses: A Strategic Design Vocabulary. Strelka
Press: Moscow.
Irwin, T., Kossoff, G. and Tonkinwise, C. (2015). ‘Transition Design Provocation’.
Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 3–11.
Jain, A. (2015). ‘Towards an Equitable City: Exploring Eindhoven’s Aspirations for the
Future’. The State of Eindhoven. Available at
http://destaatvaneindhoven.hetnieuweinstituut.nl/en/towards-equitable-city-
exploring-eindhoven%E2%80%99s-aspirations-future
Keyson, D.V., Lockton, D. and Guerra Santin, O. (eds.) (2016). Living Labs: Design and
Assessment of Sustainable Living. Berlin: Springer.
Kossoff, G. (2015). ‘Holism and the reconstitution of everyday life: a framework for
transition to a sustainable society’. Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 25–38.
Lockton, D. (2012). ‘POSIWID and determinism in design for behaviour change'.
Working paper, Social Science Research Network. Available at
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033231
Lockton, D. (2015). ‘Let’s See What We Can Do: Designing Agency’. Architectures, 24
December 2015. Available at
http://architectures.danlockton.co.uk/2015/12/24/lets-see-what-we-can-do-
designing-agency/
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., and Stanton, N. A. (2010). ‘The Design with Intent method: A
design tool for influencing user behaviour’. Applied Ergonomics, 41(3), 382-392.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., and Stanton, N. A. (2012). ‘Models of the user: Designers’
perspectives on influencing sustainable behaviour’. Journal of Design Research,
10(1/2), 7-27.
Lockton, D., Harrison, D., and Stanton, N.A. (2013). ‘Exploring design patterns for
sustainable behaviour’. The Design Journal, 16(4), 431-459.
Manzini, E. (2015). ‘Design in the transition phase: a new design culture for the
emerging design.’ Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 57–62.
Moles, A.A. (1986). ‘The Legibility of the World: A Project of Graphic Design’. Design
Issues 3(1), 43–53.

Draft paper for Transition Design Symposium: Can Design Catalyse the Great Transition? 17–19 June 2016, Schumacher College, Dartington, Devon
!
7
Moore, P. & Robinson, A. (2015). The quantified self: What counts in the neoliberal
workplace. New Media & Society, Available at: doi:10.1177/1461444815604328
NPR (1999). ‘The Science in Science Fiction’. Broadcast 30 November 1999. Available
at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1067220
Papanek, V. (1971). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change,
New York, Pantheon Books
Ranner, V., Lockton, D., Steenson, M.W., Galik, G. and Kerridge, T. (2016). ‘Plans and
Speculated Actions’. Workshop at DRS 2016: Design, Research, Society: Future-
Focused Thinking, 27-30 June 2016, Brighton, UK.
Reddit, (2015). ‘What is the origin of the quote "1984 was not supposed to be an
instruction manual"?’ Reddit Answers, 27 March 2015. Available at:
https://www.reddit.com/r/answers/comments/30jk04/what_is_the_origin_of_the_q
uote_1984_was_not/
Scott, J. C. (1999). Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human
Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Scott, K., Bakker, C. and Quist, J. (2012). ‘Designing Change by Living Change’.
Design Studies 33(3), 279–297.
Scupelli, P. (2015). ‘Designed transitions and what kind of design is transition design?’
Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 75–84.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sterling, B. (2005). Shaping Things. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Tonkinwise, C. (2015). ‘Design for Transitions — from and to what?’ Design Philosophy
Papers 13(1), 85–92.
Watterson, B. (1993). ‘Calvin and Hobbes’, January 25, 1993. Available at:
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/01/25
White, D. (2015). ‘Metaphors, hybridity, failure and work: a sympathetic appraisal of
Transitional Design. Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 39–50.
Whitson, J.R. (2015). ‘Foucault's Fitbit: Governance and Gamification’, in S. Walz and
S. Deterding (eds.), The Gameful World. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Wiener, N. (1954). The Human Use of Human Beings. New York: Doubleday.
Willis, A-M. (2015). ‘Transition Design: the need to refuse discipline and transcend
instrumentalism’. Design Philosophy Papers 13(1), 69–74.