Participatory design, as it was conceived in Scandinavia in the 1970s with origins in the workplace, responded to the power relations of design by
proposing more democratic approaches to the design of work, its systems and technologies. The field has since expanded largely in tandem with the
proliferation of information and communication technologies (Simonsen & Robertson, 2013). Socially-grounded theories and approaches are also
proposed that cross over with design activism (for example, Fuad-Luke, 2009; Julier, 2011). Within participatory design, current and potential users of the outcomes of design are credited with possessing knowledge and know-how that professional designers do not, signalling co-designing and co-creation
processes. Such knowledge is seen as essential for achieving effective,
responsive and empowering designs, whether of systems, services, interfaces or buildings.
Participatory design is introduced as “a form of design practice embedded in specific contexts and working with particular constituencies to envision viable and desirable alternatives to the status quo” (Brown, Buchanan, Doordan & Margolin, 2012, p. 2). In the context of food, housing and households, I
recognise that so much human activity is enacted in the everyday, beyond, but inseparable from formally sanctioned knowledge. Understanding everyday practices is key, therefore, to the processes of exploring and envisioning alternatives with participants, foregrounding the complementarity of practice- centred design research and participatory design. Participatory design is also highly compatible with resilience-building strategies contingent upon diverse stakeholder perspectives, future scenario planning and devising adaptive solutions.
In this study, the particular constituents with whom I collaborate are
householders who have already adopted home-based food-producing practices, integral to broader sustainable living approaches. Participatory design is
augmented with supporting participatory methods, as outlined in Phases 2 and 3 of the research design in Section 1.3, which enable me to not only observe and probe practices through dialogue, but to co-engage in the practices of householders. Householders are invited to engage as co-designers in
25
recognition of the tacit and embodied knowledge and know-how embedded in their ecologically literate practices.
Through distilling these three sets of foundational concepts for inquiry – resilience and regeneration, the questioning of type and typologies, and practice theories and participatory design, their synergistic properties become apparent. Applied to social-ecological systems, and food systems and housing therein, they represent a triad of positively interacting theoretical and practice- oriented positions that I develop further throughout the thesis. Paraphrasing the three, key research questions in Section 1.2, these concepts support critical questioning of the status quo, exploration of the fit between dominant housing types and ecologically literate practices, and the co-generation of future alternatives to enhance urban resilience. In the following section, I summarise the structure of the thesis and the role of each of its chapters.
1.5 Thesis structure
The thesis is structured as a broad expression of the three-phase research design – conducted as research into, for and through design – cohering the interdisciplinary threads of the study and its forms of inquiry.
The literature review of Chapter 2 establishes further the theoretical context of the study by connecting the current global ecological status with contemporary food and housing systems, and identifying problematic parallels in the two systems. Market imperatives and inequity are shown to characterise both systems, with countering alternative food and sustainable housing movements explored in response. Texts devoted to interplays between food and space are also explored, including built exemplars of integrated food space, productive housing and suburban adaptive re-use. Two key contextual domains emerge from the review. The first takes in urban form, housing supply and tenure patterns, while the second focuses on existing, suburban housing tracts as an immense, latent opportunity for ecological design.
In Chapter 3, I establish the hybridity of design knowledge and articulate my interpretive, generative approach to design research. I align the study with a
resilience agenda through discussion of intentionality in design practice,
highlighting interdisciplinary knowledge-making with diverse stakeholders, and co-generation of future alternatives. I further define ‘design research for
resilience’ and identify related ways of knowing that derive from analytic, participatory and practice-based inquiry. I also account for my own role in the study with reference to reflexivity, ethics and representation.
Chapter 4 is an account of conducting design research for resilience in this study. The overlapping, three-phase research design reflects the interrelation of resilience inquiry, practice theories, questions of type, and participatory design. The chapter forms a partial response to the third research question by
demonstrating how design research can propose urban resilience strategies. Each of the three phases, as set out in Figure 1.2, is detailed in terms of its rationale, theoretical basis, forms of data, analytic approach and outcomes. Chapters 5 to 8 of the thesis comprise the outcomes of my conduct of design research for resilience. The Phase 1 social-ecological analysis of dominant food culture and domestic design (research into design) forms Chapter 5. A sample of artefacts representing the status quo is analysed through a framework of ecological design and ecological food principles, providing critical context. Structured as four readings centred upon the kitchen, the analysis spans food lives and cooking, kitchens and consumption, kitchens of the past, and a critique of ‘greening’ in relation to contemporary homes and kitchens. The analysis also extends key housing and food system themes discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 6 is devoted to the outcomes of the participatory methods undertaken during Phases 2 (research for design) and 3 (research through design). Profiles and analysis of the 12 settings visited during the multi-household ethnography are first presented, ranging from the rural through suburban, medium-density and high-density for inter-scalar exploration. Issues of tenure, regenerative capacity relative to scale, and the social significance of food gardens are discussed. Participants’ speculative design proposals resulting from the Phase 3 design workshop form the second half of the chapter. These image-based proposals are discussed in relation to the community and dwelling, broader
27
sustainable living strategies, housing norms, and roles for dematerialised design. I conclude the chapter by integrating participants’ responses into a design meta-brief that guides my subsequent design iterations.
In Chapter 7, I build upon these participatory design outcomes by proposing ‘regenerative food axis design patterns’ as a means of spatialising and facilitating home- and community-based food production. I first locate these practices within a wider resurgence of homecraft, connecting making and re-use practices with resilience and spatial-material aspects of the home. I next identify and map regenerative food axis components using my own home as a ‘living lab’, and explore kitchen-garden interface configurations. Schematic design patterns and indicative spatial layouts are then presented for high-density, medium-density, urban, suburban and peri-urban scales, in dialogue with corresponding sets of potential food practices. Integrating the outcomes of Chapter 6, I also explore how the adaptive re-use of the suburbs might be activated with an emphasis on grassroots movements and roles for designers. Chapter 8 concludes the thesis with a recapitulation of the key outcomes and arguments responding to the original research questions, and my reflections on the methodology, affirming the synergies between design research, resilience inquiry and participatory design. A strategic framework is also distilled for integrating housing and regenerative food systems, aimed at design practitioners and for initial transfer of new knowledge.
1.6 Reader’s guide
Acknowledging the many scholarly traditions feeding into design research and their respective referencing and citation conventions, I have adopted an in-text convention. I consider the immediate presence of other voices in the text as compatible with the way I undertake writing as an iterative process integral to research, and distinct from writing as merely reporting. While respecting the rules of my chosen convention, I perceive some margin within it for conveying nuance, and therefore greater meaning. Integral to a suite of reflexive writing strategies outlined in Section 3.5 (intended to mediate the impact of my background, experience and disposition upon the study) are two strategies I
make explicit at this point in the thesis. First, I have acknowledged a hierarchy of influence throughout, whereby those authors who have most influenced my own ideas and arguments are introduced, named and discussed within the prose. Those consulted to a lesser extent, to provide an example or definition, I have cited only in parentheses. To maintain brevity in introducing new topics, I first list multiple sources in parentheses, prior to focusing on the specific works and ideas. This is demonstrated through the literature review to follow in
Chapter 2, and in subsequent chapters.
Second, I have used verb tense to signal chronology. In citing a work published five years ago, for example, I represent the author in past tense rather than by the common use of present tense. Apart from extending the author’s authority over time, this tradition fails to accommodate the possibility that his or her position may have changed, or to recognise the time lag built into academic publishing. I have adopted present tense only for the most recent works. My commitment to these strategies has fostered an active and constructive engagement with the ideas and arguments of others, along with a criticality of my own iterative representations.
1.7 Conclusion
In this introductory chapter, I have connected housing and food systems in developed settings to the gravity of our global ecological status, to argue for alternative, regenerative ways of providing food and shelter. Through
consideration of post-sustainability and ecological design perspectives, I have aligned the study with a resilience agenda and signalled my approach as design research for resilience. The key research questions stated in Section 1.2 were translated into the three-phase research design, conceived as research into, for and through design, which was also shown to shape the thesis structure. The concepts foundational to the inquiry – resilience and regeneration, the question of type, practice theories and participatory design – were defined and
foregrounded as conceptual threads for the study. This backdrop is extended and elaborated in the literature review of Chapter 2, the initial focus of which is food systems and food culture.
29