• experts bestowing knowledge
• participants asking questions of experts to elicit `right answers`
• formal and rigid physical setting
• time constraints also prohibited real conversations

Attempts to overcome these restrictions were made in the break-out sessions with participants` comments on the boards molding the discussion groups, but these too suffered from the physical and time limitations. It certainly seemed that the foro style of generative, discussion-based forum was anticipated. Participants were encouraged continually to contribute their thoughts and reactions to what they were hearing. Unfortunately, the desired requirements to hear key notes and a vast number of plenary sessions resulted in little time for questions and effective discussion. The physical context was also one that discouraged conversation, being traditional lecture theatres and classrooms, where the `audience` gathers to listen to the ‘expert’. This issue is, of course, difficult to address when searching for facilities that will comfortably accommodate 300+ people in various configurations. But therein lies one of the challenges of Changing the Change and its successors: How can we do it differently?

Changing the Change was well titled in that it takes careful planning, as well as original thinking, and open-minded notions of what might be, to change the way things are done. The intangible outcomes of building relationships, sharing knowledge, and addressing questions collectively were, it seemed to me, very evident in Turin; similarly, these are all of prime importance to the World Café approach. Changing the Change went some way to affecting change and opening the door to a new way of coming together as academic designers, and as people, who in a spirit of open dialogue, will be increasingly willing to `bring more of their whole person to the conversation.` (p31) New and conducive formats, along the lines developed by the World Café, could take this much further.
In spite of the academic parameters set by research output expectations and accountability structures, perhaps it will become acceptable in the peer-reviewed, `publish or perish` world to be a `contributor` and gain the recognition currently ascribed to presenters. It is essential to leave behind the notion that experts have the answers, and to embark on a series of conversations, in which our individual concerns and knowledge become intermingled, blended into new forms and directions, and produce larger, collective questions and challenges to then be addressed together.
Changing the Change planted the seeds of change in a very brave and forceful way. I believe it will be difficult for anyone who attended the conference – and contributed to it – to revert comfortably back to the congreso form. It only makes sense to embrace even more fully the notion of meaningful conversations for the `Change` to become reality.
One of the World Café`s key questions is `What would happen if we thought about this differently? What questions are we not asking, that if we did ask, might make our situation better?` (p90)
Changing the Change challenged many conventions and ideas. It is now up to us to keep asking questions and ensuring that future gatherings allow for, indeed, ensure, conversations that matter.

Congrats on this conference.

I tried to get in touch with you prior to an Edmonton stop on a cross-Canada tour with my new documentary film. Thought I’d try to connect with you this way!

cquinn@shaw.ca

Hope you are well…

Personally I tend to agree with Prof. Ezio Manzini’s approach: your definition on ‘social design’ and the one of Prof. Victor Margolin are both acceptable because they both are based on a reality: we are relational beings by nature.

I still remember what Prof. Margolin wrote in his article “The product milieu and social action”: design creates opportunities for new relations between isolated practices, and we engage with design in four ways, all of which are active rather than passive: we design product ‘for’ others; we design products for ourselves; we use products designed ‘by’ others; and we use products they design for ourselves. What he said implies that design activity always, intentionally or unintentionally, has repercussion (slight or strong) in our lifestyle and in the environment. Stefano Marzano said something similar: “The future does not just happen by itself.… By virtue of the enormous number of products they put onto the market, large companies play a major role in determining the quality of our lives. Such corporations should therefore shoulder their responsibility and become conscious of their power.”

I think the same thing: the human spirit is intrinsically related to the design activity because the protagonist of DESIGN is human being composed by body and soul, by the material and inmmaterial. Therefore, I think, good (ethical) designers and design activities never overlook this reality, knowing at the same time that DESIGN is not the solution of everything.

After working years in development business, I have come to conclusion that the spiritual wisdom of non Western cultures is an unexplored territory that could give us answers to the many problems we are struggling today, globally and locally. Too often us development workers (particularly designers, I think) look at the material culture for answers - when really we should keep all our senses open and study the immaterial forms, such as dance, music, religion, spiritual activities, indigenous healing practices, gastronomy, social systems etc. Material forms (such as craft products etc) can be corrupted by centuries of exploitation and external domination but even in the poorest countries, the spirituality can be powerful.

Spiritual design is a term I have heard being used but dont really know if it means this or something else.

Anyway, have a wonderful conference!

-kati