Viable futures through design: community engagement experiences in the creative industries

    Marianella Chamorro-Koc   Affiliation
    ; Glenda Caldwell   Affiliation


Community engagement projects for social innovation are increasingly happening across the globe and show a trend that involves communities in participatory approaches for the resolution of a variety of social needs. However, little has been discussed about how this type of projects could possibly lead to the production of viable futures as design innovations, and how social and cultural factors influence people’s engagement and participation in community-based projects. We argue that making viable futures by design requires a bottom up approach where ideas depart from the community itself, where the co-production of knowledge takes place through a process that is collaborative, participatory and engaging. From this perspective, in this paper we discuss insights gained through a study tour project in which we explored the various aspects of the concept of engagement as a key component of design innovations in people’s everyday activities. The study tour project took place at a Faculty of Creative Industries in Australia and comprised two different design creative explorations: Mutant Piggy student project involving students from Australia, China and Peru; and the InstaBooth research project involving Brisbane’s, Australia community. From our experiences we establish the concept of viable futures by design as the enabling of new endeavours that are made possible within particular contexts and within local people’s knowledge. Finally, we propose that the making of viable futures by design is an engagement process that requires co-production of knowledge and suitable tools to facilitate democratic and true participation; and that this process can prompt social change as a by-product of these community-engagement experiences.


Bendruomenės telkimosi projektai, skirti socialinėms inovacijoms, vis dažniau vykdomi visame pasaulyje, atskleidžia tendenciją bendru sutarimu įtraukti bendruomenes, kad jos dalyvautų socialinių poreikių įvairovėje. Vis dėlto nedaug diskutuojama apie tai, kaip šio tipo projektai galėtų atverti perspektyvią ateitį kuriant dizaino inovacijas, bei apie tai, kokią įtaką žmonių telkimuisi ir bendruomenę įtraukiantiems projektams turi socialiniai ir kultūriniai veiksniai. Tvirtiname, kad perspektyviai ateičiai kurti pasitelkiant dizainą reikia metodo „iš apačios į viršų“, kurio atveju idėjos kyla iš pačios bendruomenės, o žinios generuojamos bendradarbiavimo, dalyvavimo ir telkimosi proceso metu. Žvelgiant iš šios perspektyvos, straipsnyje aptariame įžvalgas, įgytas studijų turnė projekto metu, kai buvo tyrinėjami įvairūs telkimosi, kaip pagrindinio dizaino inovacijų komponento žmonių kasdienėje veikloje, koncepcijos aspektai. Studijų turnė projektas vyko Kūrybinių industrijų fakulteteAustralijoje, o jį sudarė du skirtingi kūrybiniai dizaino tyrimai – studentų projektas Kiaulytė mutantė, kuriame dalyvavo studentai iš Australijos, Kinijos ir Peru, bei tyrimų projektas InstaBooth, įtraukęs Brisbeno (Australija) bendruomenę. Remdamiesi mūsų patirtimis, pateikiame perspektyvios ateities pasitelkiant dizainą koncepciją, sudarančią galimybes imtis naujų veiklų. Perspektyvios ateities pasitelkiant dizainą kūrimas – tai telkimosi procesas, reikalaujantis bendrai generuojamų žinių ir tinkamų priemonių, siekiant palengvinti demokratišką ir nuoširdų dalyvavimą bei tai, kad šis procesas gali paskatinti socialinius pokyčius kaip šių bendruomenės telkimosi patirčių šalutinį produktą.

Reikšminiai žodžiai: bendruomenės dalyvavimas, kūrybinės industrijos, dizainas, dalyvavimo dizainas, socialinė inovacija, perspektyvi ateitis.

Keyword : community engagement, creative industries, design, participatory design, social innovation, viable futures

How to Cite
Chamorro-Koc, M., & Caldwell, G. (2018). Viable futures through design: community engagement experiences in the creative industries. Creativity Studies, 11(1), 213-229.
Published in Issue
Oct 25, 2018
Abstract Views
PDF Downloads
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.


Anastasiadis, S. (2013). Toward a view of citizenship and lobbying: corporate engagement in the political process. Business & Society, 53(2), 260-299.

Australian Government, Department of Human Services. (2008). Co-design community engagement prototype: outcomes report. Retrieved from

Balsamo, A. (2011). Designing culture: the technological imagination at work. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Bowen, F., Newenham-Kahindi, A., & Herremans, I. (2010). When suits meet roots: the antecedents and consequences of community engagement strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(2), 297-318.

Bødker, S., & Pekkola, S. (2010). A short review to the past and present of participatory design. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 22(1), 45-48.

Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford social innovation review. Retrieved from

Caldwell Amayo, G., & Foth, M. (2017). DIY/DIWO media architecture: the InstaBooth. In A. Wiethoff & H. Hußmann (Eds.), Media architecture: using information and media as construction material. Series: Age of Access? Grundfragen der Informationsgesellschaft. Vol. 8. A. Schüller-Zwierlein (Ed.). Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter GmbH (pp. 61-80).

Caldwell Amayo, G., & Foth, M. (2014, 19–22 November). DIY media architecture: open and participatory approaches to community engagement. In M. Brynskov (Conference Chairs). Proceedings of the 2nd Media Architecture Biennale Conference: World Cities (pp. 1-10). Media Architecture Biennale 2014. Aarhus, Denmark.

Caldwell Amayo, G., Guaralda, M., Donovan, J., & Rittenbruch, M. (2016, 1–4 June). The InstaBooth:making common ground for media architectural design. In M. Tomitsch, M. H. Haeusler (Conference Chairs). Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Media Architecture Biennale (pp. 1-8). Media Architecture Biennale 2016. Sydney, Australia.

Caldwell, G. (2014). Hybrid place: blurring the edge between the digital and physical layers of the city. In P. Sanders, M. Guaralda, L. Carroli (Eds.), Urban Form at the Edge: Proceedings from ISUF 2013 (pp. 137-145). Vol. I. 20th International Seminar on Urban Form, 2013. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Diez, T. (2012). Personal fabrication: fab labs as platforms for citizen-based innovation, from microcon-trollers to cities. Nexus Network Journal, 14(3), 457-468.

Dow, S., Ju, W., & Mackay, W. (2013). Projection, place, and point-of-view in research through design. In S. Price, C. Jewitt, B. Brown (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Digital Technology Research (pp. 266-285). Series: SAGE Handbooks. J. Seaman (Ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. M., & Topgaard, R. (Eds.). (2014). Making futures: marginal notes on innovation, design, and democracy. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press.

Etchart, N., & Comolli, L. (2013). Social enterprise in emerging market countries: no free ride. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Farvar, M. T., & Milton, J. P. (Eds.). (1972). The careless technology: ecology and international development. New York: Doubleday.

Fathers, J. (2003). Peripheral vision: an interview with Gui Bonsiepe charting a lifetime of commitment to design empowerment. Design Issues, 19(4), 44-56.

Foth, M., & Brynskov, M. (2016). Participatory action research for civic engagement. In E. Gordon & P. Mihailidis (Eds.), Civic media: technology, design, practice (pp. 563-580). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Foth, M., Hee-jeong Choi, J., & Satchell, Ch. (2011, 19–23 March). Urban informatics. In P. Hinds, J. C. Tang, J., & Wang (General Chairs). Proceedings of the ACM 2011 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (pp. 1-8). Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference 2011. Hangzhou, China.

Gaver, W., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural Probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21-29.

Groll, S. (2015). Traces and hopes of design research: an interview with Gui Bonsiepe, Klaus Krippendorff, Siegfried Maser, and René Spitz. Design Issues, 31(1), 18-31.

Hillgren, P. A., Seravalli, A., & Emilson, A. (2011). Prototyping and infrastructuring in design for social innovation. Co-Design, 7(3-4), 169-183.

Ims, K. J., & Zsolnai, L. (2014). Ethics of social innovation. Society and Business Review, 9(2), 186-194.Iwamoto, L. (2009). Digital fabrications: architectural and material techniques. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Kolarevic, B. (Ed.). (2003). Architecture in the digital age: design and manufacturing. New York: Spon Press.Kolbitsch, J., & Maurer, H. (2006). The transformation of the web: how emerging communities shape the information we consume. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 12(2), 187-213.

Manzini, E. (2014). Making things happen: social innovation and design. Design Issues, 30(1), 57-66.

Muller, M. J. (2003). Participatory design: the third space in human-computer interaction. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications (pp. 1051-1068). Series: Human Factors and Ergonomics. A. Duffy (Senior Acquisitions Ed.). Mahwah: New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Muller, M., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(4), 24-28.

Norberg-Hodge, H. (2001). Shifting direction: from global dependence to local interdependence. In J. Mander & E. Goldsmith (Eds.), The case against the global economy, and for a turn towards localization (pp. 241-253). Oxon, New York: Earthscan.

Papanek, V. (1985). Design for the real world: human ecology and social change. Chicago, Illinois: Academy Chicago Publishers.

Pérez, J. P. (2015). Compadre by Accesol – presentation. Retrieved from

Phills, J. A., Jr., Deiglmeier, K., & Miller, D. T. (2008). Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6(4), 34-43.

Rittel, H. W. J., & Weber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Sass, L. (2007). Synthesis of design production with integrated digital fabrication. Automation in Construction, 16(3), 298-310.

Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of design. Design Issues, 18(1), 49-61.

Swanson, G. (1997). Cultural industries and cultural development in the international frame: a response to the world commission on culture and development. Culture and Policy, 8(1), 37-52.

UTEC Ventures. (2015). Compadre. Retrieved from

Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, Sh. (2006, 22–27 April). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In R. Grinter, Th. Rodden, P. Aoki, E. Cutrell, R. Jeffries, & G. Olson (Eds.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 493-502). Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2006. Montreal, Canada.

Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010, 16–20 August). An analysis and critique of research through design: towards a formalization of a research approach. In O. W. Bertelsen & P. Krogh (Conference Chairs). Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310-319). Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2010. Aarhus, Denmark.