Embodied Praxis: People, Places and Objects
Laura Forlano
Illinois Institute of Technology
Chicago, USA
lforlano@id.iit.edu
ABSTRACT
Living and working on the borderlands of critical
technology praxis requires the cultivation of particular
kinds of hybrid and temporary identities and attachments.
Through a personal narrative, I describe and situate my own
praxis at the intersection of design, science and technology
studies/media studies as well as between scholarship and
activism. In particular, in this paper, I discuss three kinds of
challenges and sites that I have encountered and/or
developed in my research and teaching: the affective state
of embodied praxis, place-based praxis and object-based
praxis. These challenges include finding appropriate venues
for presentation and publication as well as developing
robust networks for mentoring and collaboration.
AUTHOR KEYWORDS
critical technology praxis; design; science and technology
studies;
ACM Classification Keywords
D.2.10 Design: Methodologies; K.4.2 Social Issues;
INTRODUCTION
This paper outlines the challenges that I have encountered
in situating my research in sites of technoscience while
simultaneously locating criticality in my research praxis
through a personal narrative that recalls Agre’s original
piece on critical technology praxis [1]. In particular, I
discuss the embodied praxis (or the affective state living in
the borderlands), place-based praxis through participatory
design activities and workshops [2] and object-based praxis
through the design of prototypes, toolkits and probes [3].
These challenges are situated both in research and teaching
as well as in everyday life.
As a junior scholar, trained in social science and working as
a design researcher, the best professional metaphor for the
work of praxis might be that of an innovative chef with
their emphasis on mixing and doing but also on challenging
the disciplinary norms within the food industry and food
culture. As a doctoral student, I imagined that my
dissertation might be something of a soup and I even wrote
a recipe for it in fall 2001 as follows:
 1 human brain
 6 communications courses (business, economics,
law, sociology)
 6 international relations courses
 8 Asian Studies courses
 2 research methodology courses
 1 cup creativity
 1 cup theory
First, remove human brain from body. Set body aside for
later use. Then, in a large soup pot, mix in coursework from
communications, international relations, Asian Studies and
methodology. Add creativity and theory for flavor (chopped
finely). Boil for two years. Add brain (whole) to broth and
steep for two years. Remove brain from broth and serve
whole to a panel of distinguished professors. Finally, place
brain back into body and start looking for a job.
My impulse for combining theory with what I then thought
of as “creativity” with little deep reflection at the time has
not wavered. Since that time, I’ve inhabited a wide range of
different academic and professional environments. I’ve
learned that journalists are always stereotypically losing
their pencils, business school students come to class 30
minutes early to read the Wall Street Journal and drink a
Venti Starbucks coffee, and architects come to class 30
minutes late dressed in black turtlenecks and oversized
glasses before getting up to go get their artisanal coffee.
SITUATING CRITICAL TECHNICAL PRAXIS
Paste the appropriate copyright/license statement here. ACM now supports
three different publication options:
 ACM copyright: ACM holds the copyright on the work. This is the
historical approach.
 License: The author(s) retain copyright, but ACM receives an
exclusive publication license.
 Open Access: The author(s) wish to pay for the work to be open
access. The additional fee must be paid to ACM.
This text field is large enough to hold the appropriate release statement
assuming it is single-spaced in Times New Roman 8-point font. Please do
not change or modify the size of this text box.
Each submission will be assigned a DOI string to be included here.
In Agre’s original article, he refers to critical technical
pratice as a kind of “split identity” with “one foot planted in
the craft work of design and the other foot planted in the
reflexive work of critique,” [1]. Despite the fact that he was
writing nearly 20 years ago in 1997, the challenge of
maintaining such an identity and living along the
“borderlands” persists. At the same time, many analogous
research communities, methodologies and practices have
formed in a variety of fields around the world including
research creation in Canada [4, 5], critical and speculative
design [6, 7], adversarial design [8], critical engineering [9],
critical making [10], practice-based research in the United
Kingdom and Europe [11, 12] and inventive methods [13].
According to Agre, a successful critical technology praxis
requires historical grounding in order to understand and
frame problems as well as evaluating solutions and seeking
possible alternatives [1]. Similarly, critical and speculative
design seeks to raise questions and propose or suggest
alternative possible futures. One recent example of a project
that embodies this praxis is Jungnickel’s [14] “Bikes &
Bloomers” in which she recreates a series of early 20th
century women’s cycling garments – complete with patents
granted to women inventors, which were printed on silk in
the lining of the skirts – in partnership with a seamstress. In
making, wearing, performing and teaching through these
garments, the project is able to critically engage with
historical norms around gender and cycling as well as with
the role of women in the creation of knowledge and
invention as well as emergent socio-technical practices,
which are not well understood.
time, illustrating the reflective importance of critical theory
for framing and focusing the point of view of designers,
especially as they encounter narratives about emerging
technology. In particular, social scientists have keen
aptitude for describing and analyzing social realities but
they have difficulty moving into more prescriptive and
generative modes of engagement. Similarly, the work of
designers is often defined by their methods (i.e. product
design, graphic design, interaction design, service design)
with theory playing a much less dominant role. In some
ways, in the human-centered design tradition, critical theory
is understood to be an (unnecessary and inconvenient)
constraint on the designer’s ability to prototype and
generate solutions. Yet, as the work of designers moves
more directly into application areas that are broadly
understood as social innovation (education, health,
transportation), it is necessary to reflect not only on the
designer’s own relationship to the field but also on the
kinds of politics, values and ethics that are being encoded
into their work.
EMBODIED PRAXIS
Another area of praxis lies in the borderlands between
scholarship and activism. For many years, while
researching the social implications of Wi-Fi technology, I
was an active member of a community wireless group in
New York. This identity as a scholar-activist is also not one
that is easily navigated. Many of the commitments and
positions that come naturally to an activist – everything
from one’s self-presentation to the tone and emotional
quality of one’s voice – are signals that indicate that one is
not appropriately objective or rational as a scholar. While
there are forms of scholarship that are somewhat more
accommodating to these identities – for example, feminist
science and technology studies with its denial of the
mind/body, human/non-human, digital/physical split [1518] – one necessarily encounters tension [8, 19, 20] in
performing this identity as a design researcher and
participating in the creation of publics [21] around
particular issues and ‘matters of concern’ [22].
Developing a critical technical praxis [1] means cultivating
a particular kind of identity as a scholar, one that is defined
by strangeness and a wide range of temporary attachments
and affiliations. It is a kind of affective state of
stillness/mobility, fitting in/being out of place,
focus/blurring and love/nausea. These feelings are familiar
in many ways as part of what it means to practice what I
have come to think of as “decentralized living.” In the
CSCW and CHI communities, there is much focus on
decentralized, remote and collaborative work (and the
technologies that support them. However, there is much less
focus on what this means for living and maintaining
consistent and stabile identities, relationships and families.
For example, for much of the last decade, I have been
traveling at least ten hours per week – on trains then busses
and, finally, planes -- in order to accommodate both
personal and professional connections and livelihoods.
While the benefits in terms of exposure to different
environments, cultures and norms are surely of great value
to critical technical praxis, there are limitations in terms of
the energy, attention and focus needed to sustain
engagement in multiple geographies, perspectives and
communities.
This not only applies to engagement with different
academic departments but also to involvement in
professional conferences and peer-reviewed journals. In my
case, this praxis is situated at the nexus of design and
science and technology studies/media studies – each with
their own language, norms, strategies and networks. Over
the past five years, I have been working as an exporter and
importer of theories and practices along these borderlands.
For example, I have been demonstrating the use and value
of design methods such as participatory design and
speculative design in the social sciences while, at the same
As a junior scholar, it is difficult to navigate venues for
presentation and publication as well as modes of teaching at
the nexus of critical technical praxis. While there are a
number of relatively new open-access journals that seek to
bridge these boundaries by combining essays based on
personal narratives alongside full-length research articles
(for example, the Journal of Peer Production, ADA and the
newly-launched Demonstrations), it is not clear how these
venues are valued vis a vis more traditionally ranked peer
reviewed journals. In the field of design in particular, there
is a much less well-developed practice of publishing and
there is still a paucity of journal where it would be possible
to publish prototypes and demonstrations alongside a
critical reflection. Furthermore, understanding the norms of
different conferences and publications well enough to
produce the highest quality work is a complex and difficult
commitment, which can only be accomplished over many
years. Finally, it is not always possible to remain
simultaneously engaged in too many different conferences
around the world due to timing, travel and resources.
Lastly, teaching critical theory to design students so that it
shapes their thinking throughout the prototyping process of
any given project (and helps them develop a critical
technology praxis) is incredibly challenging. This is
because in the social science tradition, it is assumed that
one gains exposure to new ideas primarily through reading.
However, since designers identify primarily as makers, one
must find innovative ways of embedding theory into handson assignments, both literally and in more nuanced ways.
One of the ways that I have done this is to have students
actually build physical prototypes of specific concepts and
ideas from science and technology studies theory. For
example, one might create two models juxtaposing
opposing perspectives such as Mumford’s authoritarian and
democratic technics, technology determination and the
social construction of technology, or the role of human and
non-human actors from actor-network theory. This seems to
work well and allows student to remember the theory longafter we have read it during the early weeks of the semester
and into the more intense moments towards the end of the
semester when final projects are being prototyped, tested
and demonstrated.
PLACE-BASED PRAXIS
As an extension of embodiment, critical technical praxis is
often situated in specific settings, environments and
activities. In my own research, the Critical Futures Lab,
which I co-direct with Mél Hogan, is a site of critical
technical praxis. The lab as we describe it “occupies the
liminal spaces between critical social science and
humanities
approaches
and
generative
design
processes. Through
prototypes,
experiments
and
explorations in multimodal formats — bridging creative
thinking and critical making — the Lab engages with
complex socio-technical (political, cultural, economic,
ethical and environmental) questions about the conditions
of everyday working and living in cities in the context of
ongoing economic and environmental crises. These varied
and multidisciplinary activities — informed by science and
technology studies, media studies and communications —
intend to bring together diverse viewpoints in order to raise
vital questions and alternative possibilities. In particular,
the Lab is concerned with the ways in which the digital is
materialized, contextualized and embodied across a variety
of scales, from city infrastructures to the built environment,
and from interactive objects to digital bodies.”1
In recent years, I have conducted a number of participatory
and speculative design workshops including Reimagining
Work [23], Designing Policy[24] and Open Design for
REFERENCES
Organizational Innovation [25, 26]. These workshops,
informed by critical theory from science and technology
studies but employing methods from design are structured
as sites of critical technical praxis. For example,
Reimaging Work challenged labor activists to consider the
ways in which they might have greater engagement with the
values embedded in technologies such as ‘just-in time’
scheduling that are currently being deployed to manage
labor markets. However, due to the complexity of the
integration of both unfamiliar theories and methods, it is
difficult to evaluate whether workshop participants are able
to successfully engage with this praxis.
OBJECT-BASED PRAXIS
Another site of praxis lies within the use of prototypes,
demonstrations and experiments. In my research, the
Designing Policy Toolkit2 is an example of a visual
communication piece that embodies this praxis. The toolkit
was intended: 1) to expose policymakers to a range of urban
technologies including urban screens, the ‘internet of
things’ and mobile applications; 2) to expose
the values embedded in these technologies as well as in
political decisions about them; and 3) to introduce
policymakers to codesign methods as a means of bringing
together diverse stakeholders to discuss issues related to
urban technology. The toolkit that explained the
methodology in order to allow others to replicate the
workshop model for their own purposes.
My Networked Cities and Networked Objects courses have
also explored critical technology praxis and resulted in
projects that engage with critical theory and design
methods. In particular, two projects -- Meat Up [27] and
Critical Loop3 – stand out as strong examples of this praxis.
Meat Up was a codesign event in the form of a dinner party.
The dinner was staged in order to enable interaction with a
range of critical design prototypes. The prototypes—for
example, a dinosaur-flavored Thanksgiving turkey, a meat
machine for local domestic production of cultured meat and
a package of “Dodo-bird meat”--contained complex
questions about the future of cultured meat as well as
alternative possibilities. The use of tangible prototypes
displayed in a mini-exhibition allowed for participants to
reflect on their own experiences and values with respect to
food. While the event was scheduled to last only two hours,
participants continued talking for over four hours about the
opportunities and constraints posed by the manufacture of
cultured meat and the possible policy implications. Lastly,
Critical Loop, is a game that was designed in order to
introduce designers and technologists to ethical and values
in design considerations related to the ‘internet of things’.
1.
[1]
P. Agre, "Toward a critical technical
practice: Lessons learned in trying to reform AI,"
Bridging the Great Divide: Social Science,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Technical Systems, and Cooperative Work,
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 131-157, 1997.
[2]
C. Spinuzzi, "The methodology of
participatory design," Technical Communication,
vol. 52, pp. 163-174, 2005.
[3]
B. Gaver, T. Dunne, and E. Pacenti,
"Design: cultural probes," interactions, vol. 6, pp.
21-29, 1999.
[4]
M. Hogan, "Crashing the Archive: A
Research-Creation Intervention into the SAW
Video Mediatheque," PhD, Communication
Studies, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada,
2012.
[5]
O. B. Chapman and K. Sawchuk,
"Research-Creation: Intervention, Analysis and"
Family Resemblances"," Canadian Journal of
Communication, vol. 37, 2012.
[6]
A. Dunne and F. Raby, Speculative
Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013.
[7]
C. DiSalvo, "Spectacles and Tropes:
Speculative Design and Contemporary Food
Cultures," The Fibreculture Journal, pp. 109-122,
2012.
[8]
C. DiSalvo, Adversarial design.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012.
[9]
J. Oliver, G. Savičić, and D. Vasiliev.
(2011-2014). The Critical Engineering Manifesto.
[10]
M. Ratto, "Critical making: Conceptual
and material studies in technology and social life,"
The Information Society, vol. 27, pp. 252-260,
2011.
[11]
D. Sinister, in Iaspis Forum on Design
and Critical Practice – The Reader, M. Ericson,
M. Frostner, Z. Kyes, S. Teleman, and J.
Williamsson, Eds., ed Berlin: Sternberg Press,
2009.
[12]
H. Smith and R. Dean, Practice-led
Research, Research-led Practice in the Creative
Arts, Research Methods for the Arts and
Humanities: Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press, 2009.
[13]
C. Lury and N. Wakeford, Inventive
Methods: The happening of the social. New York:
Routledge, 2012.
[14]
K. Jungnickel. (2014, June 12). Bikes &
Bloomers. Research website for the ESRC funded
'Freedom of Movement: the bike, bloomer and
female cyclist and late nineteenth century Britain.
Available: http://bikesandbloomers.com
[15]
K. Barad, Meeting the universe halfway:
Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter
and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press, 2007.
[16]
D. J. Haraway, "A cyborg manifesto:
science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the
late twentieth century," Simians, cyborgs and
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
1
women: The reinvention of nature, pp. 149-181,
1991.
[17]
R. Braidotti, The Posthuman. Boston:
Polity, 2013.
[18]
I. Stengers, "Experimenting with refrains:
Subjectivity and the challenge of escaping modern
dualism," Subjectivity, vol. 22, pp. 38-59, 2008.
[19]
C. Mouffe, "Pluralism, dissensus and
democratic citizenship," II Seminário
internacional educação intercultural, gênero e
movimentos sociais. Identidade, diferença,
mediações, pp. 1-10, 2003.
[20]
A. L. Tsing, Friction: An ethnography of
global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2005.
[21]
C. DiSalvo, "Design and the Construction
of Publics," Design Issues, vol. 25, pp. 48-63,
2009.
[22]
B. Latour and P. Weibel, Making things
public: atmospheres of democracy. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2005.
[23]
L. Forlano and M. Halpern, "Reimagining
Work: Entanglements and Frictions around Future
of Work Narratives," Fibreculture, 2015.
[24]
L. Forlano and A. Mathew, "From Design
Fiction to Design Friction: Speculative and
Participatory Design of Values-Embedded Urban
Technology," Journal of Urban Technology, vol.
21, pp. 7-24, 2014.
[25]
M. Halpern, I. Erickson, L. Forlano, and
G. Gay, "Designing Collaboration: Comparing
Cases Exploring Cultural Probes as BoundaryNegotiating Objects," in Computer Supported
Collaborative Work, San Antonio, TX, 2013.
[26]
L. Penin, L. Forlano, and E. Staszowski,
"Designing in the Wild: Amplifying Creative
Communities in North Brooklyn," in Cumulus,
Helsinki, Finland, 2012.
[27]
M. Chan, S. Ekblad, I. Loomis, and A.
Panza. (2014). Meat Up. Available:
http://www.core77designawards.com/2014/recipie
nts/meat/
See http://criticalfutureslab.org. Accessed on May 15,
2015.
2
See http://designingpolicytoolkit.org. Accessed on May15,
2015.
3
See http://CriticalLoop.org. Accessed on May 15, 2015.