In this call, we acknowledge the emergence of an interesting space at the intersection of co-design and Actor-Network Theory (ANT), especially as design research is confronted with increasingly complex issues such as sustainability, social responsibility, inclusion and democracy; and new approaches such as design activism, design participation, and social and participatory innovation. The influence of Science and Technology Studies (STS) on design research has a long history and it is still enjoying a great deal of attention (Hanset et al, 2004; Ingram et al, 2007; Woodhouse and Patton, 2004). Through the establishment of pioneering work in various disciplines such as architecture (Yaneva, 2008), participatory design (Ehn, 2008), human-computer interaction (DiSalvo, 2012), user-centred design (Steen, 2012), critical design (Ward and WIlkie, 2010) some design scholars have already started to explore this ‘coming together’ of theoretical thinking and design practices where different traditions, approaches and people meet. The interest is mutual and while some STS scholars have started to appreciate design as a key concern (Latour, 2008a,b, 2013; Yaneva, 2009; Storni, 2012), the more activist wing of STS are looking at design to extend and re-think the impact of social research (Woodhouse et al, 2002; Venturini, 2010). As technology is becoming ubiquitous and pervasive, and design is increasingly recognized as a driving force for social change, approaches that draw on both STS (conceptually equipped to deal with socio-techno-scientific issues), and design (methodologically equipped to intervene in such issues) are of increasing importance.

In this context, we are interested in exploring, mapping and more systematically investigating approaches emerging from exchanges in which ANT (as well as related STS approaches such as post-phenomenology, feminist and post-colonial studies) and co-design become mutually relevant. Indeed, participatory and collaborative design has a long tradition of focusing on the politics of design, the methods, tools and techniques used for democratic design, and the nature of participation (Kensing and Blomberg, 1998). These concerns seem to be shared by recent developments in ANT (e.g. Latour, 2004, 2008a,b) to further affirm that this emerging area is worth exploring and mapping.


Specific topics may include but are not limited to:

ANT as a conceptual framework for participatory design and co-design
- ANT and material-semiotic/relational perspectives on design;
- Design, dasein, (post-)phenomenology and ANT;
- ANT to unpack the relationship and mutual shaping between design, technology and society;
- ANT to rethink the design/use divide: design, meta-design, and appropriation;
- How to use ANT as a pedagogical tool with design students;

ANT as a descriptive tool for co-design
- ANT as a descriptive tool supporting social investigation, design research and design processes;
- ANT to re-think traditional notion of design and participation;
- ANT to re-think (participatory and collaborative) design methods;
- Design as translation/composition/instauration: implications for design and the design of designs;
- ANT to rethink the ontological status of the design object/subject;

ANT and design for democracy and participation in techno-science
- ANT and design as a social experiment, design to make things public, design (for) public participation, design as mode of (co)existence;
- ANT and critical design, design for debate;
- ANT, ‘cautious*Prometheus’ and the issue of re-presentation: the role of design in the Ding-politik;
- Design, care and matters of concern;
- Mapping controversies, mapping participations, mapping design processes: implications for co-design