Bibliographic record
Abstract
Integrating multi-stakeholder approaches is increasingly necessary to address global systemic issues, and the professional position of many designers has shifted from producer to facilitator in response. Facilitation-heavy frameworks of co-design and participatory design attempt to democratise design by involving community stakeholders in the process of problem-finding and creative response—yet the risk of performative collaboration can quickly perpetuate systemic inequality rather than mitigate it. I argue for a co-creative philosophy built upon deference rather than facilitation, recognising that delegating power is not the same as seeking to rebalance it. Designers tout the importance of “trust-building” in a co-creative process, but what does it functionally require? Ambient time and sustained proximity are two such building blocks, laying a foundation upon which deference can begin to demonstrate trustworthiness and establish shared context. These are all crucial prerequisites for fostering the multilateral agency implied by the term “co-design” but rarely achieved in practice—including, but not limited to, collaborations between non-Indigenous designers and Indigenous stakeholders. Throughout the presentation, these claims and insights will be illustrated by specific fieldwork anecdotes and auto-ethnographical observations from a period of design research concerning Sámi reindeer herders’ perspectives on climate change across Sápmi and in the Finnish Arctic. Recommendations for integrating ethically critical co-design practices apply to individual designers but especially to research funding structures and project reporting metrics that may unintentionally incentivise an extractive approach to community stakeholder collaboration.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".