Explore the vast range of titles available.

Sustainable and Responsible Design (SRD) harnesses design’s potential to address eco-social problems and in doing so challenge the status quo of design education by reframing the social and ecological consequences, boundaries and agencies of design. This critical and transdisciplinary approach frays the edges of traditional design disciplines with embedded and reflexive modes of learning. We describe characteristics of SRD education and present theories of learning to empower students in this complex terrain. The learning associated with SRD education is ecologically engaged, participative, critical, expansive and designerly. We recount case studies of our own experiences advancing sustainable and responsible undergraduate design education in the UK. We identify path constraints such as disciplinary fragility, appropriation, and power dynamics in the design school. The push for a revision of priorities generates tensions where there is often greenwashing rhetoric of sustainability and inclusivity. We describe strategies and tactics to address these tensions. We highlight the agency we have as educators and designers and argue that design education can only meaningfully participate in response to the challenges presented by climate change, other types of ecocide, and social problems when educators make substantive commitments to supporting sustainability literacies and design approaches that serve the interests of diverse stakeholders.

From the perspective of defuturing design philosophy, this article discusses the close relationship between the growing body of artificial-intelligence (AI) artifacts in the Brazilian Judiciary and the phenomenon of litigiousness therein. Litigiousness has traditionally been tackled through mechanisms that increase productivity and efficiency in case processing, a strategy that has not succeeded in reducing litigiousness, as data make evident. Analyzing data from relevant sources, this article demonstrates that AI artifacts mostly perform tasks related to clustering and mass handling of cases, following the same path dependency. Consequently, they entail risks of judges’ alienation and loss of agency, which can negatively impact citizens’ fundamental rights. Moreover, they defuture; that is, they erase other (preferable) futures. Albeit AI artifacts can play a part in tackling litigiousness, there should be a critical reflection upon futuring and defuturing. Therefore, this article recommends that SoDF—a systemic approach to design that seeks to explore design consequences, futuring and defuturing—be mandatory to any AI design process. Additionally, it proposes continuous judicial monitoring for alienation and loss of agency, as well as investments in judicial education to empower judges to effectively control and supervise AI artifacts. Finally, it suggests a further research agenda.

Design came to name modernity's way of worlding the world. What is at stake in decolonizing design is our relation to earth, and the dignifying of relational worlds. The task of decolonizing design brings us to a three-folded path: to understand modernity´s way of worlding the world as artifice, as earthlessness, to understand coloniality´s way of un-worlding the world, of annihilating relational worlds and, to think the decolonial as a form of radical hope for an ethical life with earth. At a more fundamental level, the mode of precedence is introduced to challenge modernity´s metaphysics of presence and its reduction of experience to empty time. The question of precedence delinks from western's philosophy grounding dichotomy between immanence and transcendence. The mode of precedence brings to the fore a temporal relationality that is always already ahead of any formation in the field of immanence, in the surface of the present. Can we think of relational design as a decolonial form of being with earth and of worlding the world? Can we think of design as a mode of listening?

Design is regarded in the article as an ontological instrument that is able to transform the social and cultural reality, and model human experience, subjectivity and environment. I focus on the intersections between Tony Fry's understanding of ontological design and the decolonial interpretation of modernity/coloniality as an overall design determining relation between the world, the things and the humans. The article attempts to draw a division between the positive (re-existent) and negative (defuturing) ontological designs. It addresses the coloniality of design that is control and disciplining of our perception and interpretation of the world, of other beings and things according to certain legitimized principles. The coloniality of design has accompanied the predominant modern universalist utopias such as Marxism or Liberalism and has been resisted internally and externally through various manifestations of border thinking and existence. I analyze Fry's concept of defuturing in relation to the decolonial concept of pluriversality. This allows to address in more detail the dynamic correlational principle as central to decolonial ontological design. Among specific decolonial tools of positive ontological design I focus on Sumak Kawsay, Earth Democracy, and a few more specific initiatives originating in the indigenous social movements from Eurasian borderlands. The article also addresses decolonizing of the affective sphere as ground for a positive ontological design. Finally I argue for the necessity of provincializing the Western/Northern design and allowing the decolonial design in the Global South develop its positive border \"both and\" positionality, a negotiating transcultural stance starting from the local geopolitics and corpo-politics put into dialogue and dispute with the modern/colonial defuturing design premises.