Convivial aesthetic in social innovation: a nested framework from three projects in Milano

References

• Akerlof, G. A., and R. E. Kranton. 2000. “Economics and Identity.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 715–753. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554881.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baek, J., A. Meroni, and G. Simeone. 2014. “A Relational Food Network: Strategy and Tools to Co-Design a Local Foodshed.” In Eat, Cook, Grow: Mixing Human-Computer Interactions with Human-Food Interactions, edited by J.-H.-J. Choi, M. Foth, and G. Hearn, 13–32. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barry, D., and C. Rerup. 2006. “Going Mobile: Aesthetic Design Considerations from Calder and the Constructivists.” Organization Science 17 (2): 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaver, J., T. Kerridge, and S. Pennington, eds. 2009. Material Beliefs. London: Goldsmiths, Interaction Research Studio. Accessed March 5, 2010. https://research.gold.ac.uk/id/eprint/2316/.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, R. 2020. “The Social Identity Approach: Appraising the Tajfelian Legacy.” British Journal of Social Psychology 59 (1): 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12349.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchanan, R. 2001. “Branzi’s Dilemma: Design in Contemporary Culture.” Design Issues 14:3–20. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511825.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, D.-S., L.-L. Cheng, C. Hummels, and I. Koskinen. 2016. “Social Design: An Introduction.” International Journal of Design 10 (1):1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corubolo, M., A. Meroni, and M. Bartolomeo. 2017. “The Social Innovation Journey: Emerging Challenges for Service Design for the Incubation of Social Innovation.” In Designing for Service. Key Issues and New Directions, edited by. D. Sangiorgi and A. Prendiville, 163–181. London Bloomsbury Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474250160.ch-012
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience. New York: Harper and Row.
   Google Scholar
• DiSalvo, C. 2011. Adversarial Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8732.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. 2015. Frame Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10096.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Durkheim, É. 1964. Elementary Forms of Religious Life. London: Allen & Unwin. Original in French in 1912.
   Google Scholar
• Ehn, P. 2008, “Participation in Design Things.” In Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design, 92–101. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Fassi, D., and E. Manzini. 2021. “Project-Based Communities: Lessons Learned from Collaborative City-Making Experiences.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 18 (1): 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2021.2001535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gagliardi, P. 1996. “Exploring the Aesthetic Side of Organizational Life.” In Handbook of Organizational Studies, edited by S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord, 565–580. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Graves Petersen, M., O. Iversen, P. Gall Krogh, and M. Ludvigsen. 2004. “Aesthetic Interaction. A Pragmatist’s Aesthetics of Interactive Systems.” In Proceedings of DIS2004, 269–276. New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Guillén, M. F. 1997. “Scientific Management’s Lost Aesthetic: Architecture, Organization, and the Taylorized Beauty of the Mechanical.” Administrative Science Quarterly 42 (4): 682–715. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393654.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hochschild, A. R. 2003. The Managed Heart. Commercialization of Human Feelings. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Illich, I. 1973. Tools for Conviviality. New York: Harper & Row.
   Google Scholar
• Inghilleri, P., G. Riva, and E. Riva, eds. 2014. Enabling Positive Change: Flow and Complexity in Daily Experience. De Gruyter Open. https://doi.org/10.2478/9783110410242.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen, I. 2016a. The Aesthetics of Action in New Social Design. Brighton, the UK: Design Research Society. June 27-30.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen, I. 2016b. “Agonistic, Convivial, and Conceptual Aesthetics in New Social Design.” Design Issues 32 (3): 18–29. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00396.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskinen, I., and G. Hush. 2016. “Utopian, Molecular and Sociological Social Design.” International Journal of Design 10 (1): 65–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeDantec, C. A. 2016. Designing Publics. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E. 2015. Design, When Everybody Designs. An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9873.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E., and F. Rizzo. 2011. “Small Projects/Large Changes: Participatory Design as an Open Participated Process.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts 7 (3–4): 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.630472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Markussen, T. 2013. “The Disruptive Aesthetics of Design Activism: Enacting Design Between Art and Politics.” Design Issues 29 (1): 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00195.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCarthy, J., and P. Wright. 2015. Taking [A]part. The Politics and Aesthetics of Participation in Experience-Centered Design. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/8675.001.0001.
   Google Scholar
• Meroni, A., and D. Selloni. 2018. “Design for Social Innovators.” In Design Roots, edited by S. Walker, T. Cassidy, M. Evans, A. T. Holroyd, and J. Jung. London: Bloomsbury. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474241823.ch-028.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, G. 1986. Images of Organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Overbeeke, K. 2007. “The Aesthetics of the Impossible.” Inaugural lecture, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. October 26, 2007.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez, R. 1996. “Wrapping Form and Organizational Beauty.” Organization 3 (2): 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/135050849632007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rancière, J. 2004. The Politics of Aesthetics. The Distribution of the Sensible, translated by Rockhill G. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Romme, A. G. L. 2003. “Making a Difference: Organization as Design.” Organization Science 14 (5): 558–573. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.5.558.16769.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, W. R. 2014. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas. Interests, and Identities. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Selloni, D. 2017. CoDesign for Public-Interest Services. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing, Research for Development Series. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-53243-1.
   Google Scholar
• Smircich, L. 1983. “Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis.” Administrative Science Quarterly 28 (3): 339–358. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soini, K., and H. Paavilainen. 2013. “Design Studio in the Field.” In Designing for Wellbeing, edited by T. Keinonen, K. Vaajakallio, and J. Honkonen, 87–98. Helsinki: Aalto.
   Google Scholar
• Strati, A. 1992. “Aesthetic Understanding of Organizational Life.” Academy of Management Review 17:568–581. https://www.jstor.org/stable/258723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tajfel, H., and J. Turner. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by W. Austin and S. Worchel, 33–47. Monterey, CA: Brooks & Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Vink, J., and K. Koskela-Huotari. 2021. “Social Structures as Service Design Materials.” Available at International Journal of Design 15 (3): 29–43. Accessed June 20, 2022. http://ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/4137/960.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weggeman, M., I. Lammers, H. Akkermans, and S. Magala. 2007. “Aesthetics from a Design Perspective.” Journal of Organizational Change Management 20 (3): 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810710740173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witz, A., C. Warhurst, and D. Nickson. 2003. “The Labour of Aesthetics and the Aesthetics of Organization.” Organization 10 (1): 33–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508403010001375.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar