LIST OF PANELS

The following is a collaboration between the Design for Policy and Governance Special Interest Group (PoGoSIG) of the Design Research Society, the journal Policy Design and Practice, and the newly formed Policy Design Thematic Research Network of the IPPA.

Despite the growth in research on policy design and design for policy, a significant gap in theorization remains about how these two concepts differ, relate, and interact with one another. There exists very little agreement on their relational trajectory with one course, policy design, originating in the policy studies tradition while the other, design for policy, being founded in design studies. The former sees the need for policy to embody a conscious design of its own making while the later holds that design is a pre-existing field of study unto itself that can be employed in accordance with policy formation (Bason, 2014; Howlett, 2019).

Although explicitly connected to the same subject matter, each direction is built upon differing criteria and parameters thus creating two unique starting points which at times overlap and at other times deviate considerably. Recently, the design research community has been particularly active and has developed knowledge useful to manage complex processes, characterized by the participation of actors with different interests and cultures, in which the final recipients often have an active role as co-creators and co-producers (Sangiorgi & Prendiville, 2017; Mortati, et al., 2018). Innovative services and governance models are thus being explored and developed by designers within the public sector, either built from the bottom up (collaborative services) (Deserti et al., 2020) or trialing the role and relevance of new and disruptive technologies (AI, Virtual Reality, Blockchain, …) (Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020).

This track pays particular attention to new and upcoming areas of research where design disciplines and policy studies are exploring new ways toward convergence. In particular, it focuses on the green and digital transition as part of the most pressing priorities underpinning the transformation of governments. On the one hand, it calls for exploration on the use of new technologies (i.e. big data and algorithms) to develop and deliver public services (Dwivedi et al., 2021); on the other, it examines the use of creativity-based methodologies (i.e. co-creation and co-production) to reconcile the perspectives of government, citizens and society at large (i.e. participation in policymaking) (Rowe & Lynn, 2005; Recchi, 2015; Bobbio, 2019), especially when investigating what makes them specific to policy making.

The following is a collaboration between the Design for Policy and Governance Special Interest Group (PoGoSIG) of the Design Research Society, the journal Policy Design and Practice, and the newly formed Policy Design Thematic Research Network of the IPPA.

Despite the growth in research on policy design and design for policy, a significant gap in theorization remains about how these two concepts differ, relate, and interact with one another. There exists very little agreement on their relational trajectory with one course, policy design, originating in the policy studies tradition while the other, design for policy, being founded in design studies. The former sees the need for policy to embody a conscious design of its own making while the later holds that design is a pre-existing field of study unto itself that can be employed in accordance with policy formation (Bason, 2014; Howlett, 2019).

This track pays particular attention to new and upcoming areas of research where design disciplines and policy studies are exploring new ways toward convergence. In particular, it focuses on the green and digital transition as part of the most pressing priorities underpinning the transformation of governments. On the one hand, it calls for exploration on the use of new technologies (i.e. big data and algorithms) to develop and deliver public services (Dwivedi et al., 2021); on the other, it examines the use of creativity-based methodologies (i.e. co-creation and co-production) to reconcile the perspectives of government, citizens and society at large (i.e. participation in policymaking) (Rowe & Lynn, 2005; Recchi, 2015; Bobbio, 2019), especially when investigating what makes them specific to policy making.

We invite contributions on few main topics, although other topics and approaches are also welcome:

-Design as a methodology for policy making
-Co-creation and co-production in policymaking
-A human approach to big data for policymaking
-User-centricity in algorithms for policy implementation

Relevant research questions include, but are not limited to the following:

-How can design be made accountable in Government?
-How design methods are being specifically adapted to policy making?
-What relevant cases/practices exist and how are they adopting/adapting design to Government?
-What role is design having in exploring the uptake of new technologies for policy making and public service implementation?
-How is design helping complement a human approach into the typical need for quantitative evidence of Government?

This panel will be held in virtual format.