Decolonization is a situated effort as it relates to the relations of privilege, power, politics, and access (3P-A, in Albarrán González’s terms) between the people involved in design in relation to wider societies. This complexity creates certain challenges for how we can understand, learn about, and nurture decolonization in design towards pluriversality, since such decolonizing effort is based on the relationship between specific individuals and the collective. In this paper, we present and discuss the ‘River project’, a participatory space for decolonizing design, created for designers and practitioners to reflect on their own 3P-A as a way to create awareness of their own oppressive potential in design work. These joint reflections challenged ideas of participation and shaped learning processes between the participants, bringing to the foreground the importance of seeing and allowing for a plurality of life and work worlds to be brought together. We build on the learnings from this project to propose the notions of pluriversal participation, pluriversal presence, and pluriversal directionality, which can help nurture decolonizing designs towards pluriversality. We conclude by arguing that, for nurturing pluriversality through Participatory Design, participation, presence, and direction must be equally pluriversal.

This chapter will outline what we label ‘collaborative future-making’ (CFM), which can be understood as an interplay between critical imagination and collaborative engagements in future-making processes. Using critical imagination to break out of (imagined) political and scholarly deadlocks is an important theme within collaborative future-making. Imagining should not be confused, however, with an abstract practice. Instead, critical imagination links directly to forms of participation and engagement. Collaborative engagement concerns how we can work together. At the centre is an ethos of democratizing processes of change, that is, to acknowledge people’s skills and rights to influence their everyday environments. This approach should be understood as a shift from engaging with the future through forecasting to a concern with how critical imagination can challenge basic assumptions, norms and structures to widen the perspectives on what constitutes socially, culturally, ecologically and economically sustainable futures, engaging not only professionals and policymakers, but also citizens and civil society. This chapter presents opportunities in what we call ‘collaborative future-making’, as well as highlighting the potential problems and challenges in collaborating. This critical perspective is illustrated through a series of empirical examples that combines critical perspectives with constructive and collaborative aspects.

In light of current environmental challenges, it often seems that optimism is a required emotional state for addressing our future. This can be seen in how different technological fixes are assumed to sort our futures out at the same time as requiring minimal change in our daily lives. Moving beyond our existing high-carbon and material lives requires not only that we deal with the optimistic end of the spectrum but also that we envision fragile and uncertain futures. In response, this article proposes a designerly format for supporting public anticipation that attends to and cares for tensions between hope and grief, with the aim of nurturing grounds for living with uncertain futures. In contrast to abstract and decontextualized visions and images of the future that can be hard to relate to, the format situates anticipation in lived futures, that are ongoing, emerging and situated in specific locations, environments and experiences. By tending to anticipated losses related to the transition to a post-carbon future, the workshop format created space for confronting shared difficulties and vulnerabilities. Despite the lack of easy solution, the format also opened up for articulating alternatives and less tech-oriented hopeful engagements and practices.

Mutual learning and infrastructuring are two core concepts in Participatory Design (PD), but the relation between them has yet to be explored. In this article, we foreground learning in infrastructuring processes aimed at change in the public sector. Star and Ruhleder’s (1996) framework for first, second, and third level issues is applied as a fruitful way to stage and analyze learning in such processes. The argument is developed through the insights that arose from a 4-year-long infrastructuring process about future library practices. Framed as Co-Labs this process was organized by researchers and officers from the local regional office. This led to adjusted roles for both PD researchers and civil servants working with materials at the operational and strategic levels. The case shows how learning led to profound changes in the regional public sector in the form of less bureaucratic and more participatory experimental and learning-focused worldviews and practices.

Research in diverse areas such as climate change, happiness and wellbeing emphasizes the need for transformative change, stressing the importance of rethinking established values, goals and paradigms prevailing among civil servants, policy- and decision makers. In this paper, we discuss a role that design can play in this, especially how processes of counterfactual world-making can help facilitate reflection on worldviews and the shape of future forms of governance. By exploring different presents, rather than conditions in the future, this approach allows civil servants to consider, create and resist playful alternatives to business-as-usual. In this way, we demonstrate how design can stimulate imagination both as to futures and people’s role in shaping these futures.

Collaborative Future-Making is a research platform at the Faculty of Culture and Society at Malmö University that is concerned with how to envision, elaborate and prototype multiple, inclusive, and sustainable futures. The platform gathers around 20 researchers that share a methodological interest in how critical perspectives from the humanities and social sciences can be combined with the constructive and collaborative aspects of making and prototyping in design research.

The research centers around two major themes:

• Critical imagination​, which focuses on how basic assumptions, norms and structures can be challenged to widen the perspectives on what can constitute socially, culturally, ecologically and economically sustainable and resilient futures.
• Collaborative engagements​, which focuses on how we can set up more inclusive collaborations to prototype and discuss alternative futures, engaging not only professionals and policy makers but also citizens and civil society.

During 2019 the research group set out to make a shared glossary for collaborative future-making. The glossary is multiple in purpose and exists in several versions. Hopefully there will be more to come. At first, the making and articulation of the glossary was used within the research group as an exercise to share concepts that we found central to collaborative future-making, coming from different disciplines. This published version of the glossary was assembled to be used during a workshop called ​Imagining Collaborative Future-Making,​ which gathered a group of international researchers from different disciplines.

The collection of concepts reflects the heterogeneous and diverse character of the research group and a strong belief in that plurality regarding ontologies and epistemologies will be crucial to be able to handle the multiple uncertainties and complex challenges we have to face in the future. Some of the concepts are already well established within different research communities, but gain a specific meaning in relation to the research area. Others are more preliminary attempts to advance our understanding or probe into new potential practices within collaborative future-making. In that sense the concepts in the glossary are well situated and grounded in past and ongoing research within this research group, at the same time as they are meant to suggest, propose and point towards practices and approaches yet to come.

The concepts in this glossary are not only meant to be descriptive but also performative. In that sense, assembling and circulating this glossary is part of collaborative future-making. As pointed out by Michelle Westerlaken in her articulation of “Doing Concepts” (see page 15), “...without proposing, critiquing, or working towards a common or uncommon understanding of certain concepts, it becomes impossible to ‘make futures’ in any deliberate fashion.”

The public sector, increasingly acknowledging a need for change but strongly influenced by market logics, is experimenting with new forms of co-production of public services based on collaborations between public providers, citizens and societal actors. At the same time, Co-design researchers, are using approaches of infrastructuring and commoning to navigate questions of participation and collaboration in co-production. By discussing the case of ReTuren, a co-produced service for waste handling and prevention, this article presents how infrastructuring and commoning can offer guidance to civil servants engaging in co-production. In the case, civil servants on an operational level and an ‘embedded’ Co-Design researcher worked side-by-side in the co-production of the service, jointly articulating and appropriating approaches of infrastructuring and commoning. The case reveals that the joint appropriation and articulation of these Co-Design approaches can lead to the development of new ways of operating and perspectives in the public sector. However, it also highlights that this joint effort needs to involve people across organisational levels in order to minimise possible contextual and worldview breakdowns within public organisations.

These guidelines are intended for team members and managers of urban labs and, more generally, for civil servants and facilitators in cities working with experimental processes to tackle complex challenges. They aim to support the everyday practice of collaboratively experimenting and learning how to create more sustainable and inclusive cities.

Detta dokument är tänkt att belysa hur innovationskultur kan förstås samt att ge stöd i förändringsarbete, och också stimulera medarbetare och chefer i detsamma. Förhoppningen är även att detta dokument kan ge politiker och andra aktörer en bild av hur det är att arbeta med verksamhetsnära projekt. Dokumentet belyser erfarenheter från en kunskapscirkel som genomförts inom ramen för projekt Testbed för äldreomsorgen, vilket inbegriper samverkan Malmö stad och Mötesplats Social Innovation (MSI) vid Malmö Högskola. Detta dokuments tillkomst hade inte varit möjlig utan medverkan av deltagarna i kunskapscirklarna, chefer, övriga medarbetare och förtroendevalda. Varmt tack till alla. Tack också till Vinnova som varit medfinansiär till Testbed för äldreomsorgen. Kunskapscirkeln planerades och genomfördes av detta dokuments författare. Malmö stad har etablerat en testbädd i nära samarbete med Mötesplats Social Innovation, Malmö högskola och Medeon AB med finansiellt stöd av VINNOVA. Det har skett inom ramen för projektet – ”Testbed för äldreomsorgen i Malmö stad”, juni 2013-oktober 2016. Sedan november 2016 ingår testbädden i ordinarie verksamhet. Testbed för äldreomsorgen erbjuder innovatörer att utveckla och testa behovsdrivna idéer och lösningar i praktiken, i reell miljö. Idéerna och lösningarna ska svara mot behov hos kvinnor och män som är 65 år eller äldre och som bor i ordinärt boende. Lösningarna ska bidra till att öka kvaliteten i vård och omsorg (Mötesplats Social innovation, 2016; Malmö Stad, 2017). En central del av Testbed för äldreomsorgen har varit att försöka skapa grundförutsättningar för en innovationskultur inom Malmö stads vård- och omsorgsverksamhet. Med innovationskultur avses i dokumentet en kultur där personalen har möjlighet att ta initiativ till och vidareutveckla idéer och lösningar som på olika sätt kan förbättra den dagliga verksamheten.