In response to a modernist optimistic path that has typically colonised narratives of addressing climate change, this paper ex- plores and proposes a prototypical pedagogy that aims to unlearn privileges and restore a sense of commitment and involvement in the unfolding future among the public. In our articulations of this prototypical pedagogy, we trace and reappropriate pedagogies of collective learning within participatory design in combination with contemporary discourses around the affective dimensions of climate change. The prototypical pedagogy is explored through a design- erly study circle in future orienteering that was designed to situate the transition to post-carbon futures within specific locations, en- vironments, and lived experiences. To support reorientations and explorations of alternatives to the familiar modernist path, a guid- ing principle was to foreground objects, values, and imaginaries that are often overlooked in current accounts of climate change and to activate grief and hope as both practical and conceptual orienteering devices.

In the project Grief and Hope in Transition, our approach to transition has been one of reorientation, a departure from the belief in new technologies as the solution to all kinds of problems, an attempt at deviation from modernity’s familiar territories and road maps. Together with people living in different rural areas in Sweden’s southern most landscape Scania, we formed a study group in future orienteering.

This book is an outcome of the collaborative work done to explore how to transition into becoming fossil-free and how to let go of optimism that places agency elsewhere (such as in others' roadmaps and tech-fixes). It describes how we through designerly ways have addressed the challenge of how to restore a sense of attachments and commitment to the unfolding of the future.

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.

Propelled by steel, charcoal and steam the railway once carried the story of progress and the rise of the developed modern society. While the orient express nurtured a vivid, mythical aura during more than a hundred years, it seems like future stories about the railway mainly gravitate around hyperloops and increased speed. How come the narratives around railways have become so futile? How come imaginaries about progress have got stuck? With the help of critical imagination and the method of design fiction, this article will set out on an imaginary journey to re-storying the future railway and discuss how this could help us rethink progress. Alternative paths will be explored that allow room for stories depicting train rides in slower paces and complex rhythms and materials, a rich melting pot for diverse and vivid sub-cultures, bottom up grassroot services, experimental sharing cultures, touring theater companies, maker movements, and new citizen-driven cooperatives.PDF

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.

Increasingly many Participatory Design (PD) researchers and practitioners engage in urban and public contexts, which surely are about participation and democracy, but not necessarily with a main focus on technology development. These engagements are often a part of dealing with complex societal challenges such as sustainability. Today, many different but partly overlapping denominations are used to capture these participatory practices such as: community-based PD, emerging publics, design for sharing, commons and commoning, transition and transformation design, public and social innovation, PD and urban living labs, etc. As a group of PD researchers, the "Boundary Brigade", we have engaged in this kind of work for soon a decade. At this dialogue-based hands-on workshop, we invite others with similar interests in further articulating: (1) what characterizes applying a PD approach in urban and public contexts, (2) how to understand "urban" + PD, (3) lastly, whether it is fruitful to articulate, as a more overarching concept, the (sub)domain of Urban Participatory Design. Practically we will do this through collaborative mappings with cut-ups of "personal positions", discussions and by co-producing arguments as video stories.  

Today we can see new policies that suggest more participatory models to address societal challenges. The interest in design and different forms of urban labs is also increasing. This includes participatory design (PD) that has moved out of the workplace into the urban territory. In this paper we will argue that the main contribution from PD is to set up processes that can support and critically reflect on local democracy in relation to these challenges. We will look closer into the notions of commoning and agonism, two concepts that both contest the concept of participation and expand what could be required to constitute local democracy. Through a project journey spanning over seven years, we will discuss how these concepts could be used to guide processes of infrastructuring in democratic urban development processes. However, working with them poses several obstacles, including tensions between them as well as with the notion of strategic design. We will argue that in order to introduce them in a strategic design perspective, you need to consider long-term interventions and diverse levels of engagement as well as different phases where agonistic and commoning approaches are alternated with more strategic engagements of developing networks with powerful alliances.

This workshop asks participatory designers and researchers to consider how they write about their work and what role there is for novel approaches to expression, forms drawn from other disciplines, and open and playful texts. As we bring social science and humanities sensibilities to bear on designing with others; as we conduct experiments in infrastructuring and sociotechnical assemblages; as we ask what participation means in different contexts and types of futuring, can we find voice to match our innovations? How do reflexivity, positionality, autobiography and auto-ethnography fit into our reflections on designing? How far are we making our practice even as we write? Is the page a contemplative or collaborative space? Does the tyranny of the conference paper overwrite everything? Join us for this day of reading, writing and discussion about how we tell the stories that matter most to us.  

This paper aims at contributing to the discussion of how to design collaborative forms for urban commons. It does so by bridging the commons field with the participatory design tradition, which has almost 40 years of experiences in exploring and reflecting on the practicalities as well as the political aspects of collaboration among actors with diverse interest. In the growing discussion about urban commons, it has been pointed out how in designing collaborative forms for their management Ostrom’s design principles might not hold, due to the difference between urban commons and traditional commons (Foster 2011, Harvey 2011). Urban commons entail an active role of public authorities and they gather participants who have different understandings and perspectives over the commons. Diversity in participants’ interests entails a higher risk for ossification, meaning that a stable management form might hinder rather than support collaboration (Daniels 2007, Foster 2011). By building on Participatory Design theory and reflecting on three cases of collaborative management forms in Malmö (Sweden), the paper discusses how the notions of commoning and agonism might be at play in the design of collaborative forms for urban commons. The notion of commoning entails to understand collective use and management of commons as a located and ongoing socio-material practice that requires the creation of management forms able to change and evolve in time in relation to the diversity of interests. The notion of agonism, on the other hand, focuses on articulating the political dimension of commoning, that entails to consider to which extent diversity is present in the collaboration and how it could be further nurtured. The paper does not provide a definitive answer to how these collaborative forms are to be designed but it stresses the importance of considering both the practicalities as well as the political aspects of collaboration.

In several present discourses and practices that are involved in innovation and development projects it seems like there is a strong emphasis on management and planning with agreements and clear goals as the crucial components. In this paper we propose another approach that more acknowledge the complexity and messiness of innovation. We will discuss how we through Malmö Living Labs have navigated across an ecology of ongoing projects and innovation policies that we try to merge into something coherent and meaningful in multiple ways. The networks resemble the nested Russian Matryoshka dolls; unveiling one dimension you find another one. Inspired by the concepts of boundary objects and boundary infrastructuring we will argue that, by acknowledging these concepts as the strongest common frame during complex collaboration across disciplines and communities of practice, an informal, creative and flexible practice can get more space to flourish.

Participatory design (PD) has become increasingly engaged in public spheres and everyday life and is no longer solely concerned with the workplace. This is not only a shift from work-oriented productive activities to leisure and pleasurable engagements, but also a new milieu for production and ‘innovation’. What ‘democratic innovation’ entails is often currently defined by management and innovation research, which claims that innovation has been democratised through easy access to production tools and lead-users as the new experts driving innovation. We sketch an alternative ‘innovation’ practice more in line with the original visions of PD based on our experience of running Malmö Living Labs – an open innovation milieu where new constellations, issues and ideas evolve from bottom–up long-term collaborations among diverse stakeholders. Three cases and controversial matters of concern are discussed. The fruitfulness of the concepts ‘agonistic public spaces’ (as opposed to consensual decision-making), ‘thinging’ and ‘infrastructuring’ (as opposed to projects) are explored in relation to democracy, innovation and other future-making practices.

Design thinking has become a central issue in contemporary design discourse and rhetoric, and for good reason. With the design thinking practice of world leading design and innovation firm IDEO, and with the application of these principles to successful design education at prestigious d. school, the Institute of Design at Stanford University, and not least with the publication of Change by Design, in which IDEO chief executive Tim Brown elaborates on the firm's ideas about design thinking, ...

Prototyping Futures gives you a glimpse of what collaborating with academia might look like. Medea and its co-partners share their stories about activities happening at the research centre – projects, methods, tools, and approaches – what challenges lie ahead, and how these can be tackled. Examples of highlighted topics include: What is a living lab and how does it work? What are the visions behind the Connectivity Lab at Medea? And, how can prototyping-methods be used when sketching scenarios for sustainable futures? Other topics are: What is the role of the body when designing technology? What is collaborative media and how can this concept help us understand contemporary media practices? Prototyping Futures also discusses the open-hardware platform Arduino, and the concepts of open data and the Internet of Things, raising questions on how digital media and connected devices can contribute to more sustainable lifestyles, and a better world.

In recent years, design for social innovation has emerged as a new research field. Design has been acknowledged by public agencies and NGOs as one of the tools to tackle the complexity of social issues. However, critical voices have also been raised about the limits and gaps of design applied in this field, emphasizing the need for connections with other disciplines involved in social innovation. These critiques stress that designers engaged with social issues need to reflect on their weaknesses in order to avoid to ‘reinvent the wheel’ and being naive. With a background in participatory design we have developed some practical approaches that we present in this article as a possible way for dealing with the weaknesses of design when applied in social innovation.

During the past five years design has been recognised as a powerful innovation driver. Design methods and tools have also been applied in new fields. One of them is social innovation, which is aimed at developing new ideas and solutions in response to social needs. While different initiatives have demonstrated how design can be a powerful approach in social innovation, especially when it comes to systemic thinking, prototyping and visualising, some concerns have been raised regarding the limitations of applying design in this field. Through a specific case, this paper will discuss and suggest some approaches and concepts related to design for social innovation. Coming from a participatory design tradition, we focus on the idea of infrastructuring as a way to approach social innovation that differs from project-based design. The activities that are carried out are aimed at building long-term relationships with stakeholders in order to create networks from which design opportunities can emerge. We also discuss the role of prototyping as a way to explore opportunities but we also highlight dilemmas.

Participatory design has become increasingly engaged in public spheres and everyday life and is no longer solely concerned with the workplace. This is not only a shift from work oriented productive activities to leisure and pleasurable engagements, but also a new milieu for production and innovation and entails a reorientation from “democracy at work” to “democratic innovation”. What democratic innovation entails is currently defined by management and innovation research, which claims that innovation has been democratized through easy access to production tools and lead-users as the new experts driving innovation. We sketch an alternative “democratizing innovation” practice more in line with the original visions of participatory design based on our experience of running Malmö Living Labs - an open innovation milieu where new constellations, issues and ideas evolve from bottom-up long-term collaborations amongst diverse stakeholders. Two cases and controversial matters of concern are discussed. The fruitfulness of the concepts “Things” (as opposed to objects), “infrastructuring” (as opposed to projects) and “agonistic public spaces” (as opposed to consensual decision-making) are explored in relation to participatory innovation practices and democracy.

As digital media are becoming more and more ubiquitous in our environments, it has the potential to capture and mediate situated information expressing the embedded nature of practice. Within healthcare settings, such information is often important for patients' learning about diseases or injuries as well as their own engagement in rehabilitation and treatment. It is possible to design the necessary interaction around digital media in such a way that it becomes part of a collaborative articulation in consultations, hence increasing the degree of patient participation. This paper reports on two interrelated projects exploring how this can be achieved within the domain of hand surgery rehabilitation. Our aim is to contribute to patients' possibilities to learn about the injury and the recovery process. Furthermore we seek to contribute to the field of human-computer interaction by showing how physical forms and explicit interaction can facilitate collaborative articulation processes.

Participatory approaches to the development of new practices at work have been widespread in Scandinavia, due largely to the tradition of collaboration and collective agreements on the labour market. Since the late 1980s, participation and change have increasingly been coupled to various notions of learning and learning organizations (for an overview, see Sandberg, 1992). Similarly, technological change became increasingly addressed as an issue of design rather than as a given precondition for changes in working life (Bjerknes et al., 1987). In the so-called Scandinavian tradition of systems design, IT systems for a particular customer organization are developed through a process of participatory design (Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991). Existing work practices are studied in a mixture of ethnographically inspired fieldwork, interviews and dialogue sessions. New IT systems are developed in iterative design cycles involving representative users in drafting and evaluating system prototypes. And a final system is typically put in place with the involved users acting as strong proponents for the chosen design. This tradition of user-oriented design of IT systems has shed new light on the relation between participation, learning and change and in particular the literature on computer supported cooperative work has contributed to the study of how practices at work evolve around communication artefacts. 

Ett växande globalt perspektiv och nya tekniska strukturer (exempelvis internet) inger förhoppningar om att kunskap och erfarenheter ska kunna medieras mellan skilda kontexter spridda över världen. Med detta följer ett ökat intresse för att standardisera, paketera och återanvända kunskap i en generell kontextoberoende form.Denna avhandling fokuserar på, och argumenterar för, en kunskapsmediering av helt motsatt karaktär, där kontexten, det specifika, personliga och lokala står i förgrunden och där ny teknik används för att mediera erfarenheter i en mindre skala, inom och i relation till ett specifiktsammanhang. Det är en mediering som får sina kvalitéer från en närhet mellan ’avsändare’ och ’mottagare’ och som utgår från ett sociokulturellt perspektiv på lärande där kunskap, kontext, teknik och mediering är djupt sammanflätade.Argumenten bygger på två praktikbaserade forskningsprojekt där interaktionsdesigners i nära samarbete med personal på en intensivvårdsenhet och en handkirurgisk klinik utformat ett sätt att producera och använda audiovisuella medier för att stödja och utveckla respektive verksamhet.Tillvägagångssättet skiljer sig från traditionell filmproduktion, det utgår inte från skrivna manus eller avancerad planering, det saknar också den neutrala ’objektiva’ ton som är vanlig iinstruktionsfilm. Medierna (främst digital video) används snarare för att ’fånga’ en situerad och ständigt föränderlig praxis, där personalen blir filmad i sin vardagspraktik och drar nytta av enlokal kontext och en specifik situation för att muntligt berätta om, artikulera och synliggöra sina handlingar. Innehållet i filmerna kan röra sig om ‘hur en medicinsk maskin monteras ihop’, ’hur ett sår läggs om’ eller belysa ’en patients situation och rehabilitering.’ Medierna kan sägas fånga en praktik som ’redan finns’ och vardagliga handlingar ’som redan sker’. Det inspeladematerialet har en informell karaktär, personlig ton och fungerar vid behov senare som stöd för personal eller patienter med en nära relation till kontexten.Den lokala medieproduktionen gör att innehållet kan anpassas efter hur omständigheter och lokala behov förändras. Men det möjliggör även att den som agerat i det kan spegla sig själv och att kollegor kan få insyn i varandras sätt att hantera problem. Något som ger braförutsättningar för personalen att reflektera över och utveckla sin egen praxis.Utöver att reflektera över de specifika kvalitéerna i den lokala medieproduktionen diskuteras även designprocess och samarbetsformer i avhandlingen. Nära samarbeten med brukare kritiseras ofta för att leda till kompromisser och designlösningar som bara utgår från hurpraktiken fungerar idag. I avhandlingen argumenteras det för att ett nära samarbete snarare kan baseras på att designern utmanar brukarna och skapar fruktbara ’kollisioner’ med dem ochderas miljö, en ansats där olika värderingar och perspektiv konfronteras, men också där ideér får ’kollidera’ med en verklig praxis. Något som kan ske genom att man gör experiment där demöter så stort motstånd som möjligt dvs. mitt i den vardagliga verksamheten, med alla dess olika personer, föremål och motstridiga ideér.

This paper reports the value of On the Spot Experiments with self-produced content and the use of technology within healthcare. On the Spot Experiments are experiments conducted in the setting of on going clinical work and patient care. We begin by relating our work to approaches within ethnography and work place studies which link ethnography and design. Thereafter we describe how we have carried out On the Spot Experiments in two projects where we have explored the possibilities of self-produced learning material. The first project described is within an intensive care unit setting where the staff and designers explored the making of self-produced videos on different procedures and their use in handheld computers. The second project described focuses on patient learning at a hand surgery clinic where we explored the possibilities of individualised video training instructions. In both cases the On the Spot Experiments have shown fruitful results in different aspects of clinical work and how the use of content and technology might affect this work. A key factor has been exploring what relevant content could be. We conclude by outlining some qualities and limits of doing On the Spot Experiment