Food Security Research funded by the University of Michigan

How can interactive aesthetics mediate knowledge exchange between socio-economically diverse stakeholders to yield sustainability, equity, and justice?

Source(s) of funding: University of Michigan

Every wicked problem in society has a “wicked solution” (Bennett 2012), that is, a system of design outcomes that we can map affinitively to a grid of two dimensions—top-down or bottom-up and memetic or localized.

Below, we visualize a wicked solution.

Wicked Solutions Domain

When we plot the existing design outcomes onto the wicked solution grid, we call this process ‘critical mapping’ as we can use the final visualization strategically to determine “leverage points” (Meadows 1999) or places to intervene to shift the system further towards equity and justice.

Critical mapping begins with a literature review of peer-review sources to find existing design outcomes that address the wicked problem to plot onto the wicked solution grid. For instance, let’s critically map the wicked solution to food insecurity. When we conducted a literature review of peer-reviewed sources we found 73 top-down, bottom-up, sustainable food design outcomes that address different phases of the food system from agriculture to waste. When we map them to the wicked solution grid, as shown below, we see clear gaps in the food system in need of bottom-up and top-down innovation and appropriation to yield food security, equity, and justice.

Figure 1 Wicked solution visualization

The Wicked Solution to Food Insecurity

Quadrant A

Local, sustainable food DOs funded or supported by public or private institutions

Quadrant B

Widespread, sustainable food DOs funded or supported by large-scale public or private institutions

Quadrant C

Widespread, sustainable food DOs created by citizens

Quadrant D

Local, sustainable food DOs created by citizens

Share wisdom.

Contribute a sustainable food design outcome to the wicked solution to food insecurity and shift the system of food towards greater security, equity, and justice.

Name

First Name

Last Name

Name of the sustainable food design outcome:

What is the approximate date of creation of the sustainable food design outcome?

YYYY

Provide a brief description (100-250 words) of the sustainable food design outcome:

In which food category does the sustainable food design outcome fit?

Using both Jacobi et al. (2019) and Grubinger et al.’s (2010) definitions of the food system, we can operationalize the food system as a set of scaled and interdependent sustainable activities that occur across the following spectrum: Agri/aquaculture: planting and growing “raw food materials” and breeding and caring for animals that will be used for food. Other related activities include training and managing labor, land management, innovating or acquiring, maintaining and using farming technologies (Ericksen 2008, 238), and caring for “aquatic animals and plants” for food in “fresh, brackish and marine environments” (Pillay and Kutty 2005, 3). “A variety of factors determine these activities, from climate conditions to land tenure, input prices, agricultural technology and government subsidy provisions intended to protect or promote” (Ericksen 2008, 238). Production: harvesting crops and slaughtering animals (238). Processing: transforming raw food material (vegetable, fruit, animal) for trade by altering its appearance, storage life, nutritional make-up, and content (238). Distribution: moving processed food from one place to another, typically from place of origin to retail spaces for consumption. Activities in the distribution phase of the food system include various forms of shipping, governmental trade and storage regulations (238). Communication: the visual and verbal communication technologies like symbols, apps, and educational training programs that contribute to the food system’s functionality. Accessibility: one’s ability to acquire enough healthy food to sustain life. The factors and activities that influence one’s ability to acquire enough healthy food include: Affordability: one’s “purchasing power” that depends on “pricing policies and mechanisms, seasonal and geographical variations in price, local prices relative to external prices, the form in which households are paid, income, and wealth levels” (240). Allocation: governmental policies and social and political capital governing when, where, how, and how much food one can access at a given time in a given private or public space (240). Preference: social or cultural norms, heritage, and values (e.g. religion, season, advertising, preparation requirements, human capital, tastes, customs that influence consumer demand for certain types of food) (240). Consumption: choosing, purchasing or otherwise acquiring, preparing, eating, and digesting food. Factors affecting these activities include price, income level, cultural traditions or preferences, social values, education, health, and household status among other things (238). Waste: composting, recycling, and disposal of expired and unconsumed but still-edible food and materials involved in its production and consumption. While Grubinger’s use of the term “production” may be inclusive of agriculture, we aim to bring clarity to the food system by separating early stages of food production into two phases: agriculture or aquaculture and production. We also added accessibility to include activities related to equity and justice and communication and to further clarify the important role graphics, communication, and visual communication design plays or can play in the food system.

In which design category does the sustainable food design outcome fit?

Heskett (2005) notes that “design should be the crucial anvil on which the human environment, in all its detail, is shaped and constructed for the betterment and delight of all.” (1) We utilized Heskett’s design categories, including: Objects: single- multi - intersensory, three-dimensional objects encountered in spaces that function in some capacity that is intuitive or learned (examples include things like a saltshaker or a farming tool). Communications: two-dimensional imagery accompanied by text that can evoke an array of emotions and actions and influence cognition and behavior (things like package designs, a logo, or an app). Environments: frameworks that facilitate activities, patterns of use, behavior, and expectations within spaces. Identities: any strategic combination of objects, communications, and environments that expresses meaning intended to shape, even pre-empt, what others perceive or understand. Systems: interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements that form a collective and functioning entity. Contexts: the professional organization and management of the knowledge set, scope, conduct, and playing field of a specialized activity, including but not limited to a program, professional organization, or governing policy. Recent scholarship has extended Heskett’s categories to include the following actions as design forms: Futures: a series of speculative or imaginary activities directed towards a desired outcome (e.g. a campaign or movement). Service: a mindset, process, toolset, cross-disciplinary language, or management approach that improves a service or creates a new one Interaction: the shaping of use-oriented qualities of digital artifacts for a satisfactory or improved experience. Experience: the strategic orchestration of an engagement with something that is functional, engaging, or purposeful

In which nation(s) have the sustainable food design outcome been effectuated or in use?

Which sustainability criteria does the sustainable food design meet?

We established the 8Es of sustainability - the criteria for selecting DO’s (design outcomes) to populate the wicked solution to food insecurity. These include: Ethical: does not harm humans or communities or the earth Equitable and just: facilitates greater inclusivity Environmental: improves the environment without harming it Economical: permits value to return to all actors in the system thereby yielding what Eglash refers to as “generative justice” (Eglash 2016) Ecological: contributes to the healthy balance of the social ecosystem Enduring: is durable and lasts a long time Effectuated: has been implemented within a public context Effective: evidence shows that it works.

Find wisdom.

Discover a sustainable food design outcome to try in your local context or a leverage point to intervene with social innovation. To do so, refer to our forthcoming book Critical Mapping for Sustainable Food Design, penned by Audrey G. Bennett and Jennifer Vokoun with a forthcoming publication by Taylor and Francis in May 2023.

Buy on Amazon

Terminology

wicked problem: a complex societal issue that exists within an evolving system of hyperlocal, context-specific, cross-cultural, and cross-disciplinary challenges.

wicked solution: a visualization of design outcomes for identifying leverage points that can shift the current state of the wicked problem’s system towards a sustainable future that is just.

leverage point: a place to intervene is a system to adjust it for the better.

Bibliography

Bennett, Audrey G. 2012. “Introduction: A Wicked Solution to the Global Food Problem.” Iridescent: Icograda Journal of Design 2, no. 3: 2–10. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19235003.2012.11428510.
Buchanan, Richard. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues 8, no. 2: 5–21.
Churchman, C. West. 1967. “Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems.” Management Science 14, no. 4: B141-B142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2628678
Meadows, Donella H. 1999. “Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System,” Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute. 1999. https://donellameadows.org/wp-content/userfiles/Leverage_Points.pdf.
Rittel, Horst W. J. and Melvin M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences 4, no. 2: 155–169. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4531523.
Rowe, Peter G. 1986. Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Directed by Audrey G. Bennett

BAO is a game played in Africa. Here it is used metaphorically to describe collaborative designing remotely. While other researchers have used the virtual design studio concept to represent computer-supported, cooperative work, these human-computer interactions are typically for professional projects (e.g., architects talking to architects). With Baohouse (pronounced Bauhaus), I aim to engage lay communities locally and remotely. It is an immaterial and motile space where I conduct theoretical and applied investigations on how “interactive aesthetics” can engage lay people with socially and environmentally transformative images that can yield cognitive and behavioral changes toward attaining equity and justice.
Marguerite Botha, University of Pretoria, South Africa (Children’s Health in SA)

Fatima Cassim, University of Pretoria, South Africa (Children’s Health in SA)

Chris Corneal (I Profess)

Mukkai Krishnamoorthy Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer (Diversifying STEM)

Alison Eardley, University of Westminster (W-iCAD)

Ron Eglash, School of Information + Stamps, University of Michigan (Diversifying STEM; Artisanal Robots; HIV/AIDS Awareness and Prevention; Humanoid Robots; and Life)

Michael Lachney, Michigan State University (Diversifying STEM)

Lionel Roberts, School of Information, University of Michigan (Artisanal Robots)

Jennifer A. Vokoun, Walsh University (Food Security)
William Babbitt, Research Associate, Rensselaer (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
Adream Blair (GLIDE’10-’12)
Gloria Gomez (GLIDE’10-’12)
Muthoni Kimani (GLIDE’12)
Michele Washington (GLIDE’08-’12)
University of Michigan Doctoral Students:
Kwame Robinson, SI (Artisanal Robots)
Caitlin Dyche, C&M, LSA (The Just Museum Experience)

University of Michigan Masters Students:
Megan Freund, Stamps (Diversifying STEM)
Kayla Guillory, Stamps (WSDOM)
Shelbi Lisecki, Stamps (Interactive Aesthetics)
Stephanie Szemetylo, Stamps (WSDOM)
Nicholas Lamarca, Stamps (The Just Museum Experience)

Rensselaer Doctoral Students:
David Banks (Red Card)
Brian Callahan (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
Michael Lachney (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
John Licato (Red Card)
Ray Lutzky (Diversifying STEM, DYF)
Marie Rarieya (Act Now)
Dylan Rees (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)

Rensselaer Masters Students:
Sarah Diodato (Act Now)
Angelo Gaetano (Act Now)
Mark Oppenneer (GLIDE)
University of Michigan
Rohan Agrawal (WSDOM)
Katie Bailey (WSDOM)
Tawsif Habib (WSDOM)
Chloe Hooker (Diversifying STEM)
Gautham Jayaraj (WSDOM)
Zahra Makim (WSDOM)
Michael McCallig(WSDOM)
Amirul Miah (Diversifying STEM)
Lara Niemchick (Heritage Algorithms)
Angela Ponce Solano (WSDOM)
Aaron VonBargen (WSDOM)
Daniel Williams (DESIS Lab)
Rensselaer Laura Antoniello (Social Media Marketing)
Zac Autio (Diversifying STEM, DYF)
Melissa Batalin (GLIDE)Joe Brust (Act Now)
Jesse Cline (Diversifying STEM, DYF)
Mackenzie Clippard (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
Joyce Edwards (Act Now)
Kim Gomboz (GLIDE)
Andy Lao (Social Media Marketing)
Ashlee Lindo (GLIDE)
Rajas Nagpurkar (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
Natalie Semczuk (Diversifying STEM, DYF)
Laura Sherman (Act Now)
Kelly Singco (GLIDE)
Donna Tytko (Act Now)
Carla Voorhees (Act Now)
Marcel Bennett (Diversifying STEM, DYF)
Moriah Harling (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
Jamie Park (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)
Jonathan Ward (Diversifying STEM, DYF)
Kimi Wenzel (Diversifying STEM, CS4HS)