More
than
Human
Design

A Mindful Intervention into Design
Kimia Gholami & Zahra Jalali

1

More-than-Human Design

A Mindful Intervention into Design

By
Kimia Gholami
Bachelor of Design, Industrial Design
2019, University of Tehran

Zahra Jalali
Bachelor of Arts, Visual Communications
2019, Art University of Tehran

A CRITICAL AND PROCESS DOCUMENTATION THESIS PAPER SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE
OF MASTER OF DESIGN

EMILY CARR UNIVERSITY OF ART + DESIGN
2022

© Kimia Gholami, Zahra Jalali, 2022

2

Abstract
This research is a critical quest to develop an inclusive More-than-Human
(MtH) Design Process that recognizes non-human beings as valuable participants. This approach is meant to actively acknowledge the interconnectedness and interdependence of humans and other beings and act as an intervention in different stages of the “Design Thinking” process that is based
on human-centred values. Through an MtH lens, this thesis questions the
short-term profit-based model in the design industry that primarily benefits
humans while bringing destructive consequences to the rest of the living
planet. These consequences, such as global warming, loss of biodiversity,
and environmental destruction, have foregrounded the need to take the
agency of non-humans more seriously in the design discipline. The MtH Design Process expands the human-centred design methodology by borrowing
methods from Interaction Design (IxD) and More-than-Human Participatory
Research (MtH-PR).
This work has been structured in four main sections. In part 1, re-frame, we
start our inquiry by looking at Interaction Design from a More-than-Human
perspective. We include a series of place-based explorations in Vancouver
B.C that challenged our old assumptions and biases towards different participants in design. In part 2, re-imagine, we work towards an MtH design practice by identifying its core values. These values guide several case studies
that demonstrate how an MtH approach can alter existing products. Part 3,
re-build, focuses on formalising the MtH design process by creating changes
in different phases of the Design Thinking process. The MtH Design Process
includes five steps – 1. Encounter 2. Learn 3. Plan 4. Map and 5. Build – all of
which offer multiple methods, prompts, and points of inquiry into the MtH
design practice. This work also includes the MtH design toolkit to support
its pedagogical potential. The final part, re-connect, concludes the work by
discussing the implications of MtH design and its potentials and challenges.

Keywords
More-than-Human, More-than-Human Design, Design Process,
Interaction Design, Design Thinking, Design Methods, Design Processes,
Design Methodology, Design Theory, Ecology, Nature

3

Acknowledgements
A Special thanks to our supervisors Garnet Hertz & Maria Lantin, for your
unlimited support, constant inspiration, and thorough reviews during this
entire journey.
Thank you Eugenia Bertulis, for your insightful feedback and thoughtful
comments on our document.
Thank you Louise St. Pierre and Laura Kozak, for always being incredibly
generous with your advice and support.
Thank you Christopher Hethrington, for your guidance and encouragement.
Thank you to our MDes 2022 cohort; we learned so much from all of you.
And finally, a huge thanks to our family and friends who supported us
throughout this experience, and our furry little friend, Gorbesun, who
always kept us company.

4

Table of Contents
Abstract & Keywords		
Acknowledgements		
Land Acknowledgement		
Glossary of Terms		
Introduction: Zahra Jalali
Introduction: Kimia Gholami

3
4
6
7
8
9

Part 1: Re-frame		
10
A Shift of Attention		
11
The More-than-Human World 12
Context & Research Questions 13
Literature Review		
16
Towards an MtH-IxD		
19
Methodology			21
Part 2: Re-imagine		
36
Re-imagining Design		
37
from an MtH Perspective
37
MtH Design Values		
38
Case Studies			39
Part 3: Re-build		
47
Making the MtH Design Process 48
Building off of Design Thinking 49
The Role of Place in MtH Design 50
Mapping MtH Participants
51
The MtH Design Process		
52
The MtH Design Toolkit		
58
Comparison: DT vs. MtH Desgin 59
Part 4: Re-connect		
61
Implications of MtH Design
62
MtH Design Community		
63
Conclusion & Next Steps
66
Final Words			67
Appendices
References

68
89

5

Land Acknowledgement
This work has been written and shaped on the unceded territories of the Coast
Salish peoples–Sḵwx̱wú7mesh (Squamish), Stó:lō and Səl̓ílwətaʔ/Selilwitulh
(Tsleil-Waututh) and xʷməθkʷəy̓əm (Musqueam) Nations. As uninvited guests,
we are grateful to live and work on this land and we hope that through this project
we can find ways to treat this place and all their beings with care and respect.

6

Glossary of Terms
Agency
“The capacity of an individual or thing to act, create intervention or influence independently” (Fletcher et al., 2019).
Design Thinking1
A widely used definition of DT given by Time Brown, the
CEO of IDEO is: “A human-centred approach to innovation
that draws from the designer’s toolkit to integrate the
needs of people, the possibilities of technology, and the
requirements for business success” (IDEO, 2022).
Human-Centered Design (HCD)
Human-Centred Design is an approach to problem-solving, commonly used in design and management frameworks that develops ideas by involving the human perspective in all steps of the process. HCD relies on narrative
design methods in which the “human” or the “user” is used
as a specific metaphorical inspiration for developing the
design.
Interaction (MtH Interaction)
Any form of action-reaction that exists between humans,
non-humans, and their surroundings.
Interaction Design (IxD)
The creation of a dialogue between a person and a product, system, or service” (Kolko, 2011, p. 12). The term User
Experience Design (UX) is the broader term used more
often in the industry that includes Interaction Design.
More-than-Human (MtH)
The More-than-Human world consists of humans and
non-humans and all the encompassing actors and systems.
2

Non-Human
Non-human beings are all the living self-originating entities of the planet except human beings.

1. In this thesis, we primarily refer to Brown’s
concept of Design Thinking. Both Tim Brown
and David Kelley (CEO and founder of IDEO)
are known for formalizing and popularizing
the concept within the design industry.
2. The term More-than-Human World, originally coined by David Abram (1997), was
introduced instead of “nature” to oppose the
nature vs. culture dichotomy and position
humans as a subset of nature not oppose it.
As Abram explains, the More-than-Human
world includes humans, but always exceeds
them (Garrison Institute, 2021). This research
also uses the term “MtH world” intentionally
to further step away from the otherness that
is perpetuated by separating human societies
and nature.

7

Introduction: Zahra Jalali
Growing up in a big city, I found myself deprived of nature. I was familiar
with the web pages on the internet, while I rarely encountered the beautifully crafted spider webs. I had a hard time leaving the city and the idea
of poor reception and not having a reliable internet connection made me
uncomfortable. Years later, I was conflicted with my urban environment and
lack of greenery. I was frustrated by the air pollution, traffic, and the buildings that blocked my view of the moon or the sunlight. When the pandemic
started and our lives suddenly slowed down, I realised how much I was missing my interactions, no matter how little, with the natural world. I inevitably
started to notice other beings living with us, and I learned to care for them
in different ways. I felt joy through their growth and was comforted by their
resilience. I sensed a strong connection to them and a part of me that I had
perhaps lost before. I was finally reunited with earth. This reunion made me
realise how my life has been constructed in ways that kept me from forming
a relationship with the non-human world, neither in my day-to-day life nor
in my professional career as a designer. The world that I knew was binary
(literally and figuratively). It was either Human or Non-Human, never both,
and not on the same level. Nature was a commodity; to use. Even after witnessing the implications of climate change endangering all living beings,
we still have to argue why we should save the earth, and strangely enough,
the answer is not “because we should” but “to save humans.”
I started my masters with a handful of questions: how can I really “reconnect”
with nature through my practice and put non-humans at the forefront? How
can I design interactions that emphasise this? What does that connection
mean in a highly digitised world? To explore these inquiries, I tried different
ways to know the non-human community that I shared space with and reflected on our relationship. As an Interaction Designer, I envisioned interactive interfaces that could redirect our attention to the natural world instead
of estranging us from it. All those attempts led me towards a collaborative
exploration with Kimia Gholami (MDes 2022), whose research was also centred around non-human beings. We started by experimenting with the tools
that we had been working with unquestioningly, only to realise that we were
perhaps limited by them. This realisation shaped our collaborative thesis
which turned into a critical quest on creating a More-than-Human design
practice that recognizes all beings.
If “we design our world” and “our world acts back on us and designs us” (Willis, 2006, p. 80), what and how we design is primarily a reflection of how we
perceive the world and how we wish for it to evolve. But can we expect a rich
and highly interconnected ecosystem to thrive when we do not even recognize the contributions of non-human beings in our efforts? To cultivate this
more-than-human recognition in design, we need a change of perspective
about the human-nonhuman relationship and our relative positionality. And
this change only manifests itself as we start to design for all beings, not just
humans, in our More-than-Human world.
Figures showing studio projects,
by Zahra Jalali

8

Introduction: Kimia Gholami
This thesis started as an individual exploration into the ways in which we
perceive, understand, and act towards the climate crisis; more specifically
how designers could contribute to a worldview that sees nature as a creative
realm with an active voice, rather than a resource for human exploitation.
Ecological crises demand more than a narrow focus on energy substitutes
and economic policies to face the challenges of the situation. In addition,
what we also need is a thorough and open rethink about our basic cultural
narratives and worldviews. “An alternative worldview to rival the one at the
heart of this ecological crisis, which is embedded in interdependence rather
than hyper-individualism, reciprocity rather than dominance, and cooperation rather than hierarchy” (Klein, 2014, p. 462). That being said,I initially set
out to explore the path of transition, going from feeling individually passive
and anxious at the face of climate change to being collectively active. Because of the complexity of this topic, I attempted to approach this matter
through a more personal path. What does this transition look like for me as
a designer? Navigating this research meant a lot of questioning, unlearning,
and re-learning for me. To bring others into this research without implicating myself in this change first was meaningless, and I want to reiterate how
my role as a designer throughout this journey has been filled with doubts,
questions, and discoveries.
My understanding of my research started to shift as I began to question
the meaning behind collective action. What does it mean to shift from the
anxiety individuals feel at the face of the climate crisis, to collaboration and
responsibility? How does it look to replace dominance with reciprocity, and
hierarchy with interdependence? Who are the beings we think of when we
talk about the notions of collectivism and collaboration? Are all of them
necessarily human? Through these questions, a clearer path of research appeared in front of me. Living in a world in which humans are always constituted through diverse webs of non-human life, how can we approach
collectivism in relation to non-humans, as well as humans? When human
life is constituted through a network of non-human forces, the idea of an autonomous and rational human self that can tackle this crisis by itself, seems
unattainable. If we take humans away from the centre of the action, how can
we build non-human partnerships?
From this point, this thesis fell into a more concrete place. To investigate the
power of partnership, Zahra Jalali (MDes 2022) and I decided to approach the
work on this thesis from this point of view as well. By combining her work
on reconnecting with nature, with my explorations on non-human collaboration, we attempted to question our practices as designers and sought how
we could shift it to better fit the urgent requirements of our time. Our collaborative work falls into two main parts: part one is an unlearning and self-reflecting journey, played through open-ended prompts and experiments. Part
two is a critical journey and rebuilding of an established practice through
exploring the notions of non-human agency, relationality, and reciprocity.

Figures showing studio projects,
by Kimia Gholami

9

Part 1: Re-frame

“...along with the other animals, the stones, the trees, and the clouds, we ourselves are characters within a huge story that is visibly unfolding all around
us, participants within the vast imagination, or Dreaming, of the world.”
David Abram, The Spell of the Sensuous

10

A Shift of Attention
This work started as a personal investigation into our own practices as designers. Witnessing the climate emergency, we wanted to act consciously
towards the living planet, but as interaction designers, we were not sure
how to translate a more sustainable approach to our digital makings and
workflow. Furthermore, we rarely extended our worldview to more-than-human beings as partners and participants in our design process. The past two
years made us rethink our practice as creators and pushed us to see it in a
new light, which led us to this collaborative project. As interaction designers,
we saw it fit to start this shift from within our own discipline. However, since
many Interaction Design (IxD) methods and underlying concepts are practised by designers in other fields, our exploration expanded to the general
design discipline and theories as we moved forward.
Throughout our experience in academia, we came across several alternative
approaches for designing in non-anthropocentric ways, all of which inspired
us to start this reframing journey. However, we felt like there was a lack of
a working non-human-centred design process in the industry that would
effectively account for our entanglement with the More-than-Human world.
To address this gap and while acknowledging the complexity of this topic,
we aimed to bring the worlds of design theory and practice together, as both
spheres offer their specific potentials and challenges. This work is meant to
challenge, inspire, and spark thought in different spaces of the human-centred design process that usually only focuses on humans and excludes other
beings. We invite an understanding of the unfolding relations between humans and non-humans and their capacities for enabling particular forms of
connection to the natural world. Through this work, we ask ourselves how
non-human beings can play a role in the design process to create a different
atmosphere and shift our current values, logic, and beliefs.

11

The More-than-Human World
In this project, we will use the term More-than-Human (MtH), initially coined
by ecologist David Abram (1997) in the subtitle of his book The Spell of the
Sensuous to oppose the term human-connectedness. This term was used by
Abram to describe the space of human culture as a subset within a larger
set. It emphasises that the human world is necessarily sustained, surrounded, and permeated by the More-than-Human World. As language carries the
weight of our actions and intentions, we refer to the More-than-Human
World not as an opposition to the realm of humankind but as an expression
of a realm that exceeds the human and the human-made.
By more-than-human actors, we mean all the living self-originating entities
of the planet. This world starts from the micro and expands to the macro and
could range from small non-visible entities such as microorganisms to more
noticeable flora and fauna species, natural forces that influence the weather,
ecosystem (e.g. the wind or rain), the physical environments that encompass these interrelated networks and are constantly shifting in relation to
them (e.g. the ocean, the soil, etc.), and humans as well. This complexity
itself shows the importance of changing perspective in the design process
as the so-called human-centeredness has been influencing far beyond just
humans.

12

Context & Research Questions:
Design in the Era of Ecological Crisis
The ways in which humans perceive and interact with the More-than-Human World have undergone drastic changes in the Anthropocene era. Fueled
by human exceptionalism and seeing nature as an endless resource for exploitation, humans have long overlooked the interconnectedness of their
livelihoods with other beings. The climate crisis and the loss of biodiversity
are perhaps the most prominent evidence of this dysfunctional relationship,
showing how imperative it is for the current status to change. Meanwhile,
design disciplines today are commonly involved in a service profession that
works towards meeting human needs (Friedman & Stolterman, 2018); a profession that is partly responsible for the planet’s ecological crisis by exploiting non-human beings, materials, and resources. In other words, design has
directly contributed to this ongoing crisis by attending to human-centred
values and framing out the rest of the living planet.
This research aims to be a More-than-Human exploration into the design
practice. A practice whose arc in the past thirty to forty years has been human-centred – conceptualising, attending to, and prioritising human needs
(Wakkary, 2021). While most human-centred approaches have been helpful
to enhance human needs and wants in terms of safety, health, convenience,
and pleasure, design has also been a part of a system that disrupts the
dynamics of the planet and endangers the life of non-human beings (and
consequently humans themselves). Although human-centred design was an
improvement on the technology-centred approach in the industry, some of
the negative aspects of HCD have been heavily intertwined with capitalism,
consumerism, and idealism (Wakkary, 2021).
To combat the shortcomings of the human-centred and profit-driven design
systems, there has been a growing body of work in the design community
that offers different ways of working, creating, and moving forward in the
post-Anthropocene era. A collective of these critical, speculative, and diverse
ideas and reformulations has inspired us along the way. Key amongst those
has been Tony Fry’s take on the term futuring to argue for design’s transition
from human-centred ideals to sustainment ideals (Fry, 1999) and moving
beyond the unsustainability of neoliberal capitalism. In the same manner,
Ontological design (Escobar 2018; Wiilis 2006; Winograd and Flores 1987)
invites us to see design as a world-building tool that has impacts beyond the
applications of a certain tool or product. Advocates for ontological design
aimed to radically reformulate human-centred design and its underlying human precepts (Wakkary, 2021). As Escobar argues: “It [ontological design] always entails reconnection: with nonhumans, with things in their thinghood,
with the Earth, with spirit, and with humans in their radical alterity” (p. 134).
Similarly, Enzio Manzini (2015), has challenged us to rethink the role of design and designers in contemporary society to reimagine their relationship
to addressing social innovation and building a sustainable and resilient
culture. Furthermore, in a recent framework implemented at Carnegie Mellon School of Design (n.d.), “Design for Interaction” has been introduced as
an overarching theme for multiple design tracks that recognize the natural
world as the context for all design activities. Another key design revisionist
approach has been Daniela Rosner’s “Critical Fabulations” (2018), which has
13

offered a critical inquiry that pushes design beyond its dominant paradigms
by foregrounding the long-silenced narratives of marginalised voices in the
practice. Finally, we also found inspiration in the works of ecofeminist scholar Val Plumwood (2009), who has challenged the fundamental assumptions
of human exceptionalism and the “forms of interaction” with the More-thanHuman world. In “Nature in Active Voice”, Plumwood argues that human-centred conceptual frameworks are not only a direct hazard to non-humans, but
are also an indirect hazard to humans, as they create an illusory sense of
agency and autonomy.
This research focuses on the nuances of modern commercial design and human-centredness in North-American and Western European industries and
seeks alternative approaches in those domains. However, it is important to
underline that Indigenous worldviews have advocated a harmonious way
of living with nature, long before western viewpoints. Both decolonizing
and Indigenous research have insisted on the need to draw on “subaltern”
and marginalised ways of thinking (Noorani, Bridgestock, 2018). As Dorothy
Christian, a member of the Secwepemc and Syilx Nations in BC puts it: “Indigenous perspective is very different from the Western mindset because
we contextualise our physical relationship with a multidimensional point
of view and with a multi-layered connection with seen and unseen beings
– we relate to the land, the waters, the animals, the plants, and the spiritual
realms. All beings are considered sacred” (Christian, 2013, p. 238). That said,
this research was conducted in Vancouver, BC, situated on the unceded territories of Coast Salish peoples. Our relationship to this land as uninvited
guests made us further reflect on our responsibility and contributions as
designers throughout this work, and made space for much necessary self-reflection and contemplation.
Drawing from these collective endeavours in the realm of post-anthropocentric design, we found ourselves questioning our ways of practice. We
asked ourselves, how can design take into account the needs and wishes of
the planet as well as humans? In an industry where HCD in many cases leads
to more profit by instrumentalizing the natural world, how can design be
framed from a More-than-Human perspective? What kind of interaction(s)
exist in this more-than-human space? Who are the beings that are involved
in this interaction? What are the implications of this interaction, and how
can they inform the design process?
To answer these questions, this research draws from the insights of Morethan-Human Participatory Research (Bastian et al., 2016) which argues that
our everyday social relations are always more-than-human social relations,
animated by the agency of non-human forces (Bennett, 2010). One of the
most recent examples of non-human agency would be the events following the COVID-19 pandemic, where many of our human activities, routines,
and relations were heavily impacted by a non-human force. Acknowledging our social, environmental, and political entanglement with non-humans
is crucial to recognizing the multiple points of action in a potential MtH
design practice. In developing our argument, we explore how adopting a
More-than-Human point of view could encourage conceptual and practical
reconsiderations of certain aspects of the design process and the end result.

14

15

Pacific Spirit Regional Park, Vancouver, BC. Photo by Zahra Jalali

Literature Review
This literature review explores the role of human-centeredness in IxD and
argues for a More-than-Human approach in the Interaction Design discipline. This proposed approach is inspired by the worldview of MtH Participatory Research and Posthuman Interaction Design. To better frame this design
approach in relation to the applied practice, this theoretical exploration was
complemented by a series of design actions that made us reconfigure our
interactions with the MtH world. This critical exploration and experimentation in the IxD field acted as a foundation for the development of the rest
of this work.

Human-Centeredness in Interaction Design
Many Interaction Design practitioners and scholars have attempted to define the practice in a way that encompasses all its potentials. While these
definitions may differ in some ways, what many of them have in common
is putting humans forward and emphasising the form of interaction with
humans and digital interfaces. John Kolko articulates a relatively different
description that defines Interaction Design as “the creation of a dialogue
between a person and a product, system, or service” (Kolko, 2007, p. 12). Using
the word dialogue in this definition and characterising it as “both physical
and emotional in nature” sets the foundation for a broader interpretation
that expands beyond a solely computational transaction, however, the humanistic approach continues to dominate the field of Interaction Design.
The concept of Human-Centred Design (HCD) has been around for a long
time. It found its way to most design disciplines of the time, and IxD was
no exception. HCD, in many ways, was an ethical improvement on the existing design methodologies of the time that were either driven solely by
technology or sales (E. Bertulis, 2022, personal communication, March 16,
2022). HCD also advocated for design opportunities rather than seeing design as just a problem-solving tool, presenting a challenge to the efficiency
of tech-driven products. Don Norman, who had an influential role in the
development of the IxD practice, introduced Human-Centred Design as a
solution by ”putting the human needs, capabilities, and behaviours first, and
then designing to accommodate those needs, capabilities, and ways of having” (2013, p. 8). Bill Moggridge, one of the pioneers of the Human-Centred
approach, mentions that as he was struggling to come to grips with what Interaction Design was, his first principle was to think about the people part of
the design process first: “Who are the users and What do they want from the
experience? What will give them satisfaction and enjoyment?” (Moggridge,
2007, p. 665). Similarly, in one of the other most-cited texts of IxD, Thoughts
on Interaction, Kolko (2007) suggests that “the value of interaction design is
in the creation of human-centred designs that better the daily lives of people and in the creation of societal frameworks in which to experience these
designs” (Kolko, 2007, p. 10).
As Ron Wakkary argues, while Human-Centred Design has been overwhelmingly successful in shaping human technologies to human needs and desires
in the name of human progress, everything that is not human has been depleted or made extinct (Wakkary, 2021). Certainly, the ethical considerations
and questions that were missing from HCD are now becoming more appar16

ent. For instance, to what extent are we willing to put human needs first, and
at what price? Why are humans the only involved individuals in this process?
Do we take into account the interactions that may happen afterward as a
result of our design? That said, now that we have witnessed the chain of
events caused by destructive human behaviour towards the environment, it
is clear that HCD tends to create a relatively biassed point of view by focusing on human users only. As Kevin Slain (2016) has stated: “When designers
centre around the user, where do the needs and desires of the other actors
in the system go? The lens of the user obscures the view of the ecosystems
it affects.”

Reviewing the Common Approaches of Interaction Design
To further discuss the need for a non-human-centred view in IxD, we review
some of the main approaches that guide IxD, and some of its recent alternative views. According to Dan Saffer (2010), IxD can be defined in three main
approaches: technology-centred, behaviourist, and social interaction. Views
such as technology-centred are perhaps outdated, limiting the notion of IxD
solely to the context of users and digital artefacts. The behaviourist view
responds to the psychological aspects of the field to address the qualities
of being human (thought, cognition, physiology, and so on). The social interaction view offers a relatively different approach, claiming that Interaction
Design is “inherently social, revolving around facilitating communication between humans through products” (Saffer, 2010, p. 5). The context of this view
is still limited to human societies only.
In addition to the three approaches above, there has been a growing body
of work in the field that offers different and critical perspectives on IxD.
Alex Taylor (2015) proposes the idea of Interaction design as a “World-Making” tool, in which IxD has been giving form to networks that mobilise and
entangle not just people and machines, but also produce what we might
think of as worlds—social, technical, scientific, intellectual, organisational,
political, and ethical worlds. This view starts rejecting the idea that humans
should be the epicentre of the world. By embracing posthuman values, this
approach turns on the outdated idea that there is a natural separation between people and things. In this view, the notion of non-humans is limited
to computers and machinery, and the said “worlds” are defined by human
constructs (e.g. social, technical, scientific, etc.), not extending to the natural
world. Another critical piece, “Design as Participation” introduced by technology researcher Kevin Slavin (2016), calls for the inversion of human-centred
design, emphasising the systems and the actors involved in it rather than
privileging certain users only. Slavin’s view is inspiring and presents an alternative way for designers to participate in the system alongside other beings, but it does not detail how one can pursue this form of participation in
the practice. Another view offers a relatively radical addition to the field by
including animals in the design. Animal–computer interaction (ACI) is a field
of research for the design and use of technology with, for, and by animals
(Mancini, 2017). Although ACI does not include other species of beings such
as plants and natural elements, It still expands the horizon of user-computer
research by pushing our imagination beyond the boundaries of human-computer interaction.

1. Slavin discusses a couple of existing
projects who have had a similar approach of
design as a participatory act, such as- Hy-fi, a
project for MoMA/PS1 by The Living (David
Benjamin), however a certain methodology is
not pointed out.
17

MtH Participatory Research Methodology
Among non-human-centred practices, More-than-Human Participatory Research (MtH-PR) is one that advocates for collaboration beyond human participants. The recent academic endeavours in this paradigm draw on diverse
traditions that challenge the Enlightenment and critique humans’ mastery
and exploitation of nature (Noorani & Brigstocke, 2018). While this field is
relatively recent, it borrows from legacies including Indigenous research,
Biopolitics, and Ecofeminism. Tehseen Noorani and Julian Brigstocke (2018)
review the contributions of this growing field in their collaborative piece
“More-Than-Human Participatory Research”, and argue for an alternative,
ecological picture of human social worlds. From this perspective, non-humans are not deemed as resources for human societies, nor as passive research objects to be studied or experimented on. Instead, they advocate
researching with non-humans in ways that are ethical, careful, respectful,
and collaborative. Proponents of MtH-PR have offered varied ways to invite
non-humans as active participants or to amplify non-human agency in their
research practice. Through their work, they have addressed the issues of environment, coloniality, science, and technology.
Noorani & Brigstocke argue that the field’s main principles are applicable
in other disciplines as well. To that end, in this research we seek to connect
the worlds of design methodology and More-than-Human Participatory Research. To do so, we were inspired by MtH-PR methods and precedents that
look at non-humans as participants in the research and explore the kinds
of ethical and relational considerations that arise from their participation.
A number of MtH-PR projects inspired our design actions and experiments
presented in part 1.5. Key amongst those were projects that included extensive exploratory fieldwork, participatory workshops, and soundwalks. These
types of methods aim to extend our sensory awareness into hidden aspects
of the environment and deepen our understanding of non-human participants (Pigott & Lyons, 2017).
Another key aspect of MtH-PR is the notion of empathy and the role it plays
in research. In a project that attempts to call forth empathy, artist-researcher Kat Austen (2017) focuses on creating a conversation between humans
and coral, allowing us to perceive other worlds at different spatio-temporal
scales. In doing so she suggests an embodied way of conveying knowledge
between humans and non-humans as the first step towards empathising
with other species. Furthermore, by reimagining and revising the binaries
of expert/non-expert, subject/object and human/non-human, MtH-PR questions the neglect of humans in taking into account the contributions of
marginalised voices (non-human participants). Arguing that communities of
non-human have long been relegated to the lower regions of social hierarchies for being assumed to be mute and passive (Pitt, 2016), MtH-PR challenges our previous assumptions of competency and inclusion.
MtH-PR attempts to show the complexities and nuances of conducting research with non-human participants. This includes paying attention to our
non-human social relations and questioning power relations amongst humans and nonhumans to develop methods that support more sustainable
ways of living. The development of our work was inspired by the attempts
of MtH-PR to conduct several design explorations and shift from the paradigms of human exceptionalism.
18

Towards an MtH-IxD
Interaction Design as a formal practice, while finding itself evolving in terms
of definition and approach, has been intertwined with certain qualities and
guidelines that forefront humans as key users and decision-makers. In other
words, IxD has been acting mostly in a remedial way: improving, serving, or
sometimes enriching the (human) user’s interactions with the technological
systems (Taylor, 2015). In doing so, it has failed to account for the wider relations that it creates within the connected network of beings in the world.
Taylor’s (2015), Slavin’s (2016), and Mancini’s (2017) views can be good starting points for decentralising humans in the IxD process, and they open up
the conversation about further questioning the essence of non-human actors and their role in the field. In a more recent piece, Ron Wakkary (2021)
criticises HCD and argues for an alternative approach through post-humanism.2

2. In his book “Things we could design for
more than human-centred worlds”, by weaving together posthumanist philosophies with
design, Wakkary argues that human-centred
design is not the answer to our problems
but is itself part of the problem. He also
focuses on design as “nomadic practices”—a
multiplicity of intentionalities and situated
knowledge that shows design to be expansive and pluralistic.

We see an opportunity for Interaction Design to adapt a More-than-Human
perspective by weaving the alternate non-human-centred practices of IxD
with the contributions of More-than-Human Participatory Research; one that
not only acknowledges non-human beings as participants but also considers
them as decision-makers throughout the design process alongside humans.
This approach is meant to act as an extension of Human-Centred Design as
they both overlap in taking into account the needs and wants of humans and
staying with narrative design methodologies. However, it does not carry the
world-view of “humans above all beings” and seeks to address both humans
and non-humans as valuable individuals and decision-makers. The forms of
interactions that are addressed in this view are both natural and technological, happening between networks of humans and non-humans and their
surroundings. The table below summarises the key approaches of IxD and
illustrates the MtH design view at the end (Figure 1).

19

Interaction Design View

The Approach

Design Goal

Technology-centered

Technology-Centered

Human-Technology Interaction

The Behaviorist

Human-Centered Design (HCD)

Human-Technology Interaction

Social Interaction Design

Human-Centered Design (HCD)

The World-Making

Posthumanism

Design as Participation

The Inversion of Human-Centered-Design (HCD)

Human-Human Networks of
Interaction
Human-Non-Human(Computer)
Networks of Interaction

Participation Within the System

Animal-Computer Interaction

Animal-Centered

Animal-Technology Interaction

More-than-Human
Interaction Design

More-than-Human

Networks of Human &
Non-human Interaction (Natural
& Technological)

Figure 1. Table showing different approaches in the IxD practice and the proposed addition.

20

Methodology:
Explorations of Displacement
In this part, we conducted several experiments to attempt to shift our placement of humans in design and take into account the nuances of interactions
that exist outside of the common user-product space. To develop this shift of
practice, we started from methods as they are the most integral part of many
design processes as well as the drivers of our individual design practices. To
challenge our existing knowledge of human-centred design and attempt
to reevaluate it in an MtH context, we set out to create design experiments
with the unconventional approach of including non-human participants. The
seven methods we chose for these series of experiments are as follows: 1)
Observation & Shadowing, 2) Sketching, 3) Personas & User Stories, 4) Empathy Maps, 5) Storytelling/Scenarios, 6) Interviews, and 7) User Journeys;
Many of which are commonly used in IxD and other design fields as well.
While our experiments may raise the concern that we were trying to apply
methods in a context where they were simply not meant to be in, we believe
this intentional [dis]placement could help foreground design for a highly
connected world, where human-made inventions affect more-than-humans
as well. Through this methodology, we tried to explore either the success
or the shortcomings of human-centred methods, and also understand in
the context of an MtH Interaction Design, which methods could be adapted, which could be borrowed, and which might need to be developed from
scratch. While we recognize the strangeness of some of the applications of
these methods, we used this strangeness as a tool to help us break away
from the rigid structures of Human-Centred Design that have been built
solely around human users. As Clara Mancini argues, in seeking to conduct
research with species other than humans, there needs to be a willingness to
explore the issues raised “with genuine curiosity, no matter how challenging
or ironic they may appear” (Mancini, 2012, p. 9).
Acknowledging the importance of place-based experiences in design, we
constructed most of our explorations at different locations in the local nature around Vancouver, BC. To identify the locations, we first had to clarify our
idea of “nature” as this notion can be conceptualised in multiple ways. From
21

the fields of psychotherapy and ecotherapy, Martin Jordan and Joe Hinds (2016,
p. 23) argue that while we use the terms “nature” or “natural” as shorthands
for out-of-doors or objects or processes with minimal influence of humans,
this distinction can also “cultivate a false dualism that obscures the inherent
naturalness of all human cultures and endeavours”. Here we also refrain from
creating a certain otherness when referring to nature or seeing it as a single
entity. Instead, we refer to “human experiences of nature” in the form of a spectrum (Clayton & Myers, 2009). This spectrum of nature has been expanded as
the following (Jordan & Hinds, 2016), which impacted our site choices:
1. Domestic Nature (e.g. house plants) 2. Nearby Nature (e.g. parks) 3. Managed
Nature (e.g. farms and agricultural areas) 4. Wild Nature (e.g. forests, animals,
wilderness areas that are remote, challenging, or purposely left undeveloped),
5. Wild Processes in the Human Body (Cryan & Dinan, 2012). In addition, we also
add two more: 6. Wildness (e.g. natural forces such as the wind) and 7. Sensory
Representations of Nature (e.g. binaural nature sound recordings).
This series of experimental design actions allowed us to rethink the methods
that are used in design, and attempt to develop alternatives that are more fit
to be included in an MtH pratcise. The documentation of these place-based
explorations and our reflections can be found in the next part.

22

Action 1.
Building New Affinities [Domestic Nature]
We identified “domestic nature” in our living room amongst the many houseplants that we interacted
with on a daily basis. This action took place when we found ourselves struggling to save one of the
plants alive after it was attacked by whiteflies. We first used home remedies, over and over. But as we
failed and the whiteflies continued to dominate the plant’s leaves, we were advised to buy a chemical
pesticide to see faster results. However, knowing how chemical pesticides are toxic and detrimental to
the environment, we realised that our successful attempt to help this plant ended up being harmful
after all. Left with a still struggling plant, we thought about the number of interactions that had taken
place amongst several humans and non-humans beings. Could we have possibly come up with an alternate solution if we had empathised with our non-human participants?
“Empathy” is one of the fundamental steps in the IxD process. Methods such as creating Empathy
Maps or Personas are commonly used as a way to help us gain a deeper understanding of the users
we are designing for. Whether we can “build” empathy with human users through certain methods is
now being questioned, especially when it comes to addressing marginalised populations (Bennett &
Rosner, 2019). But can we use tools such as empathy maps for non-human beings as a way of trying
to “be with them” (rather than trying to “be like them”)? (Despret, 2004, 2013, as cited in Bennett &
Rosner, 2019). Beings who can not talk in our language, and tell us explicitly what they feel and see? As
challenging as this was, we set out to create three different maps and personas for the main actors of
this action: 1. The Plant (Canna Indica), 2. Mites (Whiteflies), 3. Us (humans)

Reflection: Empathising with the More-than-Human World
While we can never claim that we can fully understand non-human beings through empathising, this
action helped us to push our understandings of what it means to relate to beings who live differently
than us, and accept our unknowing. Filling out empathy maps for other beings was challenging, sometimes uncomfortable, and made us doubt our assumptions constantly. But it also made us realise how
all the beings hold a unique life experience that contains interactions, actions, and memories.
In a conventional design process, when we draw empathy maps, we focus on the needs of humans
only and brainstorm our solutions to respond to their goals. Drawing three different maps for three
completely different beings with utterly different needs, made us wonder about the goals we address
through our designs. Usually, design serves a specific group of people who share similar needs, concerns, and demographic features. But here we realised how limiting that can be when designing in a
highly connected world, where our doings easily affect more than just those humans we depict in our
personas.
Perhaps, the main challenge here is to find a common ground between the needs of different beings.
At first glance, it may seem impossible to do so. Is it even viable to agree on one common goal? Or
are we too different to find commonality? Perhaps through a human-centred point of view, it is much
easier to put the needs of humans on top and justify their superiority above others. But by broadening
our horizons in the design process we may be able to design more harmoniously in an MtH world. But
maybe the empathy maps that were designed for humans were not supposed to work for non-humans?
So, how could we change them?

23

Figurue 2-4. Empathy Maps for the plant, whiteflies, and humans

Figurue 5-7. Personas for the plant, whiteflies, and humans

24

Action 2.
Shadowing hidden Interactions [Nearby Nature]
For “Nearby Nature”, we chose Memorial South Park. As we were spending time there, first we tried to
notice how people experienced and interacted with this place. Then, we shifted our attention to the
non-human beings interacting within the same environment. This activity is what design researchers
call shadowing; accompanying the users and observing how they use the product or service within
their natural environment. In our version of shadowing, we translated users into beings (human and
non-humans), and we observed how they interacted with each other and the environment. This interaction was identified even in the simplest of instances: like how a tree, the light, and the stone could
interact through shadowplay. Using our senses more purposefully, we tried to combat the noise and
the distraction of the human-built environment around the park, such as cars and traffic. Through this
activity, we reflected on the different types of interactions that exist in an MtH space and how they
relate to each other. We asked: how can we adapt a relational perspective to see things individually as
well as connected? And how can we bring this relationality into design?

Reflection: Noticing Our Interdependence
In a fast-paced world that is in constant transition, we have become used to the speed. Amidst all this,
maybe it is time for us to slow down, notice, and create meaningful interactions. In slowing down, we
can notice how other beings are living among us, on our land, and even in our homes, sharing space
with us. The nature of our entanglement is undeniably complex and extensive, but we can start by
first acknowledging this fact, and then uncovering our sometimes hidden relationships with the MtH
world. Perhaps, instead of putting the world in a hierarchical order, we can develop a meta-perspective
in which we position ourselves in relation to the larger systems while being aware of all the elements
involved. Slowing down and breaking down our attention could be the starting point of cultivating an
MtH approach in the way we see and interact with the world.

Figurue 8-9. The park through different perspectives (human and non-human): How do different beings see the park?
Memorial South Park, May 2021

25

Action 3.
Designing for Plant Communities [Managed Nature]
Community gardens have become popular spots of “Managed Nature” in Vancouver and other cities
that bring the people who share a love of nature and gardening together. In this action, we were mainly
interested in the design of the Davie Village community garden and how this design affords interaction
between its human and non-human residents. By taking a closer look at the materials, layout, and the
general design of the space, it was clear that this place was designed through prioritising the human
users over non-human users. To practise an MtH perspective, we decided to attempt creating an alternative community garden from the perspective of a non-human resident, the rose. To get started, we
chose scenarios as our main tool to describe what it will be like to use the product or service in the format of a story. In this case, we described the scenario from the perspective of a rose sprout, interacting
with this community garden (as a designed artefact).
Using the scenario and following tips from a resource on companion gardening, we sketched out a new
garden layout for the rose in a way that all the surrounding beings would either help them thrive or
protect them from harm. While adding the final details to our rose-centred garden, we wondered if the
concept of centeredness even exists in an MtH setting. This action was meant to decenter humans as
beneficiaries and amplify a non-human voice. Yet, we found ourselves assigning a humanistic attribute
to non-humans, which prioritise individual gain over collective growth. By centering the rose, we were
yet again obscuring our point of view, overlooking the rest of the beings and creating imbalance. That
said, now that we are at a point of unevenness on the earth due to human actions, can a relational
viewpoint be a more relative and balanced way of approaching this problem?
Rose sprout Scenario:
A rose sprout is born on Lot number 14 of the Davie village community garden. It’s a hot summer day in B.C.
She can feel the sunlight brushing on her fresh new leaves. She looks up. There is a vast blue sky above her
head, looking infinite. She thinks to herself, this is the best place in the world to be born at.
The sprout blooms and gets taller. Now she can see her surroundings a bit better. All around her are family
and friends. All huddled to protect and care for each other. She feels safe. She feels loved.
The young rose is now one month old. She has gotten so much taller but is still hidden amongst her family.
Through the small windows of her huddle, she can start to see things going on. On her right side, she sees
tomato companions just starting to grow. On her left, there is a family of mint that just moved there from the
lot next door. She feels happy. She has so many other friends to talk to, interact with, and learn from.
The rose is now three months old. Almost as tall as her sibling. She is tall enough to see her world from a
new angle, separated from the protective bubble of her family. Above her, the blue sunny sky has been torn
apart with huge chunks of tall grey cement. In front of her, she sees blurry objects zooming in and out, making loud muffled noises. Noises that are starting to disturb her. Constant and relentless.
She notices that her other side is empty, separated from other plants by a thick rubber divider that goes all
the way around her family and friends. She hates how that material feels on her leaves and petals. It feels
rough, ragged, and cruel. She tries to fight against it with her thorns, poking the rubber with all her power.
But it won’t budge. She feels trapped, in a place she doesn’t belong to. A place not made for her.
She thinks to herself, is she really supposed to be here?

Reflection: Learning More-than-Human Ways of Being, Knowing, and Living
A key challenge in these actions is the fact that we are speaking to the experiences of beings we can
never fully understand. We talk about the rose’s way of being and knowing in the text, however, is that
story perhaps associated with more human qualities than it should be? When we tell non-human stories, how can we recognize diverse capacities and ways of being that are different from humans? Can
storytelling be a way forward?

26

When we tell stories, it is crucial to value MtH agency, and also appreciate and learn their unique
non-human knowledge. But what does non-human knowledge look like? How can animal or plant
knowledge contribute to our way of thinking and being, and open our minds to a broader view on
life? Perhaps the first step would be to spend time with non-human beings to become more familiar
with the nuances of their characteristics. In this case, visiting the garden regularly and spending
time with the rose. Maybe this way, the human narration of non-human stories could have more
accurate representations embedded in them.

Figurue 10-12. Davie Village Community Garden, Summer 2021

Figurue 13-15. Rough sketches of the garden layout and their materials
27

Figurue 16-17. Rose-centred garden design
28

Action 4.
In Conversation with Trees [Wild Nature]
At first, we were sceptical about choosing interviews as our method since we thought it was impossible
to interview someone you could not have a verbal dialogue with. Then we decided to look at interviews
another way; as a means of communication, not a questionnaire. So, as we walked through the Pacific
Spirit jungle, we contemplated on what it could mean to interview an MtH being? Could we communicate with a tree, a sparrow, or even the sun?
Our first interviewee was with a tree in the depth of the forest. We wondered how we could start our
conversation. We tried photographing them, walking around them, recording their voice, and sketching. But none of those actions felt like active communication. We were trying to capture the tree
through our human perspective; the way we saw it. We wondered how we can give agency to the tree
when we capture it? For example, can the tree and us make something together? As we continued
experimenting, we realised the placement of the sun had changed and as it was shining over this tree,
beautiful shadows were being formed on the paper we were holding in our hands. It was as if the tree
was communicating with us through their shadows.
While we were interviewing the trees, we heard a sound. A bird had come close to us, ruffling the dirt,
and perhaps looking for food. Being unfamiliar with this type of bird, we sketched its movements while
she spent a while near us. At some point, the bird was interrupted by another bird. We did not know
their relationship, but it was clear by their reactions that they were not friends. Maybe the bird who had
come here first wanted to look for food without having company. Maybe if the bird could hide away for
a moment, she would enjoy her search more.
This thought made us think of making a birdhouse on the ground, one that would shield her from being
seen by others. We created a prototype using what we found on the ground. This was an early rough
prototype for sure. We still did not know much about the birds or whether this would become useful
for them at all. Of course, they are capable of tending to their needs as they have been for so long. But
speculating in an MtH space, we took this chance to practice making for non-humans and non-humans
only, without having humans or their needs in the picture.

Reflection: Communication with Non-Humans
As we reflected on our interview session, one thing that was clear to us was the importance of non-verbal communication, as a way of learning from non-humans. These non-verbal communications could
manifest themselves through acts of watching, listening, or material engagements. Our goal with these
interviews was to try and counter the assumption that non-humans are passive beings who do not have
intelligent offerings. We wanted to explore ways that show trees are not only actively engaged, but
also have their unique ways of being, and communicating. Although the result of our interview was a
visual document, we want to emphasise that what lies at the heart of this method is silence, listening
actively, and focusing, rather than using human-constructed languages. In our attempt to prototype,
similarly, we were trying to listen, observe, and learn without interrupting. We created a birdhouse
based on our assumptions. But were we helping or intruding? What stayed with us during this session
is how communicating with non-humans requires a different approach; one that welcomes ambiguity,
patience, and openness.

29

Figurue 18-22. The tree & interview documentations, Pacific Spirit Regional Park

Figurue 23-24. Sketch & birdhouse prototype, Pacific Spirit Regional Park

30

Action 5.
The Journey of Plants Travelling into Our Plates
(Wild Processes in Human Body)
Coming from a culture that values cooking, we are used to putting a considerable amount of time into
our meal preparation every day. Reflecting on this seemingly routine activity, we found ourselves interacting with multiple natural ingredients (non-humans) in our kitchen, through the actions of cooking,
making, and then within our bodies. In this action, we decided to see this story from the perspective of
the Saffron spice, and track its MtH experiences.
Saffron is one of the most important ingredients of Persian cuisine. However, we had never looked at
this ingredient as a significant non-human before. Seeing our relationship from a human-non-human
perspective, we were intrigued by how far this spice has travelled before reaching our plates. We decided to use one of the other most common methods of IxD, user journey, to see their interaction. User
journey maps are diagrams that depict the relationship between a user and an organisation, a product,
or an environment over a period of time. The following diagram depicts Saffron’s user journey, from
the moment it was planted.

Reflection: Recognizing the More-than-Human Intelligence
Cooking is a process that is both artistic and designerly. We learn how to cook by either observing other
people cook or reading recipes and watching tutorials. But the true education starts with working with
the ingredients themselves. That means the real knowledge of cooking lies within the plants, vegetables, fruits, etc., which we have accumulated through interacting with them. Positioning ourselves as
students of nature, even in the seemingly simple act of cooking, cultivates humility and sets the foundation for a relationship between us and non-humans based on respect and appreciation.
Seeking to understand the non-humans involved in design, we could regard the process as an apprenticeship (Pitt, 2016) with non-humans. A learning process through which an apprentice learns from
multiple sources of knowledge, but mainly the non-human expert itself. Non-human beings such as
plants have long been relegated to the lower regions of social hierarchies for being assumed mute and
passive to have anything intelligent to share. This neglect is hugely out of sync with their significance
to society and how entangled they have always been with human lives (Pitt, 2016). When designing for
or with non-humans, it is important to see hands-on experience of working with them as the best way
to extract that knowledge. “If plant knowledge is plant being, then we learn with plants by being with
them, by increasing proximity to them through interactive relationships” (Marder 2013, p. 7).

31

Figurue 25-26. Saffron user journey

32

Action 6.
Trapped in the Heat Dome [Uncontrolled Forces of Nature]
In the middle of summer 2021, Vancouver faced an unprecedented heatwave. As temperatures went
over 40, the city experienced many unexpected threats to its human and non-human inhabitants. We
decided to use the context of this uncontrolled force, the “heat dome” as our next design action.
While battling with the heat in our apartment, we noticed new patterns emerge amongst many of our
non-human roommates. Our plants, who were enjoying the sun at the beginning of the summer, dried
up faster. To save them from the scorching sun, we found ourselves moving their pots several times
during the day, according to the movement of the sun. Meanwhile, insects were thriving in the apartment. Before this, you could only spot a few of them every once in a while. Now, they were hanging
from the ceilings, zooming through the kitchen, and moving up and down the walls, looking pretty
unbothered. Fascinated by how differently we were all reacting to this condition, we mapped out the
placement of the MtH beings in the apartment according to the heat.

Reflection: Seeking Balance and Questioning Power Relations
As we were struggling to live through the heatwave, we noticed a small-scale demonstration of shifting
power relations in our house and a quest to bring some form of balance back to it. This was an interesting observation in regards to how easily power dynamics can change and accommodate some over the
other. Also, how we as humans stand in a more powerful position to others, while we were arguably the
reason behind that unprecedented heatwave.
Before the heatwave, we seemed to be more in sync with our surroundings (at least we thought). But
as the weather became unusually hot, the balance was suddenly off. When we were thriving, the plants
and insects were not. When the plants were thriving, the insects and we were not, and finally, when
the insects were thriving, the plants and we were not. This shift left us wondering about the notions of
agency and responsibility in a shared space with multiple actors who all have their own goals. Can we
pursue a common goal? As beings who started this imbalance in the first place, what is our responsibility towards it now? Working with MtHs in the context of IxD requires becoming aware of the hierarchical power relations that could potentially exist in not only our actions but in our mindset too. By
creating interactions beyond a user-product space, IxD could attempt to question our old assumptions
of competency, and encourage explorations that support wider inclusions and initiate non-hierarchical power relations.

33

Figurue 27. Mapping the movement of the sun in the apartment

Figurue 28. Diagram of Temperature and comfort level for three beings

34

Action 7.
Listening to Nature [Sensory Representations of Nature]
Interacting with nature is a sensory experience. We experience nature, not just through visuals, but we
listen, smell, and touch. So, when one of the authors took a trip back home to Iran, we thought it was
a great opportunity to conduct a design action via virtual mediums. For this action, we chose sounds,
as a more immersive medium that has the potential to engage people deeply and emotionally within complex events. These qualities make sound an interesting medium for involving non-humans in
research. But how well equipped are our listening skills to accurately interpret these voices? And can
sounds evoke empathy in connecting us to the MtH world?
The premise of the action was to listen to nature recordings and sketch out the first idea that came to
mind, identifying specific sounds, and imagining the setting, with no prior information. The goal was
to see how well we were familiar with recognizing non-human voices and experiment in sound sketching. No specific IxD methods were involved in this action. Sketching and visualisation (in broader
terms) were our tools.

Reflection: Tuning our Ears to the More-than-Human World
Learning from nature as an inherently interactive ecosystem can be a powerful way to become more
familiar with the MtH world and develop empathy towards it. But in an era where we may interact with
digital gadgets and devices more frequently than our physical and natural surroundings, how can we
perceive the natural world and better understand the MtH world through these senses in different socio-temporal scales? How would this sensory experience inform our relationship with them?
Perhaps, we could find alternative modes of communication with MtH beings through rediscovering
our senses. The act of listening is considered one of the least intrusive ways of taking part in a conversation, although it is most definitely not as passive as it may seem. Listening has agency, it has
certain responsibilities and ethics embedded within it. While “giving voice” to more-than-humans can
sometimes fail and lack substance, listening can sometimes be more balanced and suitable. IxD can
be a catalyst that advocates communication beyond words by facilitating interactive experiences with
more-than-humans. Exploring and evoking our senses more purposefully in a MtH context may help
us uncover our forgotten bonds and help us strengthen our relationship with nature.

Figurue 29. Sound sketches

35

Part 2: Re-imagine
“We don’t have to figure everything by ourselves, there are intelligences
other than our own, teachers all around us.”
Robin Wall Kimmerer, Learning the Grammar of Animacy

36

Re-imagining Design
from an MtH Perspective
We commonly refer to Design as a problem-solving tool or finding an opportunity for improvement and change. To do so, designers usually follow a set of
inquiries, such as learning about the problem space and targeted users, coming
up with ideas, testing out and prototyping, etc., all in hopes of achieving the
appropriate solution. In short, this process guides the designer by providing
tools and showing a roadmap. Although there is no definite meaning to what a
design process is and it can be different for different individuals, for many designers working in the industry, it is both a productivity tool and what enables
them to be creative and intentional at the same time; making it an integral part
of their workflow. It is important to notice how this process itself is essentially
a designed artefact; a tool that carries certain ideas, assumptions, and beliefs.
On that note, a worldview that prioritises humans above other beings produces
a design process that applies the same notions in practice, directly or indirectly.
These points clearly illustrate the capacity of the design process as a tool that
leads to creating certain situations and shaping the world. Therefore, to move
towards a More-than-Human Design, we first start by bringing our design values forward. These values help us mirror our human-nonhuman entanglements
in the design practice, and later guide the making of the MtH Design Process
and tools.

37

MtH Design Values
The MtH design values listed below have been derived from Part 1 of this thesis: “Re-frame”. These values act as a
manifesto for this approach and helped shape what in the end came to be known as the MtH Design Process.

Relating
While the notion of Empathy has a great role in developing recognition of non-human agency, we can never claim
to fully understand the lived experiences of other beings. To attempt to move towards an inclusive design, we refer
to empathy as “a creative process of reciprocation” (Bennett & Rosner, 2019). This is a way for us to relate to MtH
beings and pay attention to “the interplay of similarities and differences in our encounters with them” (Noorani &
Brigstocke, 2018). This relationality will in turn inform our understanding of those beings as collaborators in the
design process to help us come up with an outcome that would benefit the key “users” without harming the other
involved beings.
Unlearning
To better understand, experience, and learn from the More-than-Human world, we must look past many of our human-centred values. Unlearning is crucial in valuing the agency of the MtH world, and recognizing their unique ways
of being. “As active and knowledgeable contributors to social life, there is potential for non-humans to participate
in research” (Pitt, 2016).
Agency
To acknowledge our interdependence and the power of our actions, it is imperative to look beyond human communities and learn from more-than-human beings as experts of their knowledge. In an MtH design practice, the non-human beings are not considered as objects of study or resources, but beings of agency that we can communicate and
collaborate with.
Active Communication
While we use our words and means of communication to interpret and document our thought processes and observations, it is clear that communicating with non-humans requires a different approach; one that welcomes ambiguity, patience, and openness. We believe what lies at the heart of this communication is silence and active listening.
“Different modes of listening afford different ways of speaking, thus opening conversations to, between and with
the human and more-than-human” (Heddon, 2016).
Reciprocity
The dominant design culture in the Anthropocene era is heavily dependent on the profit-based industry and prioritising human needs over the planet. MtH design attempts to build futures in which humans and non-humans live in
harmony through reciprocity and acts of care. This means designing for/with the MtH world as the key participants
or bringing reciprocity in the forms of offerings, gifts, and daily rituals. As Robin Wall Kimmerer (2013) states, as
opposed to commodities, this way of living celebrates our kinship with the world and opens us to ways of living in
gratitude, richness, and generosity.
Openness
Collaborating and working with MtH beings may seem strange in some of the applications of the design methods
as we are used to working within human communities, but this strangeness could potentially ignite imagination to
help us break away from the rigid structures of design in an industry built around human users.

38

Case Studies
Devising the MtH values allowed us to shape our approach more clearly. To
see how those values could potentially alter design outcomes, we conducted a few comparative case studies on existing products on the market. We
purposefully chose products that were directly or indirectly involved with
non-human individuals to better identify their approach of inclusion in the
design. In these case studies, we re-imagined how these products could be
developed through an MtH lens, by implementing the MtH design values in
their concept and function.
These products were all chosen from the field of Interaction Design (website, app, plugin, service) that are currently in the market and have an engaged audience:

1. Pl@ntNet: Developed by Cirad-France (2013)
2. Google Maps/Google Earth: Developed by Google (2005, 2001)
3. Ecosia: Developed by Christian Kroll (2009)
4. Portal: Developed by Portal Labs Ltd (2019)

39

Case Study Report
1. Pl@ntNet
PlantNet (https://identify.plantnet.org) is an application developed by Cirad-France in 2013 that allows users to identify plants
simply by photographing them with their smartphone. PlantNet’s
photographs are collected and analyzed by scientists around the
world to better understand the evolution of plant biodiversity and
to better preserve it. PlantNet’s primary purpose is to create a visual inventory by encouraging people to submit pictures of different
plants.
This case study includes a general analysis of the target audience,
and identifying the problem space within this platform based on
secondary research and user feedback. Then by integrating some of
the values of the MtH design, we tried to envision an alternate app.
This app would not only help users identify plants, but also encourages further hands-on interaction to build a stronger relationship.
The new user flow focuses more on storytelling, exploring histories,
and would treat plants as active members of a community. Encountering a new plant is like encountering a new person; exciting, intriguing, and thought-provoking.

An alternate app with a MtH approach:
•

•
•
•

40

Does not solely focus on visual clues, but encourages users to
explore more sensory ways of knowing using sound, motion,
smell, and touch.
Avoids scientific classification & typology, focuses on a more
relational description based on observation and imagination.
Sees plants as the experts of their own knowledge, not as subjects of study: encourages more hands-on experience.
Is based on stories and histories.

Figurue 30. Pl@ntNet Current App userflow. from left: 1.User takes a photo of
an existing plant and uploads it into the
app, 2.The app gives the user the option
to choose between leaf, flower, fruit,
and bark, 3.The app identifies the plant
through its data bank and presents the
user with an initial name of the specie,
4.The app asks user to confirm their
identification or improve it by providing
more pictures, 5.After confirmation,
users can either browse through the pictures provided by other users., 6.Users
also get directed to websites such as
Wikipedia for further readings.

Figurue 31. The final results of the Pl@ntNet application being redesigned using MtH values

41

Case Study Report
2. Google Maps & Google Earth
Developed by Google, Google Maps (https://www.google.ca/maps)
is a platform that allows users to navigate their world through
real-time GPS navigation, traffic, and transit info. It also allows
users to explore their local neighborhoods. Google Maps offers
satellite imagery, aerial photography, street maps, 360° interactive
panoramic views of streets, real-time traffic conditions, and route
planning for traveling by foot, car, air, and public transportation.
The other product of Google, Google Earth (https://www.google.
ca/earth), renders a 3D representation of Earth based on processed
satellite imagery. This platform does not give out real-time data
but rather provides a relatively recent and more realistic visual report based on satellite imagery acting as a form of a visual archive
of the Earth’s surface.
By studying the target audience of these two platforms, and creating proto-personas we tried to identify the problem space of
these platforms in relation to MtH values. Google Maps and Google Earth are two different software packages with different objectives but they share a similar function; they locate the users in the
world and allow them to explore their surroundings. This ranges
from the built (restaurants, shops, and etc.) to the natural (Mountains, sea, jungles, and etc.). Google Maps however is more popular,
because it deals with peoples’ everyday activities (commuting to
work, shops, etc. and general way-finding). While Google Earth is
less “practical” on a daily basis, it is still used for entertainment
and/or by users who have a deep interest in exploring environmental and geographical data.
Bridging the two different functions of these platforms was the
objective of our redesign. We wanted to create an alternative Google Map platform in which users still benefit from the practicality
of an online map while simultaneously engaging with natural and
environmental data that Google Earth is partially offering. This
way, exploring and interacting with nature would not have to be a
separate activity but rather embedded in the user’s daily routine,
just like the real world. By integrating some of the values from the
MtH design, the design of an alternative platform would incorporate non-human activities on the platform, and would try to embed the real-time data from non-human beings into the everyday
life of users, alongside the already existing urban data. The goal of
this redesign was to bring MtH interactions into the user’s day-today life by engaging with the map.

42

Figure 32. Google Maps being redesigned using MtH values

43

Case Study Report
3. Ecosia
Ecosia is a free search engine (https://www.ecosia.org) based in
Germany that launched in 2009 and uses their profit to plant trees
and support reforestation-focused organizations. This browser
extension provides a search engine for users, and as they search
and surf the web, the platform uses the profit to plant trees where
they are needed the most. By prioritizing biodiversity hotspots,
bird migration routes, and environmental crisis zones, Ecosia has
partnered with farmers and local communities across the globe to
support climate action. Ecosia advocates for transparency by publishing their financial reports on the main page.
Based on the information gathered from secondary research, and
user feedback, the users are rather satisfied with their experience
with Ecosia. However, from a MtH perspective, there are two different approaches that can help guide the redesign process:
1. How can we improve the existing experience while considering
the agency of trees as well?
2. What stops other users from not using this platform? How can
we address this?
Ecosia is a great example of a digital product that aligns with MtH
design values. It is an everyday product that many use, but it is
also designed in a way that initiates pro-environmental activities
as well. There are several ways in which this platform can improve
and communicate even better to its audience.
An alternate Ecosia platform that embodies MtH design values
might include the following:
• Users are able to track their contribution to the reforestation
projects, and be notified of the location of the tree(s) that are
planted.
• Has a personalized profile that shows users’ daily achievements and the ability to set up goals. (e.g. to plant certain
numbers of trees)
• Boosting community interactions through showcasing a live
data-set.
Improving the search engine’s accuracy and usage flexibility. As of
now, compared to Google Search, Ecosia doesn’t provide the same
quality which may result in some users switching back to Google
when they are searching for multiple resources. Apart from technical improvements, being able to turn the Ecosia search engine
on and off quickly may help users to easily switch back or even
compare the two sets of results.

Figure 33. Screenshot of the Ecosia
search Engine, released in 2009

44

Case Study Report
4. Portal
Launched in 2019 by Portal Labs Ltd (https://portal.app), this application brings nature into your surroundings through cinematic visuals, 3D audio and smart light integration. Portal operates
based on the fact that spending time in nature is critical to our
mental and physical wellbeing. Being aware of the environmental
crisis that is ongoing, Portal points out the importance of environmental wellbeing for people and the planet, and attempts to
facilitate nature experience through its digital platform.
Portal provides an immersive nature experience for people who
may not have direct or immediate access to nature. According
to the current users, this app manages to provide a relaxing and
enjoyable experience. Overall, this app has proved to be effective
in delivering immersive experiences and keeping up with its mission. However, from the MtH perspective, there are several points
that could be addressed:
•
•
•
•

Are users encouraged to interact with nature outside of their
screens as well?
Do the users learn about/from the present MtH beings
through their content?
Is the agency of the recorded beings considered throughout
the app?
How is nature perceived through this app? Is it narrowed
down to a wellness tool?

Although Portal is aligned with MtH values in many ways, there
are still a few steps that could be incorporated into its design to
better represent MtH beings and acknowledge their agency. To
start with, the overall design and messaging of the app implies that
nature is in a separate realm from humans which further encourages human-nature divide. A MtH lens would point out the interconnectedness of all beings and highlight the existing relations,
no matter the physical distance, by pointing out that nature does
not necessarily have to be found in the wild.
Secondly, while interacting with nature is embedded within the
app features, it is important to not objectify the MtH world as a
tool that enhances the quality of our wellness. What should be
pointed out throughout this experience are different ways in which
we can connect with the MtH world and build relationships with
them. One approach would be adding more information and details about the present sounds and the recorded videos, besides the
provided geographical location: Who are we listening to? Where
do they live? How are they doing? Answering these questions
could evoke empathy and shift this experience.

45

Practicing reciprocity outside of this platform is another factor
missing from the Portal app. Now that we feel better through this
experience, how can we give back to nature and beings? How can
we contribute to their wellbeing? Living in the time of climate
emergency, it is important to bring attention to the wellbeing of
the planet when we are addressing them in the design. While it
may be challenging to incorporate this action-point within the app
itself, Portal could use their user-base and promote pro-environmental activities among individuals.

Figure 33. Screenshots of the Portal app, released by Portal Labs Ltd in 2019

46

Part 3: Re-build
“We encounter the deep question of design when we recognize that in designing tools we are designing ways of being.”
Terry Winograd and Fernando Flores,
Understanding Computers and Cognition

47

Making the MtH Design Process
In Part 1, we reframed the Interaction Design practice to view it from an
MtH perspective. Our work in reframe, left us with a series of questions and
reflections, but we were yet to translate those visions into an MtH design
practice. In Part 2, we aimed to reimagine an alternate practice through recognizing our MtH values and worked on a few redesign case studies. Insights
from the previous parts paved the way for us to begin making the MtH design process. However, devising a structure that can potentially function in
the existing industry is challenging in many ways as the infrastructure itself
is limiting. To that end, instead of coming up with a new structure, we sought
to intervene in different spaces of an existing design process to re-build it
from an MtH perspective. Thinking about human-centred design processes
and their use cases in the industry, we immediately landed on “Design Thinking” as one of the most dominant frameworks that is present in both industry
and academia. Prompted by the potential and the challenges that are presented in “Design Thinking”, we decided to use that as a basis for our work.

48

Building off of Design Thinking
Design Thinking (DT) is a strategy that aims to solve complex problems
through a user-centred approach. It originally came about as a way of teaching non-designers such as engineers and C-level executives how to invite
designers to participate in C-level meetings, facilitate workshops and apply design methods to a range of business activities including engineering
and financial planning (E. Bertulis, 2022, personal communication, March 16,
2022).With the rise of Human-Centred Design in the 80s and the formation
of design consultancy IDEO in the 90s, Design Thinking became increasingly
popular. By the start of the 21st century, many design disciplines, including
Interaction Design started utilising this approach to achieve practical results and solutions (Stevens, 2020). This process finds solutions that respond
to human needs and desires that are communicated through user feedback.
People, not technology, are the drivers of innovation, so an essential part of
the process involves stepping into the user’s shoes and building genuine
empathy for your target audience. According to IDEO, Design Thinking brings
the elements of technical feasibility, economical viability and desirability
(for people) together (IDEO Design Thinking, n.d.).
According to the proponents of Design Thinking, this approach has proven
to be a valuable addition to the design industry when it comes to creating practical and enjoyable products for a particular group of human users.
However, by going through the process (Empathise - Define - Ideate - Prototype - Test) and its outputs, it becomes clear that DT does not encourage
designers to consider non-human beings in their process. Additionally, although DT claims to work in tackling complex problems (e.g: environmental
issues), it does not reflect and implement the MtH values discussed above.
While some companies and designers attempt to tailor the process by adding more constraints and guidelines, the process itself does not advocate by
default for these principles.

49

The Role of Place in MtH Design
Design Thinking keeps people at the centre of the process (IDEO, n.d.). According to IDEO, a human-centred designer will arrive at optimal solutions
as long as they stay focused on the humans they are designing for. Similarly,
the tools of empathise, define, ideate, prototype, and test orbit around the
targeted human user – a user that is momentarily detached from their surroundings and their relationality to the MtH world. In contrast, MtH design
starts by situating the project and its involved beings in place and recognizing the numerous place-based forms of relationships between the user and
the rest of the beings.
By bringing attention to place (rather than the user), MtH Design emphasises
the series of interactions and impacts that are caused by the design output
or process. These impacts are intertwined with the locality of the design,
meaning the place from which a design emerges (place of origin) and/or the
place its impact reaches. Recognizing and learning about these areas helps
us identify the human and non-human participants of the design, and also
the affected systems that encompass all the involved beings. Therefore, MtH
design advocates a practice that is relational to place. This relationality also
means that the responsibilities, constraints, and opportunities embedded
within each place are different and can also change over time.
Having that said, it is important to consider how some of the current digital
products or platforms are widely spread across the world or have decentralised operations, which makes them hard to ascribe to certain locations
only (e.g. Google Maps). In this case, there are still factors such as physical infrastructure (e.g. server warehouses) and energy usage that pins down
their physical footprint. Additionally, places of impact can be much more
abundant than the place of origin or could be drastically different in terms
of environment or beings. On that account, this research encourages a dynamic practice that allows designers to collaborate across the local and
global region and recreate, adjust or modify the MtH design process according to the place and the involved more-than-human beings.

50

Mapping MtH Participants
In MtH Design, participants are considered to be all the beings (human and
non-human) that have interactions and relations with the design. MtH Design acknowledges that the design’s impact always reaches beyond human
societies. In other words, we are always designing for the MtH world, even if
our design is targeting human users. Therefore, it is crucial to acknowledge
all involved individuals throughout the process. When it comes to designing
for human users, MtH Design continues to borrow from HCD tools to understand their pain points and needs, but what it aims to add is an expansion
of our attention to all the living beings that are affected by the outcome, or
during its process.
The visualisation below illustrates the varied range of participants in the
MtH design. These individuals are visualised in a spectrum based on their
level of involvement or interaction with the design (Fig. 34). The user (human or non-human) usually has the most interaction with the design, but
that does not mean that the rest of the individual beings are any less important or irrelevant throughout the design process.

The More-than-Human World

Participants
(Indirect Interaction)

Participants
(Direct Interaction)

User
(Participant)
Design

Figure 34. Diagram showing the impact of design beyond users, affecting the participants who have direct and indirect interaction with the design/design process,
all situated in the MtH World
51

The MtH Design Process
Here is the outline of the MtH design process and its steps. Each step includes several tools and methods to navigate
through the MtH design. These tools are categorised by the involved individuals: human, non-human, and both (MtH)
to pave the way for mapping out human and non-human interactions. Some of these methods are inspired by the
common Interaction Design tools, however, they can potentially be used in other design disciplines as well. While
these tools are offered as a part of the design process, we do not claim them as the only resources that can serve
this goal. On the contrary, we encourage this library to be open-ended so others could come up and share their own
tools. Collaboration is an integral part of the MtH design process, both in the actions, and also in the formulation
of the process itself. Therefore, we want this process to be an ever-evolving piece that welcomes change and improvement according to the MtH world. The iterations and the documentation of the making of the process could
be found in Appendix A.

1.
Encounter

52

2.
Learn

3.
Plan

4.
Map

5.
Build

1. Encounter
The More-than-Human World
In the first stage of the MtH design process, the designer tries to situate
the project within the environmental/social and geographical context, and
recognizes all the affected individuals including but not limited to targeted
users.

1

Situate:
Situate the project in the place. Find out where it is located and how far
its impacts will reach. Reflect on the responsibilities and ethical considerations within this place.
Recognize:
Identify all the MtH participants (humans and non-humans) besides the
user who may be affected throughout this design process and/or after its
implementation in a real-world context.

Questions to explore:
• Where does this project take place?
• What are the responsibilities & ethical considerations within this
place?
• What are the constraints and limitations within this place?
• How far will the environmental impacts of this design expand?
• Can you identify all the MtH participants of this design? How?
• Have you recognized what types of animals, plants, elements, or
non-human beings could be impacted by this design (throughout the
design process and afterward)?

Supporting Tools
Non-Humans

MtH (Humans & Non-Humans)

Action-oriented prompts
Natural Probes
Natural Humility

Seek collaboration
Identify participants
Land histories & stories

53

2. Learn
from The More-than-Human World
In the second stage of the MtH design process, the designer attempts to empathise with all the key MtH participants and identify their relation to each
other. The goal of this stage is to define the project based on common goals
between involved/affected participants and the targeted user(s).

2

Empathise:
Empathise with the MtH (human & non-human) participants and learn
from them as experts of their knowledge. We reiterate that empathy is
cultivated not by trying to become another but by focusing on the similarities and differences in our encounters with non-human beings (Noorani &
Brigstocke, 2018), and the ways we relate to them.
Define:
Define the problem space, project scope, considering the individual and
shared goals of all participants.
Questions to explore:
• How can you empathise with all the human and non-human participants of your design?
• How can you communicate with your non-human participants? Did you
learn from them as experts of their own knowledge?
• Can you define the problem space, project scope, and identify the individual and shared goals of all involved beings?
• Can you identify spaces of conflict and tension amongst your participants?
• Can you identify mutual benefits between all participants in a competitive situation?

Supporting Tools

54

Non-Humans

Humans

MtH (Humans & Non-Humans)

Non-human communication
Personification
MtH Narratives
Experience Map

Interview
Personas
Scenario & Storytelling
Journey Map
Cultural Probes
Competitive Audit

Mindful Shadowing
MtH Empathy Maps
Mapping MtH Relations

3. Plan
with The More-than-Human World
In the third stage of the MtH design process, the designer ideates for potential design solutions, while including all MtH decision-makers -human and
non-human- in order to come up with an inclusive design.

3

Ideate (MtH alternative thinking):
Ideate through an MtH lens; reevaluate your ideas and make sure they are
not addressing certain users while being destructive or ignorant to the rest
of MtH participants.

Questions to explore:
• Have you come up with a multitude of inclusive design ideas?
• Did you speculate using the question of “What if?” to think about alternate situations?
• What sensory modes of design might be most effective in this project?
• Is co-design helpful in this project? How can you plan a co-design
session with your participants?
• Can this design benefit from decentralisation, diversity, and redundancy
to increase resilience?

Supporting Tools
MtH (Humans & Non-Humans)
Brainstorm
MtH Sketching
Sensorial Ideation
MtH Storyboard
MtH Provocation
Co-creation

55

4. Map
More-than-Human Futures
In the fourth stage of the design process, the designer speculates about
alternate futures or systems that may affect the design and reevaluate the
design accordingly.

Speculate:
Speculating about the alternative systems and worlds in which the design
would exist helps us identify potential future hazards and prevent unwanted results when the product enters the world.
Reimagine:
Evaluate your design based on the insights you gained from the “speculate”
step and go back to the planning stage if necessary.

Questions to explore:
• How would your design exist in alternate worlds and futures?
• How might the launch of this design affect the current ecosystem?
• How might this design affect the other beings that inhabit the environment? (people, animals, plants, natural elements, etc.)
• Did you leave room in your design for re-considerations? What kind of
changes can be made in your design?

Supporting Tools
MtH (Humans & Non-Humans)

Future Pathways
Alternate History

56

4

5. Build
for The More-than-Human World
In the final stage of the design process, the designer starts building the
design and testing it out for further feedback and iteration. After final revisions, a Production & Time Guideline is devised to make sure the future
implementation and developments are in line with the MtH design goals &
values.

5

Prototype & Test:
Be mindful of prototyping and testing. Consider the MtH participants who
may get affected by this design, but are not present during the test sessions. Make sure that the design will perform in an interconnected world
affecting humans and non-humans.
Production Guideline:
The development and production of any design artefact may involve materials, tools or methods that are not necessarily covered throughout the design process. Furthermore, the production may be handed over to another
team in many cases, which makes it harder for the design team to stay involved. To help navigate the building phase, create a production guideline
to make sure that the development will comply with the values of the MtH
design as much as possible (e.g. using more sustainable resources, etc.). As
the projects may be multidisciplinary, involving experts and consulting other collaborators are highly encouraged throughout this step.
Future Timeline:
The conditions in which a design has been created will change at some
point and the design outcome is not to remain the same. Set a timeline for
re-evaluating the design in future. Analyse emerging situations and adjust
the design accordingly.

Questions to explore:
• What are the development strategies of this project? Regarding Resource use, waste systems, and production management?
• What are the project’s guidelines around data protection and privacy?
(If applicable)
• What is the timeline of evaluations for your project?
• Have you chosen the best design option based on the criteria from the
previous stage? If not sure, the MtH design encourages iterations. Go
back and revisit your design decisions.

57

Supporting Tools
MtH (Humans & Non-Humans)

Low to high fidelity prototyping
Production Guideline
Future Timeline

Humans
Concept Testing
Usability Testing
A/B Testing
Guerrilla Testing
Wizard of OZ

The MtH Design Toolkit
The MtH design toolkit was created as a pedagogical tool for instructors
and students to explore the MtH methodology. This toolkit makes the application of this process easier by offering a card set and a guiding booklet.
The cards span the steps of the design process, summarise the goals for
each step, and review the suggested methods in separate cards. This card
set can also be used by individual designers or in design teams who either
want to apply the MtH Design Process step-by-step or simply try out an alternative approach in their practice. The accompanying booklet (Appendix
C) provides an in-depth description of the design process and its steps – Encounter, Learn, Plan, Map, Build – and gives detailed instructions for each of
the suggested methods. We hope to enrich this booklet by adding tangible
case studies and examples in the future.

Figure 35. MtH Design Cards
58

Comparison:
Design Thinking vs. MtH Desgin
The MtH Design Process was created based on Design Thinking. While these
two share some similar features such as following narrative-based design
methods and focusing on steps like Ideation, prototype, and test, there are distinguishable differences between the two. Firstly, MtH Design recognizes all
affected beings as participants, while DT actively focuses on humans as its key
decision-makers. Consequently, the MtH Design Process situates the project in
the environment and attempts to acknowledge socio-cultural and historical
backgrounds in the first step. Furthermore, understanding the needs and wants
of different beings is a necessary step to find the common goals and identify
the problem space. Meanwhile, DT mainly focuses on the insights generated
from human users to define this space. DT encourages an iterative approach
so we could achieve a minimum viable product in the end. However, MtH dedicates more time to analysing the ideas from an MtH lens and speculating
about different systems and situations that may affect the design in the future,
especially witnessing the climate emergency. The attempt to come up with
adaptable solutions is also pursued after building the design in the final steps
of the MtH process: production and time guidelines. This step could be done
with different levels of detail according to the project scope and involved disciplines, however, this is another attempt to keep the design team involved in
the implementation phase and make sure the MtH values are carried out accordingly. Finally, creating a timeline for future iterations ends the MtH design
process, another emphasis on the ever-changing conditions of the world and
countering the notion that a design outcome should last forever.

Figure 36. DT vs MtH Design Process comparison

59

Figure 37. DT vs MtH Design Process - steps comparison

60

Part 4: Re-connect
“Opening oneself to the wild world and describing what one finds with love
and passion is itself a political and spiritual act.”
Peter Reason, Transformations of time on ecological pilgrimage

61

Implications of MtH Design
While working on creating an MtH Design Process, one of our main challenges was coming up with ways to bring these ideas outside the academic
space and into the outside world, which is often much more constraining.
Having worked in the industry and on time-sensitive projects that follow
a rapid workflow, we knew how difficult it would be to implement a slower
(and more mindful) way of working in this system. However, we strongly believe that change can start small in a gradual process. That is why we think
of MtH design as an adaptable process that encourages designers to modify
it to fit their own way and pace of working to create small yet effective pockets of change in the system.
We acknowledge the challenges that will possibly come with adopting the
MtH approach, which would require breaking away from the systems that
encompass and affect us in various ways. These challenges can be identified
in two main categories: 1. Financial challenges, and 2. Systematic challenges. Working in our current profit-driven design system is not only easier but
is also more financially viable. If designers are willing to make this shift to
work towards an MtH practice, being aware of the financial matters of their
work is required to make an informed decision. While making this transition
is clearly harder for some than others, it is important to keep in mind the
small changes that can be made from within the system. From the industry’s
perspective, shifting to another workflow may seem costly or unnecessary,
but having seen the recent environmental crisis, adapting an MtH approach
could lead to long-lasting stability that benefits all participants rather than
a short-term profit that benefits only a particular group of humans. Systematic challenges are another barrier for designers when trying to transition to
this alternate process. Working in larger systems or corporations means less
and less independence for individuals who have to operate based on strict
company guidelines and policies. We again acknowledge that making this
shift will not be easy and practical for all individuals, and for those who do,
it certainly would not come without a price. However, we believe that an MtH
perspective can be brought into the design industry gradually, incrementally,
and on different levels. Finally, even though we know that the conditions of
today’s industry are constraining and limiting, what MtH Design encourages
is taking smaller steps and moving forward.
62

MtH Design Community
Design practice constantly evolves both in industry and academia as part
of a community that strives to make a change and empower the design
practice. Acknowledging this community, it is essential to make space for
MtH design as well. There are many ways to approach this goal, however, academic institutions can formally bring this community together. Introducing
a More-than-Human perspective into design pedagogy provides a platform
for engagement among emerging designers which will, in turn, streamline
a transition in the industry. Emily Carr University of Art + Design has been
working towards this goal by devising classes that amplify the livelihood of
more-than-human beings and forefronting place-based practices, land responsibility, and indigenous knowledge.
Throughout this research, we also facilitated two workshops in collaboration
with Marcia Higuchi (MDes 2022) in Fall 2021 and Spring 2022, supported
by the DESIS Lab at Emily Carr University. These workshops aimed to highlight the role of non-human beings as potential participants and partners
in the creative process. From contemplation to tangible making, facilitating
these workshops presented the value of active inquiry, group engagement,
and open exploration in the MtH world. Having gathered valuable insights
and feedback from these sessions, we think workshops can be a great way
to introduce the MtH process in a class setting or even in a design studio.

63

Workshop
My Creative Partner | Reflecting on Our More-than-Human Interactions
In March 2022 we facilitated a workshop with Marcia Higuchi, supported by the DESIS lab in Emily Carr
university. This workshop was meant to encourage participants to practise creating, in partnership
with MtH beings. On the day of the workshop, as participants entered the room, they encountered a
big table filled with rocks, leaves, sand, sea water, and ect. who were our MtH guests. Participants were
prompted to choose one of the beings as their creative partner for the workshop.
This workshop had been broken down to three main parts: 1. a short guided meditation followed by
storytelling 2. filling out an MtH empathy map for their MtH partner. 3. practising making as an act of
care towards the MtH world. The meditation was meant to bring attention to the sensory and tactile
experiences and guide participants to reflect on their memories or previous encounters with their MtH
partner. The participants shared personal stories about why they chose a certain being and what they
discovered from them as they held them during the meditation. Filling out the empathy maps was
challenging for many, as we assumed it would be. However, the group were creative in their approach
and ended up with varied ways of expressing MtH empathy and relationality. After a discussion with
the group, we concluded that there was power in acknowledging contradictions and accepting our lack
of knowledge towards the MtH world. This also helped us recognize more-than-humans as beings who
have unique life experiences, histories and interactions.
In the final part, the participants were presented with a range of making materials to choose from.
All materials were driven from natural resources. This prompt was focused on the act of making as a
way of freely practising reciprocity and creating in collaboration with an MtH partner. Some chose to
make symbolic offerings: a water slide for the sea water, or a container that held the soil (since the soil
usually supports and “holds” other beings). Others recreated the forms and shapes of the beings, as
a way of learning and being guided by their MtH partners. In the end, we discussed how having space
for exploring with MtH beings as collaborators encourages experimenting and active learning without
having to worry about a potential “design” solution. We were inspired to see how everyone engaged
and related to their MtH partner in their own unique ways and contributed to the workshop by embracing the unknowing. In the end, the participants left their makings behind so all the beings could be
brought back to where they were found, and the materials to be recycled. Leaving behind the makings
was another attempt to acknowledge how we were not to “own” any of the beings or the creations, but
to encounter them, collaborate with them, and part ways.

Figure 38. Participant choosing their MtH partner, photos by Yun Xiao
64

Figure 39-43. Workshop documentation, photos by Yun Xiao

65

Conclusion & Next Steps
This thesis is an exploration of a More-than-Human approach in the design
practice. An exploration that heavily relied on collaboration and partnership,
not only because of the complexity of the topic, but also because of the humble
role we play as designers within the entangled network of humans and non-humans. This research was a collaboration between the two of us, with our peers
and faculty, and with the non-human beings who we learned from throughout
the process. This work could not have happened without these forms of partnership and shared knowledge. As designers and researchers, we strongly feel
that there should be more space and encouragement for collaboration in design research, and we hope this co-authored piece highlights the potential and
possibilities of this type of work. We hope to be able to share this work online
and continue to evolve and grow through forming more collaborations.
In this thesis, we re-framed the IxD practice from an MtH perspective, re-imagined the ways in which we can develop an MtH design practice, and re-built
the design process to address the entanglement of the MtH world. In re-connect, we talk about the implications of this type of methodology and the role
of the design community in giving voice to alternative approaches. We will
continue our endeavours by enriching these preliminary methods to create a
more extensive guidebook for the MtH Design Process in the future. We hope
that by sharing and building upon this work, we will continue testing out, revising, and refining what it means to design for an MtH world. As we continue
working in this community, we will keep asking questions and work to discover
more meaningful and insightful ways of navigating our practice in these urgent
times. We can always talk about a certain future where we have the right tools
and means to practise an alternate way of design; where profit does not lead
the industry, and humans are not the only group of individuals determining
the livelihood of all beings. No matter how reassuring it is to envision an ideal
time when other ways of practice are welcomed, that is not the time we are
living in. As Donna Haraway argues, “staying with the trouble” does not involve
future times, but it is to be truly present. “Our task is to make trouble, to stir up
potent responses to devastating events, as well as to settle troubled waters and
rebuild quiet places” (Haraway, 2016, p. 1).

66

Final Words
This collaborative project was an insightful journey for me to situate myself as
a designer and position my practice in relation to the More-than-Human world.
There are many questions that have not been answered yet, but what matters is
to keep searching and exploring. This can be particularly difficult as design students are often taught to work in certain ways unquestionably, but fortunately
being in this program equipped us with the means to think beyond the said
paths and even build our own. Design has the power to shape our world, for
better or worse, and what we aimed to achieve in this project was to envision a
design methodology that serves all beings, not just humans. We are still faced
with many uncertainties, but I hope what we presented here as the MtH Design
Process encourages more individuals to reevaluate the systems that directly or
indirectly affect our efforts, and not to be overwhelmed but to intervene. I am
excited to share this collaborative work and continue to learn and unlearn as
we move forward.
Zahra Jalali

This project started as an individual exploration into the ways in which we
perceive, understand, and act towards the climate crisis and how designers
can help build a world that is more than just for human exploitation. I started
out by asking “What is my role as designer in the era of ecological crisis?” and
“What does this mean for me as a designer?” To investigate this topic and offer
a path forward for designs who like us found themselves at a point of uncertainty, we worked through a series of collaborative work and research. At the
end, we took Design Thinking as a framework and extended it through a More
than Human approach: the ending result is a design methodology that helps
designers explore non-human-centred methodologies. This work has been
hugely challenging and yet inspiring. I believe this work helps distribute our
findings in a clear way, and I look forward to finding new ways of growing and
working though this new path.

Kimia Gholami

67

Appendices

68

Appendix A
Making the MtH Design Process

69

70

Appendix B
MtH Design Process Guiding Booklet

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

References

89

References
Abram, D. (1997). The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a MoreThan-Human World (1st ed.). Vintage.
Austen, K. (2017). Mediating for Climate Change: Falling Up to Hyperignorance, Diving Down to Deep Waters, to Touch Other(s) (and Ourselves). Oxford Artistic and Practice Based Research Platform. http://www.oarplatform.
com/mediating-climate-change-falling-hyperignorance-diving-deep-waters-touch-others-ourselves/
Bastian, M., Jones, O., Moore, N., & Roe, E. (2016). Participatory Research in
More-than-Human Worlds (Routledge Studies in Human Geography) (1st ed.).
Routledge.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Bennett, C. L., & Rosner, D. K. (2019). The Promise of Empathy. Proceedings of
the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.
org/10.1145/3290605.3300528
Brown, T. (n.d.). How do people define design thinking? IDEO | Design Thinking.
Retrieved February 2022, from https://designthinking.ideo.com/faq/how-dopeople-define-design-thinking
Carnegie Mellon School of Design. (n.d.). Program Framework. School of Design,
Carnegie Mellon University. Retrieved March 10, 2022, from https://design.cmu.
edu/content/program-framework

Christian, D. (2013). Untapping Watershed Mind. In C. Chen, J. MacLeod, & A.
Neimanis (Eds.), Thinking with Water (pp. 232–253). McGill-Queen’s University
Press.
Clayton, S., and G. Myers (2009). Conservation Psychology: Understanding and
Promoting Human Care for Nature (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
Cryan, J. F., and T. G. Dinan (2012). ‘Mind-altering Microorganisms: The Impact
of the Gut Microbiota on Brain and Behaviour’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13,
701–12.
Despret, V. (2004). The Body We Care for: Figures of Anthropo-zoo-genesis. Body & Society, 10(2–3), 111–134. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1357034x04042938
Despret, V. (2013). Responding Bodies and Partial Affinities in Human–
Animal Worlds. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(7–8), 51–76. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0263276413496852
Escobar, A. (2018). Designs for the Pluriverse: Radical Interdependence, Autonomy,
and the Making of Worlds (New Ecologies for the Twenty-First Century) (Illustrated ed.). Duke University Press Books.
90

Fletcher, K., Pierre, S. L., & Tham, M. (Eds.). (2019). Design and Nature: A Partnership (1st ed.). Routledge.
Friedman,K., Stolterman, E. (2018). Series Foreword. In Rosner D. K. Critical
Fabulations: rewording the methods and margins of design. (1st ed., p.p ix). MIT
Press.
Fry, T. (1999). New Design Philosophy: An Introduction to Defuturing. University
of New South Wales Press.
Garrison Institute. (2021, June 17). The More than Human World with David
Abram [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_2B5lyNt_o
Haraway, D. J. (2016). Staying with the trouble: Making kin in the chthulucene.
Duke University Press.
Heddon, D. (2016). Con-versing: Listening, speaking, turning. In M. Bastian, O.
Jones, N. Moore, & E. Roe (Eds.), Participatory Research in More-than-Human
Worlds (pp. 193–208). Routledge.
IDEO Design Thinking. (n.d.). IDEO | Design Thinking. Retrieved 2022, from
https://designthinking.ideo.com
Jordan, M., & Hinds, J. (2016). Ecotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice (1st
ed. 2016 ed.). Red Globe Press.
Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding Sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific
knowledge, and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.
Kimmerer, R. W. (2017). Learning the Grammar of Animacy. Anthropology of
Consciousness, 28(2), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/anoc.12081
Kolko, J. (2007). Thoughts on Interaction Design. Morgan Kaufmann.
Klein, N. (2015). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (Reprint
ed.). Simon & Schuster.
Mancini, C. (2017). Towards an animal-centred ethics for Animal–Computer
Interaction. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 98, 221–233.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2016.04.008
Mancini, C., van der Linden, J., Bryan, J., Stuart, A., 2012. Exploring interspecies
sensemaking: dog tracking semiotics and multispecies ethnography. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing 5–8 September
Pittsburgh, PA. New York: ACM, 143–152.
Marder, M., 2013. Plant thinking: a philosophy of vegetal life. New York: Columbia University Press.
Manzini, E., & Coad, R. (2015). Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction
to Design for Social Innovation (Design Thinking, Design Theory). The MIT Press.
Moggridge, B. (2007). Designing Interactions (The MIT Press) (1st ed.). MIT Press.
91

Noorani, T., & Brigstocke, J. (2018). More-than-human Participatory Research.
University of Bristol and AHRC Connected Communities Programme.
Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition
(Revised ed.). Basic Books.
Pigott, J., & Lyons, A. (2016). Shadows, undercurrents and the Aliveness Machines. In M. Bastian, O. Jones, N. Moore, & E. Roe (Eds.), Participatory Research
in More-than-Human Worlds (pp. 141–159). Routledge.
Pitt, H. (2016). An apprenticeship in plant thinking. In M. Bastian, O. Jones, N.
Moore, & E. Roe (Eds.), Participatory Research in More-than-Human Worlds (pp.
92–106). Routledge.
Plumwood, V., 2009. Nature in the active voice. Australian Humanities Review,
46 (May), 113–129.
Reason, P. (2016). Transformations of time on ecological pilgrimage. In M.
Bastian, O. Jones, N. Moore, & E. Roe (Eds.), Participatory Research in More-thanHuman Worlds (pp. 66–76). Routledge.
Rosner, D. K. (2018). Critical Fabulations: Reworking the Methods and Margins
of Design (Design Thinking, Design Theory). The MIT Press.
Saffer, D. (2010). Designing for Interaction: Creating Smart Applications And Clever Devices (2nd ed.). New Riders Pub.
Slavin, K. (2016). Design as Participation. Journal of Design and Science. Published. https://doi.org/10.21428/a39a747c.
Stevens, E. (2020). The Design Thinking Process | What It Is, How to Use It, and
What’s Next. Invision. https://www.invisionapp.com/inside-design/what-is-design-thinking/.
Taylor, A. (2015). After interaction. Interactions, 22(5), 48–53. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2809888.
Wakkary, R. (2021). Things We Could Design: For More Than Human-Centered
Worlds. The MIT Press.
Willis, A. M. (2006). Ontological Designing. Design Philosophy Papers, 4(2),
69–92. https://doi.org/10.2752/144871306x13966268131514.
Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition : A
New Foundation for Design (F Second Printing ed.). Ablex Publishing Company.

92