Announcing YASMIN discussion: Science for the People; Radical Science for the 21st Century


we are pleased to announce a new YASMIN discussion

TITLE:  “Science for the People: Radical Science for the 21st Century

to subscribe and contribute  to the discussion go to 


In the late 1960s through late 1980s, scientists unwilling to contribute to the development of technologies that pollute, oppress, and destroy, or to research tainted by military, political, and corporate interests, were organizing around the questions  “Why are we scientists? For whose benefit do we serve? What is the full measure of our moral and social responsibility?”. Members of Science for the People (SftP) (sometimes referred to more generally as “the radical science movement”) were dedicated to crafting a science that is ethical, egalitarian, and cooperative, and were committed in their own work to research that above all serves the health of humans and the environment.

Science for the People is currently being revitalized by scientists and scholars on college campuses across the US. Science for the People: Documents from America’s Movement of Radical Scientists, a brand new anthology of historical material, is fresh off the presses. The second annual SftP National Convention took place at the University of Michigan from February 2-4, 2017.

A bit more background:

Don’t Just Defend Science, Mobilize It for the People: While science is under attack, it could be an opportunity to advance a much stronger vision of how it can serve the common good,  writes Sigrid Schmalzer:

Which Way for Science? A statement by the SftP editorial team on the occasion of the April 2017 March for Science



Lisette E. Torres is a disabled mother-scholar-activist of color dedicated to critically examining the intersections of race, gender, disability, and science identity and how they impact knowledge production and STEM. She is a former aquatic ecologist, a member of Science for the People, and a co-founder for the National Coalition for Latinxs with Disabilities (CNLD).

Abha Sur is a scientist turned historian of science. She is the author of Dispersed Radiance: Caste, Gender, and Modern Science in India (New Delhi: Navayana, 2011). She teaches in the Program in Women’s & Gender Studies and in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. Abha Sur is a longstanding member of the Alliance for a Secular and Democratic South Asia, a Cambridge based organization that raises awareness about issues of social justice through seminars, panel discussions and cultural events.

John Vandermeer is a theoretical ecologist, agroecologist and tropical ecologist, who teaches at the University of Michigan and does research in Michigan, Mexico and Puerto Rico.  He was a long term member of the original SftP, having been at the Chicago AAAS meetings where at least one of the beginnings of the organization is reported to have happened.  He also is a founding member of the New World Agriculture and Ecology group, an offshoot of SftP.

Ben Allen is a scientist, educator, and labor activist in east Tennessee. He is an organizer for the revitalized Science for the People and is member of the Science for the People Research Collective. In addition to organizing, he works as a contractor on computational biology projects related to energy and environment.

Alyce Santoro is a conceptual/sound artist and writer with a background in biology and scientific illustration. She will be a candidate in RISDs new Nature-Culture-Sustainability MA program starting in fall 2018.

Yasmin Moderators:

Alyce Santoro and Roger Malina

For information



  • No HTML, no attachments

  • The information or discussion in the posts should be relevant to the Mediterranean Area and the field of Art, Science and Technology

  • The official language of the Yasmin list is English. However, posts in other languages mastered by the moderators are allowed as long as a summary of the post in English is provided. Those languages are currently: Arabic, Catalan, French, Greek, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish

  • The list is moderated

  • Meaningful discussions require courtesy and mutual respect


  • Each new subscriber is strongly invited to introduce him/herself to the list and describe his/her activities

  • Subscription of new members has to be approved by the moderators

  • Subscriptions may be terminated or suspended in the case of persistent violation of netiquette

  • The list archives are publicly available, so Yasmin list can also be consulted and followed by people who are not subscribed

Lessons Learned  

  1.  Whenever possible, the discussion goes better if the posts address one point or at most two,

  2. Posts should be ‘short’: 2-3 paragraphs max

  3. The organiser of the discussion ‘manages’ the central topic being discussed at a given time( otherwise the discussion goes into multiple direction and tends to dissipate).

  4. The moderators are tasked with addressing problems such as making sure spam doesnt get into the discussion I ideally one of the organisers acts as a moderator to decide which post is approved immediately, which are deferred to keep the discussion at a given time running its course.

  5. Best not to approve more than 1-2 posts a day. Otherwise most yasminers will disconnect,

  6. Moderators over the years have had to block certain posts after discussion with the person posting, because the topic had little connection with the discussion under way, or was basically a personal marketing promotion rather than engaging in discussion. The moderators can block a post for ‘reason’ but must notify the other moderators and the person posting that the post has been blocked. In some cases there are culturally awkward discussions which are difficult to do on line, and easier face to face.

to subscribe and contribute go to:

Is STEM to STEAM just hot air ? The PhD in Art and Design to the Rescue ?


In a previous post, we announced the Leonardo STEAM Initiative in Education (STEAMIE) where Tracie Constantino and Robert Root-Bernstein will be developing a peer reviewed literature of educational research studies of STEAM practices.

Is STEM to STEAM just hot air ? contribute to STEAMIE to demonstrate evidence that it’s not

Within this initiative, Ken Friedman and Jack Ox have been publishing a Leonardo Section on the recent appearance of the PhD in Art and Design in the STEAM landscape. I append the call below. Articles that have appeared in this section include:

PhD in Art and Design: Introduction. Ken Friedman , Jack Ox. 

Practice-Based Research in the Creative Arts: Foundations and Futures from the Front Line  and

Here is the call:

Leonardo Call for Papers: PhD in Art and Design

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS, is Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies at Tongji University; University Distinguished Professor at Swinburne University; and Adjunct Professor at James Cook University.

Jack Ox, PhD, MFA, Research Fellow at ART/SCI Lab, ATEC, UTDallas Research Associate with the Center for Advanced Research Computing (CARC) University of New Mexico.

In 2017 Leonardo  celebrates 50 years of publishing work and research at the intersection of art, science and technology. As part of the celebrations, we are initiating a 3-year symposium that will address issues surrounding the development of the PhD in Art and Design.

Today, universities around the world are debating this issue. While the MFA is a terminal degree for professional practice, the PhD is a research degree—the doctor of philosophy. The debate began in the U.K. when independent art and design schools were merged with universities or raised to university status. This led to the question of equivalent standards for academic appointment to once-separate programs within now-unified universities. Universities in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America have now joined the conversation by establishing new PhD programs or initiating serious debates on whether—and how—to build them.

The question of the PhD for art and design raises many challenging issues. First among these is the nature of research, research training and the PhD. This issue may seem obvious to those who have earned a PhD in the natural sciences, social sciences or liberal arts, but it remains a complicated issue to address in understanding the PhD for art and design. What is the PhD in art? What is the PhD in design? What should a PhD be in a field of professional practice? Should there be several kinds of PhD in art and design or one major model? Why pursue such a degree? What is the nature of such a PhD with respect to research quality as distinct from the quality of art or design practice? Why are so many programs struggling or going wrong? Why do universities and accrediting authorities permit problematic programs to continue? Why, in the past, did artists interested in research choose to take a PhD in disciplines outside art? Are there specific skills all researchers require without respect to their discipline? These are questions to consider, and there are people who have something to say about them, including experienced supervisors. With this symposium, we are reaching out to those with solid experience in doctoral education to draw on their skills and wisdom.

The fresh debate on the PhD for art and design taking place in North American universities has global implications. This debate makes it imperative to consider the different models of doctoral education elsewhere in the world. Is it reasonable to earn a PhD for a practice-based thesis with an artifact or an exhibition in place of the thesis, accompanied by an essay of 20,000 words? Should doctoral programs admit students to research training programs without undergraduate experience in such key skills as analysis, rhetoric, logic or mathematics? Can undergraduate art and design students with a focus on studio skills hope to succeed in doctoral work when they have had little or no experience in the kinds of information seeking or writing that form the basis for earning a research degree? Is it possible to award PhD degrees for skills and capacities completely different from those in any established research field? In North America, an exhibition of artifacts with a short thesis is the basis for awarding an MFA degree; in the U.K. and Australia and at some European art schools, this is the basis for awarding a PhD. Is it possible to merge these two traditions?

The SEAD and STEAM Challenge
One of the specific challenges we face internationally is finding new ways to enable collaboration between science and engineering with the arts, design and the humanities (SEAD). The United States National Science Foundation funded aSEAD study(link is external) highlighting a number of international developments and best practices that inevitably will influence the question of the PhD in art and design. One of the areas in this study was the emerging discussion on “STEM to STEAM.”

Call for Papers
The PhD for art and design has become a significant issue in worldwide university education. As the world’s oldest peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal for the arts, sciences and technology, Leonardo has a responsibility to serve as a forum for the conversation. This symposium is our contribution to the emerging dialogue on this issue in North America and around the world.

We seek several kinds of contributions to a 3-year symposium on the PhD in art and design.

  • First, we seek full-length peer-reviewed articles for publication in the Leonardo addressing key issues concerning the PhD in art and design.
  • Second, we seek significant reports, research studies and case studies. Since these will be longer than journal articles, we will review them for journal publication as extended abstracts with references, and we will publish the full documents on the Leonardo website.
  • Finally, we will welcome Letters to the Editors in response to published articles and to the documents on the website.

Proposals and Inquiries
Interested authors should submit inquiries to Jack Ox(link sends e-mail) and manuscript proposals to Leonardo(link sends e-mail).

Manuscript Submissions
For detailed instructions for manuscript and art preparation, visit Information for Journal Authors.

To submit a completed manuscript, upload at Editorial Express(link is external).


Other inquiries to

Is STEM to STEAM just hot air ? contribute to STEAMIE to demonstrate evidence that it’s not


There is an ongoing debate internationally on how to overcome disciplinary disadvantages to education in particular in STEM ( science, technology, engineering and math). This debate is millenia old ( See Joe Davis re Marcus Vitruvius Pollio ). Last century we had various initiatives to address the needs and potentials of polymaths…holistic studies.. integrative studies..interdisciplinary studies. There is nothing new under the sun.

So what’s new in the 21st century. Is there any evidence that the STEM to STEAM approach is useful or effective ?

In a recent report the SEAD network issue a report (  )  Alex Topete et al. ‘curated/juried/peer reviewed’ 20 exemplars of what we think STEM to STEAM is about. The qualitative evidences help us to define the STEM to STEAM territory.

Leonardo Journal Co-Editor Robert Root Bernstein has analysed extensive all the controlled , or semi controlled ) studies of stem to steam teaching. ( )

So what’s the next step in developing evidence for the variety of people we need to convince  ?

Leonardo is pleased to announce the Steam Initiative in Education ( yes STEAMIE for short ) through which we hope to aggregate evidence that is being developed internationally through a ’emerging topic’ call for papers, books etc  for Leonardo Publications.

This project is being co-edited by:

Prof Tracie Constantino, Rhode Island School of Design, see her article: STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice in art and design education, Arts Education Policy Review. 

And Leonardo Co-Editor Robert Root Bernstein….we provide the detailed call for papers and hope you will help us distribute it.

As you will see below, the call seeks to document and disseminate strong evidence based on contemporary science of learning, cognitive sciences, and education technology developments.

In parallel Kathryn Evans and Eun Ah Lee of UTD are re-launching our CDASH inventory of STEAM curricula and syllabi through a “cloud curriculum’ project originally initiated by Paul Thomas, Nina Czegledy and the Leonardo Education and Art Forum (LEAF) :

If you have curricula, and or syllabi you would like to share- go to 

So is STEM to STEAM just hot air, or can we develop the evidence that its a good thing ?

Call for Papers: LEONARDO STEAM Initiative on Education – STEAMIE

Section Co-Editors:

Tracie Constantino, Rhode Island School of Design, and Robert Root-Bernstein, Michigan State University

The STEAM movement, focused on integrating arts (broadly encompassing visual and performing arts, crafts and design) into science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education is well underway. We are avid advocates of this movement, but worry that integration of arts and sciences into curricula from K-12 through graduate and professional education is not supported by sufficiently rigorous pedagogical studies. If STEAM is to succeed, it must be underpinned by pedagogical principles, methods and materials that of high quality and reliability. Towards that end, the Editors of LEONARDO have decided to create a STEAM Initiative on Education that will devote a section of the journal to innovative, inspiring and important studies of STEAM pedagogies.

In the spirit of interdisciplinarity, we explicitly welcome diverse methodologies such as mixed methods designs and novel assessment methods designed to meet the special needs of STEAM educators. We particularly welcome studies employing well-designed, randomized class-room controls and utilizing well-validated learning measurement standards, but LEONARDO recognizes that one of the challenges of STEAM integration is that it may require new approaches to teaching and learning. We therefore welcome articles that are focused on the development and testing of novel approaches and methods for purveying and evaluating integrated learning.

We intend to set the bar high. We are not interested in studies that rely on student self-reports about whether they found a particular lesson plan “exciting” or “fun” or teacher opinions that the students were “more engaged”.  These effects may be real and they may be important, but the papers LEONARDO is looking for demonstrate that these effects impact learning, preferably over the long term. Our goal is to make sure that as STEAM education takes hold within our educational establishments, it does so in the most effective and useful ways.

Guidelines for the preparation of manuscripts can be found at:

Tracie Costantino (2017): STEAM by another name: Transdisciplinary practice

in art and design education, Arts Education Policy Review.

Root-Bernstein RS, Pathak A, Root-Bernstein MM. PART 1. A Review of Studies Demonstrating the Effectiveness of Integrating Arts, Music, Performing, Crafts and Design into Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medical Education, Part 1: Summary of Evidence that Integration Is Professionally Useful and Effective. LEONARDO 2017:  doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_01579

Root-Bernstein RS, Pathak A, Root-Bernstein MM. PART II.  Review of ACD-STEMM Integration, Part 2: Statistically-Validated and Controlled Pedagogical Studies of the Root-Bernsteins’ “Tools for Thinking”. LEONARDO 2017: doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_01580

Root-Bernstein RS, Pathak A, Root-Bernstein MM. PART III. Review of ACD-STEMM Integration, Part 3: Statistically-Validated and Controlled Pedagogical Studies of Eleven  ACD-Integration Strategies Utilized by STEMM Professionals and General Conclusions. LEONARDO 2017: doi: 10.1162/LEON_a_01581  

Any other questions to


Peace Water Power: Leonardo 50th in New Zealand


Leonardo 50 birthday wishes to the gathering in New Zealand today !

He wai….He ngao..He Rangimari


and thanks to Ian Clothier and our New Zealand colleagues for this amazing event[-

wish I could teleport !

Roger Malina


Leonardo 50th Anniversary in New Zealand

at SCANZ18

A special Leonardo 50th Celebration with a guest presentation by Executive Editor Roger Malina.


A special Leonardo 50th Celebration with a guest presentation by Dr. Janine Randerson and Leonardo Executive Editor Roger Malina.

SCANZ 4 – 12 February 2018

Peace, Water, Power 2018 develops from the successful Water, Peace, Power inaugural event held in 2016. It is also aligned with Intercreate’s core event sequence, SCANZ as it shares the same values.

It is hard to imagine a more important moment than now, to consider the issues of peace and the environment. At a time where moderate Muslims align themselves with peace while militants seek war and the US is extending warfaring and warmongering worldwide while battling it’s own citizens, now is a significant moment for leadership in regard to Peace.

The community of Parihaka through it’s founding prophets Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi has played a leadership role internationally, nationally, regionally and locally many times since it’s founding in 1866.

SCANZ2018: Peace, Water, Power represents a significant engagement with the community of Parihaka in terms of the creative projects enabled on the papakainga and the hui which culminates the event. SCANZ2018: Peace, Water, Power will have international, national, regional and local participation, part of the recognition of place. Placing Peace first in the title is a recognition of the Parihaka community and its founders and follows from discussion with Maata Wharehoka.

Leonardo’s 50th Anniversary Celebration

The day starts with presentations on Peace, Water and Power from Maori including kaumatua. This is followed by presenting some creative projects on the themes. We will then walk around and view projects from the residency, which includes some based on taking live data from a river on the pa. A fluvial geomorphologist will talk about the relationship between the river and the mountain, which will supplement what some Maori have spoken about earlier. Some of the locals have also been measuring the water and we will visit their riparian food forest.


At Parihaka Pa in the historic building of Te Niho.


4:00 p.m.

Dr. Janine Randerson

Speculative weathers, and the next 50 years for electronic art


4:15 p.m.

Roger Malina video

Video made for the event by astrophysicist and art-science exponent.


4:30 p.m.

Roger Malina live from Texas

Live as part of Leonardo/ISAST 50th celebrations.


To register, please send an email to sends e-mail)



About Intercreate is a project based organisation consisting of an international network of people interested in art, science, culture and technology. Our motto is developing the culture to create a sustainable civilisation. We live in a world where the human connection to the environment is having a strong negative impact, particularly for the generations that follow. At Intercreate we believe an important part of resolving the problems around the human relationship with the environment, is to involve indigenous groups in all discussions of the environment.

50th Anniversary Logo

About Leonardo/ISAST
50 Years of Celebrating the Community

Half a century ago, kinetic artist and astronautical pioneer Frank Malina set out to solve the needs of a community of artists and scientists working across disciplines by using the “new media” of the time: offset print publishing. As a groundbreaking, innovative venture, Leonardo represented a unique vision: to serve as an international channel of communication among artists, with emphasis on the writings of artists who use science and developing technologies in their work. The result was Leonardo, an academic journal for artists with the peer-review rigor of a scientific journal. For 50 years, Leonardo has been the definitive publication for artist-academics, and the field has gained momentum in recent years.

Leonardo’s anniversary celebrations are made possible by our international partners and led by the 50th Anniversary Committee Chair Nina Czegledy.


February 12th, 2018 4:00 PM   through   5:00 PM
249 Mid-Parihaka Rd
Bldg Te Niho
New Zealand

Was Marcus Vitruvius Pollio right ?: what’s possible in the 21st century in transdisciplinary collaboration that wasnt possible in Rome ?


We are living in an interesting time of unstable vocabularies, sometimes an indicator of a growing successful community of practice .This is true of only because new terminologies are the bread and butter of funding agencies and reputation management strategies of emerging professionals. Electronic Art, Digital Art, new Media Art, Art and Technology, STEM to STEAM, STARTS, ArtScience, Sci Art the list goes on. Joao Silveira,  member of our ArtSciLab at UT Dallas will be defending next week in Rio de Janeiro his PhD thesis on art science practices today in Brazil, the US and elsewhere.

This contemporary dichotomy in western, and other, academic and industry circles is often articulated between science-engineering and art-humanities. At the time of the founding of Leonardo Journal, this was very much within the framing provided by C.P.Snow’s articulation of the ‘two cultures’ problem.The problem persists today, although I argue that the two cultures framing is a false dichotomy and I think C.P.Snow did a disservice and was wrong in many ways. This false dichotomy can take different forms; for example, hard and soft, quantitative and qualitative, logical and creative, objective and subjective, and so on. Many of these are false, or oversimplifying, dichotomies or reductionist thinking that have lessened our human ability to solve complex problems. These dichotomies are not new. As pointed out by Joe Davis (Leonardo Journal, 2018 in press), the roman polymath Marcus Vitruvius Pollio advocated many of the holistic approaches being debated today. Joe Davis is a pioneering art and biology artist, currently using CRISPR and other genetic engineering techniques to create artificial life art forms. Joe Davis notes that Leonardo Da Vinci himself read and was influenced by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio.

So what’s new under the sun ?

In this talk at IBM Almaden research labs we will try to take stock, talk about our own work and articulate what we think is usefully developing:

Preliminary Announcement for talk by Malina at Blanton at IBM Almaden research labs March 8 2018

IBM Accelerated Discovery Lab Distinguished Speaker Forum.  

  • Date:March 8, 2018

  • Venue: Accelerated Discovery Lab, IBM Research – Almaden

  • Time: 10.00 – 11.30 AM PST

Building at the Confluence of Disciplines; How does the 21st century context enable new approaches?

Abstract: Roger F. Malina and Andrew Blanton will discuss and present jointly a series of works created through transdisciplinary methodologies bridging the worlds of Arts, Design and Science. Through this lecture-performance they will discuss some of their past collaborations as well as some of their current thoughts on the process of collaborating with teams of people from extremely diverse backgrounds. Their research methodology involves both science/engineering development as well as use of the same processes in artistic settings. These methods feed into what is sometimes called STEM to STEAM initiatives in this country or STARTS in Europe ( Science, Technology and the Arts). They will present a series of works including a performance of M0DULATOR for realtime audio processing on the iPad, their ‘ Data Stethoscope’ work in sonifying and visualizing the human connectome, funded by DARPA. WAVEGUIDE, a performance that uses the audiences cellphones for a distributed array of speakers. SWITCH, a publication featuring student led research into contemporary topics, most recently using blockchain technology. And finally, Roger Malina, Executive Editor of Leonardo Publications at MIT Press will discuss the new experimental publishing platform which publishes multi-lingually and multi-media, and will develop new forms of peer review for grey literature.

Dr. Roger F. Malina

TITLE: Distinguished Professor of Arts and Technology and Professor of Physics, UT Dallas and Executive Editor, Leonardo Publications MIT Press


Roger Malina is an art-science researcher, astronomer and editor. His UTD ArtSciLab focuses on research that involves close collaboration between scientists and artists, in particular developing data exploration and data performance. The lab also carries out research in experimental publishing in collaboration with MIT Press and Leonardo/ISAST and OLATS. two non profits which he founded. He was Principal Investigator of the NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer Satellite at UC Berkeley, and former director of the Observatoire Astronomique de Marseille Provence (OAMP) in Marseille. He is the Executive Editor of the Leonardo Publications at MIT Press, including the new art science technology platform. Roger Malina obtained his BS in physics from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1972, and his PhD in Astronomy from the University of California, Berkeley in 1979. He has been awarded an Honorary Doctorate from the Polytechnic University of Valencia in Art and Science.

Andrew Blanton

TITLE: Assistant Professor and Area Coordinator CADRE Media Labs, San Jose State University


Andrew Blanton is a media artist and percussionist. He received his Bachelors of Music in Music Performance from The University of Denver (2008) and a Masters of Fine Arts in New Media Art at the University of North Texas (2013). He is currently an Assistant Professor of Digital Media Art at San Jose State University in San Jose California teaching data visualization. His current work focuses on the emergent potential between cross-disciplinary arts and technology, building sound and visual environments through software development, and building scientifically accurate representations complex data sets as visual and sound compositions. Andrew has advanced expertise in percussion, creative software development, and developing projects in the confluence of art and science.

What Is New Under the Sun: Oral Futures to the Rescue of all those who worry.



Pier Luigi Capucci is publishing the papers from the fantastic Leonardo 50th birthday party   and the art*science 2017 – The New and History conference in
Bologna (Italy), July 3-5 2017 (   )

Here is a final draft of my paper for comment criticisms and suggestions. As part of this, he asked us to identify 5 things we worry about 

Thank you again Pier Luigi !

Roger Malina

What Is New Under the Sun: Oral Futures to the Rescue of all those who worry.

The fiftieth anniversary of the birth of the Leonardo Journal presents a good opportunity to look back and look forward. I recently worked on a project with our Physics Department at the University of Texas at Dallas where we recorded “oral futures”;  physicists discussed results they would be publishing 50 years from now. It would be fascinating to have access to the oral futures of the founders of Leonardo Journal, speculating on the state of the arts and society today.

A contemporary dichotomy in western, and other, academic and industry circles is articulated between science-engineering and art-humanities. At the time of the founding of Leonardo, this was very much within the framing provided by C.P.Snow’s articulation of the ‘two cultures’ problem.The problem persists today, although I argue that the two cultures framing is a false dichotomy. This dichotomy can take different forms; for example, hard and soft, quantitative and qualitative, logical and creative, objective and subjective, and so on. Many of these are false, or oversimplifying, dichotomies or reductionist thinking that have lessened our human ability to solve complex problems. These dichotomies are not new. As pointed out by Joe Davis (Leonardo Journal, 2018 in press), the roman polymath Marcus Vitruvius Pollio advocated many of the holistic approaches being debated today. In a sense, there is nothing new under the sun !

I was asked  at the Leonardo 50th Birthday party in Bologna, organised by Pier Luigi Capucci,  for  topics that maybe I’m worrying about. One  of the things that upset me is:  I’m an astronomer and in the last 10-15 years we discovered that most of the universe is made of dark matter and doesn’t emit light. And so astronomer are the wrong kind of intelligent beings to understand the universe, we have the wrong senses and this implicit bias led us to a totally wrong concept of what the universe consisted of. If we were designing an intelligent being that is able to understand the universe, the last thing we would do is design a human being. The same goes for universities as I argue next.

And so I make an analogy between that and what Poe Johnson and I called “dark culture’ ; you have these systems to tell us what’s going on but almost all the interesting stuff is dark and doesn’t  reach universities. Popular culture is full of innovation today, but all our institutions are designed to see things that are very visible today using the kinds of tools that academics develop. Leonardo Journal is an example of a biased telescope that focuses mostly on the work done in universities.  I think there’s a deep similar problem now in the dark culture as there is in astronomy.  Certainly at the time of the founding of Leonardo Journal, that community of practice was ignored by institutions of culture and higher learning, but our culture today is heavily influenced by the work they did. Leonardo Journal has published over 10,000 new emerging Leonardos. Universities 50 years later are only just beginning to wake up.


I think we are going through another deep transition at the moment, where the amount of sensory input we get through instruments is now exceeding that that we get through our senses, and I think this is a new situation. Stiegler likes to talk about that we still tend to think of technology as tools or extensions of ourselves, but instead he says we need to think about these new technologies as organs, that actually symbiotic with our own development and not extensions of human faculties and many of these tools now have senses that we don’t have.  We now talk of the ‘data body’ which contains all the data that we can now collect using medical instruments. This data reveals phenomena inside our body that we have no sensory access to. Fifty years from now how will we live with both knowledge of our physical bodies and the world accessible through our senses, and to our data bodies that know things our physical bodies dont. I think that this data culture and the dark culture are two things group maybe interlinked but for me make me worry that we dont have adequate oral futures discussions among us. Our podcast platform Creative Disturbance is one place where we hope to promote oral futures.


I have other worry  topics. One is transdisciplinary collaboration. All our institutions are set up to identify individuals and reward individuals. But all the complex problems we are working on now require groups of people to work together. We still give Ph.D.s to individuals not to teams, the Nobel Prize is awarded to very few individuals, not to teams, and so how we change all our methodologies of how we train people, reward people to go from the individual genius, which is our model with Leonardo da Vinci, to how a team of people can display genius. And I thing that’s a tough problem given the complexity of the problems that we are trying to solve. Alex Topete in our lab is working on developing apprenticeship training for transdisciplinary collaboration, but how do you do this in a natural ways to train teams not individuals ? How can universities award PhDs to groups that demonstrated innovation and excellence in transdisciplinary research ?

Another one is which is maybe it’s kind of obvious, but I think we haven’t thought about it enough is in our societies, and certainly in Europe and America, life expectancy has increased.  I now have many colleagues who are 80 and they’re still in full professional activity but our universities want to have nothing to do with them. They close their email accounts, get them out of the office and so one of the world’s growing resort resources is retired professionals, as David Peat has argued. In France I was made to retire when I was 65, well maybe I still have another career ahead of me, and our societies are not all organized to take this into account. They are organized around middle age people and  cultural; processes.  So I think there is an interesting problem of how we change our social structures to make sure that we have intergenerational communication, creativity, innovation  and discussion going on. This is a point that Leonardo board member Nina Czegledy has championed through the Leonardo 50th birthday parties. Again universities are not ideal places to do this as they are designed around age cohorts- 80 year old geniuses rarely get to meet 18 year old emerging leonardos there !

The final thing, and many people have written about this, is it is clear that there are a number of things that are going on at the moment in the world, which are happening quicker than one generation. In the past when the climate changed- people moved, and the climate did not often change in a hundreds years, it happened over a longer period, and so people migrated to another place. Now on our planet, we have migrated everywhere we can migrate, so there’s nowhere else to migrate to, except outer space and I don’t think that’s a useful solution in the current situation. So these changes that are happening within a generation or two generations, and so we need to actually redesign our culture. Anne Balsamo has written extensively about this. A situation that no human culture has ever been before , except when a meteor  wiped out 90% of the life forms, and then no one redesigned the species and their social structures. Most changes on this planet have been on time scales that are longer than one generation or two generations. Climate change presents an opportunity to actively redesign our culture using design methodologies.


And so as we try and develop oral futures for Leonardo, my five topics are: intergenerational communication; redesigning culture; dark culture and data culture; and the favoring emergence  of transdisciplinary Leonardo teams not individual geniuses.

Frank J Malina Astronautics Medal, Call for Nominations

2018 Call for Nominations


The International Astronautical Federation (IAF) is pleased to announce its 2018 Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal that recognises outstanding contributions to space education by an educator who promotes the study of astronautics and space science.

The call for nominations for the Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal is addressed to IAF member organisations in good standing. Only one application per organisation will be accepted per year.

The most important criterion for this award is that an educator “has taken the fullest advantage of the resources available to him/her to promote the study of astronautics and related space sciences”.

One nomination will be accepted per IAF member per year.

Due to the high calibre of nominations, unsuccessful nominations will be carried over for a total of three years.

IAF members are encouraged to update the nomination each year to include the most recent contributions and achievements of the nominee. This updated nomination will be considered the member nomination for that calendar year.

If an updated nomination is not submitted, the IAF member organisation may submit another nomination

If you have a nominee, please submit the following information:

  • 1 nomination letter;
  • The candidate’s credentials, including educational background, work history, awards and honours, and published works;
  • At least 3 letters of recommendation, two professional and one personal; letters from students are encouraged.

The nomination package should be forwarded under cover of a letter from an IAF member organisation, signed by the responsible official of that organisation, and listing the point of contact for any questions. The entire application should not exceed 15 pages.

The Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal recipient will be selected by the Malina Medal Subcommittee who will review the nominations and make a recommendation to the IAF Honours and Awards Committee who will, in turn, make a recommendation for the recipient to the IAF Bureau during the IAF Spring Meetings in March 2018. The final decision rests with the IAF Bureau.

The Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal comprises an engraved commemorative medal and a certificate of citation. The medal will be awarded to the recipient during the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) Closing Ceremony and the recipient will be invited to participate in the Gala Dinner of the IAC as a special guest of the IAF President. In addition, the recipient will deliver the Keynote Address in the E1 Space Education and Outreach Symposium taking place during International Astronautical Congress.

Nomination documents must be received by IAF Secretariat by the 11 February 2018 15:00 CET (Paris time), preferably by email at (Subject line: NOMINEE’S LAST NAME Nominee’s First Name – 2018 Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal).

If email is not available, the reference can be sent by postal mail to:
IAF Secretariat
Attention: 2018 Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal
3 rue Mario Nikis
75015 Paris
Or by Fax to + 33 1 4273 2120
For further Information about the IAF Honours and Awards programmes, please contact the IAF Secretariat at


emerging role for design methods in transdisciplinary practices, for pre publication peer review


A collaboration led by Prof Mauricio Mejia of Universidad of Caldas has just submitted this paper to ISEA 2018 in Durban South Africa. We hope the paper will be accepted but will be working as a group to develop this work. We solicit suggestions, critiques or offers of collaboration on the problem of our speficially to train emerging professionals in transdisciplinary practices. One of us ( Alex Topete) is working on apprentice training methods, another (Joao Silveira) just submitted his PhD thesis reviewing art science collaboration practices in Brazil and US.

This work is a follow on to the paper and workshop at ISEA 2017 which started an inventory of good practices. (see ref in this paper)

The authors are submitting this paper prior to publication for what is called “pre publication’ peer review which a number of professionals now use as a way of overcoming some of the biases of classic peer review ( which isea is using to decide which papers to accept).


So we welcome comments or criticisms, omissions etc -just contact any of the authors on the paper


Roger Malina


An emerging role for design methods in transdisciplinary practices

  1. Mauricio Mejía1, Cassini Nazir2, Roger F. Malina2, Alex García Topete2, Felipe C. Londoño1, Andrés F. Roldán1, Priscila L. Farias3, João Silveira2,4.

1 Universidad de Caldas

2 University of Texas, Dallas

3 Universidade de São Paulo

4 Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro


This paper is a follow up to some of the authors’ ISEA 2017 paper “Towards an inventory of good practices for transdisciplinary collaboration.” A key issue identified there was how to develop training methods for teams that bridge very different research, development and assessment methodologies. In this paper, we propose design methods to improve transdisciplinary collaborations, with a particular discussion on the emerging community of practice that seeks to enable art-science collaboration. An ISEA workshop is also proposed to make explicit the methodologies described.


ArtScience, design methods, transdisciplinary collaboration , education, training


A contemporary dichotomy in western, and other, academic and industry circles is articulated between science-engineering and art-humanities. This dichotomy can take different forms; for example, hard and soft, quantitative and qualitative, logical and creative, objective and subjective, and so on. Many of these are false, or oversimplifying, dichotomies or reductionist thinking that have lessened our human ability to solve complex problems. These dichotomies are not new. As pointed out by Davis (2018), the roman polymath Marcus Vitruvius Pollio advocated many of the holistic approaches being debated today.  

Nonetheless, some new integrative thinking has emerged to counter this current artificial reductionism in today’s digital culture. For example, the ‘STEM to STEAM’ movement seeks to develop initiatives that integrate the arts, design, and humanities with science, technology, and medicine (e.g., Malina, Strohecker, & LaFayette, 2013). However, there is a clear need to develop new methods for transdisciplinary collaboration that take into account todays digital culture context (Mejia, Malina, & Roldán, 2017, p. 685). In this paper, we reflect on the use of design methods to improve transdisciplinary collaborations in order to overcome the chiasm and biases of these false dichotomies.

Within that framework and for the purposes of this paper, transdisciplinarity entails not only crossing disciplinary boundaries but also crossing sectors of society to include all the stakeholders involved or affected by an issue (Repko, 2007, p. 15). Within this approach to transdisciplinarity, design practices are particularly relevant because they are concerned with ‘doing’ to solve problems. Thus, using design methods in collaborations between researchers and citizens helps to focus not only in social appropriation of knowledge but also in addressing problems that are pressing in place based territories.

Scholars, for long, have discussed whether the design practice is an art or a science. For example, in Calvera (2003) authors debated the relationship between art and design. Arguably, design is both art and science. Some authors have strongly contended that design practice is different from science to avoid the common confusion that scientific research methods can be used to solve design problems (see Krippendorff, 2007). In this paper, we discuss how design methods incorporate mindsets and techniques from both art and science, such as embedded observation borrowed from ethnography and sociology, or fast prototyping that echoes of sketching by visual artists. This integrative designerly approach leads us to propose that design methods are a potential tool for transdisciplinary collaboration.

Art and science, Art Science, ArtScience, Sciart (and more…)

For the past several hundred years, the paths of artistic expression and scientific endeavor have diverged increasingly, prompted by developments within academia and industry (such as the emergence of  disciplinary departments of study and the division of labor, respectively). Moreover, the divergence kindled the philosophical questions of “what is (good) art?” and “what is (good) science?”, further separating the two in ways that have led to a profound difference of identity between scientists-engineers and artists-humanists despite their similarities in practices and philosophies (Leach, 2011, pp. 144-146).

For the authors, art has the following general characteristics:

  • Art, like design and science, is a creative endeavor.
  • Artists try to change the perception of humans through attaching meanings to experiences .
  • There is research in art and design, which is similar to research in science.

For the authors, science has the following characteristics:

  • Science is the human activity which seeks to understand causal mechanisms in phenomena that can be observed by humans.
  • Scientists seek to produce knowledge and understanding that are not biased by the human cognitive apparatus.
  • Scientific research seeks to predict things that happen in the world.
  • Engineering, design, and other applied sciences use design methods.

Although art and science seem to be identifiable categories, some human activities are ambiguous or integrative. For Strosberg (2015), art and science today often share the same tools and materials and technology becomes their main connection (p. 23). Frayling (1993) argued that there is not much difference between art and science. He said that the history of institutions and media has shaped stereotypes that have mistakenly separated art and science practices; for instance, in their practice, artists do research activities and scientists do creative activities (p. 3). For these reasons, integrating artists and scientists in collaborative work is a cultural and institutional challenge.

Recently, some universities are increasingly offering academic programs and research in art and science. One example, in which some authors are affiliated, is the ArtSci Lab at the University of Texas at Dallas. ArtSci lab states that “[they] are a transdisciplinary research lab—helping the arts, science, and technology communities by pursuing initiatives of societal urgency and cultural timeliness;” one of the used methodologies is designing projects with collaboration between artists and scientists from the inception. In France, initiatives such as the SACRE PhD program ( ) trains PhD students across art and science disciplines. The Carasso Foundation ( ) also recently created the first university chair in Art Science bridging disciplinary institutions.

One critical issue that justifies the need for arts/humanities and science integration is the recognized demand that science and technology should not be separated from social practices and belief systems in human groups. In the Frankfurt School, science had a social function, which means that scientific problems are expected to respond to a collective interest (Horkheimer, 1998).  Helga Nowotny, former President of the European Research Council, has called for ‘socially robust science’ (Nowotny, 2003, p. 151-153). The multiples initiative of art and science in their different flavors all aim to tackle the demand for social-centered ways of knowing.

Design methods

One of the core issues in the history of design methods is the tension between intuition and rationality. Design education in Europe and the US originated in art and craft schools; thus, designers relied primarily on creative intuition and implicit knowledge. In early 20th century, western design education was based on the master-apprentice model, in which novice-students practiced in studios with expert-instructors to learn design crafts. Some traditional learning techniques include analyzing exemplars, sketching, prototyping, and critiques. These techniques are based on intuition because little evidence from the real-world is used for decision-making. In the 1960’s, the design methods movement appeared, and several of its proponents, such as early Christopher Alexander advocated for rational methods in design to address the increasing complexity of design problems (Alexander, 1964, pp. 8-11). Soon, the excitement about more logic and less intuition in the design process was questioned by Alexander himself and others; in the 1970’s, ‘second and third order’ design methods emerged exploring the participation of the users in the process and revisions about the role of intuition in design thinking (Cross, 1984, pp. 303–307). Particularly, the work of Rittel showed that rational approaches from engineering and science are insufficient to address ‘wicked’ problems of planning because these problems are ill-defined and elusive (Rittel & Webber, 1973, p. 160). The discussion between rationality and intuition is also present beyond design; for instance, within the cognitive science communities researchers now seek ways to ‘train’ intuition and imagination (see

A seminal work in design thinking is the book Designerly ways of Knowing by Nigel Cross, which positions design as a third ‘culture’ different from both (a) arts and humanities and (b) science. He suggested that designerly thinking is an alternative different from artistic and scientific thinking (Cross, 2006, p. 018). For example, he said that whereas scientists use analysis to solve problems, designers use synthesis. Cross explained:

The designer is constrained to produce a practicable result within a specific time limit, whereas the scientist and scholar are both able, and often required, to suspend their judgments and decisions until more is known – ‘further research is needed’ is always a justifiable conclusion for them (p. 023).

Nigel Cross (2006) distinguished between scientific, artistic/humanistic, and designerly ways of knowing to capture the idea that different disciplines use different research and development methodologies to make sense of the world, its phenomena and its processes. Each discipline develops different evaluation methodologies to assess what is more or less “good” within its own approach. Cross noted differences between the sciences, arts/humanities, and design in the phenomenon studied, the appropriate methods, and values (see table 1).


Table 1. Cross’ ways of knowing

Sciences Arts/Humanities Design
Phenomenon of study The natural world Human experience The artificial world
Appropriate methods Controlled experiment, classification, analysis Analogy, metaphor, evaluation Modelling, pattern-formation, synthesis
Values of each culture Objectivity, rationality, neutrality, and a concern for ‘truth’ Subjectivity, imagination, commitment, and a concern for ‘justice’ Practicality, ingenuity, empathy, and a concern for ‘appropriateness’


A practical, well-known, and contemporary design method is the double-diamond model (The Design Council, 2014). In Figure 1, the left sides of the diamonds represent divergent thinking and the right sides represent convergent thinking. In this model, the Discover phase can be associated to rational research processes; however, design research is often conducted under time constraints that force a flexibility in the validity of data and the goal is to inform design-decision making instead of generation of scientific knowledge. Also, the Develop phase can be associated with intuitive artistic processes. There is intuition in the process, but a difference is that the goal is to find a satisficing practical solution not to seek the sole subjective expression of the designer.

(omitted because we dont have ok from the authors of this illustration yet to republish)

Figure 1. Adaptation of Design Council’s double-diamond model. Design by Luana Carolina and João Silveira


Christian Rohrer’s Landscape of User Research Methods (2014) proposes a visualization of the landscape of design methods within two axes: attitudinal and behavioral, and qualitative versus quantitative (see figure 2). These are more methodological tools that can be implemented depending on the situation and designer’s decisions. The methodological tools on Rohrer’s landscape have various purposes depending on the needs and phases of the project. Some tools are generative, used in early ideation; exploratory, for concept generation and understanding criteria; or evaluative, testing of the system. The process and methods of design described above allow designers to create possible futures, much of which would not come to be naturally.


Figure 2.  Rohrer’s grid, showing 20 popular methodological tools of design

(omitted because we dont have ok from the authors of this illustration yet to republish)


A recent approach in the field is codesign. It is a collaborative design practice in which two or more designers, or participants from different disciplines, come together in an articulated and integrated manner to design products and services. Sanders and Stappers (2008, p. 2; 2012, p. 30) define codesign as a specific instance of cocreation in which collective creativity is applied throughout the design development process. Collective creativity refers both to the set of creative qualities that the design proposal entails and to the creativity of the tasks carried out as part of this process (Yu, Nickerson and Sakamoto, 2012, p. 1). The codesign method is a place for the negotiation of ideas and approaches according to the knowledge, arguments, and points of view of the participants, their qualities directly influence the decision-making process (Jin and Geslin, 2008, p. 494; Klein et al. ., 2003, p. 201). The collaborative approach in codesign makes it a particular design method of interest for training people in transdisciplinary collaboration, even when the goal is not to design a product or service (e.g., designing the structure of a collaboration).

Design methods as a good practice for transdisciplinary collaboration

In the design methods section above, it is shown that design (thinking and methods) is a way of knowing different from art and science. However, design methods also incorporate artistic and scientific activities within several steps. We argue here that the use of design methods is and can be a potential good practice for transdisciplinary collaboration. In this context, we understand transdisciplinary practice as a unifying fusion of disciplines, in which it is not possible to distinguish a single discipline in the process and outcome (Pombo, 2008, p.14-15). The rationale is based on the idea that the design field already struggled, historically, to develop methods and proved that neither artistic or scientific thinking alone were sufficient to address complex social wicked problems, which are the type of problems often addressed in transdisciplinary collaborations.

Design methods have been applied not only to design physical artifacts but also for intangibles like services and collaborations. High order design problems such as interactions, services, environments, and systems (see Buchanan, 1992) need more thoughtful methods and processes that usually involve the participation of different stakeholders and collaboration among designers, other disciplines, and users. Increasingly design problems are addressed by transdisciplinary teams and have shown successful integrations of diverse designerly ways of knowing (e.g., Brown, 2007). Solving problems using design methods is a potent practice to facilitate transdisciplinary collaborations. For example, transdisciplinary projects aimed for innovation tend to turn the participants into problem-solving designers, which has been the exemplary case of Aerocene, a transdisciplinary collaborative effort to accomplish lighter-than-air travel, and of IndaPlant, an attempt at merging robotics and plants to automate biodomes (Garcia Topete, Malina, Strohecker, & Thill, 2017, p. 6).

Transdisciplinary collaborations involve professionals with very different, though overlapping ways of knowing. We have argued that one of the benefits of transdisciplinary collaborations is to draw on different ways of knowing to overcome limitation and biases inherent in each when appropriate, but also to benefit with alternate methodologies. We argue against the idea of simple ‘consilience’ (Wilson, 1999) as a way of integrating together different ways of knowing, but draw on Slingerland and Collard’s concept of using integrating methods in different ways depending on scale in time, size, or other metrics of phenomena or problems being addressed (Slingerland & Collard, 2011). We argue that design methodologies are an appropriate approach to designing transdisciplinary collaborations (which may or may not in themselves involve designers as one of the disciplines, and may or may not be about designing a product or service as the outcome of the collaboration).

Reflecting on the idea of transdisciplinarity as crossing boundaries in sectors of society (Repko, 2007), design methods can be a strategy for collaborations between citizens and experts. A potential role of design is to dynamize the social appropriation of artistic and scientific knowledge. Design itself is moving towards more collaborative approaches to solve problems and create complex sociotechnical systems.  

It can be argued that a major weakness of design practitioners is the lack of reflective practice, which is critical in the flow of transdisciplinary collaboration. Most design processes often omit (or at best tacitly include) reflection as a needed part of the process. Schon’s model of reflective practice can enable double-loop learning (Argyris & Schon, 1978), where the mental models and views of the world can be refined, updated and changed based on new understanding of the world. Reflective practice is particularly relevant when working with a transdisciplinary group that sometimes have varied understanding and viewpoints of the world.

The issue of how to train professionals engaged in transdisciplinary projects is rising in importance. For instance, at the University of Texas at Dallas, under the leadership of Dean Anne Balsamo a new masters in how to teach in ways that embody “STEM to STEAM’ concepts is under development; this work draws on Balsamo’s research such as Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work (2011). The SACRE PhD in Paris, cited above, is a different approach. Key issues involve identifying and transferring implicit knowledge between different disciplines using apprenticeship methodologies, and experimental publishing methodologies for knowledge capture (e.g., Hall, Bermell-Garcia, Ravindranath, & McMahon, 2017).

In addition to the paper proposed by the authors, a proposal for an ISEA workshop has also been submitted. The authors look forward to collaborating with the ISEA community of practice in developing good training methods for transdisciplinary collaborations.


Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Balsamo, A., ( 2011). Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work. Durnham, NC: Duke University Press.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues, 8 (2), 5–21.

Calvera, A. (Ed.). (2003). Arte¿?Diseño: Nuevos capítulos para una polémica que viene de lejos. Barcelona, Spain: Gustavo Gili.

COGNOVO. Cognitive Innovation Program. ( jan 20 2018).

Cross, N. (Ed.). (1984). Developments in design methodology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London, UK: Springer.

Davis, J. (2018) Unification of Knowledge. Leonardo Journal. In press.

Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design (Vol. 1). London, UK: RCA Research Papers.

Garcia Topete, A., Malina, R., Strohecker, C., Thill, R. (2017) SEAD Exemplars: Evidence of the Value of Transdisciplinary Projects. SEAD Committee. Retrieved from

Hall, M., Bermell-Garcia, P., Ravindranath, R., & McMahon, C. (2017). Lessons learnt from experts in design rationale knowledge capture. In A. Maier, S. Škec, H. Kim, M. Kokkolaras, J. Oehmen, G. Fadel, … M. Van der Loos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) (Vol. 6 Design Information and Knowledge, pp. 247–256). Vancouver, Canada: The Design Society.

Horkheimer, M. (1998). Teoría Crítica (2nd ed.). Buenos Aires, Argentina: Amorrortu Editores.

Jin, Y., & Geslin, M. (2008). Roles of negotiation protocol and strategy in collaborative design. In J. S. Gero & A. K. Goel (Eds.), Design Computing and Cognition’08 (pp. 491–510). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

Klein, M., Sayama, H., Faratin, P., & Bar-Yam, Y. (2006). The dynamics of collaborative design: Insights from complex systems and negotiation research. In D. Braha, A. Minai, & Y. Bar-Yam (Eds.), Complex Engineered Systems. Understanding Complex Systems (pp. 158–174). Berlin: Springer.

Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design research, an oxymoron? In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now. Essays and selected projects (pp. 67–80). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.

Leach, J. (2011). The Self of the Scientist, Material for the Artist: Emergent Distinctions in an Interdisciplinary Collaboration. Social Analysis, 55(3), 143–163.

Malina, R., Strohecker, C., & LaFayette, C. (2013). Steps to an Ecology of Networked Knowledge and Innovation: Enabling New Forms of Collaboration among Sciences, Engineering, Arts, and Design (SEAD). MIT Press. Retrieved from

Mejia, G. M., Malina, R. F., & Roldán, A. F. (2017). Towards an inventory of best practices for transdisciplinary collaboration (pp. 681–687). Presented at the 23rd International Symposium on Electronic Arts ISEA2017, Manizales, Colombia: Universidad de Caldas.

Nowotny, H. (2003) Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy 30 (3), pp. 151–156.

Pombo, O. (2008). Epistemologia da interdisciplinaridade. Ideação, 10 (1), pp. 9-40.

Repko, A. F. (2008). Interdisciplinary Research: Process and Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4 (2), 155–169.

Rohrer, C. (2014, October 12). When to Use Which User-Experience Research Methods. Retrieved January 15, 2017, from

Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4 (1), 5–18.

Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial design toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Slingerland, E., & Collard, M. (2011). Creating Consilience: Integrating the Sciences and the Humanities. Oxford University Press.

Strosberg, E. (2015). Art and Science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Abbeville Press.

The Design Council. (2014). The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond? Retrieved December 22, 2017, from

Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. Vintage Books.

Yu, L. L., Nickerson, J. V., & Sakamoto, Y. (2012). Collective Creativity: Where we are and where we might go. Proceedings of Collective Intelligence. Retrieved from

Leonardo LABS 2018 call for Phd, MFA and MA abstracts in the art,science,technology fields

Dear Colleagues,

Leonardo LABS 2018 call for PhD, MFA and MA abstracts in the art, science,  technology fields


As we near the end of the academic year, we want to bring the Leonardo Abstract Service (LABS) service to the attention of students and educators.

Students who will be getting an M.A., M.F.A. or PhD, before July 2018,  in a subject related to the intersection of art, science and/or technology are encouraged to submit an abstract of their thesis to the LABS database.

While the abstract needs to be written, theses can be written or an artistic work in any media. The LABS database functions as a way for international artists and scholars to learn about the work of the next generation. The database is peer-reviewed, and the top-ranking authors are invited to submit an article on their work for publication in Leonardo Journal published by MIT Press.  Additionally, abstracts ranked as first or second tier by the peer reviewers are published in the Leonardo Newsletter.


The next deadline for submissions is June 30, 2018. Please bring the LABS database to the attention of your students.  Also, please forward this information to other appropriate faculty. Do not hesitate to contact us or have them contact us with questions. You can view the database at Abstracts and their titles must be in English, but the thesis itself can be in English, Spanish or French. In coming years we will broaden the range of thesis languages included. 



Sheila Pinkel                                                               

Editor in Chief, English Language LABS

 Joao Silveira

 Latin American Representative

Roger Malina, Executive Editor, Leonardo Publications,

Yeah Jasia Reichardt you were right 50 years ago ! Announcing a major conference


It is with immense pleasure that I bring to your attention the first major art science symposium at the US National Academy of Science, with support from Leonardo/ISAST on our 50th anniversary year !

Revisiting Cybernetics Serendipity: Creativity and Collaboration

AND the opening talk will be by Marcia McNutt, President of the US National Academy of Science followed by …JASIA REICHARDT !!! whose celebrated Cybernetics Serendipity exhibition in 1968 was part of the  launch wave of art/science/technology practice in the 1960s. The exhibit was published in a special issue of Studio International who is also supporting the conference.

Registration begins Dec 1   

Our goals are modest with this conference !!

“Our ambition is to redirect the history of ideas, restoring the Leonardo-like close linkage between art/design and science/engineering/medicine.  We believe that internet-enabled collaborations can make more people more creative more of the time.”

( not sure I really want to get into creativity theory myself !! but my own input to the conference is the urgent need to redesign science itself- both the scientific method and its social embedding , as i have argued earlier in a series of blogs ,and  that we need to resign science itself to overcome the tragedy of the internet, through among other things expanding the citizen science movement to fully supported professional amateurs    )


There will be a great full day conference on the 12 of New Leonardo’s- graduate students from around the US.

AND just to add to the festivities there will be a Leonardo 50th birthday party with Jasia Reichardt at the DASER on Thursday the 15th at the National Academy of Science organised by J.D. Talasek.

Here are the details

Creativity and Collaboration:

Revisiting Cybernetic Serendipity  

March 13-14, 2018; Washington, D.C.
Organized by Ben Shneiderman, Maneesh Agrawala, Donna Cox, Alyssa Goodman, Youngmoo Kim, and Roger Malina

REGISTRATION WILL OPEN DECEMBER 1                                                                    

Our ambition is to redirect the history of ideas, restoring the Leonardo-like close linkage between art/design and science/engineering/medicine.  We believe that internet-enabled collaborations can make more people more creative more of the time.


Tuesday March 13, 2018

9:00am Opening: Marcia McNutt, President NAS

Introduction: Ben Shneiderman, University of Maryland, Rock the Research: Embrace Design, Rediscover Visual, and Go Social

Opening Talk: Jasia Reichardt, Cybernetic Serendipity Exhibit Organizer, In anticipation of the sixties

10:30am BREAK


Session 1: Revisiting Cybernetic Serendipity:  A Catalyst for Research Breakthroughs

The 1968 Cybernetics Serendipity exhibit proved to be generative of art/design and research directions that were fruitful and beneficial for science/engineering/medicine.   This session provides an historical perspective while speculating about which directions and exemplars hold promise for the coming decades.  

Session Chair: Roger Malina, University of Texas, Dallas

Sara Diamond, OCAD University, Modeling New Knowledges – An Inclusive STEAM + D Imperative

Curtis Wong, Microsoft, Inc.,  Leonardo da Vinci: Art/Science as the virtuous cycle of rendering and understanding natural world

Patrick McCray, University of California, Santa Barbara, All Watched Over and Watching Machines of Loving, Sometimes Terrifying, Grace

12:20pm LUNCH


Session 2: Information Visualization, Data Art/Design, Data Journalism: Revealing Hidden Worlds

Visualization exposes surprising patterns in data, influences the direction of research, and produces unexpected insights. How does interactive, immersive, and large-data visualizations enhance exploration, discovery, and presentation of research results?  Visualization clarifies thinking for researchers and policy makers.  

Session 2a:

Maneesh Agrawala, Stanford University, Deconstructing Charts and Graphs

Jeff Heer, University of Washington, Constructing Charts and Graphs

Alyssa Goodman, Harvard, Smithsonian, The Road from Explanation to Exploration, and Back

3:00pm  BREAK


Session 2b:

Donna Cox, University of Illinois, High Impact Visualizations: The Potential of Visualization Research to Inform Science Funding and Public Opinion

Katy Borner, Indiana University, Data Visualization Literacy: Research and Tools that Advance Public Understanding of Scientific Data

Fernanda Viegas, Google, Inc.,

Jonathan Corum, New York Times, Revealing Hidden Worlds: Visualizing Science at The New York Times

5:00pm Reception

6:00pm Annual Sackler Lecture

             TO BE ANNOUNCED

Wednesday March 14, 2018


Session 3: Integrating Art & Design Education with Science, Engineering & Medicine

Breakthroughs are increasingly through collaborative efforts spanning multiple disciplines. This session explores integrations of art and design with science, engineering, and medicine. Does such integration have the potential for developing researchers and professionals better prepared to incorporate multiple perspectives, accept new ideas, with greater capacity to work with diverse team members?

David Skorton, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution, Integrating Higher Education in the Arts, Humanities, Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine:  A consensus report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, Board on Higher Education and Workforce

Panel Discussion and Reflections with Report Committee Members

  – David Skorton, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution

  – Tom Rudin, Director, NRC Board on Higher Education and Workforce

  – Pamela Jennings, Construkts

  – Youngmoo Kim (moderator), Drexel University

10:30am BREAK


Session 3b: Session Chair: Youngmoo Kim, Drexel University

Robert Root-Bernstein, Michigan State University, How Arts, Crafts and Design Training Benefit STEMM Professionals: The Evidence and It’s Limitations

John Maeda, Global Head of Computational Design + Inclusion, Automattic (Invited), Design, Technology, and Inclusion for Advancing Learning

Suzanne Bonamici, Congresswoman, Oregon (Invited), The Congressional STEAM Caucus

12:20pm LUNCH


Session 4: Social Media, Citizen Science & Team Research

How to harness the power of collaboration, participation & teamwork to accelerate research?

In the past, individual “heroes” were celebrated, but today, evidence powerfully supports collaborative projects which bring together diverse talents.  This session presents effective strategies for communication and collaboration in two-person partnerships, small and large teams, and massive citizen science projects. 

Session 4a:

Jennifer Preece, University of Maryland, Citizen Science Speaks to Research: New Paradigms, New Agendas and Broader Impacts

Laura Trouille, Adler Planetarium & Zooniverse Project, Tales from the Zooniverse: Enabling Serendipity and Creativity through Citizen Science

Julia K Parrish, University of Washington, The Promise of Citizen Science: Scale, Technology, Agency and Saving the World

3:00pm BREAK


Session 4b: Session Chair: Alyssa Goodman

Niki Kittur, Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Scaling Up Serendipity: Augmenting Analogical Innovation with Crowds and AI

Zeynep Tufekci, writer, academic, and self-styled “techno-sociologist”,

5:00pm END


This unique interdisciplinary experience is two distinct but related events that include the Student Symposium on March 12 and the Colloquium on March 13-14.

//// Role/Play: Collaborative Creativity and Creative Collaborations Student Fellows Symposium

March 12, 2018, Washington D.C.
Supported by the Arthur M. Sackler Foundation for the Arts, Sciences and Humanities and Google, Inc.
Organized by Liese Liann Zahabi and Molly Morin 

50 North American graduate students enrolled in masters and doctoral programs across all disciplines have been selected to participate in the Monday, March 12 Student Fellows Symposium and attend the Sackler Colloquium which follows on March 13-14, (please note that the selected students are expected to attend all three days of events).  

Scientists thinking like artists—artists thinking like scientists. When these traditionally defined roles mix together, how is the process of making work or conducting research altered? Does the play between disciplines benefit a designer’s practice, an engineer’s output, or a scientist’s data? What are the hazards and opportunities? 

Student Fellow Symposium Agenda

Awards will include registration for all three days for all awardees (includes some meals during the conference).  West coast students will receive $800 in travel subsidy, students traveling from the Northeast, Midwest, and Southeast will receive $600 in travel subsidy. Local students in the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia will receive registration for all three days, but no travel support.  Selections will be finalized by December 1, 2017 and all applicants notified by email.

Major support for the student symposium has been provided by the Dame Jillian and Dr. Arthur M. Sackler Foundation for the Arts, Sciences, and Humanities, which also support the colloquium series; and Google, Inc.


Additional support for the colloquium has been provided by Science Sandbox – a Simons Foundation initiative, Studio International and Leonardo/ISAST.