Talking about food: Reflecting on transitions of practice in people with lived experience of food poverty
2022
- 1Citations
- 412Usage
- 4Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1
- Citation Indexes1
- CrossRef1
- Usage412
- Downloads237
- Abstract Views175
- Captures4
- Readers4
Conference Paper Description
In this paper, we deploy a practice theory lens to explore how co-design activities have enabled individuals to transition to new and different advocacy, inquiry and engagement practices. The co-design project we describe sought to bring about change in a national network of organisations addressing food poverty in the UK. The aim of the project was to collaborate with young people and adults from different communities of the North of England to co-design tools for gathering stories and enabling advocacy relating to food insecurity. We use a practice theory lens to describe the relationships between co-design activities and transitions in practices of a single participant. The findings show the value of exploring and sharing meanings, practical experimentation and facilitating transitions within participant’s practice. We argue that practice theory provides an analytical framework to understand the impacts of co-design and social design by interpreting the transitioning practices in participants.
Bibliographic Details
https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2022/researchpapers/250; http://dx.doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.683; https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3048&context=drs-conference-papers; https://dx.doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.683; https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2022/researchpapers/250/
Design Research Society
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know