How Do You Say Nature?: Opening the Design Space with a Knowledge Environment

In this paper, we describe a design study on how families in Los Angeles experience nature, with a particular focus on how using alternative formats for research analysis and presentation can enrich a design research inquiry. Conducted in Pasadena, CA as a part of Super Studio, the year-long design research class emphasized knowledge building and sharing through design methods of analysis, exhibition, and concept prototypes. After conducting interviews and engaging participants with probes, the class built the results into an open-ended knowledge environment. The main observation from the exhibition – that Angelenos have a limited vocabulary for describing nature and their interaction with it – helped to define the opportunity for design intervention that created connection points between Angelenos and nature. There are few attempts to describe how probe returns evolve into design concepts. Showcased is a process that depends on the unique affordances of design as the vehicle for discovery and invention.     

Multiple Depression

The subject of this paper is the problematisation of depression in today's mental health care. It is based on a study of the professional discussion on depression in Finland from the mid-1980s to the 1990s. The ways in which Finnish mental health experts define the object of depression treatment bring out an ambivalence that stems from the discrepancy between two parallel but incongruent notions of what depression is: the psychopharmacological and the psychotherapeutic. The analysis of the discussion demonstrates how clinical and practical rationales of today's mental health care are formed in the space between the two poles. Two tendencies of these rationales are also pointed out: first, the DSM paradigm of depressive illness inclines to become problematic and to dissolve in the actual practices. Second, they insinuate emphasis on antidepressant medication and overall neuropsychiatric approach in the treatment of depressive disorders, although in an ambivalent way.     

I. Genotype-environment interaction in the schizophrenia spectrum: genetic liability and global family ratings in the Finnish Adoption Study

In the Finnish Adoption Study, a national sample of adoptees with high versus low genetic liability for schizophrenia spectrum disorders was indexed by DSM-III-R diagnoses of their biological, adopting-away mothers. The rearing-family environments of the adoptees were independently evaluated from global ratings of directly observed adoptive family relationships. The interaction of high genetic liability and dysfunction of the rearing families predicted highly significantly to schizophrenia spectrum disorder of the adoptees at 21-year follow-up. Either low genetic liability or healthy rearing protected against a spectrum outcomes for the adoptees. Initial adoptive parent diagnosis, as a proxy for rearing family dysfunction, predicted to adoptee outcome only as a trend.     

II. Genotype-environment interaction in the schizophrenia spectrum: qualitative observations

Previous reports from the Finnish Adoptive Family Study of Schizophrenia have documented significant interplay between genetics (G) and family rearing (E), leading to adoptee outcomes of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Quantitative evidence for this interplay is significantly enhanced when both high genetic liability and severe environmental dysfunction are present. However, when either genetic liability is low or the rearing environment is healthy, the adoptees appear to be resiliently protected against a pathologic outcome. Nevertheless, exceptions to this pattern do occur. Six qualitative vignettes, together with quantitative measures and categorical diagnoses from the same families, illustrate how multiple methods partially confirm one another and also suggest where further exploration of gene-environment interaction is needed.