Often referred to as the ‘non-human turn’ a considerable amount of academic discourse has in recent years been centered on notions of the nonhuman or more-than-human and object-oriented ontologies, such as actor-network theory, especially within the humanities, e.g. [Barad, 2007; Bogost, 2012; Braidotti, 2011; Hayles,1999; Latour, 2012; Bennett,2009]. Under the common term Posthumanism these theories reject Cartesian dualism and designate an array of fundamental breaks with Western culture. Posthumanism is critical of the Enlightenment ideal of the distinct, rational and dominant human individual and seeks to understand the human subject and its relationship to the natural and artificial worlds in a new, non-anthropocentric light. Although there are many differing currents within Posthumanism, and some posthumanist such as Donna Haraway [Gane,2006) contest the term in itself, they all have in common that they undermine traditional boundaries and recognize the significance of the non-human contribution to our life-world.

Situated within Posthumanism, the field of more-than-human research takes nonhuman life, and human/nonhuman entanglements seriously and so steps away from the modernist dismissal of nature and nonhuman life as inferior to humans and valuable only as resources. Researchers working in these areas often question how knowledge is created and science is conventionally ‘done’ - as a result methods are augmented, hybridized and remade - a paramount prerequisite to shift away from established paradigms of human exceptionalism [Bastian, et al 2016].

Within scientific enquiry, using an anthropomorphic language and ascribing so-called human attributes - such as feelings and distinct personalities - to interpret the experience and actions of species other that humans has long been though - and still is - to hinder our understanding of them in their own right. Famously, Jane Goodall received harsh critique for naming the chimpanzees she studied instead of assigning them numbers. Yet dogs and horses can read human emotions [Somppi, et al., 2016; Smith, et al., 2016]. Whales have regional accents [Gero et al., 2016]. Ravens might be able to guess at the thoughts of other ravens, indicating some basic ‘theory of mind,’ long considered an ability unique to humans [Bugnyar, et al., 2016]. All of these recent findings suggest that many of the traits and abilities we believe to be uniquely human may not be.

Thought to be necessary to avoid emotional bias, decades of avoidance of anything which may get a researcher accused of anthropomorphism and potentially left with a ruined career, may have mostly served to hold the field back as it has prevented science asking critical questions [Safina, 2015, De Waal, 2016]. Evolutionary biologist Gordon Morton suggests the practice of ‘critical anthropomorphism’, that is using human intuition and understanding as a starting point for understanding animal cognition [Morton and Burghardt, 1990]. Although ‘critical anthropomorphism’ has primarily been applied within animal studies a similar trajectory can be seen within the plant sciences, where for example Monica Gagliano, a plant ecologist conducting behavioral studies on plants and others in the field has faced severe resistance to her work for using terms such as learning and memory applied to plants.

Representing set of methods and approaches to design, the main objective of CoDesign is to ensure that all stakeholders are heard and included in the design or development process, which often requires decision makers to re-evaluate their notion of who constitutes participants in the design process. Although the two have different roots the terms CoDesign and Participatory design are today often used interchangeably. There are five fundamental aspects to contemporary CoDesign/Participatory Design: 1) politics, that is, people who are affected by a decision should have an opportunity to influence it; 2) people, that is, people play critical roles in design by being experts in their own lives; 3) context, that is, the specific use situation is the fundamental starting point for the design process, 4) methods, that is, methods are means for users to gain influence in design processes and 5) product, that is, the goal of participation is to design alternatives, thereby improving quality of life [Halskov and Hansen, 2015].

Generally speaking there are three kinds of participants: 1) end-users, or direct users, that is people who will use the product; 2) stakeholders, those who do not use a design but nevertheless are affected by it; and 3) decision-makers, that could be designers or policy-makers. Further distinctions are also made with regard to the different types of participation, such as direct participation by end-users, indirect participation by user representatives, or even imagined representation, for example through the use of personas in the design processes or advocacy [Bossen et al, 2010; Grudin & Pruitt, 2002; Mambrey et al, 1998].

Although traditionally very human centered, in recent years some parts of the CoDesign/Participatory Design community has begun including nonhumans as participants into their research [Bastian, et al. 2016].

Long believed to represent nothing than biological ‘automata’ carrying out a specific genetic program, recent findings reveals plants to be highly sentient beings with a wide array of senses, by far exceeding those of humans [Karban, 2015]. Plants can recognize kin and will adjust their foraging behavior to be less aggressive when in close proximity of close relatives [Dudley et al., 2013]. Plants communicate with each other and with some animal species as well [Karban, 2015], and they can make active choices in order to optimize their living conditions [Brenner et al., 2006]. Plants can learn, that is they can process information and remember and apply that knowledge even in changed circumstances [Gagliano, et al. 2014]. They share information as well as nutrients, within underground mycorrhizal networks [Simard, 2012] and they have social lives, protecting and nourishing both their young and the old [Simard, 2021].

Plants use three different methods of communication: through the release of chemical volatiles, the release of phyto-hormones and through electrical signaling. The technology we use in the Growing CoDesign project makes use of the latter.

The electrical signals emitted by plants consists of either the or action potentials(AP) and are utilized by the plant to regulate a variety of physiological functions and rapidly respond to external stimuli [Fromm et al., 2007]. This process is similar to the one taking place in humans and other animals, in that an electric signal is transmitted as a reaction to external stimuli causing a certain action. For example touching a hot surface will send an electrical signal to the brain, which then sends a signal to the hand, prompting it to move away from the heat source to avoid injury. Plants, being sessile and devoid of brains deploy different methods of self-protection, and processing, however the signal is largely the same and can be detected by using slightly adapted commercially available Electromyography (EMG) sensors. The ease with which these signals can be harvested from the plant, as well as the rapid response-time, makes these signals particular suitable for use in arts and design installations [Frankjaer, 2017].