Outubro 2023 vol. 11 num. 4 - 15th International Conference of the European Academy of Design

Full paper - Open Access.

Idioma principal | Segundo idioma

Design practice reimagined: New fundamentals through a study of co-design and practice based doctoral studies

Design practice reimagined: New fundamentals through a study of co-design and practice based doctoral studies

Cruickshank, Leon ; Brewster, Lee ; Potts, Diane ; Owen, Violet ;

Full paper:

Collaborative design is ubiquitous and can provide support for communities and organisations to envisage and deliver more equitable and joyful futures. What often seems to be a simple enough process of engagement can, however, be a complex activity. The issue with co-design is often a fundamental one, design is not easily explained. Designers and academics will often be able to explain what design is and the literature provides definitions that have been honed over many years. It is also relatively easy to find frameworks or models that provide prompts when to carry out an activity or task, these elements are reasonably straight forward to explain. This paper focuses on the searching from the fundamental principles that lie beneath these models, for the hidden epistemological perspectives that are seldom examined or shared. A multidisciplinary group from [author institution] came together from design research, design practice and linguistics and, through a series of reflective sessions, explored the possibility of identifying and articulating the essence the epistemology of the act of designing. This paper presents the start of this journey and is intended to provoke questions rather than present neat solutions. Provocatively we posit that the epistemological prototype model presented below underpins all design, inside and outside academia and the design profession.

Full paper:

Collaborative design is ubiquitous and can provide support for communities and organisations to envisage and deliver more equitable and joyful futures. What often seems to be a simple enough process of engagement can, however, be a complex activity. The issue with co-design is often a fundamental one, design is not easily explained. Designers and academics will often be able to explain what design is and the literature provides definitions that have been honed over many years. It is also relatively easy to find frameworks or models that provide prompts when to carry out an activity or task, these elements are reasonably straight forward to explain. This paper focuses on the searching from the fundamental principles that lie beneath these models, for the hidden epistemological perspectives that are seldom examined or shared. A multidisciplinary group from [author institution] came together from design research, design practice and linguistics and, through a series of reflective sessions, explored the possibility of identifying and articulating the essence the epistemology of the act of designing. This paper presents the start of this journey and is intended to provoke questions rather than present neat solutions. Provocatively we posit that the epistemological prototype model presented below underpins all design, inside and outside academia and the design profession.

Download (PDF)

Palavras-chave: Co-design, practice based, doctoral studies, design fundamentals,

Palavras-chave: Co-design, practice based, doctoral studies, design fundamentals,

DOI: 10.5151/ead2023-1BIL-01Full-04Cruickshank-et-al

Referências bibliográficas
  • [1] Archer, B. (1995). Understanding Research’, in PhD, RSD, and Knowledge Management. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 223–224.
  • [2] Atwood, M. E., McCain, K. W., & Williams, J. C. (2002). How does the design community think about design? Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS, 125–13 https://doi.org/10.1145/77871778732
  • [3] Banathy, B. H. (1996). What Is Design? Why Do We Need It? 11–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9981-1_2
  • [4] Biggs, M., & Karlsson, H. (2010). University politics and practice-based research. In The Routledge Companion to Research in the Arts. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203841327.ch1
  • [5] Borgdorff, H., Peters, P., & Pinch, T. (2019). Dialogues between artistic research and science and technology studies. Routledge.
  • [6] Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Participatory Design: Expanding Boundaries in Design, PDC 2006, 57–6 https://doi.org/10.1145/1147261.1147271
  • [7] Candy, L. (2006). Practice Based Research: A Guide. CCS Report, 1, 19. http://www.creativityandcognition.com/resources/PBR Guide-1.1-2006.pdf
  • [8] Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2011). A dictionary of media and communication. OUP Oxford.
  • [9] Chang, H., Ngunjiri, F., & Hernandez, K.-A. C. (2016). Collaborative autoethnography.
  • [10] Routledge.
  • [11] Coyne, R. (2005). Wicked problems revisited. Design Studies, 26(1), 5–17.
  • [12] Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
  • [13] Cruickshank, L., Coupe, G., & Hennessy, D. (2016). Co-Design: Fundamental Issues and Guidelines for Designers: Beyond the Castle Case Study. Swedish Design Research Journal, 10(2), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.3384/svid.2000-964X.13248.
  • [14] DesignCouncil. (2021). Framework for innovation. Design Council. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-designcouncils-evolved-double-diamond
  • [15] Dubberly, H. (2004) ‘How do you design? A compendium of Models’. San Francisco, Dubberly Design Office.
  • [16] Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2015). Autoethnography : An Overview Author ( s ): Carolyn Ellis , Tony E . Adams and Arthur P . Bochner Conventions and Institutions from a Historical Perspective / Konventionen und Institutionen in historischer Perspektive (2011), pp . 273-290 Published by : Historical Social Research, 36(4), 273–290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23032294
  • [17] Galabo, R., & Cruickshank, L. (2019). Redesigning Tools for Knowledge Exchange. An Improvement Framework. The Design Journal, May. Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2016).Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word, 17(3), 241-292.
  • [18] Hehenberger, P., Vogel-Heuser, B., Brandley, D., Eynard, B., Tomiyama, T., & Achiche, S. (2016). Design, modeling, simulation and integration of cyber physical systems:Methods and applications. Computers in Industry, 82, 273–289.
  • [19] Jones, S. H., Adams, T. E., & Ellis, C. (2016). Handbook of autoethnography. Routledge.
  • [20] Julier, G. (2013). The culture of design. Sage.
  • [21] Koen, P., Ajamian, G., Burkart, R., Clamen, A., Davidson, J., D’Amore, R., Elkins, C., Herald, K., Incorvia, M., Johnson, A., Karol, R., Seibert, R., Slavejkov, A., & Wagner, K. (2001). Providing clarity and a common language to the “fuzzy front end.” Research Technology Management, 44(2), 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2001.11671418
  • [22] Lancaster University. (2018). Leapfrog: Transforming public service consultation by design. UKRI Web Page. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FM001296%2F1&pn=1&fetchSize=10&selectedSortableField=firstAuthorName&selectedSortOrder=ASC
  • [23] Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think. Routledge.
  • [24] Mantai, L., & Marrone, M. (2022). Identifying skills, qualifications, and attributes expected to do a PhD. Studies in Higher Education, 47(11), 2273–2286. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2022.2061444
  • [25] Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs : an introduction to design for social innovation. The MIT Press.
  • [26] Murphy, E., & Jacobs, N. (2014). Designing a New Design PhD ? 19th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference Design Management in an Era of Disruption, September, 2–4.
  • [27] Open University. (2021). Connected communities and Design highlights: Empowering design practices: historic places of worship as catalysts for connecting communities. UKRI Web Page. https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FM001709%2F1&pn=0&fetchSize=10&selectedS ortableField=firstAuthorName&selectedSortOrder=ASC
  • [28] Osborn, A. F. (1942). How to think up. McGraw-Hill book company, inc.
  • [29] Papanek, V., & Fuller, R. B. (1972). Design for the real world. Thames and Hudson London.
  • [30] Pérez, D., Whitham, R., Coupe, G., & Cruickshank, L. (2022). Talking about food : reflecting on transitions of practice in people with lived experience of food poverty.
  • [31] Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. University of Chicago press.
  • [32] Potter, N. (1980). What is a designer. Hyphen press.
  • [33] Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
  • [34] Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co- Design, 4(1), 5–18.
  • [35] Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: Three approaches to making in codesigning. In CoDesign (Vol. 10, Issue 1, pp. 5–14). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2014.888183
  • [36] Schofield, G., & Beek, M. (2014). The Secure Base Model: Promoting attachment and resilience in foster care and adoption. BAAF.
  • [37] Scrivener, S. (2021). The art object does not embody a form of knowledge revisited. The Routledge International Handbook of Practice-Based Research, 277–291. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429324154-20
  • [38] Sharmini, S., & Spronken-Smith, R. (2020). The PhD–is it out of alignment? Higher Education Research and Development, 39(4), 821–833. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1693514
  • [39] Simon, H. A. (2019). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.
  • [40] Stappers, P. J., Carlos, T., Rampino, L. R., Baxter, W. L., Hyysalo, S. I., & Chapman, J. A. (2022). Guiding the PhD in design: Experiences from six programs. PROCEEDINGS OF DRS, 1–13.
  • [41] Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2(1), 55–65.
  • [42] Zhang, Y., Guo, Z., Lv, J., & Liu, Y. (2018). A Framework for Smart Production-Logistics Systems Based on CPS and Industrial IoT. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 14(9), 4019–4032. https://doi.org/10.1109/TII.2018.2845683
  • [43] Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems- Proceedings, 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704"
Como citar:

Cruickshank, Leon; Brewster, Lee; Potts, Diane; Owen, Violet; "Design practice reimagined: New fundamentals through a study of co-design and practice based doctoral studies", p. 55-65 . In: 15th International Conference of the European Academy of Design. São Paulo: Blucher, 2023.
ISSN 2318-6968, DOI 10.5151/ead2023-1BIL-01Full-04Cruickshank-et-al

últimos 30 dias | último ano | desde a publicação


downloads


visualizações


indexações