‘design-beyond-borders’-international-collaborative-projects-as-a-mechanism-to-integrate-social-sustainability-into-student-design-practice_2012_mcmahon...

8/2/2019 Design-Beyond-Borders-international-collaborative-projects-as-a-mechanism-to-integrate-social-sustainability-into-st

http:///reader/full/design-beyond-borders-international-collaborative-projects-as-a-mechanism-to-integrate-social-s 1/10

Design Beyond Borders: international collaborative projects as a mechanismto integrate social sustainability into student design practice

Muireann McMahon a,*, Tracy Bhamra b

a Dept. of Design & Manufacturing Technology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Irelandb Loughborough Design School, Loughborough, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 27 January 2011

Received in revised form

14 October 2011

Accepted 15 October 2011

Available online 25 October 2011

Keywords:

Social sustainability

Collaboration

Design education

Product Design

Action research

a b s t r a c t

Social sustainability in design, like the notion of social impacts in Sustainable Development, is a complex,

contradictory and challenging area. Transforming the rhetoric surrounding sustainability into action is

where designers often struggle. In order to do this effectively, this paper argues that designers need to be

introduced to a set of skills and capacities that go beyond the traditional design competencies and

implementing these skills will require a shift in how designers are taught as students and subsequently

practice as professionals. Through the exploration of contemporary design practices, social sustainability

and educational theory this research pinpoints these skills and capacities. Using a participatory Action

Research methodology it is suggested that international collaborative projects at undergraduate level can

play an important role in introducing these skills into design education. The paper describes two projects

(fulfilling two phases of the action research process) involving collaborations between groups of

undergraduate design students from different geographical locations. A brief description of the projects

logistics is followed by an analysis of the outcomes and experiences of participants, looking specifically at

what worked and what did not and why mistakes and successes in collaborative work can inform in

equal measure. The learning from these projects will highlight how future projects can be structured and

delivered and how the softer skills acquired during the projects can bring about a change in designers

behaviours. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today there is an impetus on professional designers to practice

in a responsible and sustainable manner, with equal emphasis on

society, economy and the environment (Fletcher and Dewberry,

2002). This is an enormous challenge as the skills needed to

develop these types of holistic solutions can be extremely complex.

Yet education often fails to equip design students with the neces-

sary skills that allow them to practice responsibly as professionals

(ibid). This paper provides the first output of a larger longitudinalproject. The key premise of the overall study is to investigate how

social sustainability can be integrated into design1 education to

encourage more responsible professional practices. The work

focuses on international collaborative projects as a mechanism to

foster the necessary skills and encourage students to look more

broadly and critically at their own work and that of others. Fig. 1

illustrates the overall project map from the key aims at the centre

of the diagram to the research methodology (left) for testing and

the skills and capacities on the right.

The paper begins by grounding these projects in current theory

surrounding contemporary design, social sustainability and

educational practices. Subsequently, a brief outline is given of two

projects conducted between students from Universities in New

Zealand, Ireland and Chile (who unfortunately were forced to

withdraw in the initial stages of the 2nd project). The paper

explains the practical logistics of planning and implementing such

projects acknowledging the difficulties and realities involved. Itdocuments the conversations, conflicts and compromises that

occur and the contingencies (unforeseen or uncontrollable actions)

that can thwart or enhance the experience. The discussion

describes how the findings from the first phase of research

informed the design and implementation of the second project.

Finally the conclusion offers a reflection on the experiences of both

students and tutors and indicates the future phases of Action

Research that will complete the study.

These collaborative projects build on the premise that the

broader the diversity of information, practices and cultures design

students are exposed to the more open their perspectives will be

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 353 61 213580.

E-mail address: [email protected] (M. McMahon).1 Design for this paper refers to Product or Industrial Design.

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j c l e p r o

0959-6526/$ e see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022

Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
mailto:[email protected]://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcleprohttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jcleprohttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09596526mailto:[email protected]



and the more adept they will become at participating in and

facilitating the creation of more innovative sustainable solutions.

The results of these projects are explored to assess their impact in

beginning to bring about increases in social capital, social cohesion

and collaboration across geographical and educational boundaries.

2. Background

The paradigm of design is changing; with the focus moving

away from material led objects to more user-led experiences(Moritz, 2005). The notion of a designers role as that of merely

giving shape to physical objects is no longer valid (Nelson and

Stolterman, 2003). Design has evolved to become the link

between human and social needs and industrial practices. This is

achieved by designing tangible and intangible objects that give

meaning, provide cultural contexts and also the opportunities for

individual expression (Hara, 2009). Design now acts as cultural

stimulus, a change agent and a tool for social engagement.

The development of innovative design solutions may be greatly

enhanced through a process of collaboration, collective knowledge

generation and sharing, multi-disciplinarity, holistic perspectives

and understanding of diverse cultural backgrounds (Designophy,

2001). Encouraging and facilitating collaboration between students

in an educational environment can be particularly challenging asindividuals can struggle to move past what they know and have

learnt in their own cultural and professional settings (Cumming and

Akar,2005). Educating for sustainable developmentfocusesstudents

on gaining exposure to diversities of practice so as to develop critical

thinking and analysis skills. Fortunately, as Bhamra and Dewberry

note, best practice design education maps relatively easily onto the

adoption of sustainable development teaching methodologies as

both encourage pragmatism and participation (2007).

To engage fully with sustainability, designers today must learn

to engage in cross-disciplinary and cross cultural dialogue. If

students are to be responsible, innovative and pragmatic designers,

they must develop the ability to think critically; tie together

disparate strands of information; communicate effectively (talking

and listening); apply systems thinking; co-operate in co-design

projects whilst also imagining and realising new ideas (Chiu,

2002; Lozano, 2007; Manzini, 2009b). Both knowledge sharing

and collaborative practice serve to open these communication

channels and create a community of informed and informative

professionals (Cumming and Akar, 2005).

This deeper approach to design (and consequently education)

posesa huge challenge as it requires a change in both behaviour and

attitudes (Thackara, 2006). What will be required is a new way of

learning that is creative and involves a deep awareness of alternative

worldviews and ways of doing things

(Sterling, 2001) and preparesstudents for the realities they will face as professionals. Collabora-

tive project work not only serves to broaden students perspectives,

but also facilitates them to become critical thinkers who question,

analyse, reflect and consequently form their own worldview (Chiu,

2002). Resultantly they may critically question their own educa-

tion andbehaviours, as well as learning to comment andcritique on

other design work by engaging in dialogue with a wide variety of

designers from diverse cultural backgrounds as Lozano Garca et al.

(2006) suggest within and across other disciplines. The curriculum

therefore must stimulate the students into exploring alternative

approaches to design, in a real and engaged way. From the tutors

perspective thiswill helpto broaden and develop the experience for

their students and will emphasise the importance of making project

work relevant within the global context.

2.1. Social sustainability in design

As justification for the collaborative projects and to provide

a background context it was necessary to first identify what social

sustainability is in relation to design and also to collate a list of

relevant skills and capacities designers needed to develop in order

to practice responsibly.

It is generally accepted that sustainability incorporates three

central tenets (social, economic and environmental) in equal

measure. Addressing these in equal measure is where problems

have arisenas every discipline andculturecome from very different

perspectives and therefore have very different needs (Cassimir and

Dutilh, 2003; Moore, 2011). Each discipline interprets the desired

Fig. 1. Project overview.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95 87
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022



outcomes from their own perspective and to date this focus in

design has been on environmental and economic factors. End of

pipe solutions, energy and resource use, green materials and

processes and more recently social innovations, systems design and

design for behaviour change have dominated the sustainable and

eco-design agendas (Chapman, 2005; Sherwin, 2004; Dewberry,

1996; Krull, 2010; Manzini, 2009a).

Social sustainability in design, as in other areas, has been

somewhat neglected, as it is difficult to define and even more

difficult to implement (Steiner and Posch, 2006, Cassimir and

Dutilh, 2003). This ambiguity stems from the fact that it involves

issues as diverse (and unquantifiable) as ethics, values, active citi-

zenship, harmonious behaviour, participation and co-operation,

preserving social and cultural diversity, meeting basic needs,

well-being and happiness, holistic perspectives and personal as

well as professional responsibility (Lilley, 2007; McKenzie, 2004).

Social sustainability in design, therefore calls for a deep under-

standing of human behaviour, fulfilling human needs and wants

whilst being cognisant of (amongst other things) environmental

limits, product responsibility, resource use and carrying capacities.

As well as paying due attention to history; traditions; engaging in

dialogue; having equity in expressing ideas; compromise; self-

fulfilment and altruism in design practice are fundamentals inworking towards social sustainability. These have been categorised

as social capital, social engagement, social cohesion and social

exclusion (Bramley et al., 2006; Findeli, 2008). Sustainable design

has progressed from the green design agenda into a far more

considered and holistic approach that should be integrated into the

education of designers (Spangenberg et al., 2010); if the philoso-

phies are embedded early then responsible practice becomes

normative (Bremer and Lpez-Franco, 2006; Lozano, 2006).

The debate around social design and the meaning of social

sustainability within design practice has been interpreted in

numerous different ways. It is often thought of as designing for

marginal sectors of society in order to even the disparities in living

standards and qualities of life (design for society) (Whiteley, 1993).

Similarly incorporating considerations of culture and culturalmeaning in products can be classified as social design (Walker,

2006), as can design processes that employ psychology and moti-

vational strategies to lighten human impact (Design for behaviour

change) (Manzini, 2007; Mendoza, 2010). Practitioners at the DESIS

network, Designmatters, Project H and The Young Foundation

would equate the term social sustainability with social innovation

and entrepreneurship projects that are based on employing design-

thinking to bring about positive social changes (Mendoza, 2010;

Manzini, 2010; Murray et al., 2010; Core77, 2010). While the

approach in the interpretation and understanding may vary, social

sustainability in design is about harnessing human and cultural

capital to bring about change and regain social cohesion.

While there is no one size fits all definition for social sustain-

ability, as social parameters differ from place to place, person toperson and context to context, there is a need to overcome the

complexity that surrounds it by bringing it into design practices in

a real and engaging way (Steiner and Posch, 2006). The critical,

creative and systemic thinking approach advocated through social

sustainability offers great potential for making designers aware of

the impact their products have on both local and global societies.

As this awareness grows, designers can feel enabled to change their

practice and as a result impact positively on consumption and

behavioural patterns of end users.

2.2. Design education for sustainability

Unfortunately the problems linked with sustainability and in

particular social sustainability are by their very nature extremely

complex and wicked (Design Council, 2006; Steiner and Posch,

2006). As a result students find it difficult to marry the compli-

cated, contradictory and all too often confusing concepts that

underpin it (Segalas et al., 2010). Interestingly though introducing

design for sustainability into design education has proven to

stimulate creativity and originality (Spangenberg et al., 2010). If we

accept that the challenges are great as are the opportunities then

the approach for bringing about change demands a rethink of both

design practice and education. Education and Sustainability are

inextricably linked as education is seen as the key to effectively

implement change (McKeown, 2002). There is no denying that

education is pivotal in realising the vision and translating the

rhetoric into real action (UN, 2005, UNESCO, 2004).

It is widely recognized that design practices must move from

a parochial to a global approach where openness, transparency and

collaboration (co-design & co-generation) allow for a greater

freedom of ideas and solutions (Jegou and Manzini, 2008; Moritz,

2005; Burns et al., 2006). Collaboration and co-operation

encourage social learning, allow designers to hear other voices,

build on both collective and individual knowledge and develop

softer design skills like compromise, dialogue, reflection and

empathy (Chiu, 2002; Steiner and Posch, 2006, Fadeeva, 2004).

Creativity too is known to be heightened when culturally diverseteams work together (McDonough et al., 2001).

Therefore an imperative exists to not only change what is taught

to design students (curriculum content) but also howthe core skills

are taught (teaching methods) (Bhamra and Dewberry, 2007).

Designers need to develop a holistic perspective backed by the

ability to think critically and creatively, to self-direct and reflect on

their design outputs and the resultant impacts on society. The skills

of effective communication and collaboration underpin these

abilities (Lozano, 2007). Reflection is an essential part of educa-

tional practice, as it allows the students to question their own

assumptions and those of others in order to build a broader

knowledge base for their professional practice (Loughran, 2002).As

with any effective learning strategy the process should be stressed

as highly as the outcomes.Many authors recommend developing in students a generic

range of skills and capacities that facilitate them in understanding,

managing and questioning knowledge and then implementing

change and effecting action (McKeown, 2002; Sterling, 2001,

Gonzlez-Gaudiano, 2005; Steiner and Posch, 2006, Chiu, 2002;

Manzini, 2009b). Stage 1 of the research involved exploring and

gaining an understanding of what these skills are. From a combi-

nation of brainstorming, reviewing literature2, peer discussions,

observations and practical experience a list of skills, capacities and

ideas have been identified as those needed for socially sustainable

designing (see Fig. 2 for the complete list of skills, ideas and

capacities).

3. Methods

3.1. Aim

The overall aim of the larger study is to investigate the use of

international collaborative design projects as a mechanism to equip

students with the skills and capacities necessary to integrate social

sustainability into their daily design practice. The two projects are

2 The literature review covered reading in the areas of Sustainable Development;

sustainable design; social design practices; Education for Sustainable Development;

design education; contemporary design practices; collaboration; problem solving

and creativity.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e9588



described briefly in Section 4 and the outcomes discussed in

Section 5.

3.2. Research method

The researchis conducted using Participatory Action Research as

the overarching strategy. Fig. 3 provides an overview of this process

and also explains the characteristics that are key to this project.

Action research (AR) is appropriate as it is a method used when an

issue has been identified with existing practice and requires

intervention to solve it (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996); in

this case the issue is the difficulty of integrating complex ideas

(surrounding social sustainability) into designers daily practice.

The pragmatic nature of AR allows for the design students to

becomeactive participants in their own education. It also allows for

the author to adopt dual roles: as the researcher and as the

educator for delivering the projects to the students thus linking

theory to practice in a real way (Baskerville and Wood-Harper,

1996, McDowell et al., 2008; McNiff and Whitehead, 2006;

Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996).

There are obvious parallels between planning and structuring an

action research project and the design process. The two processes

are firmly based on learning by doing and are highly flexible in

nature.This means bothare hingedon the unpredictability of human

nature and multivariate real-world environments (Baskerville and

Wood-Harper, 1996). The contingencies of working with people

include motivations, engagement, behaviour, personal and profes-

sional drivers, experience, societal influences and the uncontrolla-

bility of behaviours. Dealing with the opportunities and constraints

that these contingencies brought to the projects is a fundamental

aspect of the Action Research process (Barbour, 2008).

Through a comprehensive process of iteration, continuous

improvement these projects will be developed and honed in orderto achieve the most appropriate, desirable and innovative solution

(development and implementation) (Lawson, 2006). Action

research (like design) advocates a learning-by-doing process where

mistakes inform the project development just as much as the

successes (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996). The research

approach therefore is driven by creativity; practical learning; userunderstanding; iterative development; innovative thinking;

appropriate decision making and effective communication.

Following the initial problem framing and literature reviewing

stages of the AR process the next stage was to design and imple-

ment a number of projects to allow the students to develop these

skills by opening them to a diversity of knowledge and perspec-

tives. Bringing student groups located in different continents

together face-to-face is not feasible or environmentally respon-sible! The softer skills, being more abstract and complex became

the implicit focus in the projects rather than the more explicit

practical design skills such as idea generation, visual communica-

tion and design development etc. Instead the processes the

students undertook to complete the work required them to use

softer skills in order to collaborate and communicate effectively

and to generate necessary, valid and responsible design solutions.

Fig. 3. Action research project map.

Fig. 2. Skills and capacities for social sustainability in design.




3.3. Data collection and analysis

The data collection methods involved a mix of qualitative

information gathering tools. Two phases of information occurred

during each project: thefirst was during the project and the second

after the project was completed. Diaries, participant observations,

videos and in-class reflection sessions comprised the first stage of

information gathering. Stories of participant experiences were

collated through this first stage. The second stage of data was

gathered after each project ended. Semi-structured interviews

(with students), analysis of the project design outputs, post-project

questionnaires and anecdotal conversations (between design

tutors and students) identified how thevarious skills and capacities

developedand were implemented.This mixof methods allowed for

the researcher to triangulate the data and develop thick descrip-

tions of the situations (Barbour, 2008). Peer auditing between the

tutors on the projects (of which the researcher was one) and other

design tutors who were not directly involved in the projects

ensured the instance of reflexivity was minimised.

Following the collation of the research data it was analysed and

organised according to preliminary codes e using the constant

comparative method ( Jupp, 2006). These codes were then further

subdivided and this coding system was applied across the inter-views and diaries.

4. The projects

Table 1

4.1. Cultural leanings: phase 1 action research

Phase one of the Action Research strategy comprised a collabo-

rative project undertaken between the year 2 undergraduate

Product Design students in Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand and the

University of Limerick, Ireland (from February to April 2008). The

idea for the project originated from a staff exchange between twodesign tutors from the Institutes. The key aim was to explore the

concept of connectivity and interactivity between two culturally

different student groups divided by almost 18,000 kms and 12

international time-zones. It was not a problem with current prac-

tice per se that drove the project, instead it was an eagerness to

encourage students to engage and collaborate with others in

a similar discipline.

The primary aim of the project was to encourage effective

collaboration and by this develop key competencies. These

competencies have been selected from the identified list of skills

and capacities necessary for designers to direct their practice

towards social sustainability (as seen in Fig. 2):

/ Development ofshared skills

/ Promotion ofcultural diversity and understanding

/ Critical analysis.

/ Active participation

/ Establishment of Communities of Practice; Knowledge Sharing&

Networks

/ Interaction & engagement

/ Reflection

/ Development of holistic perspectives

4.1.1. Project brief

The students, in groups of two3, were asked to identify a tradi-

tion, a cultural phenomenon or a historical practice specific to their

own country. They were asked to re-imagine their chosen topic in

the present day, not to rebuild the past but instead to re-interpret it

in a contemporary context. The designbrief never mentionedsocialsustainability or sustainability as these issues should not be

extracted as a novelty but should be an inherent consideration in

every design project.

4.1.2. Project logistics

Due to the distances and time difference the students were

required to make their work deliverable and communicable by

available technologies. Research hasshown that it is not thesuccess

of collaboration is not due to technology instead it is due to the

individuals willingness andmotivation to engage (Cheng andKvan,

2000). The technology needed to be easy to use and not detract

from the main aim of the project. As such each group established

a blog (using Vox) andthis wasused as the primary communication

tools for the duration of the project. The blog sites were used asvirtual exhibition spaces, project management tools, reflective

diaries and project journals. They were also key in providing

a structured platform for giving and receiving feedback from the

other student participants and design tutors (Kvan, 2001). The need

to share work is essential in a field as visual as design and the blog

proved essential in facilitating this.

4.1.3. Project outcomes

The student work resulting from the project was both inter-

esting and innovative. The diversity of products ranged from tat-

tooing tools to cooking and from furniture pieces to whiskey

decanters. For the first time in their design education some groups

even explored the notion of replacing the physical object with an

intangible

experience.

4.2. Phase 2 action research Food for thought

The second phase of the action research project built on the

lessons learnt from the first phase. The project took place from the

beginning of March untilthe endof April2010 andinitially involved

three international partners: Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand;

Table 1

Overview of collaborative projects.

AR 1: Project 1 AR 2: Project 2

Title Cultural leanings Food for thought

Theme Interpreting culture Food provision

Par tners U ni versity of Li meric k,

IrelandUnitec, New Zealand

University of Limerick,

IrelandUnitec, New Zealand

Universidad de Valparaiso,

Chile

N o. of Par ti ci pan ts 2 1 (IRE) 4 0 (NZ) 3 2 (IRE) 17 (NZ)

Team structure Individual country teams

partnered with team from

partner country

Designer/Client relationship

between teams in each

country

Team numbers 2 members each country 3 members IRE, 3 members

NZ

Duration 6 weeks 6 Weeks

Communication

tools

Vox

Video Conferencing

Email

Skype

Ning

Twitter

Teamviewer

Googletalk

Video

Email

3 Two members per team was decided upon given the class sizes and the fact that

the students hadnt worked on any team based design project prior to this and in

order to make the management of their team and transmission of information as

easy as possible (Chiu, 2002). Each team in Ireland was paired with a partner team

in New Zealand to make the collaboration process more organised and manageable.




Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile and the University of Limerick,

Ireland. Unfortunately due to the Chilean Earthquake disaster two

weeks before the start of the project the Chilean students were

unable to participate. Such unintended contingencies often form

a part of Action Research as it is a continuously evolving process

that is hinged on human and societal behaviour. The participant

groups comprised of year 2 Product Design students from Unitec

and the University of Limerick. It was a different group from that

which participated in phase 1.

The main modifications to the second phase of the action

research were in the area of the collaboration process; the depth

andbreadth of the collaborative experience) and the project theme.

How these findings drove subsequent changes in the second action

research phase are described in Sections 4.2.2 and 5.

This second project expanded the skill set for collaboration from

the first project to include the following:

/ Team work

/ Compromise & negotiation

/ Cultural and social diversity

/ Participation

/ Communication

4.2.1. Project brief

Food was chosen as the overarching theme. Not only is it an

important issue (for very different reasons) in each of the countries,

but each would have a very different perspective on the subject.

Again the topic is not explicitly related to sustainability; instead the

students were expected to include social, environmental and

economic issues in parallel with the other design considerations

(e.g. human factors, functionality, aesthetics and design for

manufacture). The theme was then divided into 7 sub categories

including Packaging & Transport; Domestic Food Production;

Community Production; Shared Dining. A longer list was initially

generated by the project tutors based on trends in the areas of food

and design. The list was discussed and negotiated into the list of 7categories that the students worked with. A finding from phase 1

showed that students struggled with the open-ended theme and

precious time was wasted at the start trying to come to terms with

what the brief meant. It was decided to provide the students with

clear direction through the more focused sub categories, while still

allowing them to explore a specific area in depth.

4.2.2. Logistics

A roadmap was compiled to make the collaboration as clear as

possible, this signposted all the times when interaction was

necessary between the groups. Twitter, Ning (this replaced the Vox

platform because it offered shared forums as well as individual

blogs) and Teamviewer (desktop sharing software) were intro-

duced as communication tools to facilitate the collaboration.It was anticipated that the communication would happen

outside the suggested times too so that the sharing of ideas and

information could go beyond the studio and thus the broader

academic environment. Theidealscenario was a move to a situation

where studentsconverse notbecause they have to but because they

want to. The use of free and user friendly technologies facilitated

more spontaneous and relaxed communication patterns to form

(Cheng and Kvan,2000). The structure of theNing platform allowed

the tutors to monitorthe students use. Thetutorspromptedmoreor

deeper communication on the live chat facility of the Ning when

they felt the groups werent collaborating effectively, thus resolving

an issue quickly that could have taken several emails previously.

Another significant change was made in the project set-up to

facilitate deeper interaction between individuals, small teams and

larger groups. Instead of the student teams working on their own

project it was decided that larger groups would be formed con-

taining one team from each partner country. Each local team,

comprising either 3/4 individuals, researched the groups sub

category as it related to their country. They then handed over the

research pack to another team in their group, who took the

research findings and acting as a Design team developed inno-

vative solutions for their Client country. The designer had to

refer to their clients regularly to ensure the concepts being

developed were relevant and necessary. The collaboration process

is mapped in Fig. 4 below. This co-generative approach allowed

students to see how others approach their work (reflection) and

forced them to develop a common language and hone their

communication skills further. It also ensured the students would

not get bored of the project and the technology as easily as in the

previous phase (Gross and Do, 1999). This time the student

engagement with the technology would directly affect the group

effort.

4.2.3. Project outcomes

Once again the design outcomes from the project were inter-

esting and diverse. Students designed a garden tool-sharing system

for allotments, innovative food packaging and a tracking andmonitoring system for food transportation. The design results

however were not as innovative or as detailed as the previous

project and the student grades reflected this. This could be attrib-

uted to the fact that the students were designing for a client

country and that time was required to understand the culture of

this client. The interpretations of the clients research was

subjective and did not necessarily reflect the reality of practices

within the particular client country. Conversely the design teams

offered fresh eyes on the subject that the client might not have.

At this stage it is worth noting that the collaboration with this

project wasnt as successful as the previous one. With action

research projects the failures inform the process as much as the

successes so it is worthwhile noting the issues that occurred. These

uneven results can be attributed to a number of factors amongstthem personality differences, lack of compromise, breakdown in

communication; lack of synergy and timing differences (these did

not affect thefirst project as much because the collaboration wasnt

as deep as the 2nd project with students acting as both clients and

designers).

5. Findings & discussion

The following section draws together both the results and

discussion on the first two phases of the action research process.

This presentation better reflects the iterative nature of both

action research and qualitative methods (Barbour, 2008). The

findings from phase 1 drove the development of phase 2 (in

continuous feedback loops) and so gathering the information andinterpreting it was a parallel process. Quotes and comments from

the interviews, diaries, survey responses and anecdotal conver-

sations will provide evidence for the discussion and the conclu-

sions drawn.

Analysis of the data provided a wealth of information and

observational insights. This centred on the experience of the

students and the tutors whichin themain was positive. The novelty

of the projects really interested and engaged the students in ways

that previous projects hadnt. The themes allowed them to look

deeper into their ownculture and society, whilst learning about the

cultural influences and traditions affecting another country. One

student notes I felt it was a very good project as I learned a lot more

about my culture and the fields I was researching. The project really

helped my team working skills and I know that this will be really




important in the future. (Student A, survey results 5.08.08). Another

stated that it wasexcellent to see a different culture and participate in

such a project. It allows me to see beyond my own country and

thoughts (Student B, survey results 5.08.08)

From the design tutors perspectives the whole experience of

working closely with another design school allowed them to

expand their personal and professional horizons. It also provided

the opportunity to explore alternative methods for preparing and

implementing student projects.

5.1. Communication

Blogs were used as the primary interaction tool in both projects.

Despite an initial settling in period (as reflected in the survey), the

students not only enjoyed the novelty and convenience of this new

delivery method, but they also felt that the opportunity to get

feedback from others really helped and encouraged them. Being

able to post work on the blog allowed for external representations

of the local teams work to be available for critique, comment and

Fig. 4. Collaboration map for phase 2.




negotiation by the other members of their group (Gul and Maher,

2009).Those who did not engage fully with the blogs regretted it

once the project was complete and they could review the effort

exerted by their peers. In the post-project survey one student re-

flected that I think for me the problem was being too set on designing

the way I had previously, and did not interact enough with the

blogging. This is something I regret as I really belief [sic] it could be

used as a very useful tool (Student C, survey results 5.08.08). This

atypical response from phase 1 indicated that all students would

need to be encouraged and facilitated to collaborate more during

the 2nd project.

5.2. Interaction

The ability to view the work of all the students (via blog

neighbourhoods) put pressure on the students to increase the

standard of their work as now direct and immediate comparisons

could be drawn between the work of the various individuals, teams

and groups. A student stated that [It].made me see the standard at

which my projects need to reach (Student D, survey results 5.08.08).

Another observed that it was beneficial in terms of getting advice

from other students, because our work was going to be seen by a lot of

people it forced me to strive for a high standard of work (Student E,survey results 5.08.08).

These views were confirmed by the students during interview,

they felt that because the comparisons were clear on the blog they

tried harder to raise their work standard. In the survey one student

noted that it was a good way to see what other people were up too

and to look for inspiration (Student F, survey results 5.08.08).

The interviews corroborated these statements.

Student 1: we thought the standard of work compared to

previous projects level just went way higher.

Researcher: why do you think that was?

Student 1: I think its competition, because you have that other

group and you know they have a long history of design and we

are just very new, so we just wanted to make sure we matched

their standard and were better. (Student 1, group 1, interview

26.02.10)

In addition because theblogs could be updated in real-time this

reflection tended to be more honest than if time was allowed to

think on the comments. One student positively observed that the

blogs provided them with a better understanding of presenting

digitally and also great for gaining techniques and sharing ideas with

a different design course (Student G, survey results 5.08.08).

5.2.1. Insights

A very positive by-product from using blogs is that a permanent

record of the work is retained that can be accessed on an on-going

basis. The video conferences allowed the students to meet each

other and relate a face to the virtual relationship that had previ-ously existed. Enjoyment from the video conferences was obvious

at the time and the feedback afterwards confirmed as much. There

was a suggestion, however that a video conference at the start of

the project would be beneficial so the students could be introduced

to each other and this might lead to a greater degree of interaction

via the blogs throughout the remainder of the project. One student

suggested a preference to maybe meet at the start like we did at the

end would be good to create a bond (Student 5, group 3, interview

26.02.10). This change was introduced in the second phase where

students scheduled formal and informal virtual meetings at regular

stages in the project.

Not all feedback was positive however. Some students felt the

blogs werent a beneficial component of the project and as such

their engagement with their local team-mates and partner teams

did not reach a deep or mutually beneficial level. Some also felt that

if their interaction wasnt reciprocated they were less inclined to

use the blog as the project progressed e.g. we tried but when we

werent receiving anything back we just gave up (Student 3, group 2,

interview 26.02.10). As with every project some students will

engage more, ask for more feedback and enjoy the overall experi-

ence more. Working with another country would be very good it just

turned out that there was not much communication inputs and so on

(as far as I experienced it) (Student 4, group2, interview 26.02.10).

This observation ensures a deeper and perhaps more forcedinteraction between the participating countries was necessary in

the 2nd phase project.

Subsequent phases of the project will endeavour to deepen the

collaboration and also explore how participation in the projects

will influence the behaviour of designers once they are qualified

professionals.

5.3. Reflective practice

The opportunity for reflection was provided in two ways in the

project; local reflection on their work with the project and distantreflection on thework andprocessesof thepartner country.Students

reflected not only on their work but on their individual practice andtheir learning experience. The overall depth of information appear-

ing on the blogs confirmed that students reflected more and at

greater length about their work I think it was more interesting to see

other peoples work. There was a lotof to-ing andfro-ingbetweenus and

NewZealandand it was really interesting to see their work andsee new

sketches and stuff. It was nice to compare because sometimes you just

get lost in here [UL design studio]yourown class andhowyou compare

with them (Student 6, group 3, interview 26.02.10).

There were a few exceptions however when some students did

not engage with the project theme and the software as much as

other students. Reflection is a key part of design work, but it tends

to come at the end of the project. The real-time nature of the

blogging process ensured the students reflected instantly on their

designwork, forcing them to questionand justify thedecisions theywere making, as they were making them. This is something often

missing from conventional projects as limited time and tight

delivery requirements mitigate against continuous reflection on

their own practice (students are encouraged to reflect on their

outputs but not always on their individual practice).

5.4. Engagement

Students engaged with the projects more readily than with

conventional projects, resulting in better outcomes and a higher

quality of work, thus creating a deeper learning experience. The

dimension of having the other country there pushed us to get a more

professional product and professional finish. Before there wasnt that

real drive but with them there we were looking at their work andsaying we can do this and we can push things a little bit further

(Student 2, group 1, interview 26.02.10). However some measures

could be taken in future projects to ensure greater engagement

with the project and the interactions from all students partici-

pating. These could include (but are not limited to) additional

formal video conferencing sessions, provide facilities for more

informal dialogues between student teams, better collaboration

through shared project deliverables between different countries.

5.5. Developing critical thinking

Students began to question their own practices and those of

othercultures throughthe projects. This type ofcritical experience

encourages deeper learning that can prove to be transformative in




the students education. This wasevidenced through the projects as

the students had begun to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate their

own work (Ennis,1993). They also felt encouraged to look closely at

the work of the other teams and comment critically on it. The

blogging platforms encouraged them to share their ideas

It [the project] made you think more outwardly, if you have

a project [you] dont just think on that particular one thing

(Student 8, group 4, interview 26.02.10) they could takea completely outside look at our product and give us advice

(Student 4, group 2, interview 26.02.10).

From the analysis of phase 1 it was apparent that the opportu-

nity for critical analysis needed to be developed further in phase 2.

At the start of the 2nd project each group made a video introducing

their group andthen a video conferencewas held (as was suggested

in phase 1). This ensured that the interaction went beyond

professional and the relationship moved onto personal. In addi-

tion an attitudinal survey was completed by the students prior to

the beginning of phase 2. This was to assess their level of knowl-

edge about certain skills and aspects related to social sustainability

and collaboration. The results from this survey will be explored

through the next AR phase to assess whether the attitudes and

behaviours have evolved after completing the phase 2 (the studentsfrom phase 2 are scheduled to be interviewed in the coming

months).As well the participants from phase 1 will be interviewed

again (they have since graduated), as critical thinking skills take

time to learn and to manifest in project work (Ennis, 1993).

5.6. Broader perspectives

By participating in this type of project the students gained an

understanding of what drives design in other countries (both

historical and contemporary influences). One student clearly saw

that its quite similar to Irish, they have the same humour.get a new

perspective on design and how other design courses are doing it. I

suppose its kind of reassuring that we are not too far off (Student 6,

group 3, interview 26.02.10). Also another noted that .

its verysimilar but they just had a different slant on things, a bit of a twist

(Student 5, group 3 interview 26.02.10). This gave the students an

understanding that design does not occur in a vacuum and that

society is both influenced by and influences design practice. This

can be a difficult concept to relate to students and is best learnt by

engagement with a diverse group of project partners. On this

premise the group of participating countries should be expandedto

include designers from different socio-economic backgrounds and

varied cultural models.

5.7. Confusion & conflict

Collaboration wasnt always successful unfortunately in spite of

positive attitude and initial enthusiasm. Success was unevenbetween the two projects given the contingencies in running such

projects. In spite of all the paths being clearly laid out the situations

did not always play out as predicted. Human behaviour is such that

it cannot be controlled onevery level, nor indeed should it be as the

spontaneous outcomes often prove the most interesting.

The downside to collaboration became apparent in the AR 2 as

the project broke-down and resistance increased in the latter

stages. This canbe attributed to cultural differences anda mismatch

of goals and methods (Lozano, 2006). The differences in cultures

between team members meant trust wasnt established as quickly

as it needed to be for the project to work within the limited

timeframe (McDonough et al., 2001). From a more practical level

the incompatible time-zones and academic calendars made the

physical communication diffi

cult throughout both projects.

Although more time had been given to planning and working out

logistics in phase 2 the lack of clear shared goals, distributed

responsibilities, conflicting agendas and equal involvement of

stakeholders (Fadeeva, 2004) led to less successful project

outcomes and experience.

These conflicts should not always be viewed as a negative thing

however, as they were beneficial in allowing different views to be

aired and compared. Negotiating these conflicts helped the

students to develop key skills of compromise and effective

communication and encouraged students to be innovative to find

ways of resolving them (Fadeeva, 2004). The issue of managing the

conflicts and the negotiation of goals will be given particular

attention in the coming AR phases. The researcher intends to

explore the notions of synergy (working towards an agreed

common goal) and commitment (or buy-in) within subsequent

phases, where the agendas are negotiated and agreed on prior to

the project.

6. Conclusion

Sustainable development calls for every profession to behave

more responsibly and also to become more globally aware. The

expectation on designers to practice more responsibly is comingfrom industry, government and society. Yet designers are not being

equipped with the skills and competencies necessary to do this.

Social sustainability by its nature difficult to implement in design

practice as it deals with softer and immeasurable elements of

human and societal behaviour. The aim of this research has been to

clearly identify a core set of skills and competencies that designers

need to be able to work effectively with others in solving the

wicked problems that social sustainability presents. Collaborative

projects bring greater engagement and therefore encourage the

acquisition and development of these skills and competencies.

These have been identified to include participation, openness,

dialogue, reflection, participation, engagement, understanding, co-

operation and compromise. By encouraging knowledge sharing and

critical thinking the participating design students have begun toreflect on their behaviour and the behaviour of others.

The two phases of the Action Research (AR) project described

above explored how exposure to multiple perspectives in the

definition and resolution of design problems can broaden the

educational experience for students. Looking at effective group

collaborations, sharing knowledge and the development of indi-

vidual skills (such as critical analysis and reflection) in phase 1

revealed that for students to engage and participate fully,

communication, the building of trust and the ability to compro-

mise and negotiate with team members needed to be developed

further. Phase 2 of the AR process expanded the project to

include the development and practising of these additional

competencies.

The findings suggest that students have begun to develop a setof skills that will enable them to effectively collaborative in projects

that can begin to address the challenges of sustainability from

a global perspective. The experience of undertaking the two

collaborative projects has shown that, by exposure to diversities of

practice, behaviours and perspectives, designers can begin to

engage with the complex theory behind social sustainability in

a real and practical way. Therefore the focus in the student

designers work needs to be on the development of flexible tools

and transferrable skills. Skills that ensure they become adaptive

professionals who can collaborate effectively across distances and

disciplines. The reflection on and outcomes from these experi-

mental and exploratory projects will hopefully serve students to

find empathy, common ground and a common language in solving

and resolving the issues surrounding social sustainability. Care



http:///reader/full/design-beyond-borders-international-collaborative-projects-as-a-mechanism-to-integrate-social- 10/10

must be taken not to generalise the results however as the Action

Research approach means that the results are project specific with

the samples small and focused.

While the success of the projects has been varied the findings

from the two described in this paper demonstrates that participa-

tion in the projects can bring about subsequent changes in the

design students practice. The design and implementation of future

projects needs to be further developed and improved and this will

be carried out in subsequent phases of the Action Research process.

Further research into the longer term impact of these projects on

design students must be done in order to understand the benefits

to their practice post-graduation.

The projects described above have gone some way to encour-

aging design students to collaborate and engage across social and

geographical boundaries. The very process of undertaking them has

highlighted the real and apparent need for designers to develop the

range of skills that ensure responsible practice becomes normative.

As the realm of professional design shifts towards a future of

alternative systems students must develop the ability to think

pragmatically, innovatively and holistically.

References

Barbour, R., 2008. Introducing Qualitative Research: a Student Guide to the Craft ofDoing Qualitative Research. SAGE, London.

Baskerville, R.L., Wood-Harper, A.T., 1996. A critical perspective on action researchas a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Tech-nology 11, 235e246.

Bhamra, T., Dewberry, E., 2007. Re-visioning design priorities through sustainabilityeducation. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED07, 28e31August 2007.

Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., 2006. What is Social Sustainability,and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it?. In: PlanningResearch Conference. UCL, London, p. 40.

Bremer, M.H., Lpez-Franco, R., 2006. Sustainable development: ten years ofexperiences at ITESMs graduate level. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11),952e957.

Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., Winhall, J., 2006. RED Paper 02: TransformationDesign, Design Council.

Cassimir, G., Dutilh, C., 2003. Sustainability: a gender studies perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Consumer Studies 27 (4), 316e325.Chapman, J., 2005. Emotionally Durable Design; Objects, Experience & Empathy.

Earthscan, London.Cheng, N. Y.-w., Kvan, T., 2000. Design collaboration strategies. In: 4th SIGRADI, Rio

de Janeiro.Chiu, M.-L., 2002. An organizational view of design communication in design

collaboration. Design Studies 23, 187e210.Core77, 2010. The Design Matters Concentration at Art Center College of Design: Q&A

with Mariana Amatullo Available: www.core77.com/ [accessed 15.12.2010].Cumming, M., Akar, E., 2005. Coordinating the complexity of design using P2P

groupware. CoDesign 1 (4), 255e265.Design Council, 2006. RED [online], Available: http://www.designcouncil.info/RED/

[accessed].Designophy, 2001. Defining the Designer of 2015, Design Knowledge Intermediary

Available: www.designophy.com/ [accessed 10.1.11].Dewberry, E.L., 1996. Eco-Design: Present attitudes and future directions. Unpub-

lished Thesis Open University.Ennis, R.H., 1993. Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice 32 (3), 179e186.

Fadeeva, Z., 2004. Promises of sustainability collaboration- potential fulfilled?Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 165e174.

Findeli, A., 2008. Sustainable design: a critique of the current tripolar model. TheDesign Journal 11 (3), 301e322.

Fletcher, K., Dewberry, E., 2002. Demi: a case study in design for sustainability.International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3 (1), 38e47.

Gonzlez-Gaudiano, E., 2005. Education for sustainable development: configurationand meaning. Policy Futures in Education 3 (3), 243e250.

Gross, M., Do, E., 1999. Integrating Digital Media in design studio: Six Paradigms. In:Proc. ACSA (American Collegiate Schools of Architecture) National ConferenceMinneapolis.

Gul, L.F., Maher, M.L., 2009. Co-creating external design representations: comparingface-to-face sketching to designing in virtual environments. Co Design 5 (2),117e138.

Hara, K., 2009. Designing Design. Lars Muller Publishers, Eindhoven.Jegou, F., Manzini, E., 2008. Collaborative Services: Social Innovation and Design for

Sustainability Edizioni Poli. Design [online], available: [accessed]. Jupp, V. (Ed.), 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. SAGE Publi-

cations Ltd, London.Krull, P., 2010. Social Innovation Available: [accessed 11.05.10].Kvan, T., 2001. The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction

10, 345e

353.Lawson, B., 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4 ed.

Architectural, Amsterdam London.Lilley, D., 2007. Designing for Behavioural Change: Reducing the Social Impacts of

Product Use through Design. Unpublished Thesis, Loughborough University.Loughran, J.J., 2002. Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning

about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education 53 (33).Lozano Garca, F., Kevany, K., Huisingh, D., 2006. Sustainability in higher education:

what is happening? Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11), 757e760.Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:

breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11),787e796.

Lozano, R., 2007. Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable Devel-opment 15, 370e381.

Manzini, E., 2007. Design research for sustainable social innovation. In: Michel, R.(Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects. Birhauser, Basel.

Manzini, E., 2009a. Design Research for Sustainable Social Innovation Available:http://www.sustainable-everyday.net/manzini/[accessed 11.10.09].

Manzini, E., 2009b. Viewpoint new design knowledge. Design Issues 30 (1), 4e12.Manzini, E., 2010. Small, local, open and connected: design for social innovation and

sustainability. The Journal of Design Strategies 4 (1), 8e11.McDonough, E.F.I., Kahn, K.B., Barczak, 2001. An investigation of the use of global,

virtual and colocated new product development teams. The Journal of ProductInnovation Management 18, 110e120.

McDowell, L., Smailes, J., Sambell, K., Sambell, A., Wakelin, D., 2008. Evaluatingassessment strategies through collaborative evidence-based practice: can onetool fit all? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45 (2),143e153.

McKenzie, S., 2004. Social sustainability: towards some definitions. In: HawkeResearch Institute Working Papers Series Available: [accessed].

McKeown, R., 2002. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit, 2. University ofTennessee, Tennessee.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., 2006. All You Need to Know about Action Research. SAGEPublications Ltd, , London.

Mendoza, A., 2010. DESIS Newsletter 0: A Catalyzing Agent. DESIS.Moore, F.C., 2011. Toppling the tripod: sustainable development, constructive

ambiguity and the environmental challenge. Consilience: The Journal of

Sustainable Development 5 (1), 141e

150.Moritz, S., 2005. Service Design: Practical Access to an Evolving Field. UnpublishedThesis, University of Applied Sciences Cologne.

Murray, R., Mulgan, G., Caulier-Grice, J., 2010. How to Innovate: The Tolls for SocialInnovation. The Young Foundation.

Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E., 2003. The Design Way: Intentional Change in anUnpredictable World. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey.

Segalas, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., Mulder, K.F., 2010. What do engineering students learnin sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal ofCleaner Production 18, 275e284.

Sherwin, C., 2004. Design and sustainability: a discussion paper based on personalexperience and observations. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 4,21e31.

Spangenberg, J.H., Fuad-Luke, A., Blincoe, K., 2010. Design for Sustainability (DfS):the interface of sustainable production and consumption. Journal of CleanerProduction 18, 1485e1493.

Steiner, G., Posch, A., 2006. Higher education for sustainability by means of trans-disciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11), 877e890.

Sterling, S., 2001. Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change.Schumacher Society, Devon.

Thackara, J., 2006. In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. MIT Press,Cambridge.

UN, E. a. S. C, 2005. UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development.United Nations, Vilinius.

UNESCO, 2004. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development:Draft International Implementation Scheme (IIS). United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris.

Walker, S., 2006. Sustainable by Design. Earthscan. Earthscan.Whiteley, N., 1993. Design for Society. Reaktion Books, London.

http://www.core77.com/http://www.designcouncil.info/RED/http://www.designophy.com/http://www.sustainable-everyday.net/manzini/http://www.sustainable-everyday.net/manzini/http://www.designophy.com/http://www.designcouncil.info/RED/http://www.core77.com/

‘design-beyond-borders’-international-collaborative-projects-as-a-mechanism-to-integrate-social-sustainability-into-student-design-practice_2012_mcmahon...

Documents