focused – swiss design network symposium 2008...5 swiss design network symposium 2008 introduction...

ISBN 978-3-9523138-0-0

«F

OC

US

ED

» —

Cu

rrent D

esign

Resea

rch P

rojects a

nd

Meth

od

s

«FO–CU–SED»— Current Design Research Projects and MethodsSwiss Design Network Symposium 2008

30–31 May 2008 Mount Gurten, Berne Switzerland

1

Swiss Design Network Symposium 2008

«FOCUSED»

«Focused»

2

3


«FOCUSED» — Current Design Research Projects and MethodsSwiss Design Network Symposium 2008


Editor: Swiss Design Network

«Focused»

4

5


Introduction to the Proceedings

In recent years design research has been widely discussed in terms of its theory, its models and its underlying scientific possibilities and limits. «Focused», the 2008 Symposium of the Swiss Design Net work (SDN), puts the “daily practice” of design research on its agenda. Real-world design research projects are illustrated by the questions, processes, methods and activities with which they have been planned, approached, executed and evaluated. The projects in this volume are connected to various design disciplines, ranging from product design to interface design, visual communication, de sign management and service design. In other words, the follow-ing projects are either related to products, services, interfaces, infor mation, communication and environments, or they focus on integrated systems of products, services and customer experiences.

The particular orientation of the symposium – including the essays assembled in this volume – particularly take into account the cur-rent Swiss design research environment.

The several Swiss universities specialising in design and the ap-plied arts are currently undergoing significant modification. 2008 will see the inauguration of masters programs in design studies that will include the mission to mediate design research competen-cies. That step once again puts the relationship between research and teaching at the centre of attention. This symposium and the corresponding essays in this volume contribute to the current dis-cussion, and in general invite the players in university programs to engage further with this issue.

Swiss design schools received their mandate for research from the Swiss government in 2003. Only a few years, then, have seen suc-cessful Swiss design research projects contributing to interna tio-nal design research symposiums and promoting the exchange of experiences. The development of further, specific expertise is there-fore still in the initial phase of consolidation. «Focused» speci-fically wishes to offer a platform for younger research colleagues and students with a keen interest in research and development.

«Focused»

6

It aims to provide a framework for learning, networking and ex-change across national boundaries.

The proceedings of the 2008 SDN symposium aim at furthering the growth of design research by addressing the following topics in the field: What roles are played by design projects in different research settings? (Triggs) How is design knowledge articulated and communicated? (Léchot Hirt, Melles, Pizzocaro, Wölfel/Pre-scher) How do design research projects proceed? (Acklin/Hugen-tobler, Lackus/Rothbucher, Léchot Hirt, Mareis, Tillberg, Triggs) What are the prospects and limits of methods of design research, and where do they cross over to other disciplines? (Chow/Joost Findeli, Franinovic, Lackus/Rothbucher, Mareis, Niedderer) How are specific questions and specific methods and/or method sets connected with one another? How is design knowledge connected with the know ledge in other disciplines? (Chow/Joost, Findeli, Lackus/Rothbucher, Melles) What are relevant and practical de-sign research methods in the context of applied design research? (Chow, Findeli, Franinovic, Mareis)

How are trans-disciplinary research pro jects organized? (Chow/Joost, Tillberg, Triggs, Mareis) How are research questions for-mulated, and how are research goals set and evaluated? (Findeli, Léchot Hirt, Melles, Niedderer, Pizzocaro, Till berg) What roles are played by language and understanding in interdisciplinary re-search pro jects? What are the appropriate organisational, finan-cial and administrative means for design research? (Chow/Joost) How are design research studies developing within design school and university settings? (Melles, Niedderer, Pizzocaro, Triggs, Vogel sang/Ramanathan/Holling, Wölfel/Prescher)

The texts assembled in this volume were submitted and edited prior to the symposium. Presentations held at the SDN-Symposium in Berne therefore may diverge from the content of this publication. By providing E-mail addresses for the authors, this document facilitates contact with authors of the texts at hand.

7


The 2008 Symposium «Focused» was made possible by significant financial contributions from the Lucerne University of Applied Science and Arts as well as its School of Art and Design, and the Institute of Design at the Bern University of the Arts. We would like to thank these institutions very much, and also to wish our lectur-ers and participants both a profitable and constructive symposium and pleasurable reading!

Berne and Lucerne, May 2008

Hosts:Arne ScheuermannBern University of the Arts, Head of Communication Design Research Area

Roman AebersoldLucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, School of Art and Design Head Research, Faculty Design

Bettina MinderLucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, School of Art and Design Conference Manager

Hélène MarguetBern University of the Arts (on-site management)

Swiss Design Network (SDN) and its members

«Focused»

8

9


Foreword

Since its foundation in 2003, the Swiss Design Network has been active in the field of design research by networking researchers from the Swiss Universities of Design and Art, by organising inter-nationally renowned symposiums and by publishing their pro-ceedings1, by offering direct support to research projects and by participating in the research debate on national and international level. The short – but rich – history of the Swiss Design Network is based on the uninterrupted commitment of its board, composed of seven people responsible for the development, quality and constant improvement of design research in the Swiss Universities of Design and Art. Even though our activities were temporarily slowed down in 2007, due to administrative changes that led to a new organi-sation of the network, we are proud to continue the work of dia-logue, reflection and challenge for design education – and design – that we all call research.

Even though the Swiss Universities of Design and Art are only delivering Master degrees for the time being2, it has always been clear to the Swiss Design Network that the relevant level of debate for research is international and that methodological and epistemo-logical questions must meet the highest possible standards. But it is also clear that research is a paradoxical activity that needs to be free and framed at the same time. Designerly ways of knowing rely on rigour and creativity and most of the debates about social relevance, scientific or cultural value carried by design research are rooted in this paradox. To some extent, this is true of every re-search activity – and this is the very reason why a focused discus-sion of design projects and methods is always precious; because digging into the details of different thought processes is what will ultimately allow fresh visions of design goals and strengths. This 4th symposium of the Swiss Design Network is therefore a concrete opportunity to challenge ideas and share intellectual friendship.

Lysianne Léchot Hirt, President SDNHead of Design Research, Geneva University of Art and Design

«Focused»

101 Erstes Design Forschungssymposium, Basel, 2004, La recherche en relation avec l’environnement du design / Forschungslandschaften im Umwelt des Designs, Zurich, 2005, Drawing New Territories, Geneva, 2006.2 The Conference of the Directors of Swiss Design and Art Universities is currently busy with preparatory discussions about Design and Art PhD.

11


«Focused»

12

Development of a Design Mana - ge ment Guide for the Use of Design and Design Management within Corporate R & D and Decision- Making Processes

01Claudia Acklin H. K. Hugentobler

Case Transfer vs Case Study: An Evaluation of Case Study as a Method for Design Research

02Rosan Chow

Best or Worst of the Two Worlds? Experiences in Long-Term University-Industry Collaboration in Design Research

03Rosan Chow Gesche Joost

04Alain Findeli Denis Brouillet Sophie Martin Christophe Moineau Richard Tarrago

Research through Design and Transdisciplinarity: A Tentative Contribution to the Methodology of Design Research

↦ 19

Basic Interaction Design for Sonic Artefacts in Everyday Contexts

05Karmen Franinovic

A/B/C/F/K

B/D/F/G/K

↦ 41

↦ 55

↦ 67

B/C/D/E/K

B/K

A/B/C/D/F/G/K

↦ 95

13


ATeaching, B Methods, C Collaboration, D Examples, E Communication Design, F Industrial Design , G Interaction Design, H Architecture, I Design Management, J Social Context, K Practice-based Research

↦ 115

CreaSearch: Methodologies and Models for Creation-based Research Projects in Design

08Lysianne Léchot Hirt

Theses on the Significance of the Model in the Form-finding Process

Interdisciplinary Method Development for the Operatio-nalization of Product- and Brand Communication

06

07

Melanie Kurz

Manuela Lackus Bernhard Rothbucher

B/C/D/E/J/K

A/B/C/D/E/K

A/B/H

B/C/D/F/I/K

↦ 149

↦ 129

Of Sharks and Dolphins: Reflec-tions on Practice-led Design Research based on the Research Project – “Artistic Modes of Depiction for Understanding Managing Professionals in Healthcare”

09Claudia Mareis

↦ 167

«Focused»

14

13Collaborative Design: The Electric Industry in Soviet Russia 1973–79

Practice in the Process of Doctoral Research

11Kristina Niedderer

Teaching Research Methods for Design. Experiences in Progress: Pilot experiences with the “Research methods for design” course within the product design curricula at the Facoltà del Design of Politecnico di Milano

12Silvia Pizzocaro

Margaret Tillberg

Information Environments: Design Research and the Every-day

14Teal Triggs

B/C/D/E/F/I/J/K

B/C/D/E/J/K

↦ 199

↦ 215

↦ 233

A/B/F

A/B/C/D/F/K

↦ 257

The Academization of Design and its Consequences for the Visual, Textual and Artefactual Produc-tion of Practice-based Research

10Gavin Melles

↦ 183A/B/C/D/E/K

15


↦ 285

Changing Perspectives: the Relationship Between Research, Writing and Visual Practice in MA Design Education

15Axel Vogelsang Rathna Ramanathan Ken Hollings

A Definition of Design Know -ledge and its Application to two Empirical Studies

16Christian Wölfel Claudia Prescher

A/B/E/K

A/B/F/K

↦ 269

ATeaching, B Methods, C Collaboration, D Examples, E Communication Design, F Industrial Design , G Interaction Design, H Architecture, I Design Management, J Social Context, K Practice-based Research

«Focused»

16

17


«Focused»

18

19


University

Email

Internet

Development of a Design Mana - ge ment Guide for the Use of Design and Design Management within Corporate R & D and Decision- Making Processes

01Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Art and Design, Switzerland [email protected] [email protected] www.hslu.ch/design-kunst

↦ SME ↦ decision making ↦ design mana gement ↦ design management guide ↦ design integration ↦ design staircase ↦ design support ↦ innovation

Keywords

In 2005, the Cox-Review [Cox 2005] identified barriers to innovation as well as obstacles to the use of design for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). It proposed design support to help companies use design in order to strengthen their innovation capabilities and competitiveness. Current design support focuses on design projects, advice or endorsements. Recent proposals favour a more strategic approach [Boult 2006]. They suggest providing the thinking tools for inte-grating design into strategic R & D and decision-making processes, which requires framing design at the level of design management.

However, research shows that current design support tools and methods are not sufficiently suited for supporting companies to adopt design on a managerial level. Tools and methods are either too gen-eral (e. g. SWOT analysis) or limited to a certain phase of an adop tion process [e. g. auditing design capability, Design Atlas 2000]; they support rather specific areas and target groups (e. g. entrepreneurs, new product and service development) or are proprietary [e. g. “Matchbox”, Design Council and

Claudia Acklin H. K. Hugentobler

«Focused»

20

Engine Creative Consultants Ltd. 2006]. Furthermore, they do not connect with specific implicit or explicit concepts of design that guide design deci-sions. According to the maturity scale model of the Danish Design Centre, these concepts can be mapped onto design maturity scales, ranging from non-design to design as styling, design as process and to design as innovation [Design Staircase® 2001].

Design support should help companies adopt design in relation to their actual understanding and practice of design. Therefore it seems reasonable to develop a guide for the integration of design and de sign management according to maturity levels. The method is to put de-sign-related questions of the participating firms at the beginning of the research process and to help these firms develop individual imple-mentation scenarios that fit their specific situations. These scena rios then contribute to the development of a Design Management guide (DM-guide), using the maturity scale model as a structuring method. The outcome is a visual orientation device. Similar to a map, it offers routes and success factors that enable the adoption of design and design management. Further research should test the DM-guide and refine it. This will be done through “Swiss Design Transfer”, a Univer-sity spin-off and private public partnership.

1. Framing the Context: Innovation System of Central Switzerland

Central Switzerland is home of many SMEs. The project “RISforCCH” [Wolf, Schweikert, Küchler, Stössel 2005], undertaken by Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Business, identified typical patterns of innovation capability. While the majority of the most in-novative SMEs give recognition to aspects of design mana gement in their innovation processes, most of the others do not pay attention to factors relevant to design management, e. g. the early inclusion of all relevant stakeholders in the product development process, and appreciation for creativity and innovation capabilities of all members of the company. Projects such as “RISforCCH” are aimed at increas-ing the innovativeness of regional SMEs by either intensifying co-operation with the University or with all the relevant actorss of the regional innovation system.

21


A recent research project on design management undertaken by Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Art – School of Art and Design, revealed the necessity of design support within the regional innovation system [Acklin, Stalder, Wolf 2006].

2. Identifying the Gap: Facilitating Design Integration

Insights on current design support modi, trends in design support policies, the limitations of current tools, and further insight that ex-isting tools do not relate to design maturity scales, reveal a gap in tool-innovation. Therefore the envisaged DM-guide should fulfil the objective of supporting SMEs to raise their design maturity level by helping them assess their design capability and recommending spe-cific steps towards realizing the full potential of design integration at their current or next level.

3. Research Plan: Goals, Process and Methods

3.1 Research ConsortiumThe research consortium consists of the core research team (a pro-fessor, a lecturer, a graphic designer and an assistant from the School of Art and Design) and an extended research team (a professor and a researcher from the School of Business). Six SMEs are participat-ing in the research project. Their profile regarding the use of design can be mapped on a continuum ranging from very little design to an advanced use of design. All research partners are manufacturing companies.

3.2 Economic GoalsThe economic goal of the research project is to strengthen the inno-vation capabilities of each participating SME through design mana-gement in order to achieve a sustained increase in competitiveness and profitability. The project does not aim to establish a direct cause-impact relationship in monetary terms. However it is argued that measurability can be assumed if the process resulting from the project leads to sustained change at the levels of strategy, brand, culture/identity, product or process.

«Focused»

22

Based on this general goal, the SMEs each work towards their own individual goals, which emanate from specific questions related to five areas as provided by the Design Atlas audit tool that are to be improved by means of design and design management.

3.3 Scientific GoalsThe project aims at developing a guide that can be used by SMEs regardless of economic sector and size. The research consortium will collaboratively work out individual design integration scenarios based on individual situations and questions of the participating SMEs. It will also analyze individual corporate contexts in order to find patterns, leading to a generalization of design integration sce-narios to be used for the formulation of the DM-guide.

3.4 ProcessThe development of the DM-guide follows a 3-step process that em-ploys a variety of formats and methods. [Fig. 1 ↦ 34]

3.5 MethodsIn phases 1 and 2 of the research process, methods widely adopted within consulting settings were used, such as audits, interviews, workshops and observations. Three tools were selected on the basis of being helpful to frame a design-related context and to stimulate interaction between the research team and the companies’ senior management teams:

3.5.1 Design Staircase“In 2001, the Danish Design Centre developed the Design Staircase® to measure the companies’ use of design. The basic notion of the De-sign Staircase® is that companies may work with design on several

— The Design Staircase® from the Danish Design Centre [Design Staircase 2001]— The Design Atlas from the British Design Council [Design Atlas 2000]— The Design Management Framework (DM-Framework) from the

Design Management International program at Lucerne Univer-sity of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Art and Design [Acklin 2007]

23


levels or steps, depending on circumstances. Higher positions on the Design Staircase® are correlated with positive effects on gross result growth as well as distinct positive effects on export ratios” [Design Staircase 2001].

3.5.2 Design AtlasThe Design Atlas of the British Design Council is a tool for audition-ing design capability within an organization. It consists of a set of questions revolving around the following areas: planning for design, processes for design, resources for design, people for design and culture for design. [Fig. 2 ↦ 34]

3.5.3 DM-FrameworkThe DM-Framework was developed as an organizing agenda for the Bachelor course Design Management, International at Lucerne Uni-versity of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Art and Design. It has been used during research phases 1 and 2 and as a means to map the scenarios of design integration. The framework outlines three major areas of design impact or three major ways of implementing design and design management in a company.

4. Research Partners: Portraits and Questions

In order to illustrate the processes and results of research phases 1 and 2, two of the six companies are portrayed, and their questions regarding an improved use of design are outlined. Of these two com-panies, company A is the most design-driven and company B is the least design-oriented company of the participating SMEs.

Company A:Company A is a leading producer of stoves, chimney stoves, electric mock fires, garden fireplaces, etc. Two partners founded it 25 years ago as an importing firm. Today company A owns production facili-ties in Scandinavia with an overall staff of 150 employees. Its main markets are Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and France, followed by Belgium, Austria and the US. Company A has been successful so far due to highly innovative products combined with a consistent marketing and sales strategy. Design makes use of

«Focused»

24

a distinctive design language and has always been part of the firm’s business strategy and a means to differentiate itself from its com-petitors. The company’s fireplaces have earned design awards in Germany and in the USA.

Company B:Company B is a leading manufacturer of measuring devices for com-pression, temperature and power. It employs roughly 200 people. The firm is a subsidiary of a German manufacturing group, but due to its history and its size it operates, to a large part, independently. Its clients are in the chemical, machinery, aviation and medicine in-dustries all over the world. Most of the company’s products are for OEM markets, although it is also developing its own product ranges. The company has implemented a Kaizen process (continuous im-provement process). Currently it is undertaking a cultural change from an engineering-driven manufacturing focus towards increas-ing customer orientation. Due to its OEM focus, the design of its products is engineering driven and standardized. Only recently the firm, in its quest to deve lop new non-OEM product ranges, identified design as a source of value creation, and currently is sourcing exter-nal design competency. [Fig. 3 ↦ 34]

5. Results Phase 1: Current use of Design

In phase 1 the current use of design of each company has been ana-lyzed. This resulted in a design integration profile for each company based on the Design Atlas framework, and in a design maturity level based on the Design Staircase®.

5.1 Design IntegrationThe current design integration profiles of the two companies are in-formed by interviews with corporate management, the Design Atlas audit results and subsequent discussions held during the first work-shops.

The profiles of companies A and B reflect differences in the use of design, with company A exhibiting the most prominent design use and company B the least out of all six participating companies.

25


5.2 Design MaturityThe current design maturity levels of the two companies are informed by interviews with corporate management, the Design Atlas audit results and subsequent discussions held during the first workshops. Arrows and elaborations indicate the processes of change for com-panies A and B from their current position towards attaining a higher position by means of individual design integration scenarios. [Fig. 4 ↦ 35]

Design is already an integral part of the company’s corporate culture, new product development, strategic planning, etc. However, the com-pany sees a number of improvements in how its core values, design philosophy and the most basic elements of its product language could be better communicated to its staff. The Idea discovery and generation phase of the design process is another subject that could be better communicated internally in order to make staff better un-derstand where and how ideas and product concepts emerge. [Fig. 5 ↦ 35]

Design is not yet an integral part of the company’s mindset. However, the company is interested in the potential of design as a product diffe-rentiator and is engaged in explorative studies. It sees that a product language (level 2) needs to be developed and coordinated. It also understands that in order to do so beyond a pilot project, a design process (level 3) needs to be implemented alongside the engineering process.

6. Results Phase 2: Design Integration Scenarios

In phase 2 scenarios for design integration for all companies have been developed. This resulted in a plan for the implementation of im-proved ways of using design. [Fig. 6 ↦ 35]

6.1 Design Integration Scenario for Company A

Process: At the beginning of the process, the team from company A worked on making its current design philosophy, which is expressed in all its

«Focused»

26

products, spaces and communication, explicit by means of verbal statements. It engaged in making the principles of product design visually explicit by means of structured “mood boards” that link sources of inspiration (taken from architecture, art and product de-sign) to current product lines. It also engaged in translating its cur-rent ISO-based development process model into a process diagram that additionally displays relevant stakeholders and aims at making the process more transparent. The research team supplied both mood boards structure and process diagram.

This work proved to be a valuable process for the team from com-pany A. By consciously going to the roots of the firm and its de - sign philosophy the team became aware of what implicitly drives all designed expressions from the company. However, mood board struc-ture and process diagram provoked discussions about their overall usefulness. Time beyond the research project’s timeframe will have to show whether communicating the company’s design philosophy and new product development process can strengthen corporate culture and staff’s identification with it. [Fig. 7 ↦ 35]

6.2 Design Integration Scenario for Company B

Process: At the beginning of the process, the research team worked with the management team on a future state regarding product design and its integration with engineering and marketing. The management team engaged in transferring aspects of their corporate vision into drafts for a design philosophy and a design strategy. The company also showed product design explorations that allowed the research team to get a glimpse of a current project. The research team helped in formulating a rough design briefing aimed at channelling product design studies.

Collaboration provoked major discussions throughout the process. They touched issues such as an aspiration for more explicit product design, scepticism about its overall need and usefulness, and bottom-up, uncoordinated action demonstrated with older products and up-coming packaging design concepts.

27


The overall process turned out to actually be very, if not too demand-ing and challenging on several levels. The research team identified limitations in using plain language to advance the idea of how mana-gement and design could be successfully linked, despite the use of case studies that showed the relationships between design philo-sophy, strategy and product language. Another challenge emerged with regard to team dynamics and the risk of abandoning the project.

At the end of the project, the company presented a new product to be launched in fall 2008, for which the company for the first time had sourced design skills from a design studio (product language) and from an advertising agency (packaging). The company plans to stra-tegically use unique selling propositions based on engineering and design in order to beat a specific competitor.

6.3 Comparison and DiscussionComparing profiles and scenarios of design integration from com-pany A and company B aims at clarifying success factors for the successful use of design. Regarding maturity levels on the Design Staircase® model, company A has been positioned on level 3, com-pany B on level 1(2). Regarding the current use of design, significant differences between the two firms exist as becomes clear by com-paring their profiles in the spider diagram below. [Fig. 8 ↦ 36]

The comparison makes evident that company A makes use of a number of critical success factors, which company B does not. Each of these success factors has a specific potential to leverage design capability, and by doing so to transform the business and maybe the future of a company.

These success factors can be summed up as follows:— Include a design champion on the level of top management and

create a design management function that has direct access to the decision-making processes of top management.

— Formulate a design philosophy as part of the mission or vision of the company, which then informs a design strategy and a consistent design language for all products and services.

— Implement processes for design such as the coordination of all

«Focused»

28

7. Conceptualizing the DM-Guide: From Concept to Beta-Prototype

7.1 ObjectivesAs stated above, the DM-guide should support SMEs to raise their design maturity level by helping them assess their design maturity and by finding specific ways towards realizing their full potential at their current or next higher level. Based on these objectives the re-search team decided that the underlying concept of the DM-guide should be based on the Design Staircase®.

7.2 Conceptual ModelThe conceptual model of the DM-guide relates the four basic per-spectives to each other. Levels and goals are related to the current situation and goal setting on a horizontal axis (assessing design ma-turity: current and future). On a vertical level, triggers are related to success factors representing an operational relationship (finding ways to improve design integration). The conceptual model uses the four perspectives as its basic building blocks and entry points in order to understand the guide and to be able to use it in the intended way. [Fig. 9 ↦ 36]

internal stakeholders who make design contributions to strat-egy/brand, culture/identity, and product/service.

— Alter the “typical” process of improving products towards an inno vation process that is complemented by a design-based innovation process.

— Allocate budgets, time and people to projects and establish adequate measurement tools. Start with pilot projects prior to company-wide implementation.

— Include design competency into all design-relevant business activities either through internal designers or through coopera-tion with an external design service provider.

— Create and foster a climate of innovation and creativity within the company and use every opportunity to communicate the strength of design as a strategic resource.

29


1. LevelsLevels correspond to the design maturity levels of the Design Stair-case®:

2. TriggersTriggers are factors arising from environmental spheres and stake-holders. Depending on a company’s sector or main focus they may push SMEs to make greater and more effective use of design. The following triggers cover a broad enough field for the purpose of the DM-guide:

3. GoalsGoals are business objectives that respond to challenges and trig-gers. They are desirable future states. For the purpose of the DM-guide they are framed in terms of design categories such as prod-ucts, services, corporate design, marketing communication, brand management, and in terms of using design categories towards in-creased visibility, greater strategic orientation, better integration, increased differentiation, improved new product planning and inno-vativeness.

4. Success factorsSuccess factors are internal levers with the potential to trigger the dynamics of change inside a company. The list of success factors follows the categories of the Design Atlas, but however with some modi fications:

— Companies that do not use design— Companies that use design for style or appearance— Companies that integrate design into the development process— Companies that consider design as a key strategic element

— Triggers from the economic sphere: new economic goals set; new companies or business units founded— Triggers from the technology sphere: new materials invented; new technologies developed— Triggers from the society sphere: new values of customers; new competitors and markets— Triggers from the state as stakeholder: new laws implemented;

new industrial norms set

«Focused»

30

7.3 Concept Development, Visualization and PrototypingBased on the conceptual model, the research team engaged in a five-step process that led to a beta-prototype.

Step 1:In the initial phase, three different visual metaphors (suitable for both intended users, i. e. senior management of SMEs, and intended use, i.e. a pragmatic way to approach design-related questions) were presented to and discussed with four company teams: the Matrix; the Map; and the Staircase.

Main insights touched on the issues of hierarchy and usability. It was mentioned that the metaphor should not imply that design maturity levels are a question of hierarchy, but are legitimate states of being. It was also said that the metaphor should not be too abstract, but make a connection with something familiar. Over all the metaphor of the map was clearly favoured by all companies. [Fig. 10 ↦ 37]

Step 2: In the next step the research team designed a travel guide using graphic design, storytelling, game design and further visual differen-tiation of the initial metaphor to create an archipelago, displaying islands, routes between islands and resources on the islands.

— Design Planning: design leadership in support of corporate decision-making— Design Philosophy: design philosophy, design strategy and design language — Design Resources: budgets, time, manpower and controlling tools— Design Coordination: management and coordination of all internal stakeholders— Design Process: design-based research and innovation processes— Design Competency: skills and knowledge for design-relevant business activities— Design Culture: climate of innovation and creativity for the whole organization

31


Step 3:Next the research team did both behavioural and appearance proto-typing with experts, i. e. representatives from the School of Business. Main insights touched on understanding the rules of the game/guide, identification with one of the four levels/islands, understanding the success factors, appraisal of language, and comprehensibility of some of the visual elements. Feedbacks also included questions of function, structure and properties.

Step 4:In the next step, the research team used a revised version of the proto type and did behavioural and appearance prototyping together with all company teams (1–3 representatives each) in a focus group like format. Prototyping included specific questions on concept and appearance.

This final prototyping session with all company teams produced an overall positive response. All companies understood the metaphor and could find “their island”. However, a difference was found with respect to getting started (e. g. the least experienced company in terms of design had more difficulties than the most experienced one). Prototyping also revealed that the guide itself is a good think-ing tool, but does not suggest detailed means or tips on how to imple-ment design projects or a design management function.

Step 5:In a final step, the research team did another refinement of appear-ance and visualization issues based on insights from the final proto-typing session. The result led to the design of a beta-prototype.

7.4 Beta-PrototypeThrough designing and prototyping, the initial conceptual model was translated into an easy to understand, easy to use, visually attrac-tive orientation device, named “Design Management Travel Guide” (“Ihr Design Management Reiseführer”). The result was achieved by using designed means such as visual and narrative metaphors, char-acters from storytelling and rules from game design. The basic under-lying metaphor comes from the field of cartography, displaying a sea

«Focused»

32

map of a fictitious archipelago of four islands. Each represented a specific degree of design maturity (levels), with routes departing from one island and arriving at the other where one could find and learn more about the resources (success factors) necessary for achieving an improved way of design integration (goals), and with a wind rose representing challenges and winds of change (triggers) for all islands of the archipelago. [Fig. 11 ↦ 37]

A set of rules explains how to use the map: to look for the island, which represents the company’s situation best, to identify the triggers that might ask for a different way of design integration, to choose between routes to get to the next island and find the success factors necessary to achieve the company’s goals. On each island a typical inhabitant (character) represents a specific form of design integra-tion (or design awareness), welcomes travellers and explains some of the success factors treasured on the island.

8. Conclusions

Although the consortium perceived the process of design integration scenario development and the results of the project as successful, the research team made two main observations: 1. The topic of design (and with that the project itself) often was

an object at risk due to pressures and challenges from daily business. Three companies engaged in pilot projects for which they sourced design skills in order to create “good practices”, in the hope of stating the case of successful design use to a (sceptical) senior management. Time will tell whether the design integration scenarios will actually be implemented and bear fruit in terms of business success and higher design awareness on the level of company decision-making.

2. Most companies expressed the intention to innovate, but they either did not understand what the contribution of design to innovation is, or they lacked some of the fundamental pro-cesses, methods and knowledge in order to make it a reality. It was only with one company that the innovation management process was revised and design was included at crucial points of the process.

33


The DM-guide proved to be easy to use for all companies, whether they performed on levels 1–2 or 3–4; it was able to trigger awareness, discussions and even plans of what should be done next in the com-pany. Interestingly enough, the most design-led company was as much able to draw conclusions from the work with the DM-guide as the least design-led one. It was stated that the implementation of design and design management (and the fostering of innovativeness of a company) is a continuous iterative process of (self-) develop-ment. It was also said, that at the moment the guide might not yet speak for itself.

Further tests with companies, for which the subjects of design and design management will be novel, will tell whether the DM-guide needs a supportive and explanatory context such as, for ex ample, workshop formats or media. New research aimed at improving the guide will focus on describing the relationship between design and innovation as well as between design management and innovation management in more detail and on bringing innovation processes and design processes closer together.

«Focused»

34

Phase 1Research and analysis of design usage

Phase 2Formulation of options for design integration

Phase 3Development of design management guide

Audits Interviews Observations Workshops

Workshops Workshops Prototyping Evaluation

Insights (current situation) Scenarios (company specific) Definition/Solution

Design Management

Design Planning

Corporate StrategyProject Management

New Product Development

Corporate CultureCorporate Design Management

Corporate Market and Trend Analyses / Design Research

for Design

Planning

Design Process for

for D

esig

nR

esou

rces

for D

esig

n

Peop

le

1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13

14 15 for DesignCulture

for Design

Planning

Design Process for

for D

esig

nR

esou

rces

for D

esig

n

Peop

le

1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13


Fig. 1: Research process, main methods and results. ↦ 22

Fig. 2: DM-Framework (Acklin 2007). ↦ 23

Fig. 3: Company profiles of design integration. (Company A and B) ↦ 24

35


Step 4

Step 3

Step 2

Step 1

Companies that consider design a key strategic element

Companies that integrate design into the development process

Companies that use design for styling or appearance

Companies that do not use design

Step 4

Step 3

Step 2

Step 1

Companies that consider design a key strategic element

Companies that integrate design into the development process

Companies that use design for styling or appearance

Companies that do not use design

Design Management

Strategy / Brand –

Product / ServiceMake explicit first phase of development process

and elaborate on product1 Culture / Identity

Formulate design philosophy and design strategy

3 2

Design Management

Strategy / Brand Formulate design strategy as part of corporate strategy

Product / ServiceComplement engineering

process through a design process with

regard to innovation1

Culture / IdentityDevelop design philosophy

3 2

Fig. 4: Design staircase for company A. ↦ 25

Fig. 5: Design staircase for company B. ↦ 25

Fig. 6: Design integration scenario for company A. ↦ 25

Fig. 7: Design integration scenario for company B. ↦ 26

«Focused»

36

Company A Company BGeneral planning awareness General planning communication Design planning awareness Design planning thinking Design planning horizons General process awareness Design process awareness Design process management Design process tools General resource allocation Design resource allocation Design skills Design organisation Design commitment Design attitudes

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15

for Design

Planning

Design Process for

for D

esig

nR

esou

rces

for D

esig

n

Peop

le

1

2 3

4 5

6 7 8

9

10

11

12

13


sucess factors

triggers

1 assessing design maturity

2 ways to improve design integration

levels goals

Fig. 8: Comparison of design integration scenarios between company A and company B. ↦ 27

Fig. 9: Conceptual model of the DM-guide. ↦ 28

37


↥Fig. 10: Concept and visualization. ↦ 30 ↧Fig. 11: Beta-prototype. ↦ 32

«Focused»

38

NoteThis paper is an abridged version of the original project paper.

References↦ Acklin, Claudia (2007). DM-Framework. Organizing Agenda BA Design Management, International. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Art and Design.↦ Acklin, Claudia; Stalder, Ursula; Wolf, Brigitte (2006). Leitbilder des Design Managements (Forschungsbericht “Best Practice: Design Management Schweiz”), Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Art and Design.↦ Boult, John (2006). Emerging Demands and Challenges for Design Support. In: SEEdesign Bulletin, Issue 3, September 2006. www.seedesign.org (accessed December 2006).↦ Cox, George (2005). Cox Review of Creativity in Business: Building on the UK’s Strengths.↦ Design Atlas (2000). British Design Council. www.designinbusiness.org (accessed December 2006).↦ Design Council and Engine Creative Consultants Ltd. (2006). Ideopoly. www.ideopoly.org.uk (accessed December 2006).↦ Design Staircase® (2001). In: Facts & Insights, About Design Motivations and Barriers. Danish Design Centre. ↦ Wolf Patricia, Schweikert Simone, Küchler Willy, Stössel Zeno (2005). SME Innovation Demand Report. Project Regional Innovation Strategy for Central Switzerland (RISforCCH). Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts – Business Administration.

39


«Focused»

40

41


University Institute

Email Internet

Case Transfer vs Case Study: An Evaluation of Case Study as a Method for Design Research

02Technische Universität Berlin An-Institut Deutsche Telekom Laboratories [email protected] www.laboratories.telekom.com www.designresearchnetwork.org

↦ case transfer ↦ case study ↦ design research method ↦ projection ↦ transferability

Keywords

In a short article published recently in the Design Issues, Breslin and Buchanan [2008] reflect on the significance of the Case Study method for Design. According to them, Case Study explores the space between theory and practice and therefore it is useful in design. I argue that al-though Breslin and Buchanan have helpfully reviewed existing prac-tices of the Case Study method, they have overlooked and have failed to articulate a form of Case Study that is particular and significant for Design Research. Using Krippendorf’s model of Design Research, I contend that the types of questions in Design Research are funda-mentally different from those that traditional Case Study is designed to address. Furthermore, I use Jonasian Toolbox to argue that tradi-tional Case Study is only useful for the analytic phase of designing but it leaves the projective phase untouched. To address the lack, I pro-pose a form of case study, tentatively named Case Transfer. The pro-posal aims to use cases for design to its full potential and to supple-ment the attempts made by Breslin and Buchanan. I cannot claim that the proposal is well established and leaves no room for debate. Rather I maintain that the proposal opens a new window for examining Case Study in a designistic way.

Rosan Chow

«Focused»

42

1. Introduction

In a short article published recently in the Design Issues, Breslin and Buchanan [2008] reflect on the significance of the Case Study method for Design. According to them, Case Study explores the space between theory and practice and therefore it is useful in design. They briefly survey Case Study in teaching and research in various fields including law, business, medicine and social sciences. They point out that the significance of Case Study lies in ‘connecting student to social phenomena, real life experience, and existential situations in a way that helps to sharpen thinking and inform decision-making’. They also gently criticize that ‘designers have not made a leap to writing and using case studies as an important part of design edu-cation and research development’ to its full potential. Certainly, the Case Study method is not new to design researchers, but credits must be given to both authors for opening discussion by reflecting seriously on a taken-for-granted topic. My intention here is to con-tinue with their reflections.

1.1 Aims & ValuesFocusing on Case Study as a research tool, I will argue that although Breslin and Buchanan have helpfully reviewed existing practices of the Case Study method, they have overlooked and have failed to arti-culate a form of Case Study that is particular and significant for Design Research. Using Krippendorf’s model of Design Research, I will contend that the types of questions in Design Research are fundamentally different from those that traditional Case Study is de-signed to address. Furthermore, I will use Jonasian Toolbox to argue that traditional Case Study is only useful for the analytic phase of designing but it leaves the projective phase untouched. To address the lack, I will propose a form of case study, tentatively named Case Transfer that holds promise for advancing Design Research. The pro posal aims to use cases for design to its full potential and to sup-plement the attempts made by Breslin and Buchanan. I cannot claim that the proposal is well established and leaves no room for debate. Rather I maintain that the proposal opens a new window for examin-ing Case Study in a designistic way.

43


1.2 AssumptionsMy arguments and proposal are naturally biased in the sense that they are based on beliefs and values that might not be held by others including Breslin and Buchanan. I believe it important for Design Research to have its own paradigm of inquiry, distinct from that of Sciences and Humanities. This belief has its sympathizers such as Clive Dilnot, Wolfgang Jonas, and Klaus Krippendorf, among others. Dilnot [1998] has from early on argued for the potentials of Design Research to fill the gap left open by the Sciences and Humanities. Jonas (2000, 2001, 2002, 2006) has over the years contributed to arti-culating/designing a model of design research. Krippendorf [2006] has recently written ‘The Semantic Turn’ to weave together many issues about design research with the notion of meanings. These design thinkers understand that in order for Design Research to contribute significantly to knowledge generation for the benefits of society, design researchers must develop their own agendas, paradigms and methods and cannot uncritically borrow from other disciplines. Only those who share the same beliefs and assumptions will find relevance and values in the arguments and proposal made. This paper contrib-utes to establishing Design Research as an independent field.

2. Mismatch between Case Study and Design

2.1 Yin’s Case StudyAs pointed out by Breslin and Buchanan, Case Study is a research tool well established in the Social Sciences and exists in various forms. Since they refer to Robert Yin’s Case Study Research: Design and Methods [2003], and Yin is well received in Social Sciences, we should take Yin’s for our discussion. To begin, it is necessary to mention that Yin’s position on Case Study as a research tool is some-how different from how it is described by Breslin and Buchanan. Yin [2003 p. 3] particularly states that Case Study is a strategy, not a method as how Breslin and Buchanan present it. Contrary to them, Yin claims that in Case Study one might collect and use both qualitative and quantitative data and Case Study should not be confused with data collecting methods such as ethnography. Despite these differences and though not mentioned by Breslin and Buchanan, Case Study in Social Sciences is used to explore, describe and explain contempo-

«Focused»

44

rary events and phenomena. Besides, ’Case study, like experiments, are generalizable to theoretical propositions, not to populations or universe. In this sense, the case study, like the experiment, does not represent a ‘sample’ and in doing a case study, your goal will be to expand and generalize theories (analytic generalisation) and not to enumerate frequencies (statistical generalization)’ [Yin 2003 p. 10]. In sum, Case Study is aimed at achieving the basic goal of science, namely seeking generalisable knowledge to describe, explain and predict phenomena. This is what I find inadequate about Case Study for Design Research.

2.2 Projective Nature of Design QuestionsSince Herbert Simon who wrote the well cited book ‘The Sciences of the Artificial’ in which he distinguished design from Science, scholars in Design have argued that the goals and objectives of sci-ences are not the same as those of Design. Most recently Krippen-dorf elaborates and sums up this position in ‘The Semantic Turn’. Krippendorf [2006 p. 265] emphasizes that design is concerned not with describing and explaining the present or the past but with creating possible futures. To put it simply, design questions are fundamen-tally projective: 1 what is possible, 2 what should be done, 3 how it should be accomplished. In contrast, Case Study addresses analy-tical questions of the why and the how of present or past events. According to Jonas, projection asks different questions and requires different methods from those that serve analysis. He and colleagues [Hugentobler et. al. 2004] have developed a generic model, nicknamed Toolbox, to describe the design process, [Fig. 1 ↦ 50]. According to them, the design process is a hypercyclic combination of the macro and the micro processes. The macro process has three domains of knowing: Analysis, Projection and Synthesis. Each domain of know-ing is composed of a micro process which has four steps: research, analysis, synthesis and realization. Each step has its own methods and tools to answer its own questions. The process is facilitated by communication.

2.3 Need for Redesigning Case StudyToolbox shows that traditional Case Study is only suitable for the analytical domain but not for the projective domain of the design

45


process. It can not be overemphasized that projection is the most distinctive aspect of designing. Without taking care of this domain, Case Study is of important but limited value for Design Research. Having said that, let us not forget all research methods are artifacts. Although traditional Case Study does not support design projection, it does not mean that it cannot be redesigned. My intent here is to take up this task. Certainly, there are already a good number of methods for projection and one can merely refer to the Toolbox to find out. However, few capitalize on existing design cases. This is unfortunate because as Jonas [2000] argues, Design is a historical discipline and the design knowledge base is the artifacts that have been created before. Artifacts are informational sources. They are exemplars and templates allowing copying, imitating and most im-portantly transferring. His is in sync with the idea of ‘memes’ which Langrish [2004] has explored in some depth. I will therefore, propose a form of Case Study, tentatively termed Case Transfer which makes use of existing cases for design and which holds promise for support-ing design projection.

3. Case Transfer vs Case Study

3.1 Projection vs AnalysisCase Transfer shares the basic assumption that underlies Case Study: individual cases are knowledge sources. However, in order to support projection, its aim must be different from Case Study. Case Transfer should not be aimed at general theories or principles for the purpose of prediction, but rather at transferred designs for anticipa-tion. To support this claim, we need to examine the nature of gener-alization and its incompatibility with projection. How is a general theory or principle arrived? In Brief, it is induced and abstracted from different (and effective) particular cases of design through analysis. For example, if one is interested in communication arte-facts, one might propose, observe and test various good designs to abstract the underlying principles. One might then use the princi-ples as a guide for designing more communication artefacts. Induc-tion, deduction and prediction sound indeed very logical. However, a general principle is induced from past cases and deducing from a general principle only result in producing a variation of past cases.

«Focused»

46

In other words, as argued by the American Philosopher Charles Peirce [Davis 1972], induction and deduction create nothing new. Creat ing nothing new is antithesis to design projection. One might of course argue that principles are often sufficient to guide most design prac-tices, especially if the principles are very broad. Besides, new is after all relative. However, the values of a principle are proportional to the stability of the context to which it is applied. The simpler and the less changing are the variances, the more stable is the context and the more applicable is the principle. But these conditions are not always available. Because 1. Contextual factors critical to design do change, such as changes in values, ethics, tastes and climate. The adopted value of sustainability runs contrast to the principle of economical growth, for example. 2. Deviation & difference are desirable, as in the arts, design and technology in general. People appreciate and want novelty. The greater the deviation from principle, the higher the de-gree ofthe novelty. 3. Anomaly or exception which problem lies out-side the reach of principle. Often designers must adjust principles to fit specific changing and new situations. Furthermore, ironically a general principle, once abstracted from cases, becomes a goal of de-signing. The main User-Centered Design principle: designing for the users and their tasks is an aspiration to be aimed at, but is not a spe-cific design solution. In sum, firstly following principle is by nature conservative. Secondly, it is weak in dealing with changing contexts. Finally, it is part of a design brief and not a design itself. However, projection is about the ‘ideal – how it could be’ and requires know-ledge that is ‘liberal’, helps anticipate changing contexts and is con-crete and actionable. In conclusion, if Case Transfer is to aid projec-tion, then it should not be aimed at general principle, but rather, I propose, transferred designs. With this note, the concept transfer-ability needs to be introduced.

3.2 Transferability vs GeneralisabilityI use transferability to describe the quality of knowledge generation and application in design projection and it is meant to be different from generalisability. Generalisability is the quality measure for the relevance and validity of knowledge and it is assumed that know-ledge generation and application is free from context. This assump-tion has been much contested in the post-modern discourse, and as

47


it has been argued above, it does not fit with design projection. Trans-ferability is a more appropriate concept, I propose.

In various fields of research, there is no definite meaning attached to transferability or at least not as widely agreed and understood as generalisability. Sometimes transferability means applicability and sometime it even means generalisability. However, the following usa ges are found. Transferability was used by Lincoln and Guba [1981] in social scientific research when they questioned the positi-vistic approach to social research and proposed ‘naturalistic inquiry’ as an alternative. In defence of their proposal, they developed four alternative research criteria to match the positivist ones: credibility; transferability; dependability and confirmability. Transferability re-placed generalisability for measuring relevance and validity. Later on they considered these as still trapped in positivistic thinking and proposed a completely new set of criteria. Besides social research, transferability is used often in Health Promotion. Health Promotion researchers talk about transferability when they seek to understand whether and how a successful health promotional program deve-loped in one context can be used in another context. This type of research focuses on evaluating the effectiveness of specific program and the extent to which it can be transferred. Besides these usages, the most widely use of the term transfer in research literature is knowledge transfer. Knowledge transfer means bringing (spreading) knowledge developed through/in research to practice. It connotes knowledge utilization.

In all these different usages, one finds only the Wittgensteinian ‘family resemblance’. Transferability seems to imply recognition of contextual differences and the demands on specific knowledge application. It also implies an incomplete use and change of know-ledge during the transfer. In sum, it implies that knowledge is not wholesalely generalisable but must be used creatively and partially and often the knowledge used is specific rather than general. There is much appreciation in the specificity, complexity, uncertainty of contexts in which knowledge is generated and applied, to the degree that it is more accurate to talk about transfer rather than generalize. All these meanings resemble my own. I hypothesize that when study-

«Focused»

48

ing cases for design projection, we take knowledge from one context to another context piecemeal to create something new. This taking is what I call transfer. And to evaluate the quality of knowledge, I use the concept transferability. Space does not allow elaboration but trans-fer is highly related to the better known concepts analogy, metaphor and abduction. All these are related to creation of the new.

4. Designing Case Transfer

4.1 SketchingTo recap, to support projection, we aim not for general principle but alternative designs to anticipate changes. I propose that to achieve this aim we might study existing design cases and transfer the know-ledge therein to create these alternatives. This kind of study, I call Case Transfer. In Case Transfer knowledge is not induced from case(s) but abduced across cases in the same, similar and different domains. I see transfer in design as being similar and yet different to existing practice in other fields, [Fig. 1 ↦ 50]. Transfers in Social Research and Health Promotion are existing practices but transfer in Design Research is my own imagination.

In Social Sciences, transferable knowledge is achieved by ‘purpo-sive sampling’ and ‘thick description’ of research context. In Health Promotion, detailed comparison of the source context and the target context is also done. However, for design projection, Case Transfer must not only describe design cases, but it must also transfer cases because to a great extent, knowledge is made transferable. Transfers in other fields are done within domains or between similar domains. Following Dunbar1, we name them local and regional transfers re-spectively. Besides local and regional transfers, transfer might be done across domains; and this is called long-distance transfer.

4.2 Prototype TestingI have prototyped and tested a three-step procedure for Case Trans-fer: First, collect existing design cases; second, analyze these cases and third, transfer these cases to create new cases. In the tests, a designer (K) and a design student (J) have collected, analyzed and transferred (1) mobile phones, (2) mobile objects, such as books,

49


buses, pistol, fast-food packaging, etc and (3) avant-garde objects, such as street arts, architectures, sculptures, etc to create a variety of mobile communication devices. Here, we were interested in find-ing out the forms the analyses take and the differences in transfer-ability among the local, regional and long-distance sources, [Fig. 2

↦ 51]. For our purpose here, I should summarize that the analyses took the form of specific ‘design elements’ including function, physi-cal and sensual form, character, context of use, and the condition or association that the object creates or affords. All these were trans-ferred to create new ideas. By this small study, I am encouraged that studying cases of design systematically for projection is possible and useful. At the moment, we are replicating the study and also studying ser vice design transferability.

5. Conclusions

We have learned that traditional Case Study is more useful for the analytical phase of designing and Case Transfer holds more promise for supporting projection. We have also seen an early prototype of Case Transfer. However, there remain open questions ranging from theoretical to practical. Firstly, the concepts transfer and transfer-ability need theoretical examination. If generalization is made pos-sible and valid through induction and deduction, what ‘logical’ mech-anisms are required for transfer? We might draw on Pierce’s concept of abduction or Wittgenstein’s ‘family resemblance’, but these argu-ments still need to be made. Secondly, the idea of artefacts afford-ing knowledge for transfer needs further examination and integration with other research about artifacts. Thirdly, how can Case Transfer be carried out rigorously? What are the criteria for choosing cases for transfer and for evaluating the quality of transfers? Finally, is Case Transfer not based on some general principles? In sum, there is still much to learn about Case Transfer and transferability in design. Research must continue.

50

Ste

ps o

f th

e it

erat

ive

mic

ro p

roce

ss o

f lea

rnin

g /

des

igni

ng

rese

arch

anal

ysis

synt

hesi

sre

aliz

atio

n

Domains of design inquiry, steps / components of the iterative macro process of designing

AN

ALY

SIS

“the

true

”ho

w it

is t

oday

How

to

get d

ata

on th

e si

tuat

ion

as it

IS?

↦ d

ata

on w

hat I

S

How

to

mak

e se

nse

of

this

dat

a?↦

kno

wle

dge

on w

hat I

S

How

to

unde

rsta

nd th

e si

tuat

ion

as a

who

le?

↦ w

orld

view

s

How

to

pres

ent t

he

situ

atio

n as

IS?

↦ c

onse

nt o

n th

e si

tuat

ion

PR

OJE

CT

ION

“the

idea

l”ho

w it

cou

ld b

e

How

to

get d

ata

on

futu

re c

hang

es?

↦ fu

ture

-rel

ated

dat

a

How

to

inte

rpre

t the

se

data

?↦

info

rmat

ion

abou

t fu

ture

s

How

to

get c

onsi

sten

t im

ages

of p

ossi

ble

futu

res?

↦ s

cena

rios

How

to

pres

ent t

he

futu

re s

cena

rios

?↦

con

sent

on

pr

oble

ms

/ goa

ls

SY

NT

HES

IS“t

he r

eal”

how

it is

tom

orro

w

How

to

get d

ata

on th

e si

tuat

ion

as it

sha

ll be

?↦

pro

blem

dat

a

How

to

eval

uate

thes

e da

ta?

↦ p

robl

em, l

ist o

f re

quir

emen

ts

How

to

desi

gn s

olut

ions

of

the

prob

lem

?↦

des

ign

solu

tion

s

How

to

pres

ent t

he

solu

tion

s?↦

dec

isio

ns a

bout

“g

o / n

o go

”

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N“t

he d

rive

r”H

ow t

o es

tabl

ish

the

proc

ess

and

mov

e it

for

war

d? H

ow t

o en

able

pos

itiv

e te

am d

ynam

ics?

H

ow t

o fi

nd b

alan

ce b

etw

een

acti

on / r

efle

ctio

n? H

ow t

o bu

ild h

ot te

ams?

H

ow t

o en

able

equ

al p

arti

cipa

tion

?↦

foc

used

and

eff

icie

nt te

amw

ork

Fig

. 1: ‘

Tool

box’

: Cat

egor

ies

of In

nova

tion

s an

d D

esig

n M

etho

ds a

nd to

ols.

Que

stio

ns a

nd R

esul

ts. ↦

44

/48

51

Fiel

dS

ocia

l Res

earc

hH

ealt

h P

rom

oti

onD

esig

n R

esea

rch

Aim

Des

crib

e/ex

plai

n ph

enom

enon

Impl

emen

t pro

mot

ion

proj

ect

Cre

ate

alte

rnat

ive

desi

gns

Met

hods

Ethn

ogra

phy

Eval

uati

onC

ase

Tran

sfer

Res

earc

h

resu

lts

Thi

ck d

escr

ipti

on o

f the

con

text

(o

f res

earc

h)D

etai

led

com

pari

son

of th

e

cont

ext a

nd th

e pr

ojec

t sol

utio

n1.

Des

crip

tion

of s

ourc

e de

sign

2.

Alt

erna

tive

des

ign

of t

arge

t dom

ain

Typ

es

of t

rans

fer

1. T

rans

fer

to a

dif

fere

nt c

onte

xt

in th

e sa

me

dom

ain

(loca

l tra

nsfe

r)1.

Tra

nsfe

r pr

ogra

m t

o a

diff

eren

t co

ntex

t sol

ving

sam

e pr

oble

m

(loca

l tra

nsfe

r)2.

Tra

nsfe

r pr

ogra

m t

o a

diff

eren

t co

ntex

t sol

ving

sim

ilar

prob

lem

(r

egio

nal t

rans

fer)

1. T

rans

fer

desi

gn t

o di

ffer

ent c

onte

xt

solv

ing

sam

e pr

oble

m (l

ocal

tran

sfer

)2.

Tra

nsfe

r de

sign

to

diff

eren

t con

text

so

lvin

g si

mila

r pr

oble

m. (

regi

onal

tr

ansf

er)

3. T

rans

fer

desi

gn t

o di

ffer

ent

cont

ext s

olvi

ng d

issi

mila

r pr

oble

m

(long

-dis

tanc

e tr

ansf

er)

Exa

mp

les

1. D

escr

ibe

the

spec

ific

exp

erie

nce

of

PhD

stu

dent

s in

a p

arti

cula

r

univ

ersi

ty, t

rans

fer

the

know

ledg

e

to in

crea

se u

nder

stan

ding

of

othe

r P

hD s

tude

nts

in o

ther

uni

ver-

siti

es

AID

S p

reve

ntio

n pr

ogra

m

succ

essf

ul in

uni

vers

ity

cont

ext,

1. tr

ansf

er th

e sp

ecif

ic p

rogr

am

to lo

w in

com

e co

mm

unit

y co

ntex

t or 2.

tran

sfer

the

prog

ram

to

drug

pr

even

tion

in lo

w in

com

e co

mm

unit

y co

ntex

t (re

gion

al tr

ansf

er)

1. T

rans

fer

desi

gn o

f mob

ile p

hone

s to

des

ign

of m

obile

com

mun

icat

ion

devi

ce2.

Tra

nsfe

r de

sign

of m

obile

obj

ects

to

des

ign

of m

obile

com

mun

icat

ion

devi

ce3.

Tra

nsfe

r of

ava

nt-g

arde

obj

ects

to

the

desi

gn o

f mob

ile c

omm

u nic

atio

n de

vice

Fig

. 2: T

rans

fer i

n S

ocia

l Res

earc

h, H

ealt

h P

rom

otio

n an

d D

esig

n. ↦

49

«Focused»

52

Endnote1 When Dunbar was studying molecular biology labs, he found that analogies were frequently used and most of them were frequently local, from the same experimental domain, regional involving a whole system of relationships from a similar domain, long distance domain-ones that required mapping across very different domains. (p. 196)

References↦ Breslin, M., & Buchanan, R. (2008). On the Case Study Method of Reserach and Teaching in Design. Design Issues, 24 (1), 36–40.↦ Davis, W. H. (1972). Peirce’s Epistemology. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.↦ Dilnot, C. (1998). The Science of Uncertainty: The Potential Contribution of Design to Knowledge. Paper presented at the Ohio Conference on Ph.D. Education in Design Columbus, Ohio.↦ Dunbar, K. (1994). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. Davidson (Eds.), Mechanisms of Insight. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.↦ Guba, E. 1981. “Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries.” ECTJ: Educational Communication and Technology Journal 29 (2): 75–91.Hugentobler, Hans Kaspar; Jonas, Wolfgang; Rahe, Detlef (2004) “Designing a Methods Platform for Design and Design Research”, in: futureground, DRS International Conference, Melbourne, Nov. 2004↦ Langrish, J. (2004). Darwinian Design: The Memetic Evolution of Design Ideas. Design Issues, 20 (4), 4–19.↦ Jonas, W. (2000). The Paradox Endeavour to Design a Foundation for a Groundless Field. Paper presented at the International Conference on Design Education in the University, Perth, Austraila.↦ —. (2001). “A Scenario for Design.” Design Issues 17 (2): 64–80.↦ —. (2002). “Common Ground – a Product or a Process?” Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September 5–7, 2002. (Brunel University, Eds David Durling and John Shackleton. Stoke on Trent: Stafford University Press.↦ —. (2006). Research through DESIGN through research – a problem statement and a conceptual sketch. Paper presented at the DRS Conference Wonderground, Lisabon, Portugal.↦ Krippendorf, K. (2006). The Sematic Turn. A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton, London, New York: Taylor & Francis.↦ Yin, R.K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (Third ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

53


«Focused»

54

55



Email

Internet

Best or Worst of the Two Worlds? Experiences in Long-Term University-Industry Collaboration in Design Research

03Technische Universität Berlin An-Institut Deutsche Telekom Laboratories [email protected] [email protected] www.telekom.de/laboratories www.designresearchnetwork.org

↦ university & industry research collaboration ↦ t-labs

Keywords

Although University and Industry (UI) research collaboration was around in 1800s in Europe and during the industrial revolution in the USA, it has been intensified in the past decade and received much public and institutional attention. It is safe to say that UI research colla boration might become an unavoidable part of working life for most if not all academic researchers. However, generally one finds little formal discussion on the topic of UI collaboration in Design Re-search. Even less documented is the collaboration that is long term and syste matically sustained through an established institution. To encourage discussion on UI research collaboration in Design Re-search, we report on our own experiences at the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories (T-Labs) in Germany. We first give some background of the institution. We then, through illustrative research projects, share our experiences in how to move between academic research and industry practice, to fulfil the demands from the two. We also speak about the advantages and disadvantages that such a research setting poses for design researchers. We end by envisioning scenarios of UI colla boration in Design Research to facilitate debates and dis-cussions.

Rosan Chow Gesche Joost

«Focused»

56

1. Introduction

1.1 University and Industry Research CollaborationAlthough University and Industry (UI) research collaboration was around in 1800s in Europe and during the industrial revolution in the USA, it has been intensified in the past decade and has received much public and institutional attention [Jones 2008]. The growth of UI research collaboration is due to various factors. More effective and efficient knowledge transfer for the benefits of the industry and more funding opportunities for the benefits of academic researchers are two key ones. There are signs signalling that UI research collabo-ration will continue to increase.

At the beginning, most UI research collaborations were located in the natural sciences and engineering. But social and behavioural sciences are now considered to be significant as well [GUIRR 1999]. These collaborations have always focused on knowledge transfer to strengthen economic performances, but now they are also thought to be important for educational purposes [Prey 2007]. Besides, various efforts are put into tackling difficulties, such as intellectual property rights and the incommensurable values of the university and the industry. For example, in the USA, there is the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership which is ‘to deli berate on the causes of, and potential solutions to, the difficulties facing universities and companies when attempting to work together’. They have pub-lished a number of documents to give advice to all involved [University-

Industry Partnership 2006]. Besides, some research has shown that re-searchers favour such collaboration and would choose to continue with it [Lee 2000]. It is safe to say that UI research collaboration might become an unavoidable part of working life for most if not all aca-demic researchers. Certainly, this situation might vary in intensity among different countries, such as Switzerland and Germany. Swit-zerland is active in promoting UI collaboration through funding pro-grams such as DORE, while in Germany it is not as common because research collaboration with industry is traditionally done through institutes such as Fraunhofer Gesellschaft and the Max Planck Insti-tute. However, as we will show later, Germany is not exempt from this trend.

57


1.2 UI in Design ResearchDesign departments in universities in Germany often have profes-sional design projects contracted by industry, but few have research collaboration. However, in various design research centres or groups in other countries, as in Switzerland, the UK and the Nordic coun-tries, there are research projects that are UI collaborations. In com-parison to these countries, generally speaking, design research in Germany is far less established on the university level. The ERA 05 ‘Joining Force’ conference in Helsinki in 2005 particularly explored the relationship between design education, design research and in-dustries. So UI collaboration in Design Research is right there with us. Despite this fact, in general one finds little formal discussion on the topic of UI collaboration in Design Research. Even less docu-mented is the collaboration that is long term and systematically sustained through an established institution. Such a collaborative research institution can be found in natural sciences and engineer-ing around the world, but we are unaware of any in Design Research in Germany. Design and Design Research are gaining steadily more reputation and higher status in both the academy and industry. One should not be surprised if such a centre and the like will emerge and might become a model for the future. Or more strongly asserted, such a centre can serve as a lobby and coordinator for collaboration with industries partners. As a matter of fact, the recently established Design School at Stanford University in the USA and in Potsdam in Germany can be taken as a signal to such a development. There is much to learn, to exchange and to prepare for such a development. To open discussion on UI research collaboration in Design Research is timely.

To this end, we would like to report on our own experiences at the Deutsche Telekom Laboratories (T-Labs) in Germany. In this paper, we will first give some backgrounds of the institution. We will then, through illustrative research projects, share our experiences in how to move between academic research and industry practice to fulfil the demands from the two. We will also speak about the advantages and disadvantages that such a research setting poses for design researchers. We will end by envisioning scenarios of UI collaboration in Design Research to facilitate debates and discussions.

«Focused»

58

2. Experiences in UI Collaborative Design Research

2.1 Backgrounds of Design Research at T-LabsT-Labs began to operate in 2005 and is a partnership between the Deutsche Telekom (DTAG) and the Technical University, Berlin. T-Labs is made up of the Strategic Research and the Innovation Development departments. Among Strategic Research, there is a fast-growing Design Research Lab which we head. On the one hand, T-Labs was conceived as a technical research center which helps de-velop innovative products and services within the DTAG. On the other hand, T-Labs creates knowledge in a strict academic sense. Design Research had not been part of the plan of T-Labs, but the success of our research projects and the interdisciplinary approach we take led the way to building an academic team. In 2005, Gesche Joost, as the first Post-Doc in Design, joined the team of technical engineering researchers. This step was possible due to the argument that inter-face and interaction design have high potential for inno vations in the field of ICT. Through two years of delivering convin cing ideas and developing systematic approach to design research, the Design Research Lab was gradually established. It now has an appropriate range of topics and a good number of design researchers. There are two senior scientists, four doctoral candidates and three student in-terns, and we continue to grow. We pursue three major research themes, namely ‘Humanizing Technology’ – exploring new interaction paradigms for technological innovations in ICT such as multitouch interfaces or sensor technology; ‘Mediating People’ – taking the user and his/her needs and behaviour as the starting point for research projects, e. g. on gender specific design; and ‘Conceiving Design’ – the most abstract field dealing with theories and methods of design research such as design transfer and the rhetorical framework of audio-visual products. We are also involved in design and develop-ment projects for the strategic business units of Deutsche Telekom, including T-Mobile, T-Home and Innovation Marketing.

2.2 Intellectual PropertyIntellectual property is a key issue of conflict in many UI research collaborations and we are not exempt from this problem and must find a way around it. In principle, T-Labs follow the paradigm of open

59


innovation. Therefore, we as researchers are allowed to publish all scientific results in academic contexts. Furthermore, we invite re-searchers from all over the world to collaborate with us on specific topics. This policy permits us researchers to share ideas and know-ledge. Nevertheless, the Design Research Lab was once involved in a research and development project the results of which were not allowed to be published because we were working for one of the business units of DTAG. From a research perspective, it was a true disadvantage as we could not share and discuss our results. Learn-ing from this experience and to prevent it from happening again, we have deve loped a ‘gate’ process to help us better communicate and negotiate with our industry partners. This process consists of three decision steps guided by the following questions: 1. Does the topic fit our research agenda? If the answer is no, we

then recommend external partners or other research units within T-Labs.

2. Can we publish research results and probably apply for pat-ents? If the answer is no, we then help set up a project in the Innovation Development department and act as scientific ad-visors only.

3. Do we have enough resources? If the answer is no, we have to apply for additional funding and/or human resources to run the project.

If we can answer all three questions positively, the new research project is likely to be mutually beneficial to both academy and indus-try and we can in principle set it up within the Design Research Lab. We treat the knowledge gained through these projects as free to be shared within the community. Those ideas or prototypes that could lead to new products will apply for a patent. The intellectual results of our activities are publications, working prototypes, and patents.

2.3 Research & ApplicationAcademic institutions expect researchers to produce new under-standing and industry is interested in quick application of research results. Fundamental understanding and immediate application are two conflicting demands that we must address. The projects ‘Trans-ferability’ and ‘Women’s Phones’ illustrate how we conduct research

«Focused»

60

in ways that fulfill the two demands at the same time. In the ‘Trans-ferability’ project, we are interested in understanding the method of Case Transfer. We design, test and demonstrate that Case Transfer holds more promise than traditional Case Study method in support-ing design projection. The research results have also been presented at this academic Symposium. However, these abstract research re-sults are not that relevant to the activities of DTAG. We should men-tion that we at T-Labs are given a high degree of freedom to investi-gate any topic of our own interest and to participate in academic exchange. In principle, these research results have been sufficient because quality as well as quantity of academic publication are the measures of our research output. However, in this same study, we have chosen intentionally the subject matter of transfer – mobile communication devices – so to yield immediate results for the inter-ests of DTAG. Through testing of the method Case Transfer, the study produces more than 80 new concepts of mobile communica-tion devices. From the perspective of academic investigation, these concepts could be considered as a byproduct. But they were quite valuable for the innovation development process within T-Labs and DTAG. These concepts could be immediately applied to the develop-ment or improvement of new products at DTAG, ranging from ideas about solving the problem of undesired data on mobile phones to ideas about sharing music within a small group in an intuitive way. In this specific case – funnily enough – it is these byproducts and not only the fundamental know ledge that communicates the value of design research to DTAG. It is through this kind of communication that we continue to receive support to our research.

The project Women’s Phones was quite different than the project Case Transfer. Here, we started with the hypothesis that the current offer of mobile phone devices on the market does not reflect gender specific differences in wishes, needs and habits. The popular view of women’s attitude towards technology pictures them as rather un-interested and less skilful than men. Consequently, the formal design of women’s phones uses smooth forms, pastel colours and floral dec-orative elements to conceal its technical character. This strategy may be adequate for some female customers, but may well fail to mirror the variety of needs and lifestyles among women. They have a right

61


to be perceived and be taken seriously in their needs as product consumers. Therefore, we conducted a research project using in-quiry methods from Participatory Design. Together with prospective female users, we developed prototypes for future devices that re-flected more on the symbolic and emotional relevance of commu-nication activities rather that on technical features or styling. We applied the tool of Cultural Probes to get deeper insights into the relevance and quality of communication in the everyday life of our group of 8 female users. The initial results from this project have already led to a request from DTAG to continue with this research with female user groups of different ages and backgrounds – as female users are seen as an important target group for future ser-vices and devices. In this example we learned that our research questions and our methodological approach fit industry interests quite well. The results from research concerning insights into the life of the user group, as well as the objects that we developed in the participatory design process, act as knowledge and inspiration for the industrial development and design process.

2.4 Best or Worst of the Two WorldsBased on our experiences, we can honestly speak more about the advantages than the disadvantages in a UI research collaboration. We will begin first with the negative. We sometimes feel that we have double workloads. As the above research examples show, we often have to keep the interests of the institution and industry in mind and that necessarily requires more planning and thinking. All of our projects must be written as proper academic papers. Besides, follow-ing the industry practice, we also have to write reports, do demon-strations and organize promotional events to communicate our re-search to DTAG. Academic researchers who are not interested in speaking the language of industry might find UI collaboration not easy. As for advantages, like most UI collaboration, financial support is a real convenience, to say the least. Although, at T-Labs, we are encouraged to seek external funding, we are not required to do so in order to conduct research. T-Labs has been extremely supportive not only of our research but also of our involvement in the Design Research community. T-Labs has financed the establishment of the Design Research Network and its conference. We have no data on

«Focused»

62

funding situations for Design Research in Germany or elsewhere, so we will not be able to say whether our financial support is excep-tional or just average. However, we can at least say that the double workload that we mentioned above is compensated by the time and energy saved by not having to write funding applications. Further-more, being in a UI environment we have an advantage to learn about new trends from close-to-market developments within DTAG. This can often serve as a source for new research topics among others. In this context we also have the opportunity to turn research results to actual products that might get to the market. Research prototypes leave the ivory tower to become “real” products more readily.

3. Concluding Remarks

We have shared our experiences in long-term University-Industry collaborative design research. We do not claim that UI collaboration is the only model or it is necessarily beneficial for Design Research. However, without sounding too self-congratulatory, our experiences have been positive and we hope that our presentation will facilitate discussions on the topic for the benefits of the community. We be-lieve that experiences in various forms of collaborative research exist in Design Research and we hope that we will continue to exchange. To conclude, we would like to raises some issues to do just that.

It is not new to say that design is a discipline that integrates various domains of knowledge such as technology, business and human values. Nor is it new to say that design bridges theory and practice. But we would still add that our projects are evidences of the poten-tial of Design Research to bridge the gap between university and industry. We would like to facilitate discussion by claiming that Design Research is by ‘nature’ suited for UI research collaboration. This nature is of course not natural but created by us. We are re-ferring to the proposal of ‘research through design’ by Jonas and Findeli, among others. To agitate a bit more, we suggest that if design is a form of practice, (although this practice is not necessarily con-nected with industry), collaborating with industry might provide a fertile ground to explore ‘research through design’. It is potentially a win-win situation. We invite you to debate this possibility. Besides

63


the above more theoretical issue, we would also invite you to debate how we might practically use UI collaboration for the development of Design Research as a field. For example, should an institute like T-Labs serve as a lobby for Design Research in Germany, if not in Europe or the world? To a certain extent, we have addressed these questions in our own context in the past few years. Design Research has its own way of creating specific knowledge with practical impli-cations for academic as well as industry contexts. It seems unfor-tunate that there are not many institutions working in this field – at least in Germany. We believe that building our own playgrounds for Design Research activities is vital and perhaps UI collaboration is a good way for it.

«Focused»

64References↦ GUIRR (Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable), 1999. Can Know - ledge of Human Behavior Be a Competitive Advantage? Retrieved 16.01.2008, 2008, from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/guirr/Knowledge_of_Human_Behavior.html↦ Jones, L.M. 2008. University-Industry Research Collaboration – Advantages of the collaborative relationship and Disadvantages of the collaborative relationship. Retrieved 16.01.2008, 2008, from http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2519/University-Industrial-Research-Collaboration.html”>University-Industrial Research Collaboration – Advantages of the Collaborative Relationships, Disadvantages of the Collaborative Relationships↦ Lee, Y.S. June 2000. The Sustainability of University-Industry Research Collaboration: An Empirical Assessment The Journal of Technology Transfer, 25 (2), 111–133.↦ Prey, J.C. 2007. Academic and Industry Collaboration to Improve Education. Retrieved 16.01.2008, 2008, from http://research.google.com/university/relations/eduSummit2007/JanePrey.pdf.↦ University-Industry Partnership. 2006. The University-Industry Partnership. Retrieved 16.01.2008, 2008, from http://uidp.org/UIDP_HISTORY.html

65


«Focused»

66

67


Universities

Email

Research Through Design and Transdisciplinarity: A Tentative Contribution to the Methodology of Design Research

04

Université de Montréal & Université de Nîmes Université de Montpellier III MO Design office, Uzès Hôpital Local d’Uzès [email protected]

↦ methodology ↦ research through design ↦ terminology ↦ multi-, inter- & transdisciplinarity

Keywords

Alain Findeli Denis Brouillet Sophie Martin Christophe Moineau Richard Tarrago

1. Some necessary clarifications

In our proposal, we stated that the purpose of the paper consisted in “a conceptual and methodological clarification of the so-called ‘re-search through design’ approach”. Furthermore, the title of our paper indicates that it is likely to be considered a contribution to the metho-dology of design research and that our argument will be based on the concept of transdisciplinarity. Our proposal also warns that the paper is not a report of a specific research project although, as we will see, its argument is strongly grounded in a study case. As a consequence, the paper is structured in the two following parts. Firstly, a long in-troduction where we found necessary to clarify our terminology and specify our conceptual background. Its general tone is therefore didac tic and, inevitably, somewhat dogmatic. Secondly and in a much more narrative style, a short description of the early phases of a re-search project devoted to the contribution of design to the improve-ment of Alzheimer patients’ daily activities, where the principles discussed in the first part are implemented and illustrated.

«Focused»

68

1.1 Methodology and the Epistemological Issue in Design ResearchBy “methodology” is meant the science of methods, i. e. the very general field of inquiry dealing with the identification, description, comparison, implementation, validation and criticism of methods. In this respect, the methodology of design research is the field of in-quiry concerned with the methods susceptible to be used to conduct research projects in the field or discipline of design (in our termi-nology, the expressions “research in design” or, more plainly, “design research” are synonymous). Methodology of design research is not to be confounded with methodology of design tout court, i. e. of de-sign practice, which is another important field of inquiry, at first sight quite unrelated to the former1.

Methodology of design research is a subset of the methodology of [scientific] research in general, and as such its statements, specifi-cations, validation criteria, etc. should be consistent and congruent with the general principles of the latter, as accepted and discussed by the international scientific research community. The field of gen-eral [scientific] research methodology has grown so wide and dense that, in a research education context, it has become unthinkable to adequately deal with all the available and recommended methods and tools. In the literature of the so-called qualitative methods alone, there are currently more than fifty different methods listed. The spec-trum is quite large and this variety has become necessary due to the epistemic characteristics and complexity of the diverse objects (or subject-matters) that constitute the target of the various existing scientific disciplines.

As an example, the objects of paleoastrophysics are very different from those of ethnobotany and for this single reason, one realizes that the method(s) used to observe their respective objects and frame them within a proper theoretical apparatus will be different. Such is indeed also the case for the objects of design, considered as a discipline (as is admittedly the case in academia)2. Since one of the main purposes of methodology is to identify the method(s) best fitted to carry out the research activity in a given field or discipline, and to justify that choice, what will interest us in this paper, and in design research more generally, is to identify the proper method(s)

69


to carry out our research task, considering the specificity of our ob-jects and, one must add, the legitimate expectations of the design community in general (and not only the design research community, if such distinction is still meaningful or even desirable).

The construction of a consistent and coherent methodology of design research has been an ongoing concern of our – still young – research community. The program of our symposium is more proof that the field of design research methodology is currently in effervescence. We believe that this phenomenon is not foreign to the trends and drifts of the wave of methodologism that has been affecting the larger scientific community for roughly a generation. We further be-lieve that this excess of focus on the search for the right or ideal method(s) is doomed to be unfruitful if not backed by a necessary, unbypassable, preliminary epistemological query. Unless we are clear about what exactly is the target of our research, there is no point in discussing, debating, arguing and contending about the right or ideal method. The epistemological issue in design research is far from being settled at the present time. We think this is so because there is a persistent confusion between the targets of the research and the design projects. Strange as it may seem, the central question as to what could or should be the target of design research is still on the agenda. It can be broken down into the following, recurring, set of questions3:

1.2 Research through Design as Project-grounded ResearchWith great reluctance we include an nth commentary on this topic. We understand that the Swiss design community has had an over-dose of this “research in, for, about and through” stuff and we cer-tainly do not want to worsen its case. However, since we have partly

— What exactly are the objects of design considered as a scien-tific, academic discipline?

— What are the phenomena of the world we are interested in ob-serving and understanding, that are not already the “property” of other disciplines?

— What do we intend to say about these phenomena that is not known yet and that other disciplines cannot know or at least that design claims to know better?

«Focused»

70

contributed to this debate4, and since this typology of design re-search practices has received very diverse, sometimes contradictory, and not always helpful, interpretations, we feel compelled to clarify our definition once again5. Let us first recall that our definition of the method of “research through design” is derived from a metho-dological critique of the two most current methods practiced in the field: research for and about design. The argument we developed un-folds in the following manner.

1.2.1 Research for DesignResearch for design is highly relevant for design practice, since its purpose is to make sure that the various parameters on which the output of the design process depends (technological, ergonomic, economic, aesthetic, psychological, etc.) are adequately handled, i. e. that the design project is properly and responsibly informed. It is however not considered scientifically acceptable for various reasons, such as:

Does this mean that the work of design practitioners has no value whatsoever, and that they should be considered second range after the scientists? Of course not, it just means that design practice and research differ in their respective aims, validation and assessment criteria, as well as public and contexts, and consequently that the one should not be evaluated with the other’s standards.

1.2.2 Research about Design Research about design is normally performed by various disciplines, other than design, according to scientific standards. Indeed, the fact that it is published is, normally again, the proof of its rigor and accept-

— It usually draws on already available knowledge — When new knowledge is produced (for instance, after interviews,

field observation, comparative analysis, etc.), it is usually not done with the rigor expected by scientific standards, either be-cause the ‘researcher’ does not have the necessary qualifica-tions, or (and more often) since time constraints do not permit

— As we all know, it is mostly tacit and not meant to be published or discussed by the design research community; indeed, in many instances, it is even kept confidential6.

71


ance by the scientific community. The problem we encounter with this kind of research is its relative lack of relevance for design. By

“design” is here meant design practice, design education or design research. Why is that so? Well, because the research is carried out about design (i. e. about its objects, its processes, its actors and stakeholders, its meaning and significance for society, business, cul-ture, etc.) by scientists (like anthropologists, archaeologists, histor-ians, cognitive psychologists, management scientists, semio ticists and many others) whose main goal is to contribute to the advance-ment of their own discipline, not particularly of design. More pre-cisely, they have not been trained to figure out how and make sure that the knowledge they produce in their research is relevant for de-sign, even if they sometimes hope so. It is in fact designers who are better placed to decide if such knowledge is relevant for them and, if such is the case, how it may be implemented in their respective practices7. A simple case tells it more boldly. A social historian con-ducting research in the history of medicine (or design, for that mat-ter) is usually not expected by his/her research community to prove that his/her conclusions will contribute to the practice of medicine (or design) and to explain how. In contrast, a design researcher study-ing some aspect of the social history of design (for instance in the framework of a PhD) should8. 1.2.3 Research through DesignThe previous observations leave us with two important criteria de-sign research must satisfy: it must be rigorous, i. e. stand up to the usual scientific standards; it must be relevant, i. e. contribute to the improvement of design practice. Research through design is our ans-wer. As such – and this is the critical point – it must be understood as having the virtues of both research for design and research about design. Contrary to many wrong interpretations, our position is not a

“neither one nor the other” but a “one and the other” situation. Proper research through design could thence be defined as a kind of re-search about design [more] relevant for design, or as a kind of re-search for design that produces original knowledge with as rigorous [and demanding] standards as research about design. For reasons that are explained in the text we refer to [see footnotes 4 and 5], we call this approach project-grounded research (recherche-projet).

«Focused»

72

We trust these clarifications are helpful to settle our terminology and identify what we consider the key necessary conditions for a re-search that does justice to the specificities of the field or discipline of design. These led us to propose, not only one, but three domains where the conclusions of a design research project would be as-sessed. The first is common to any research project in any discipline: an original and significant contribution to knowledge, in our case to design knowledge. The second is: an expected improvement of design practice and consequently of user satisfaction. The third: some fruitful consequences for design education9. Now that we have recalled the principles of what we define as re-search through design, namely project-grounded research, the fol-lowing two additional reservations need to be made:i) The above conditions are necessary, but not sufficient. We

still need to better define what this research through design actually consists of, how it is to be contrived and implemented. The operational concept for this, as will be argued shortly, is transdisciplinarity.

ii) The above typology only includes three types of possible re-search in design. Are there other types one could or should consider? The two first types (“for” and “about”) result from an observation of actual practice of design research as it has been conducted roughly in the four last decades. The third one (“through”) has been constructed logically (our first published model is in 1997; Frayling’s famous typology dates back in 1993 and Archer’s in 1981). What we have witnessed since then is the following.

On one hand, the idea of research through design has gained suffi-cient credit to lead to actual research projects carried out along these lines. Also called “practice-based research”, “practice research”,

“action research in design”, “clinical research”, or “project-grounded research” as we do, it still struggles for methodological soundness and scientific recognition. The relative dispersion of the semantic space indicates that interpretations of the idea and principles of research through design may diverge and that no real consensus has been arrived at yet10. We maintain that the main obstacle, here

73


again, is of epistemological nature. Most if not all promoters of the research through design method agree upon the fact that the design project should have its place within the research project but that the latter can and must not be confounded with the former. Where metho dology scholars differ or are silent is on the [epistemic] func-tion to be assigned to the design project within the research, i. e. within a process of rigorous and relevant knowledge production in design. This is indeed one of the most crucial questions in the design disciplines, and for that matter in all professional disciplines. Behind that question dwells the perennial philosophical riddle of the rela-tionship between theory and practice. For it is one thing to claim that practice is important and necessary for theory building, but it is another, more challenging one, to explain how this contribution of practice to theory is to be contrived and operationalized.

On the other hand, another type of research is emerging and trying to find its place in academia: the so-called “creation-based research” (recherche-création). It is the scholars of the art disciplines who have been supporting and promoting, sometimes vehemently, this type of research. In the design research community, they are represented by colleagues who tend to dismiss the distinction between the de - sign project and the research project, who therefore consider that design practice is in itself already a kind of design research and should be acknowledged as such. Although at first discredited for their poor or lack of epistemological and methodological argument in favour of their claims, they have recently strengthened their justi-fications11. We have already expressed our own reservations about the dominant rationale supporting this method and pointed out that, provided some basic methodological and argumentative pre-cautions were secured, it could well be integrated into the previous methodological typology and toolbox12. In this respect, we consider that no special dispensation needs to be requested from the scien-tific research community any more in the name of the alleged highly specific and impenetrable originality of the art disciplines.

1.3 Design Knowledge and Design’s Research ProgramAs previously mentioned, design knowledge is the concern of episte-mology. “What is design knowledge about and after?” sums up the

«Focused»

74

issue. In order to orientate ourselves in this issue, we propose to turn back to the purpose of design research and to the three criteria we expect any research project in design will satisfy. Three “end-users” of design research are interested in its output: the design research community, the design practice community, and the design educa-tion community13. The type and part of knowledge relevant to and valued by each of these communities differ, therefore the necessity for design researchers to bear this in mind when constructing their protocols and writing their conclusions or final reports. Expressed in conventional terminology, the researchers’ community is inter-ested in “fundamental” or “theoretical” knowledge, the practitioners’ community in “applied” and “useful” knowledge, and the educators’ community in “teachable” and “applicable” knowledge. This means in particular that there is no point carrying on design research if it does not end up improving the act of designing and consequently the lives of those addressed by the act, i. e. presumably all of us inhabit-ants of the world. Consequently, the purpose of design research is directly tied to the purpose of design tout court, which, in a nutshell, is: to improve or maintain the “habitability” of the world, in all its di-mensions (physical, psychical, spiritual).

In the so-called “Bremen Model”l14, we showed that design know-ledge dispatches itself along two main dimensions, corresponding to the ‘conception’ and ‘reception’ spaces of the design project. The latter concerns the description and understanding of the users’ act or, better said, project of “habitating” the world, i. e. more precisely the relationship between people and their environment (in all its dimensions: physical, psychical, spiritual), whereas the former fo-cuses on the description and understanding of the act of improving or maintaining these relationships, i. e. the very act of designing.

Keeping in mind the structure of this model, we see that behind every design situation and project, there is potentially:i) An anthropological issue, meaning by that an issue related to

the way an individual or a community inhabits or wishes to inhabit the world. In short, nothing that concerns the relation-ships between humans and their environments should be for-eign to design in principle.

75


ii) An opportunity to contribute to the already available know-ledge about the design act. If conducted in a reflective manner, every design situation is an opportunity to reveal something new about what is at stake in design practice, or at least to confirm an aspect of the “designerly way of knowing” that has already been observed, described and theorized.

In other words, in project-grounded research, one should take the habit of looking beyond the immediate output of the design project (without for all that neglecting the latter). The challenge for design researchers and research teams is to “realize” the above two poten-tialities in the form of adequate and handy research problematics. In such a framework, there are of course innumerable potential re-search objects and projects available. Contextual circumstances will help determine which is or are the most appropriate for the planned research. This is indeed a huge research program! Is such an ambitious claim acceptable? No, indeed, if design scholars pretend it is their own pri-vate turf. But yes, if design scholars believe they have a word to say in this very serious business of describing and understanding how we inhabit the world and how some pretend to improve it. Our task now is to characterize what this word could or should be, and how it is to be spoken, so that we have an idea of the feasibility and man-ageability of our ambition.

One possible entry into the puzzle is to realize that the two above potential issues are indeed not the private turf of design. It is a fact that almost no scientific discipline is completely foreign to our human condition and to the way humans, individually and collecti-vely, relate to the world. If we adopt as wide a definition of design’s objects of knowledge as above, then we definitely share them with various other disciplines. To try to isolate a specific part of the world phenomena and appropriate it in the name of design’s scientific claims is maybe not the only possible way to secure a specific know-ledge domain. We believe instead it is the kind of questions design asks about these phenomena that constitutes the originality of our discipline15.

«Focused»

76

Another possible entry into the puzzle is through the concept of transdisciplinarity. This is the second central concept and concern of the paper.

1.4. Multi-, Pluri-, Inter- and TransdisciplinarityIt is not without serious hesitations that we venture into this chapter, being quite aware that there is a serious risk of indigestion. How many times have we not read about the difference between multi-, pluri-, inter- and transdisciplinarity? Too many, in all likelihood, and we shall therefore limit our argument to the strict necessary and proceed so-to-speak more geometrico.

1.4.1 Multidisciplinarity vs MultiprofessionalityThe issue of multidisciplinarity16 in the professional disciplines re-quires a specific treatment, since in common language “discipline” refers to either the practical/professional or the theoretical/disci-plinary (in the academic sense) aspect. Since confusion is too often the case, it becomes necessary to distinguish between multidiscipli-narity and ‘multiprofessionality’. In design, it is most often referred to the latter under the name of multidisciplinarity, as for example in the description and advertisement of numerous academic curricula in “Environmental Design”. These are actually most often about multi-professionality. The problems raised by the cohabitation of various design professions (for example, city planning, architecture, land-scape architecture, interior design, etc.) within a common design project or program are indeed real and deserve serious attention. But they are quite different from those raised by the cohabitation of various scientific disciplines within a common research project or academic program, which are quite as real and deserve due atten-tion too. We could not insist more on the necessity – and fruitfulness – of this distinction.

1.4.2 Multidisciplinarity in Design ResearchResearch in design is bound to be multidisciplinary, by nature so to speak. Why is that so natural? To answer this, we must recall that we considered the ultimate purpose of design to be the improvement of the “habitability” of the world, and deducted from that to know how humans do and project to “habitate” the(ir) world was to be one of

77


the central tasks of design research and target of design knowledge. Humans carry out their project through extremely varied and count-less micro-experiences such as: going shopping, attending a design class, preparing dinner, worshipping a divinity, taking a vacation, etc. etc. The phenomenological observation and description of these ac-tivities show that they are conducted in a continuous stream of expe-rience that takes no account of academic disciplinary frontiers.

As an example, going shopping is or may be altogether and simul-taneously a physiological, psychological, sociological, economic, political, designerly, cultural, aesthetic, and/or spiritual activity. But for the person having the shopping experience, such distinctions are irrelevant; what is, is the primary intentionality, the shopping project, and its fulfilment. Being a human activity and despite all its some-times pedestrian (...!) character, the act of shopping may be worth observing, understanding, and theorizing for and by more than one of the above mentioned scientific disciplines, including design.

Now, in design, we also claim to improve or help improve such expe-riences, don’t we? Since we want to contribute to transforming a human experience into a preferred one (as Herbert Simon would have it), we have to know and understand exactly what we are about to fiddle with. And since we all expect designers to be responsible, we also expect them to know and understand as comprehensively as possible the human phenomenon/experience which is at stake in their project. This is why designers-researchers need the help of other disciplines. They need multidisciplinarity.

In professional situations, there is usually neither enough time nor sufficient budget for this kind of work: “[E]ach product is a rush job, and when it is nearing completion, well, the next ones are already underway” writes Donald Norman [see footnote 6]. A proper research environment is necessary to do justice to the complexity of the various human phenomena to be investigated.

1.4.3 Multiprofessionality in DesignThe same kind of reasoning goes for multiprofessionality. Design pro fessions distinguish themselves by their end-products, most

«Focused»

78

conventionally by the scale of their objects: urban, architectural, territorial, bodily, domestic, etc... But here again, from a phenome-nological perspective, human experience and intentionality unfolds itself in a stream of continuity quite unconcerned by these profes-sional barriers. When going shopping for example, one passes from one scale to the other without experiential interruption: scale of the product (shopping bag or cart, bike or car or baby stroller, etc.), scale of interior space (apartment, bus, shop, etc.), architectural scale (single house, apartment building, shopping centre, etc.), urban scale (street, neighbourhood, market place, parking lot, etc.), virtual scale (e-shopping), symbolic ‘scale’ (street signs, advertisements, price labels, posters, etc.). On the contrary, if the experience was interrupted, it would be broken into pieces and lose its Gestalt and human meaningfulness. So here too, multiprofessionality is a must.

1.4.4 Structuring the “multi”Having settled the principle of a necessary multidisciplinarity and multiprofessionality in complex design situations (human omnipres-ence in these situations renders them complex almost by definition), we now need to be more specific about the right configuration of the

“multi-”, about how it is to be structured. Considering the context of this paper (the symposium of a design research community), we will only focus on the former, the multidisciplinarity issue, holding up the latter for another occasion.

To ask what kind of multidisciplinarity is relevant or necessary for design research is a two-fold question: i) Which are the disciplines one must invite to the table?ii) How will these disciplines join their efforts and work together so

that the knowledge produced meets the three criteria iden tified above: relevance for knowledge, for practice, for education?

1.4.4.1 The quick answer to the first question is of course: “As many disciplines as possible!”, if one longs for perfection. This is of course not feasible, but we are also not sure it should systematically be re-commended. On one hand, the phenomena at hand are not always that complex (‘wicked’) that it justifies such a display of intellec-tual (and budgetary) resources. On the other hand, to increase the

79


number of disciplinary perspectives on a single phenomenon is to risk blurring the picture and consequently render it difficult to grasp and oper ationalize in design terms. It may be sometimes wiser to limit the number of disciplines.

According to Herbert Simon, it is neither possible nor advisable to aspire to an optimal knowledge of a phenomenon or a situation (opti-mizing); knowledge that is adequate enough for making a decision, for acting, or for concluding will suffice (satisficing). The final choice of disciplines is of course not without consequence. The representa-tion the research team will construct of its phenomenon is depend-ent on its choice of multidisciplinarity, and such is also the visible and intelligible part they will reach of it. Every discipline carries with it philosophical and anthropological (in the philosophical sense) prejudices and a specific Weltanschauung which influences the way it beholds the world. What a multidisciplinary team of research com-posed of, for instance, a historian, a psychologist, an economist, and a designer, will reveal about the daily hygiene of teenagers is under-standably quite different from what we will learn about the same phenomenon from a team composed of a sociologist, a philosopher, a nurse, and a designer. What is essential here is to be epistemologi-cally awake in order to draw the right conclusions as to the conse-quences of our choice on the orientation and limits of the research, and on its expected and necessary relevance for design.

A kind of multidisciplinarity can also be achieved within a single dis-cipline. There is usually more than one paradigm at work in a disci-pline and, in some instances, it could be fruitful to invite researchers from the same discipline (for instance sociology) who defend differ-ent paradigms on the research team in order to confront their respective points of view on the phenomenon. Their conclusions may lead to very divergent plans of action, a situation usually propitious for addressing fundamental design issues.

A good scholarship in epistemology and updated knowledge of cur-rent advances in various sciences is highly recommended for this stage of the research process, combined with a very specific design competence: opportunism.

«Focused»

80

No further general recommendation can be given at this point, since the final decision is always situational: the specific phenomenon under inquiry is our best guide to tell us what facets of its complexity are the most relevant and promising for the specific research at hand.

1.4.4.2 Let us assume the research team has been set up (with ade-quate budgeting)17. Its first task is to write down and submit a re-search proposal in the form of a research problematics. We all agree that a mere juxtaposition of various disciplinary outlooks does not constitute an adequate answer. Some coordination is necessary to reach a given degree of integration. A Cubist painting or collage is successful if its constitutent elements or partial views are well cho-sen and if their number is not excessive [condition 1.4.1.1], and moreover if they are integrated into one whole [condition 1.4.1.2]. Otherwise, the resulting picture is too confused and confusing, and consequently meaningless and banal.

The juxtaposed situation we call pluridisciplinarity, the integrated one interdisciplinarity18. How is this integration to be achieved? Our study case will show an example of a possible method. Shortly stated, the primary task of interdisciplinary work is to construct a conceptual and theoretical framework for the research that is shared and acknowledged by all partners. Let us simply add that a good expe rience in complex modelling is a very helpful asset for such a task.

1.4.4.3 Since project-grounded research always involves a design practice component, one should make sure the interdisciplinary knowledge produced at the preceding stage by the research team is also adequate for the delivery of an acceptable design output (pro-duct, system, service, environment, etc.).

“The knowledge must be ‘applicable’ in practice”: such is the conven-tional terminology, but the epistemological meaning usually given to the operation of ‘application’ we consider logically flawed and faulty. To describe this highly important operation in design and in profes-sional disciplines in general, one needs to better understand what

81


this relationship of theory to practice, of knowing to acting, actually consists in. Contrary to the common view, it is not a deductive but an interpretive or hermeneutic operation. As Donald Norman rightly points out in his own coloured phrasing, “current academia is ill suited to the task, [...], the skills currently taught within the Universi-ties are simply inappropriate to the needs of industry”, i. e. to the needs of decision making and acting [see footnote 6]. Knowledge de-livered by the analytic-oriented scientific disciplines needs to be worked out (trans-formed) so that it can be “engaged” or “embedded” in action. We call the operation “pragmatization” of knowledge.

The design project provides ideal conditions for that, since know-ledge must be “organised” towards the creation of a whole, for in-stance a car-sharing system for rural areas. The key is to construct the knowledge so that it is relevant to the point of view of the end-user (and not only to that of the scientific community). Designers are re-putedly good at that, but as we all know, their competence is kept tacit. To hoist this specific know-how (Nigel Cross calls it the “de-signerly way of knowing”) to a more reflexive and explicit level is one of the tasks of design research. The hermeneutic transformation of knowledge into action, in our words the pragmatization of know-ledge for design, is what transdisciplinarity is about. We found that a good understanding of the import of pragmatic philosophy for design was more than welcome for this other central competence of designers-researchers.

1.5 Concluding RemarksWe are now ready to conclude our long terminological journey. We have seen that the very nature of project-grounded design research implies a multidisciplinary approach to be adopted. In this respect, pluridisciplinarity, the mere juxtaposition of monodisciplinary per-spectives is not satisfactory. In the problematization and know-ledge production phase of the research, it is interdisciplinarity that is necessary. It requires the integration of the chosen disciplinary perspectives into a common problematics. Only then is it possible to set up the research protocols liable to yield the corresponding know-ledge outputs. The contribution of interdisciplinary inquiry to project-grounded design research is two-fold:

«Focused»

82

i) It allows, if properly transformed, the practical design part of the research to be conducted successfully

ii) It realizes the necessary conditions for a significant contribu-tion of the scientific disciplines, including design, to their re-spective fields.

Conversely, in the design phase of the research, we need transdisci-plinarity. It requires adequate orientation or transformation of the knowledge produced in the former phase so that it can nourish the design project. The contribution of transdisciplinarity to project-grounded research is also two-fold:i) It provides the terrain of the research, its main field of obser-

vationii) It eventually leads to the satisfaction of end-users’ aspirations In the literature on multidisciplinarity, one usually reads that there is an increasing integrative complexity leading from monodiscipli-narity to pluridisciplinarity to interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary. Our model differs from this mainstream conception: pluridiscipli-narity (degree 0 of multidisciplinarity) branches out into interdisci-plinarity when knowledge production is the aim (problematization phase) and transdisciplinarity when user satisfaction is the aim (de-sign phase, mise-en-projet). The difference is not in complexity, but in the thinking ‘gesture’. We are dealing with two different kinds of logical operations, evolving in two distinct epistemological fields. Have we left out multiprofessionality in this story? Yes and no. Yes since, as indicated above, there is no time here to address this issue. No, because the principles of transdisciplinarity hold for all design professions. If several design professions happen to be represented in the research team, then we are faced with the problem of which is the best prepared to take the lead of the design phase. However the comparison ends here since in the professional realm, specializa-tion remains a must, so that the mere idea of ‘transprofessionality’ does not really make sense.

A general contractor is only as successful as the respective special-ized sub-contractors. We should not encourage designers to become

83


Jack-of-all-trades and dream of a future profession of universal designers, even if this fantasy is part of our design mythology. This aspect definitely calls for a more thorough examination.

What is new however, and this is no fantasy, is the arrival of a new generation of actors on the design scene, the designers-researchers. We like to call these newcomers the generation of ‘enlightened’ designers. Designers-researchers must learn to wear two hats and know which is appropriate for a given stage of project-grounded re-search. At the Dessau Bauhaus, Walter Gropius hoped that the pro-fessional and social distinction between the Formmeister and the Werkmeister characteristic of the Weimar beginnings would disap-pear, since these two competencies were to merge within one per-son, the Jungmeister. Our current situation is somewhat analogous. There is no doubt that the arrival of all those PhD-holding designers will profoundly affect the design, not only the academic, world. Have we left out the relevancy of design research for the educators’ community? Yes and no. Yes, since we have not mentioned how design knowledge initiated through interdisciplinary research is to be devised for this purpose. But no, because this remains the task of design educators themselves. And that is really another story indeed. Let us just remind that, from a research education stand-point, the future design researchers need to develop the following competencies: a general epistemological scholarship and the cor-rect handling of specific questions raised by its application to design knowledge; an overall familiarity with the spectrum of scientific dis-ciplines that might be invited to collaborate in a design research team; a practical experience in complex modelling; a sensitiveness to the frame of mind of pragmatic philosophy and its consequence for the conduct of project-grounded method.

2. A Study Case: Design and Alzheimer’s Disease

In the fall of 2006, a geriatrist from the Hôpital Local d’Uzès (a small city of 8000 inhabitants) contacted the Design Department of the University of Nîmes about a possible design project meant to im-prove Alzheimer patients’ daily activities. The hospital already had

«Focused»

84

some years of experience with so-called “nonpharmaceutical” ap-proaches to Alzheimer’s disease. Its day-care facility was providing various supportive environments (multi-sensorial rooms, multi media workshop, conversation groups, handicraft studios, etc.) to patients from the surrounding region that were still in the early phases of the disease and therefore still living at home. The idea of the medi cal team in care of this unit was that designers should undoubtedly be capable of devising some sort of “something” that could help their patients carry out their daily activities with the maximum of auton-omy. The doctor further added that digital technologies, combined with the creativity and the aesthetic sensibility of designers, would constitute a more than appropriate mix in this respect.

The situation described above is paradigmatic of the way design re-search projects are liable to start out: a question posed in the form of a commission, or a design brief. Three practising/teaching designers and three teachers/researchers from the University attended this first meeting, the latter with backgrounds in architecture and engi-neering. The geriatrist gave us quite detailed descriptions of the kind of obstacles and difficulties patients were struggling with in their daily activities, followed by the corresponding diagnoses expressed in sometimes specialized medical and neuropsychological terms. A didactic PowerPoint helped us understand this complex phenom-enon.

“How about asking the patients themselves to express their difficul-ties in their own terms?” was our next question. A long silence follo-wed, with frowned forehead. After a short but dense conversation, the design team made the following proposition: “Yes indeed, we designers have the necessary competencies to address your query and answer the brief. However, the problematics seems quite com-plex and we would need an extra week to give you a more specific answer”. The underlying idea was the following: how do we know that the way the medical staff frames the problem is adequate for design?

This may seem very arrogant indeed, especially in such a highly spe-cialized and economic, social as well as political strategic field as

85


Alzheimer’s disease today. Arrogance? Naivety? Not at all, just plain epistemic precaution. Despite our ignorance of the phenomenon and its underlying factors, we felt design as a discipline may also have something original to say, and eventually contribute, to this already extremely solicited issue.

What is critical at this point is the transformation of a problem ex-pressed in design terms into a problematics expressed in research terms. The following week, our design team answered that it would be interested in turning the design problem into a research project, and that it would be ready and happy to look for additional contribu-tors to form a research team. The answer of the hospital authorities was that they were of course interested in yet another research project in this area, but also worried about how to immediately handle their day-care policy and make sure their patients could maintain their autonomy as long as possible. In other words, their conception of scientific research was such that they were convinced that their first concern, the design brief, would be put aside in favour of the usual concern of research teams: grants, publications, conferences, seminars, etc.

It did not take too long to the design team to convince its commis-sioners and future partners that the project-grounded research method would satisfy both: the design project with its immediate end-users and the research project with the corresponding scien-tific communities. As a result, a research team was constituted and in the fall 2007, it held its first meeting. The following disciplines were represented: cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, geriat-rics, cognitive ergonomics, and design. The following professions were also around the table: clinical neuropsychology, industrial de-sign, architecture, hospital management, education. The decision was taken to apply for a major national grant under the directorship of the cognitive psychology colleague, followed by appeals to local governmental institutions (département, region) and other possible partners in the Alzheimer ‘community’.

Now comes the phase of problematization, of interdisciplinary work. The general argument of our proposal could be summed up in the

«Focused»

86

following terms. Alzheimer’s disease is characterized by a loss of cognitive faculties and of the sense of orientation in time, in space, and in one’s identity19. Although no remedy is currently available to cure or prevent the disease, it has been observed that in some circumstances its evolution may be slowed down, sometimes sub-stantially. Besides the medical and pharmaceutical treatments cur-rently available, other so-called “nonpharmaceutical” treatments have also been seriously considered recently. These involve the “sup-portive” character of the environment of the patients and therefore its design. Whereas research in the medical and pharmaceutical domains is indeed receiving the larger part of public and private sub-sidies as well as of public attention, increasing interest has recently been granted to research possibilities in the latter. This is indeed where our research proposal positions itself 20.

If we follow our previous argument and principles [§ 1.4.4.1], the first question to ask is: “Is this multidisciplinarity and multiprofession-ality adequate?” One could think that the additional contribution of disciplines like ecological psychology, semiotics, psycho-sociology, communication science, HCI and professions like interior design and electronic engineering would have been ideal. Indeed, but just remember: satisficing, not optimizing! In this respect, one should not forget another, apparently trivial asset in research: geographical proximity of research partners.

Our next step consisted in writing the research proposal and there-fore transforming pluridisciplinarity into interdisciplinarity [§ 1.4.4.2], in other words in rising from degree zero to a higher integration of our efforts and respective scholarships. This was achieved through the following, highly recommendable, exercise. Each partner was invited to present, first in a fairly narrative form but progressively in a more strongly founded and justified problematics, the perspective in which his/her own discipline views the issue at hand.

If we had stapled these texts together in a single document, we would have merely reached the pluridisciplinary level. Interdiscipli-narity started when each partner was invited to reframe the whole thing into a single general problematics, after having read and un-

87


derstood his/her partners’ respective texts. This requires focusing on the thoughtful understanding, not only of the substance of the texts, but also of the epistemological standpoints, the methodologi-cal specificities, the anthropological and philosophical worldviews, and the conceptual and terminological jargons, proper to each disci-pline. Not only is this work necessary to understand the texts, but it is also important to grasp their relevance, coherence, argument, and limits. And this is a vey tough exercise!

The last step towards true interdisciplinarity consisted in agreeing upon the final, unique and common text. No less than five to six rounds of writing were necessary. It is only once this effort of disci-plinary ‘decentering’ is achieved that each partner can turn back to his/her own scientific community and accomplish what it will recog-nize as being the specific and relevant contribution of its discipline to the research project. Specific, since it will draw on the expertise of each, and relevant, since the global contextual background of the research problematics will have been properly assimilated by each. The transdisciplinary step is different. The situation that requires it is not that of a project of knowledge (observation, description, inter-pretation, understanding, etc.) of the world, but that of its transfor-mation. The perspective is projective/creative and requires know-ledge to be engaged in the project. In other words, the aim is not so much to contribute to the corpus of knowledge of Alzheimer’s dis-ease, although this will undoubtedly also be the case, but to come up with actual design propositions intended to maintain Alzheimer patients’ functional independence and enhance their feeling of well-being as well as that of the persons in their immediate surrounding. In so doing and at this point, the concern of research partners of a project-grounded design research is not to address their respective scientific communities, but the community of their end-users and stakeholders in the first place. Notice that the transdisciplinary attitude is more uncomfortable than the interdisciplinary one, since it exposes researchers to situations of uncertainties they are not necessarily used to but that are familiar to designers. That explains why experts sometimes tend to shy away from practical situations and are reluctant to be assessed by criteria not conventionally con-

«Focused»

88

sidered as belonging to the scientific domain, like usefulness, rele-vancy, economic value, ascribability, ethical consequences, etc.

As indicated in our abstract, we are not ready to report on this stage in the present, very early, state of our project. Needless to say, we look forward to observing how our research team will manage the necessary “pragmatization” of its knowledge, and how it will react to one of the central pragmatist maxims of transdisciplinary episte-mology: “If thou wantest to really understand the world, put it into project”.

89


References and Endnotes1. If we accept Ranulph Glanville’s serious argument that scientific research processes are but a subset of design processes, then the field of design methodology also includes that of design research methodology. See Glanville, R., “Researching Design and Designing Research”, Design Issues, XV, 2, Summer 1999, 80–92.2. The problem with design, as we shall see, is that it is not sure what its objects are and in which measure those are shared with or borrowed from other disciplines.3. As stated at the beginning of this paper, our argument is mainly didactic. In this respect, we do not want to suggest that the epistemological issue has not been tackled at all in the design research community. Numerous distinguished colleagues have indeed taken this issue at the centre of their concerns. Even a cursory look at the records of our main research societies or at the archives of our journals on this topic will yield a more than sufficient harvest.4. Findeli, A., “Die Projektgeleitete Forschung: Eine Methode der Designforschung”, in R. Michel (ed.), Swiss Design Network – Erstes Design Forschungssymposium, Basel, HGK Basel, 2004, 40–51. French version available at [www.din.umontreal.ca/findeli.html] under the title: “La recherche-projet: une méthode pour la recherche en design”, 21 pp.5. Our most discriminate description of the “research through design” method, which we name “project-grounded research”, is to be found in Findeli A. & Coste, A. “De la recherche-création à la recherche-projet: un cadre théorique et méthodologique pour la recherche architecturale”, Lieux communs, 10, 2007, 139–63. 6. “Publication isn’t relevant: shipping a product is” is Donald Norman’s most incisive catchphrase in his discussion on applied science and design. In “Applying the Behavioural, Cognitive, and Social Sciences to Products”, he insists upon the sharp difference between the respective needs, aims, contexts, etc. of the scientific and design communities. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/applying_the_be.html, p.3. Retrieved 04.28.08.7. The problem, writes Norman, is that “the relevant scientific fields have made no attempts to package their findings in this way”, i. e. in “[stressing] the practical implications of the findings” and “methods for making use of them”, ibid., p. 9. 8. Of course, it would be quite different if the social history of medicine project were conducted with an action-research method. But that is exactly what research through design is about.9. Actually, all students in the Design & Complexity research Master’s program of the University of Montreal are expected to outline and critically discuss, in the final chapter of their thesis, what the import of their conclusion is for 1) design knowledge, 2) design practice, and 3) design education. See [www.gradient.umontreal.ca/desco/pmwiki.php].10. Available literature is currently overabundant on these topics. The most quoted sources are the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC), the UK Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and the UKCGE paper on Practice-based Doctorates in the Creative and Performing Arts and Design. The PhD-Design list has hosted numerous threads on this highly recurrent but now overexploited topic. In the Wikipedia “Screen media practice research” article, one reads that “practice as research (PAR) and practice-based research (PBR) – and ‘research through practice’, ‘research by prac - tice’, ‘performance as research’ – are contested terms that resist close definition. Practice as research and practice-based research are frequently used interchangeably to suggest a relationship of research between theory and practice”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen _media_practice_research.html, p. 2. Retrieved 04.28.08.

«Focused»

9011. Since creation-based research is addressed specifically in this symposium, it will not be developed further. See Lechot-Hirt L., “CreaSearch – Methodologies and Models for Creation-based Research Projects in Design” (in Track 2 of the program).12. See reference in footnote 5, paragraph titled “La recherche-création”.13. The primary addressees are of course the very users of design products, systems, services, interfaces, environments, etc. As will be argued in the paper, they are included in our general theory of the design project. They may as well be considered as direct participants of the design practice community.14. The so-called “Bremen Modell”, first presented at the Bremen EAD Conference in 2004, embraces all dimensions of design knowledge, in both the conception and recep - tion spaces of the design project. It may therefore be considered and used as a general theory of the design project. Findeli A. & Bousbaci R., “L’éclipse de l’objet dans les theories du projet en design (The Eclipse of the Object in Design Project Theories)”, The Design Journal, VIII, 3, 2005, 35–49.The issue of design knowledge has of course been thoughtfully addressed by various design scholars. One example amongst others: Michael Bigg’s editorial of volume 2 (2002) of the Working papers in art and design, titled “The concept of knowledge in art and design”(http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes/research/papers/wpades/vol2/intro02.html, last retrieved 04.01.07), as well as his “Rigor and Practice-based Research”, Design Issues, XXIII, 3, Summer 2007, 62–69. 15. Although we have already gathered substantial and convincing evidence in support of this hypothesis, its thorough exploration is not in order here. This will actually be the central theme of a coming conference to be held in Berlin next October 2008 under the initiative of the Germany-based Design Research Network (DRN). Conference website: www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/thought/441. DRN website: www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/.The originality of design’s scientific positioning is to be explored somewhat differently depending on whether one looks at the conception or the reception phase of a design situation or project. Concerning the former, a good methodological starting point could be the comparative analysis delivered by Bolan R.J. & Collopy F. in their Managing as Designing, Stanford University Press, 2004 (why wouldn’t design scholars achieve the same type of work?). See also the whole issue of Design Issued, XXIV, 1, Winter 2008. Concerning the latter, we recommend the fine study made by Ingram J., Shove E. & Watson M.: “Products and Practices: Selected Concepts from Science and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice”, Design Issues, XXIII, 2, Spring 2007, 3–16.16. In the present context, “multidisciplinarity” is but a generic concept without further meaning as to how the “multi-” is structured. When differentiation becomes necessary, we will use the prefixes “pluri-”, “inter”, or “trans-”. It follows that all three of them are to be considered a species of multidisciplinarity. 17. In the case of a PhD research project, the team is usually reduced to the candidate, who is the one actually actively conducting the research (notwithstanding the supervisor’s and advisory committee’s contributions of course). The issues of multi - disciplinarity are then raised within the capacities of a single individual rather than spread among a research team. Individual inter- and transdisciplinarity are extremely difficult stages to achieve, but there could be no better initiation for a reflective designer-researcher.

91


18. Our argument is tempered by our wish to be as concise as possible and we therefore avoided all referencing in the wide field of multidisciplinarity. We do however hold the following work paradigmatic of what inter- and transdisciplinarity, as defined in this paper, could mean in a design context. We consider the authors’ insistence on the term “integration” and their definition of it totally to the point and opportune in the context of our paper. Tress B., Tress G., Fry G. & Opdam P., From landscape research to landscape planning: aspects of integration, education and application, vol. 12, Wageningen (NL), Wageningen UR Frontis Series, 2005. Downloadable at http://library.wur.nl/frontis/land- scape_research/index.html. Also available in book form.19. Brouillet D. & Syssau A., La maladie d’Alzheimer, Paris, PUF, coll. Que sais-je?, 2005 (3rd rev. and compl. ed.).20. The research proposal is currently (May 2008) still in the reviewing process, and therefore somewhat confidential. Only a brief outline may be given at this point.

«Focused»

92

93


«Focused»

94

95



Email Internet

Basic Interaction Design for Sonic Artefacts in Everyday Contexts

05Zurich University of The Arts Institute for Cultural Studies in the Arts karmen©zero-th.org http://ics.zhdk.ch/e/institute/franinovic.html www.zero-th.org

↦ basic design ↦ methods ↦ sonic artefacts ↦ embodiment ↦ situated interaction

Keywords

Basic interaction design can be defined as the analysis and creation of interactive experiences based on relational properties of an arte-fact. These properties describe how qualities of an interactive object, such as its behaviour, shape, sound or texture relate to human action in the broadest sense. This paper argues for the combination of basic design with contextualized methods, in order to ground the design process in everyday life while maintaining the experimental design approach.

The case study presented investigates the integration of basic inter-action design methods within an interdisciplinary project dealing with interactive sound embedded in physical objects. A design process resulting in a number of abstract artefacts that are highly responsive to physical manipulation by the means of sound is described. Their creation is directed toward two aims: that of revealing new potential of interactive sonic artefacts, and that of creating prototypes which can be used in the psychological testing to investigate relationship between human movement and interactive sonic feedback.

Karmen Franinovic

«Focused»

96

1. Basic Interaction Design

1.1 Basic Design

“If the same methodology was used generally in all fields we would have the key to our age seeing everything in relationship.”[Moholy-Nagy, 1969. p. 96]

Basic design is a predominantly visual design approach to research and education that investigates the foundations of the design dis-ciplines. It originates in the kindergarten movement of the early last century and was firstly taught as design practice at Bauhaus School of Art and Architecture and at the Vhutemas School in Mos-cow. The basic investigations were grounded in the analysis of visual experience in terms of simple, abstract properties, such as forms, patterns, or colours. The aim was to uncover a universal visual lan-guage, independent from such cultural limitations as are present in alphabetical writing.

In order to achieve this goal, various members of the Bauhaus School explored formal abstraction in relation to human perception. In these experiments, researchers were not interested in individual prefer-ences, but in intuitive, biological responses and in the most fre-quently occurring perceptual relations between abstract properties: graphics, colour, texture and so on. For example, in Kandinsky’s “psy-chological test” in 1923 [Fig. 1 ↦ 105], he asked participants to fill in elementary shapes with the basic colours, in order to identify a per-ceptual link between the two [Droste, 1998].

In addition to analyzing human perception, Bauhaus members wor-ked on manipulation of basic elements to create new design ideas. Although originally their focus had been on visual and formal as-pects of artefacts, it was transposed to the sculptural domain, to include tactile properties and movement. Even in the study of visual elements, importance was given to dynamic temporal properties of creation: “line is a the track made by the moving point: that is, its product. It is created by movement...” [Kandinsky, 1979. p. 71].

97


Moving away from visual elements, Moholy-Nagy regarded phenome-nological experience as a result of the interplay between various senses in which light, time or texture become as important as the visual stimuli. Figure 2 shows the results of an exercise in his basic course at the Bauhaus school. Moholy-Nagy’s tactile charts and structures explored sensations of pressure, temperature and vibra-tion and brought multisensory complexity into basic design [Moholy-

Nagy, 1969] [Fig. 2 ↦ 105].

Such use of dynamic and complex design elements provide motiva-tion for applying the method to the design of interactive objects. In addition, methods such as reduction and abstraction, translation and morphological analysis make basic design particularly suitable for research of new topics such as that of digitally augmented inter-action. However, relations between design elements are more com-plex where interactive artefacts are concerned than in the case of purely visual design.

1.2 Basic Interaction DesignInteraction design originates in human-computer interaction and encompasses a wide range of practices from screen-based inter-faces to products and service design. Its research and methods are informed by disciplines of computer science and engineering, psy-chology, ethnography, social and cultural studies and theatre. How-ever, basic design methods have been scarcely explored in this young field.

Dag Svanaes used basic design to inform his experiments using simple screen-mouse interactions with abstract graphical elements [Svanaes, 1999]. He showed that users focus on the behaviour of the objects rather than on their formal characteristics. For example, a square on the screen was interpreted as a switch due to its response to the user's input. He concluded that: “the interactive experience has gestalt properties1, i. e. that its first-class objects are interaction gestalts… you perceive the interactive behaviour not as a collection of action/reaction pairs, but as a meaningful interactive whole.“ [Svanaes, 1999, p. 218]

«Focused»

98

However, such gestalts emerge from the interplay of the elements that compose an interactive experience. By analyzing the latter, one learns to understand the ways in which certain qualities of an object might affect others; for example, the case of the influence of colour on the perceived size or shape. As Kandinsky put it: “The artist must not forget ... that each one of his materials conceals within itself the way in which it should be used, and it is this application that the art-ist must discover.” [Kandinsky, 1994, p. 154]

In this context, Basic Interaction Design can be described as a prac-tice and theory focused on analyzing and designing the relationships between sonic, formal, haptic and behavioural qualities of interac-tive artefacts. It studies the interplay of these qualities, rather than an understanding of these as separate elements. Such understand-ing may facilitate the creation of new design concepts by engaging designers in structured explorations of interactivity.

2. Abstract Sonic Artefacts: A Case Study

The case study presented here is an initial attempt to bring the issues of basic design into the field of interaction design. Its subject is the design process for creation of abstract interactive artefacts with embedded computing and sound [Fig. 3 ↦ 106]. These objects afford simple manual interactions, such as squeezing, pushing or twisting, coupled to continuous sonic feedback. The goal is to create abstract artefacts that can be used in psychological studies that have been designed to investigate the relationship between human action and interactive sonic feedback. These tests are being defined together with auditory psychology researchers as a part of an inter-disciplinary research project called CLOSED [Susini et al, 2006–2009] that is aimed at creating new sound design tools based on the human evaluation of performance and aesthetics.

2.1 Field Research in the Kitchen Although most of the traditional basic design exercises use prede-fined geometrical shapes and colours, the earlier works preceding Bauhaus show the analysis and reduction from real world objects to define an abstract element [Ramsauer, 1821]. Similarly, CLOSED project

99


began with a study into everyday interactions to define our design ma terial grounded in real experiences, rather than designing with the predefined taxonomies of sounds [Gaver, 1993] and actions [Robert-

son, 1997].

The domestic kitchen was selected as a rich context, because it is filled with artefacts allowing for physical manipulation [Fig. 4 ↦ 107]. The tools that were included range from manual tools, such as knives or spoons, to mechanical tools with moving parts, such as garlic squeezers, and finally to the vast array of electromechanical kitchen appliances, such as toasters and blenders. In the first two groups the manual operation responsible for generating sound is more transparent, as the action and its effect are directly linked. Such acti vities were the focus of the field research, which excluded chemical and electromechanical processes, as they did not involve performative user engagement.

Fieldwork began with audiovisual documentation of a number of com-mon kitchen activities. The recordings were acquired with a single video camera and microphone placed near the interaction locus, to capture sonic details. Forty-eight individual audiovisual sequences of kitchen processes were acquired, with recordings ranging in length from approximately twenty seconds to a few minutes.

2.2 Action-Sound Analysis: Abstracting from Everyday ExperiencesThe analysis of documented activities began with the decompo sition of kitchen tasks, such as making coffee, into smaller actions com-bined with the formal description of sounds created. Sound descrip-tions were based on common methods from psychoacoustics, from music, and from ecological everyday sound categorization [Fig. 5

↦ 108]. This approach is similar to traditional task analysis [Diapper,

2003] which tends to consider user experience as composed of steps in a process, and which is performed from the viewpoint of an ideal-ized detached observer. However, in CLOSED project, designers them selves experienced the phenomena they were studying, in order to avoid the usual difficulties of ascribing significance to interactive phenomena purely through observation [Mulder, 1985].

«Focused»

100

Hypotheses were formulated as to the significance of specific sounds for performance in the relevant situation. Key points about the re-levance of sonic feedback included the cases in which sound can affect performance, can help focus attention to the action, can af-fect intentionality and that its loudness is in relation to action energy (AE) and action duration (AD).

For example, in the analysis of making coffee with a stovetop espresso machine (cafetiera), the following actions necessary to accomplish pouring were identified: grasping, squeezing, elevating, displacing and tilting [Fig. 6 ↦ 109]. Several of these, and related sounds, hap-pened concurrently. One had to maintain pressure on the pitcher’s handle in order to perform any of the subsequent actions. While squeezing produced little to no sound, tilting the pitcher to fill the cafetiera generated a dominant sonic contribution, that of pouring liquid. The sound of the water impacting the vessel that is being filled and the resonant excitation of the metallic volume of cafetiera in-formed about the level of the liquid poured.

From the analyses, elementary actions were identified as those that appeared repeatedly in the studied examples and to which no speci-fic meaning could be assigned when isolated from each other and from the context. Together these comprised approximately thirty actions, grouped into two categories. Those that cannot be decom-posed into smaller actions that would still be perceived by the per-former as actions were referred to as basic action primitives. These included directional movement and pressure (push, hit, slide), em-bracing pressure (squeeze, grasp), displacing while holding (elevate, put down, remove) and rotation (tilt, turn, spin). Composed actions primitives, on the other hand, were taken to be those in which two or more basic action primitives occur together simultaneously. For example, pulling is composed of squeezing and moving in a certain direction, and picking something up is composed of embracing, main-taining constant pressure, so the object doesn’t fall, while generating a displacement.

The development of taxonomy of such design elements, even con-strained to the domestic kitchen contexts considered in this work,

101


would exceed the scope of this research. However, we believe that such taxonomy would be a valuable, if challenging and complex, con-tribution toward establishing an approach to the design of inter-active artefacts along the lines described here. Within the scope of this study, the action and sound examples that were gathered proved useful as source material generating ideas for abstracted sound artefacts. The full documentation and studies can be found in a dedi-cated wiki website [Franinovic, Hug, 2007].

2.3 Conceptualizing Experimental Artefacts A series of concepts was created, consisting of abstract objects that afford simple action to which continuous sonic feedback [Fig. 7 ↦ 109]. The aim of this series was to enable further study of the simple rela-tions between sound and action, as they are experienced in mani-pulation of objects. A number of constraints related to the experi-mental measurement and interpretation of human action with the prototypes were taken into account.

The generation of concepts began with exercises focused on remix-ing sonic and interactive features extracted from context research. One method that can be readily applied in such situations is that of the design matrix [Paulos et al, 2005], [Wood, 2000], [Zwicky, 1967]. It allows the designer to decompose otherwise seemingly non-reducibly com-plex design problems by organizing the multi-dimensional qualities (sonic, formal, interactive) along several axes. The resulting space is then sampled at individual points, and the resulting set of properties is used to generate a design case.

A two-dimensional matrix was developed to create a space for new concepts defined by one axis corresponding to action primitives iden-tified in the field study and another corresponding to everyday sound processes. The problems of sound and action descriptors arose, as sound can often be described in terms of action: the sound of walk-ing, of cutting, typing, and so forth. However, having previously con-ducted the analytic exploration it was easier to associate names to actual experiences. The complete set of ideas for abstract objects that afford one simple action to which continuous everyday sonic feedback is available at a dedicated wiki website [Franinovic, Visell 2007].

«Focused»

102

2.4 Abstract Sonic ArtefactsSeveral of the concepts have been developed into working prototypes by combining elements of sound, form, human action, object behav-iour and, in several cases, light. The physical shape was designed to provide a suggestion for type of action that could be performed. It was modelled using 3D design software (Rhinoceros3D) and pro-duced through 3D printing. The relationships between sound, light and gesture that are enabled through the manipulation of the form were designed within a real time data processing environment (Cy-cling 74 Max/MSP). The artefacts interacted by means of everyday sounds generated through models of everyday physical events such as the pouring of liquid and the rolling of a ball.

An example is Twister, an object that affords a continuous twisting motion, tightening over the course of several turns [Fig. 8 ↦ 110]. The physical tightening of the top is measured through a mechanism within the artefact. The increase in tightness is expressed through sound as a resonant squeaking, whose pitch increases and density of squeak-events decreases as the tightness grows. Twister was in-spired by the analysis of coffee making with a cafetiera, and com-bines the action primitive of twisting and the sound of friction that were abstracted from that everyday experience. Similarly, Crushhh [Fig. 8 ↦ 110] is based on the action and sound elements studied in the ana lysis of crushing the plastic water bottles. It represents an object that must be regularly compressed, via a force applied to its top surface while the object rests against a solid (table or similar). The accompanying sound is generated by a physical sound synthe-sis model of the crushing of a can or the compression of a granular medium, such as gravel [Fontana, 2005. Visell, 2007].

The production of the artefacts created in this study raise a number of issues that are somewhat beyond the scope of this paper, rang - ing from industrial design considerations (processes), to electronic sensing (sensor selection, integration, signal conditioning and acqui-sition), actuation (mechanical design, actuator selection, signal trans mission), and real-time software integration (control and sound synthesis models, task implementation, hardware interfacing).

103


More importantly, because these abstract sonic artefacts were cre-ated for the experiments, their design depended upon the specifica-tions needed for the latter. The designers associated each prototype to a task that could be used to evaluate the relationship bet ween action and interactive sound and the ways in which it affects func-tionality and preference. For Twister the task was to tighten the object and for Crushhh to compress the object vertically without breaking it (sonically). In short, these objects enable certain kinds of actions, data collection and evaluations, and therefore shape the way in which experiments will be conducted.

2.5 Next Steps: Experimental and Contextual Evaluation The subsequent steps of this research are aimed at the evaluation of the designed objects with respect to their performative, aesthetic and social qualities. In addition to the experiments that have guided the creation of these artefacts, the reintroduction of the sonic ob-jects to the domestic contexts of users is planned in order to further explore the phenomenological and social interactions. The results will be fed back into the design process, resulting in further itera-tions of abstract sonic artefacts and the case study showing the appli cation of the generated knowledge in an everyday product.

3. Conclusion

Recently, various authors have stressed the importance of basic de-sign as central to the discipline of design [Findeli, 2001] [Anceschi, 2006]. Since its origins, basic design has been an analytic and a creative process as well as an educational discipline. Combining of the edu-cational practice with the theoretical and methodological founda-tions of design enables the pursuit of research though design. These foundations are particularly important when a new design discipline emerges, as is the case of interaction design today.

In the case study presented in this paper, basic design methods were adapted to interaction design research, allowing the study and ex-perimentation with elements that contribute to an interactive expe-rience with an artefact. However, the pitfall of the basic design is that it fails to account for interactions of the designed object within

«Focused»

104

different contexts of use and might direct designers towards formal explorations rather than products based on the human needs. To in-vestigate this issue, the next step of CLOSED project is to apply the basic methodology to design for an everyday setting rather than a laboratory.

Context research is needed in the development of real products, be-cause experience is shaped both by perception of formal elements as well as by meanings emerging from users’ cultural background and the context of use. For example, some centuries ago, it would not have been possible to associate Svanaes’s square behaviour described above to the notion of a switch, as electricity did not exist. Such interpretations of perceived elements provide motivation for introducing contextual design methods in basic design practices.

On the other hand, interaction designers often rely on ethnographic data as an objective input to design. In this approach, contexts of application and potential users are seen as the source of design problem. If as Paul Dourish argues, the goal of the context research is to explain real world experiences rather than provide implications for design [Dourish, 2006], additional creative methods are required to complement the design process. How, then, as designers can we inte-grate the creative components of our practice with embedded, re-flective, analytic, and context-immersed research practices? Can basic design methods enhance ethnographic approaches with a more formal, structured and exploratory practice?

In real experiences with everyday objects, complex relations between the artefact, action and sound coexist, and link with myriad issues of context of use. The aim of this paper has been to provide a method for working from these complex interconnections through basic de-sign approach while grounding them in the context. However, this is an initial step and there is a need for more knowledge about how to integrate basic design with contextual issues, such as those linked to users, environments, or activities that are seen as key elements of contextualized design practices.

105


Fig. 2: Revolving tactile chart. Walter Kaminsky for Moholy-Nagy’s Basic design course. 1927. [Moholy-Nagy, 1969] ↦ 97

Fig. 1: Kandinsky’s test. (Droste 1998) ↦ 96

106

Ever

yday

In

tera

ctio

nsC

onte

xt O

bser

vati

on

Ana

lysi

sP

rim

itiv

e Q

ualit

ies

Idea

tion

& B

asic

C

ompo

siti

onA

bstr

act S

ound

A

rtif

acts

Task

Ex

peri

men

tIn

itia

l Pro

toty

pes

for

Eval

uati

on

Met

hods

:fi

eld

obse

rvat

ion

– vi

deo

ethn

ogra

phy

– ta

sk a

naly

sis

...

Met

hods

:in

tera

ctio

n re

labe

ling

– bo

dyst

orm

ing

– de

sign

mat

rix

...

Act

ion:

Reg

ular

Sti

rrin

g –

Fann

ing

–S

haki

ng–

Sou

nd: G

rati

ng–

Cru

mpl

ing

–D

ripp

ing

–C

rash

ing

–

Linkages

Mai

ntai

n En

ergy

–A

chie

ve Id

enti

cal

Volu

me

–P

artl

y Fl

atte

n

Fig

. 3: T

he C

LOS

ED d

esig

n pr

oces

s. A

ltho

ugh

it is

repr

esen

ted

as a

logi

cal s

eque

nce,

var

ious

act

ivit

ies

wer

e co

nduc

ted

iter

ativ

ely.

[Cre

dit:

Vis

ell,

Fran

inov

ic, 2

007]

↦ 9

8

107


Fig. 4: Existing interactions with kitchen tools. [Credit: Visell, Franinovic, 2007]. ↦ 99

«Focused»

108

Action – General Parameters

ADAE

Duration of action in secondsEnergy exerted during manipulation

Action Descriptors (Examples)

Elementary

Composite

Push, hit, slide, squeeze, grasp,elevate, put down, remove, tilt, turn, spinPulling, moving in circular motion, smoothing, uncoiling, turning, picking up, pouring, ...

Sound – General Labels

MSASNSfRSf

Manipulative soundAutomatic soundIncidental or weak feedback for actionRelevant for action

Sound – Dynamics

pp, mp, mf, f, ff, ...

Sound Descriptor Types (selection)

PsychoacousticPhysical sourceMaterialConfiguration

Surface contactSpatial qualities

Soundscape

Gestalt / pattern

Loudness, brightness, ...Aerodynamic, liquid, solid, combustion, ...Elasticity, density, ...Shape, size, structure(resonant cavities, etc), support, weightSmooth, rough, regular/grated, jagged ...Delay, reverb, echo, damping, perspective, distance resonance, ...Location/context, interpretation, semantic interactions, ...Rhythm of vibration, iteration of soundevent (e.g. bouncing), ...

Fig. 5: The annotation used in action-sound analysis. [Credit: Visell, 2007] ↦ 99

109


2. Action: Elevating the pitcher from the counter. AE: depends on the size and material of the pitcher and quantity of liquid in it.

(a) Sound: the short impact and friction sounds. Caused by the contact between the counter and pitcher. MS.

— RSf: N/A However it provides information about the material of the pitcher and surface on which it has been positioned.

3. Action: Displacing the pitcher towards the caffetiera. AE: depends on the size and material of the pitcher and quantity of liquid in it. AD: 2s

(a) Sound: Moving liquid in the pitcher. The liquid hits the walls of the pitcher. MS

— RSf: It communicates the quantity of water in the pitcher. Can lead to the action of refilling of the pitcher.

4. Action. Tilting the pitcher, while aiming at caffetiera. AE: Larger than in the previous action, but still depends on the size and material of the pitcher and quantity of water in it.

(a) Sound: Water impacting the bottom of the metal caffetiera followed by the sound of splashing: water hitting the surface. The sound changes continuously as the volume of the caffetiera is being filled. The sound is louder than that of other actions. If there is not sufficient liquid in the pitcher, the sound of filling will ends with the sound of dripping. MS

PumpingWhirrrr

Spinotron

SqueezingSquirt

Udder

CompressingWhoosh

Accordion

ShakingBoing-Boing

Nuclear Tea

BeatingHummm

Whiskie

Fig. 6: An excerpt from coffee making analysis. [Credit: Franinovic, 2007] ↦ 100

Fig. 7: Concepts for Abstract Sonic Artefacts. [Sketches credit: Franinovic, 2007] ↦ 101

«Focused»

110

Pushing or Pumping Action

Crunching Sound

Light Swelling

Twisting Action

Friction Sound

Light Moving

Fig. 8: Twister and Crushh prototypes. [Credit: Franinovic, 2007] ↦ 102

111


AcknowledgementsThis research was supported by the European Commission FP6-NEST-PATH “Measuring the Impossible” project no. 29085 called CLOSED: Closing the Loop of Sound Evaluation and Design. The author wishes to thank all her colleagues on the project, particularly Yon Visell who co-developed the design research for CLOSED project. His contribution and advice was essential for development of this paper.

Endnote1 “The word Gestalt is used in modern German to mean the way a thing has been gestellt; i.e., “placed,” or “put together.” There is no exact equivalent in English. “Form” and “shape” are the usual translations; in psychology the word is often rendered “pattern” or “configuration”.” (Encyclopaedia Britannica Online).

References↦ Anceschi, G., Basic design, Fondamenta del Design, L’ambiente dell’apprendimento. McGraw Hill, 2006. pp. 57–67. ↦ Diaper, D., Understanding Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. 2003. pp. 5–47.↦ Dourish, P., Implications for Design. Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2006. pp. 541–550.↦ Droste, M., 1998. Bauhaus, 1918–1933. Bauhaus Archiv Museum fur Gestaltung, Berlin.↦ Findeli, A., Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion, Design Issues, vol. 17, no. 1, 2003. pp. 5–17.↦ Fontana, F. and Bresin, R., Physics-based sound synthesis and control: crushing, walking and running by crumpling sounds, Proc. of the XIV Colloq. of Musical Informatics, 2005.↦ Franinovic, K. and Visell Y. 2007. Abstract Sonic Artefacts Scenarios. Available at: http://sound-scene-storm.wikispaces.com [accessed 12 April 2008].↦ Franinovic, K. and Hug, D. 2007. Action-Sound Field Research. Available at: http://actionanalysis.wikispaces.com [accessed 12 April 2008].↦ Franinovic, K., Visell Y. and D. Hug. Sonic Interaction Design Research: Case Studies, Participatory Design, Scenarios, and Product Concepts, Deliverable 3.1, CLOSED EC NEST project, 2007.↦ Gaver, W.W. What do we hear in the world? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, Vol 5, 1, 1993, pp. 1–29.↦ Kandinsky, W., 1979. Point and Line to Plane, Dover, New York.↦ Moholy-Nagy, L., 1969. Vision in Motion. Paul Theobold, Chicago.↦ Oulasvirta, A., Kurvinen, E. and Kankainen, T., Understanding contexts by being there: case studies in bodystorming, Personal Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 7, no. 2, 2003. pp. 125–134.↦ Paulos E., Anderson, K., Chang, M., and Burke, A., Metapolis and Urban Life workshop, Available at: www.urban-atmospheres.net/Ubicomp2005 [accessed 12 April 2008].↦ Robertson, T. Cooperative Work and Lived Cognition: A Taxonomy of Embodied Actions, Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 1997. Pp. 205–220↦ Ramsauer, J., 1821, Drawing Tutor, plates.

«Focused»

112↦ Susini, P., Rocchesso, D., Franinovic, K., Visell, Y., Obermayer, K., Misdariis, N., Lemaitre, G., Houix, O., Polotti, P., Purwins, H., and Adiloglu, K., 2006–2009, Closing the Loop of Sound Evaluation and Design, Available at: http://closed.ircam.fr/ [accessed 12 April 2008].↦ Svanæs, D., 1999. Understanding Interactivity: Steps to a Phenomenology of Human-Computer Interaction. Available at: www.idi.ntnu.no/~dags/interactivity.pdf [accessed 12 April 2008].↦ Visell, Y., Cooperstock, J. and Franinovic, K., The EcoTile: An architectural platform for audio-haptic simulation in walking, Proc. of the 4th Intl. Conf. on Enactive Interfaces, 2007.↦ Wood, K., and Otto, K., 2000. Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.↦ Zwicky, F., New Methods of Thought and Procedure, Contributions to the Symposium on Methodologies. Ed. Zwicky, F. and Wilson, A., Springer, 1967.

113


«Focused»

114

115


The first builders of model constructions with sophisticated designs nearly all originate from the domain of the creative crafts and art. Even before other sciences discovered model-based planning methods for themselves, these were applied and explored theoretically in the cre-ative disciplines. While the practical, etymological and theoretical ori-gins of the model derive from the form-generating disciplines and even though the subject of model usage is currently growing in signi-ficance, the intellectual discussion about this phenomenon within design has – in contrast to other disciplines – hardly taken place till now. Even though the number of publications in various scholarly and scientific branches dealing with the model theme has been growing exponentially, the design disciplines are not participating in this dis-course – in spite of their distinctive contribution to the development of the usage and concept of the model in cultural history.

The following text is an excerpt of a study in design research. It has been undertaken to contribute to a comprehension of the form-finding process as an intellectual task and as a deliberation on the model as a fundamental part of the scholarly reflections on design. After a short explanation of the etymology of model, further thoughts about this phenomenon will be developed by means of a number of theses.

Email

Theses on the Significance of the Model in the Form-finding Process

[email protected]

↦ model ↦ form-finding process ↦ model theory ↦ planning tool ↦ design research

Keywords

Melanie Kurz

1. On the Etymology of the Term Model

Ever since prehistoric times, in order to employ energy, resources and the expenditure of thought as economically as possible, human beings

«Focused»

116

have employed things that today we would call models. It is the option, particularly, affording the creator with a projection of possible rea-lities, that has made the model such an indispensable planning in-strument from the beginnings of human creation on – for instance, of artifacts.

Etymologically, the term model was developed predominantly in the language of architecture and handicrafts, from which it was inte-grated by and by into everyday language as well as scientific termi-nology. The Roman architect Vitruvius made a vital contribution to the widespread dissemination of the term. In his oeuvre on architec-ture, the Ten Books on Architecture (De architectura libri decem, about 30 B.C.), he bestowed the meaning of an architectural basic meas-ure to the Latin word modulus. Subsequently, the term was employed as a measure of proportions for columns and other parts of a build-ing. The word found its way into European languages through its use in the language of clerical master builders and artisans. It is assumed the term model came to Germany in the 8th century when Roman and southern French workmen entered the country under Charle-magne. About 1,000 A.D., model was employed more freely, standing for pattern, master mold, hollow mold, paper pattern and example.

In the 16th century, model was increasingly replaced by the noun Modell. This was not a further development in German linguistic us-age. For the term had been borrowed anew. It stems from the Italian modello, whose origin is linked to the construction of the cathedral in Florence. In German, Modell showed up mainly in the artistic lan-guage of goldsmiths residing in Nuremberg, Augsburg, Strassbourg and Basel. The work of these goldsmiths frequently followed Italian examples, and they obtained lead and plaster moulds from Italy. [dtv

1995: 882] [Grimms Deutsches Wörterbuch 1885: Sp. 2438, 2440]

Although historically it remained at home in the realm of art and the higher crafts, the term was increasingly being claimed by other sci-ences over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. In the last 60 years it has gained a nearly unmanageable multitude of semantic contents. Hence the term has encompassed diagrams, circuit layouts, site plans, drawings and pictograms, technical test constructions,

117


clay models, globes, mannequins plus thought models, like theories and analogies. But as diverse as the model’s individual guises in various disciplines have been at different times, the answers to the question of what a model actually is have been just as heteroge-neous. Though the concept became an integral part of our vocabulary long ago and is now utilized a great deal, nonetheless it is nearly impossible to formulate its comprehensive, universal and simultane-ously unambiguous definition. The latitude of use for models is too broad, and explications of the word are too multifarious.

This factor prompted Klaus Dieter Wüsteneck [1963] and Herbert Stachowiak [1973] to do research on a definition of a general concept of the model. They laid the foundation for a general model theory, according to which a model exists only in relation to an original, on the one hand, and to a subject on the other. The most significant ele-ment of this triad is the human being (subject), who, as the linking entity, is capable of establishing the requisite connection between the model and its (extant or else not-yet-existent) original.

2. Theses on the Function and Significance of the Model in Design

2.1 The Activity of Designing (Entwerfen) is Defined by how we deal with the Model – Without a Model, no Design (Entwurf)The architectural model was already employed in both the Greek and Roman architectural traditions in the ancient world: namely, as a means of communication and a reservoir for ideas, and it was con-structed out of raw materials such as wood, clay or wax. [Bischoff 1993:

33] For oftentimes, prior to the realization of any building, an archi-tectural contest was held where the best form-proposal would be selected. [Lepik 1995: 12] To that purpose a presentation model was re-quired as a means of communication in support of the understand-ing between architect and the public taking part in the decision. Nonetheless, the three-dimensional structures from that time can-not be termed design models (Entwurfsmodelle). That role can only be ascribed to architectural models beginning in the Renaissance. In the ancient world, they served exclusively for visualization of an architectural idea – not for its further development nor as a reference for its structural implementation.

«Focused»

118

Historians of architecture today assume the three-dimensional model in architecture was initially deployed as a planning and drafting in-strument (Entwurfsinstrument) in a heuristic capacity starting in 1350 with the construction of the cathedral in Florence. [Lepik 1995: 11] [Schönberger 1988: 43] Thus, the model no longer exclusively served the purpose of comprising a three-dimensional presentation and repre-sentation of a form-proposal. Beside this particular task, a new task was ascribed to it: The model became the medial center of thought for drafting and creating (Zentrum entwerferischen Denkens und Schaffens)! From that time on, by dint of its alterability, it served the creator for the improvement, transformation and hence the targeted advancement of his design (Entwurf). The representation advanced to become the essential element of a creative process founded on iteration and correction and transformed formal indefiniteness in-creasingly into definiteness. [Fig. 1 ↦ 124]

This extension of the functions of a model is the prerequisite for the definition of drafting (Entwerfen) and the process of form-finding in cyclic loops of concretion as a link between thinking and making (with the representation). This new approach to representation there-fore entails considerable implications for both the methods of crea-tion and the process of creation (Gestaltungsprozess). So the mod-ern comprehension of designing (Entwerfen) is founded on the evo lution of the model into a planning tool in the Renaissance. Only by employing a medium of design (Entwurfsmedium), where think-ing and making fuse into an iterative process of continual improve-ment and establishment of form, is an intellectual, planning principle of designing possible; only now may form-finding develop into a sys-tematic approach toward exploring hypotheses, toward concretion, evaluation, screening and transformation of shape. With this ap-proach in the form-giving creative process, the designer (Entwerfer) takes leave of the notion of being kissed by the Muses or receiving divine inspiration, and concepts like inspiration, illumination or intui-tion are not justified any more.

119


2.2 By the use of the Model – a Means that in Design was Often Viewed Only From a Technical and Crafts Perspective – Form-Finding Distances Itself From Handicraft Beside a new form-finding approach, the incipient modern era fea-tured another alteration that demanded the deployment of models in architecture: the broadening gap between design (Entwurf) and rea-lization. This entailed the exigency of pre-planning and pre-testing of the design as completely as possible instead of developing it and ex-periencing its formal impact only upon its constructional realization. This approach afforded huge procedural and economic advantages. In addition, it altered the architect’s position. He became a planner and thinker, who was frequently no longer to be found among the group of persons implementing it (the craftspeople), remaining oft-times even some distance removed from the location of the con-struction. [Bischoff 1993: 35] The designer (Entwerfer) thus acts over a spatial and temporal distance. This is only feasible, though, if a model mediates between the architect and the craftsmen who are doing the actual realizing.

For the model to be capable of serving as example, as a construc-tional guide for the precise implementation of the architectural idea as well as its becoming a procedural link between planning and realization, it must be augmented with an additional feature: The pivotal difference between the type of model that had been recently invented and those three-dimensional visualizations in the field of architecture known until then was comprised in its exact proportion-ateness. Only by that may the connection between model and reality be drawn. [Lepik 1995: 18] That means its proportionateness is taken as an encoded transfer that expands the model to become a link bet-ween planning (Entwurf) and realization (construction, handicraft). It faci litates the progression of the model to a procedural planning tool of form-finding. [Fig. 2 ↦ 125]

Leon Battista Alberti was the first to describe the two new functions the architectural model acquired in the Renaissance: the function as a design medium (Entwurfsmedium), on the one hand, and as a link between project planning and building construction on the other. The first theoretician of the modern era published his oeuvre De Re

«Focused»

120

Aedificatoria in 1443 – the first theory of architecture since Vitruvius. Significant parts of it address questions pertaining to the archi-tectural model and architectural drawing. Alberti formulated the model’s task and type of use as planning tools, as well as those bene-fits stemming from the changes in the drafting method (Entwurfs-methode), and did so in such detail unknown until then. His interest focused first and foremost upon the status of the model in the archi-tectural process. He was concerned with the “path from theory to practice.” [Oechslin 1995: 47] For that reason, Alberti’s texts about the form-finding model in architecture are not to be understood as tech-nical guides for model makers but as theoretical and intellectual dis-putes. With De Re Aedificatoria Alberti has laid the foundation for a transformation of the artist’s status. Creative (gestalterische) activ-ity, that is, the finding of form, freed itself from handicraft and, on the foundation of its pre-planning qualities, was aligned with the human-ities. [Stalla 2005: 42] Alberti seized on the relation of theory and prac-tice laid out by Vitruvius and sorted out the priority of intellectual work within the process of designing (Entwerfen) by dint of the se-quence mind goes before act. [Oechslin 1995: 45] Thus creative (gestalte-rische) work has to be comprehended as an achievement of the mind and the drafting model (Entwurfsmodell) as a constant starting point for new thought processes. With the iterative way of designing (Ent-wurfsweise) on the model and the model’s proportionateness, form-planning became independent of its constructional realization – and this facilitated a separation of planning and realization. In other words: The planning quality of the design (Entwurf) was established in the model!

2.3 The Change of Purpose of the Model, which Accompanies Design Development, Requires a Change in the Attributes of the Model and Hence a Rotation from one Type of Presentation into Another Generally all models are built on the basis of a certain problem or interest. The purpose of the model as intended by the subject there-fore decides on the principle of the model. Whether the individual model is able to fulfill its determination more or less well depends on the precision of its orientation to the intentions for cognition as well as use on the part of the person who is to deploy the model. Conse-

121


quently, the definition of the model’s parameters appropriate to each case – with regard to the subject and its task (for instance: degree of abstraction, type of representation) – is pivotal, so the model can fulfil its purpose. What is of utmost relevance, beside an exploration of optimal formal attributes, is the selection of its proper contents, which means the differentiation between what is essential and non-essential. Because a focus on those features of a visualization rele-vant to a solution will have a crucial impact on the perception of a person and hence upon his cognition process.

In the case of form-finding, the strategy of the model must harmo-nize two key factors: on the one hand, it must support optimally the design process (Entwerfen), the evaluation of form and the selec-tion of designs; on the other, this has to be carried out in the face of the defaults of the process – thus, it is subjected to time and costs. Here it is imperative to take into consideration the fact that for design evaluation and for decision on design, diverse groups of reci-pients may emerge (the creators and the circle of decision makers) and that the visualizations should be set up corresponding to their respective capacities for perception. Moreover, the form-finding pro cess is divided into several phases mostly, with diverse focuses regarding content. Hence, the creation of artifacts encompasses various tasks that are allotted in part to different persons. [Fig. 3 ↦ 124]

Here we can see how complex the demands are that models have to meet over the course of the designing process. As these require-ments cannot be fulfilled by one single type of model, the collection of various representational guises is required, as well as a strategy defining models corresponding to their purpose and time of deploy-ment. This implies that a designer employs diverse types of models during the process of form-development so as to understand his draft (Entwurf). Depending on the change in the primary focus of his task, he proceeds from one representational manner to the next; for instance, he replaces the drawing by a physical model so as to perceive in it design qualities (Entwurfseigenschaften) that are not clearly comprehensible from the sketches. Thus, along with the change of the model’s purpose, a change of the model type is needed.

«Focused»

122

So, depending on the change of focus for the task at hand, it is recom-mended to proceed from one kind of presentation to another and to decide on this model strategy in advance.

2.4 Working With the Model is Principally a Challenge for the Mind and less a Matter of Technical HandicraftsWorking with the model itself and the issue of its employment re-quires a theoretical, intellectual approach. A meaningful application of this phenomenon is possible only if there is a broad understanding of its nature, its principles, its history as well as the model-forming process. In contrast to other disciplines, however, the theoretical discourse concerning the model has been neglected in design. The model is reduced to its technical-handicraft aspects. To steer, im-prove or enhance the usage of model presentations in a targeted way for the benefit of form-finding, moreover, a theoretical approach to the model is imperative.

That is to say, model theory is a fundamental part of a guide to prac-tice, something that must be constantly reconsidered. For, no matter what type of representation it adopts, the model sets thought proc-esses off and serves as a catalyst for new thoughts and new ap-proaches; it comprises and demonstrates the methods of drafting (Entwerfen) and even the results of drafting (Entwurfsergebnisse).

The history of the model as a heuristic designing tool (Entwurfs-instrument) and procedural link between planning and realization began in the Renaissance. Today, recent examples in architecture and in design call our attention to how very modern and meaningful the subject remains for the creative disciplines. Frank O. Gehry’s free-form buildings can be cited as an example of the keen mutual dependency of the methods of designing (Entwurfsmethoden) and the methods of representation. They demonstrate how the planning of a creative procedure (Gestaltungsverfahren) already bears a type of representation to be employed; that any reflection upon creative (entwerferische) possibilities implies reflection upon the employ-ment of models.

123


As in other realms, it is computer technology and the new media (for instance, virtual visualizations and rapid prototyping) that are provi-ding new options and new experiences of perception. But something novel does not merely signify an addition. What is new concurrently changes the position of what is already existing. Moreover, it has to be remarked that each medium has boundaries and permits only that range of experience specific to it. A virtual model, for instance, may be fundamentally capable of representing every form-giving idea but it cannot do so in any way! For every medium possesses the

“forms of experience” [Welsch 1996: 317] intrinsic to it as well as quali-ties other forms of representation lack. Against this backdrop, new questions in model theory and media theory are constantly coming up, questions that must be comprised within the scope of duties of design research. [Fig. 4–6 ↦ 125]

«Focused»

124

EXTERNAL

idea 1

idea 2

INTERNAL

model 1

model 2

stages of design maturation (Entwurfsreife)

periods of designing (Entwurfszeit)

+

+

++

process-related and economical aspects

visualisation

form content realityidea

Intention and perceptive faculty

subject

point of use x+2

point of use x

point of use x+1

Fig. 1: Iterative model-based design process (Kurz) ↦ 118

Fig. 3: Subject- and task-oriented model definition (Kurz) ↦ 121

125


model

presence

future

dialog partner 1

making

thinking

dialog partner 2

Fig. 2: The model in its role as a mediator (Kurz) ↦ 119

Fig. 5: Physical model of Frank O. Gehrys buildings (Neuer Zollhof) in Düsseldorf ↦ 123 Fig. 6: Virtual model generated by scanning the physical model made from wood ↦ 123

Fig. 4: Neuer Zollhof designed by Frank O. Gehry, completion in 1999 ↦ 123

«Focused»

126References↦ Alberti, Leon Battista: De re aedificatoria. Zehn Bücher über die Baukunst. Wien: Heller, 1912↦ Bischoff, Franz: “‘... das verkleinert opus recht vor Augen gestellt’: zur Geschichte und Bedeutung des Architekturmodells von der Frühzeit bis zur Gegenwart”; in: Bischoff, Franz; Helmberger, Werner (Hrsg.): Rom über die Alpen tragen. Fürsten sammeln antike Architektur: Die Aschaffenburger Korkmodelle. Landshut/Ergolding: Arcos, 1993↦ dtv: Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Deutschen. 7. Auflage. München: dtv, 2004 ↦ Grimm: Grimms Deutsches Wörterbuch Bd. 6. Leipzig: Hirzel, 1885↦ Lepik, Andres: “Das Architekturmodell der frühen Renaissance. Die Erfindung eines Mediums”; in: Evers, Bernd (Hrsg.): Architekturmodelle der Renaissance. Die Harmonie des Bauens von Alberti bis Michelangelo. München, New York: Prestel, 1995↦ Oechslin, Werner: “Das Architekturmodell zwischen Theorie und Praxis”; in: Evers, Bernd (Hrsg): Architekturmodelle der Renaissance. Die Harmonie des Bauens von Alberti bis Michelangelo. München, New York: Prestel, 1995↦ Schönberger, Angela: “Architekturmodelle zwischen Illusion und Simulation”; in: Internationales Designzentrum Berlin (Hrsg.): Simulation und Wirklichkeit. Design, Architektur, Film, Naturwissenschaften, Ökologie, Ökonomie, Psychologie. Köln: DuMont, 1988↦ Stachowiak, Herbert: Allgemeine Modelltheorie. Wien, New York: Springer, 1973↦ Stalla, Robert: zsfg_Kunstgeschichte. [Online]. Available at: http://twoday.net/static/fsarch/files/zsfg_kunstgeschichte.pdf [accessed 17 May 2005]↦ Stephan, Peter F.: “Denken am Modell. Gestaltung im Kontext bildender Wissenschaft”; in: Bürdek, Bernhard E. (Hrsg.): Der digitale Wahn. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2001↦ Welsch, Wolfgang: Grenzgänge der Ästhetik. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1996↦ Wüsteneck, Klaus Dieter: “Zur philosophischen Verallgemeinerung und Bestimmung des Modellbegriffs”. In: Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, Heft 12, 1963

References of figures↦ Fig. 4: Available at: http://www.baumaschine.de/Portal/download.php?w=Tbg&p1 =1998&p2=heft4&n=a254_255.pdf [accessed 04 April 2006]↦ Fig. 5: Albrecht, Peer: “Der Neue Zollhof. Ein Highlight für den Betonbau”. In: Beton-Informationen 2, 1999 (Page 4) ↦ Fig. 6: Available at: http://www.duesseldorf.de/touristik/bildarchiv/grafik/n00156.jpg [accessed 23 June 2005]

127


«Focused»

128

129



Email

Interdisciplinary Method Develop-ment for the Operationalization of Product- and Brand Communication

07Fachhochschule Salzburg GmbH DE|RE|SA – Design Research Salzburg [email protected] [email protected]

↦ consistency ↦ semantic networks ↦ brand- and product communication ↦ design objecti fication ↦ interdisciplinary method development

Keywords

DE|RE|SA (Design Research Salzburg) is an interdisciplinary research project of researchers from Interior and Industrial Design, Eco-nomics, Technology as well as media- and communication science. It focuses on design processes, the constituent structures within small- and medium-sized companies as well as semiotic aspects of design. Theoretical and empirical research, as well as cooperation projects with companies constitute a broad base to give practical and theoretical input for design management issues. DE|RE|SA is a pro-ject funded by FFG (Österreichische Forschungsförderungsgesell-schaft) and is expected to give concrete benefit to SMEs by design management research on a multi-disciplinary level as well as to re-structure design-, communication- and management strategies of large-scale and medium-sized companies.

The present paper deals with the consistency of product- and brand communication with design and communication strategy as one main success factor.

Manuela Lackus Bernhard Rothbucher

«Focused»

130

1. Introduction

In recent years numerous publications have dealt with the phenom-enon of corporate communication [e. g. Esch 2005, Bruhn 2006]. While al-most all companies campaign for their outstanding communication activities, hardly any of them have a precise idea of what commu-nication exactly means, resulting in an interchangeable use of the terms communication, advertising and corporate design. Reasons therefore can be found in the rather unestablished literature in the field of organizational communication, mainly focusing on commu-nication instruments and information infrastructure [e. g. Bruhn/Bobolik

2007, Mast 2002, Kitchen/Schultz 1997, Grunig/Grunig 1998]. A further issue can be found in the ongoing simplification of corporate communication.

In a recently finished qualitative study among 30 representatives from design, marketing and management of medium-sized and large-scale companies in Germany, Austria and Switzerland DE|RE|SA identified a significant lack of awareness of correlations between product communication, corporate communication and brand strat-egy. Based on the findings the presumption occurred that the main reason for that lies in the unsolved problem of transferring abstract brand values into concrete 2D and 3D specification.

A one year design project and the following research phase with a major company in the automotive industry deepened this presump-tion and gave reason to develop an approach for a method to control the consistency of communicated brand- and product messages.

2. Fundamentals

Corporate communication and product design strategy can be re-garded as constitutive factors of success on multiple corporate levels by initiation of a positive behaviour due to the communication of corporate identity to all intra-corporate (e. g. employees, etc.) and external reference groups (e. g. customers, suppliers, etc.) [e. g. Etten-

berg 2002, Drew 2002, McKenna 2002, Schwab/Zowislo, 2002, Seybold et al. 2001, Zuboff

& Maxmin 2002]. The main precondition (besides internal communica-tion) for an effective and efficient transfer of corporate identity can

131


be found in a clear, consistent and truthful communication policy, aiming development of strategic competitive advantages through precise contouring of the product message, -benefit and -strategy [e. g. Bentele/Steinmann/Zerfass 1996; Voswinkel 2001, Vonwil/Lackus 2006]. Clear-ness of communication and thus emotional concernment calls for an alignment of messages in terms of the cognition- and percep -tion logic of people. According to modern brain research, human be-ings perceive, process and store meaningful pieces of information through their limbic systems and correspondingly base their deci-sions for actions on it [e. g. Karl/Gegenfurther 2004, Küpper/Menke 2003].

Corporate communication in this field needs to develop and use specific “sets of meanings” based upon sustainable and unmistak-able messages. In an exploratory theory-based study the DE|RE|SA research group has identified a fundamental gap between commu-nication impact, transfer of meanings and the use of instruments. In a joint student research project with the BMW group in Munich this gap was also investigated in practical design processes. By this the justification was given to research further on processes and methods ensuring consistency of messages.

To verify the consistency of verbal and visual messages an appro-priate instrument is needed. In business practice mainly marketing departments make efforts to prove effects of medial and product communication by applying quantitative methods. The issue in this case is to predetermine the intended effects as answers, naturally causing a bias. Cooperative projects with companies indicate aware-ness of those bias effects in quantitative survey but until now hardly any alternative methods were established.

The demand for an objective method to survey effects of product messages and consistency on core brand values (verbal messages) and products (visual/tangible messages) is to extract objective items from subjective reviews without pre-determining schemes. The aim is to draw conclusions on resulting effects of product messages by interviewing test persons. An appropriate approach was developed and will be described in chapter 5.

«Focused»

132

3. First Step – Problem Observing: The Design Project

The central aim of the upstream design project was to investigate and interpret the term “Emotional Addressing” (Emotionale Zuge-wandtheit) in form of spaces (1,60m × 1,50m × 2,10m – equalling the size of a medium-sized vehicle); thus aiming at a transfer of brand values in 2D-visualizations and tangible 3D-models and to validate the method by means of a well funded methodology, subsequently the intention was to create a link between the constitutive values of corporate- and design strategy and the visible space and respec-tively the deducted design elements.

In the presented workflow, abstract values and emotions – so called ‘contexts’ – were developed by groups of students. In a consecu - tive wording-process the meanings were established. The following image-process was aiming at an identification of elementary visual elements for the given contexts. The resulting essence formed the basis for the transfer of the two-dimensional visual elements into

“spatial elements”.

On a more essential level the aim was to translate abstract values and emotions into concrete design by use of a linguistic-visual pro-cess. Each group consisted of two students who had to deal with a context in the forefront of the process. Contexts are defined as the semantic periphery of a term. Unlike the pure linguistic collocation- and respectively co-occurrence-terms which are limited to the quan-titative link (joint emergence) of words in language use, concept networks were developed, which should guarantee a qualitative off-set. The elicitation of the relevant terms at that time was done widely intuitively.

To bridge the abstract term laver to a concrete design level, a multi-stage selection process was used to find ‘visual representatives’ for the terms in 2D [Fig. 1 ↦ 141]. The following image-process was aim-ing at an identification of elementary visual elements for the given contexts. The resulting essence formed the basis for the transfer of the two-dimensional visual elements into “spatial elements”. The consistency between intended terms and images was widely accom-

133


plished by discussing and interpreting verbal and visual meanings in the group (of design-affine people) but without validating the in-tended effects by any fixed method.

This method targets at drawing a clear line between abstract and concrete values by physical implementation. An examination of the impact of the methodology is currently in progress and was finished in March; results will be presented during the presentation. The core of the methodology can be found in the transfer and translation of linguistic terms into design elements and the subsequent retrans-lation into intended meanings according to the design strategy [e. g.

Gries 2003; Karmasin/Karmasin 1997; Küchler in Matthes 1981]. An overview of the methodology can be found in the figure hereafter [Fig. 2 ↦ 141].

4. Second Step – Problem Definition: Critical Evaluation of the Development Process

The process starting from the wording phase to the point of con-crete 3D-designs retrospectively indicated optimisation potential in various forms. The definition of the contexts was widely done at ran-dom and without language-theoretic reflection. Thus the conclusive-ness of the semantic networks around the specific contexts can not be fully guaranteed. The effect was increased by the more or less random choice of the equivalent 2D-visualisations. At least at first sight the transfer of design parameters from 2D to 3D did not cause major problems in most cases because of natural referenciality of visual 2D and 3D elements.

Transferred to a practical product development process this would at best mean that conclusive core values of a brand or a product are reduced to their naming undercutting the general plausibility due to a lack of consistency of corporate values and the message of the product.

The critical reflection of the development process as well as the final evaluation was the basis for the following research process. The re-alisation was based on linguistic and design-theoretic approaches. The focus was laid on the following factors:

«Focused»

134

1. Forming context fields: contexts are fixed sets of meanings in the vocabulary of human beings. If a certain effect is intended by a verbal context, to what extent is it permitted to choose the constituting sub-contexts intuitively (this was conducted in the project)? Which effect do sub-contexts have which do not belong to the semantic network of a main context on the prod-uct message?

2. Transferring contexts – 2D: The transfer of verbally formulated meanings into visual parameters is a very complex process. How can this complexity be controlled? Does the integration of feedback loops make a contribution to the management of the complexity? Does objectification of the effects of images by re-referencing on the verbal terms (contexts) also objectify the effects of products?

3. Decision making processes in development-groups: the more sophisticated the development process is the less discursive and argumentative it gets for not directly involved persons (in business practice synonymous with non-designers in the de-velopment process like marketers, technologists etc.) which are influencing decisions. How can permanent traceability be guaranteed? How can decisions for/against a concrete design solution be guided from taste-driven decisions to argumen-tation-driven decisions?

The reflection of processes and methods demonstrates the neces-sity of objectification of values and a need for research in the field of verbal statements (e. g. core brand values) and products.

5. Third Step – Approach: Objectification of Guided Design Processes and Product Messages

The critical reflection of the pre-defined development process ad-vised a fundamental reconsideration on the theoretical and practi-cal level. The starting point for the methodological reorientation was on the one hand the process-guiding, on the other hand the evalua-tion of the effectiveness of the concrete contexts in the end of the design project.

135


According to this an empirical evaluation of the spatial effects would be impossible due to a lack of evidence concerning their perception. Based upon linguistic approaches, especially the theories of seman-tic networks, the following can be assumed: Terms with a high level of abstraction – like all other terms – are

parts of semantic networks. These networks consist of various less abstract, widely-used sub terms. In case of an association of a highly abstract term during spatial experience, it can be assumed that the naming of various terms out of the semantic network is equivalent to the naming of the core term.

This consideration was the core idea, enabling the check-up of the intended spatial effects. Based upon this the empirical approach was developed and put into practice.

5.1 Semantic Context AnalysisIn the first step the students chose highly abstract main contexts (e. g. partnership, urbanity, sovereignty, propensity to discover, sen-suality, etc.) and determined the semantic networks. Therefore the linguistic standard work of German thesaurus by Dornseiff was used [Dornseiff, F. 2006]. For every main context − each with 18 sub-contexts − semantic networks with up to 2,000 terms were defined. Here ten-dencies concerning the level of notional conclusiveness between sub- and main context arose. The developed networks formed the base for the adjacent practical empirical approach.

5.2 Empirical ResearchIn a second step the spatial impact of the 1:1 models were tested. In total 17 test persons passed through 6 models in a multi-level

— Hypothesis H1 indicated: In case of a transfer of emotions into concrete spa ces (by use

of abstract terms and design elements), the test persons should be able to recognize the contexts in the 3D-models.

— Sub-Hypotheses H1.1 indicated: Linguistic contexts in form of high-level abstraction are not

widely labelled accordingly because the terms are not in every-day use.

«Focused»

136

approach consisting of free spatial associations, guideline interviews with a quantitative questioning. This empirical approach was chosen due to the complexity of the object of investigation. For the educa-tion of design managers this aspect of complexity appears in nearly every project, because usually the briefing includes aesthetic as well as brand related needs. Thus the integration of a proper backed de-sign process in the curriculum is of special urgency in this discipline [referring to educational approaches see also Ebner et al. 2006]. Free experience without direct need to express oneself makes it easier for the test persons, to capture the space as a whole, to let it sink in and to deve-lop awareness of it. The subsequent (conducted within the models) guided interviews between test persons and researchers aimed at the generation of free associations. This step is considered as the core element of the research approach, because it promised con-clusions from widely uninfluenced statements. Based on the socio- linguistically grounded assumption that human beings are capable of showing expression according to their preparatory training, their cultural imprint and their cognitive and affective proposition, a part of the quantitative approach was aiming at softening these deter-mining factors. Besides appraisal questions concerning specific spatial elements, for each model an assortment of terms (on aver-age 85 for each model) were selected. Each test person was asked to impulsively tick off the terms, which they connect to the according spaces.

5.3 Research as Basis for ArgumentationReferring to the above described research, 102 short interviews (ave rage length ~ 7 minutes) were conducted. This content is being analyzed according to the semantic networks as well as with a com-prehensive data set of more than 12,000 variables collected during the quantitative research. These records form the basis for the analy-sis of the perception of design parameters and back up the content- analytical context definition [Fig. 3 ↦ 142].

The analysis of the free associations in the course of interviews is extremely time and cost-consuming, but revealed interesting ten-dencies at this point in time. The hypothesis stating that highly ab-stract terms cannot be named as such during spatial experience has

137


proven to be true. The assumption that test persons tend to name ‘everyday’ terms out of the semantic networks is true for the projects showing a high semantic conclusiveness. The student projects, which were widely based upon random wording- and image processes (see above), did show a significantly lower hit rate of the intended con-texts. Therefore term consistency (in semantic interdependence), as well as the proper translation of these terms in adequate visual ele-ments can be considered as critical. As long as terms and pictures are found on an archaic level (e. g. security, sadness, aggressiveness, etc.) the transfer tends to be easier. Culturally-influenced or other-wise ‘loaded’ terms and their visualisation on the other hand call for a well-reflected process.

6. Implementation of Method – Findings

A large database of over 12,000 variables in the quantitative part and a first semantic consistency check with almost 6,000 words used in the qualitative interviews resulted from the first research project. The depth of findings can’t be presented in detail in this paper. Thus three effects demonstrating the method’s innovation were chosen for detailed description.

6.1 Difference of Qualitative and Quantitative Test of Product EffectsThe quantitative questionnaire presented 84 terms representing the intended contexts. The test persons were asked to mark terms they associated with the model. All six models had a hit rate of about 25%. For the aim to represent a context by a 3D model this rate is rather low. The hit rates are apparently equal among the different models, so differentiated statements seem impossible. For the qualitative approach test persons had to talk about certain aspects activated by the researchers referring to a semi-structured interview. The keywords were extracted from the records and aligned with the linguistic term set of the corresponding context. The difference in hit rates in quantitative and qualitative interviews was highly signifi-cant in some cases [Fig. 4 ↦ 143]. If 75% of freely associated terms are consistent with the established set of meanings, the assumption, that the intended context has been perceived, is legitimate.

«Focused»

138

6.2 Comparison of Equal Sub-Contexts Among Different ProjectsAt random, certain sub-contexts of the six models overlapped. This en abled analysis of the mentioned sub-contexts to evaluate differ-ences in design parameters. These design parameters showed in-tended partial effects [Fig. 5 ↦ 143].

For a first analysis, only the quantitative hit rates of sub-contexts were considered. It became apparent that test persons recognized intended sub-contexts with different intensity. For clear sub-contexts like for example ‘dynamic’, ‘simplicity’ etc. those comparisons can lead to a structuring of design parameters and to the further intent to form a visual semantic network. For very complex and abstract terms like fig. 5 exemplifies, the tested models have to be analysed in more detail to elicit which parameters support the association with an intended sub-context. Further intensive and interdisciplinary re-search of linguists, designers (et al.) is necessary to elicit really sig-nificant parameters.

6.3 Example of Inconsistent Context-2D-3D-CoherenceTo optimize consistent messages between abstract terms and prod-ucts, it has to be asked why intended messages don’t function in the product and thus to find a logic behind. Fig. 6 exemplifies the ap-proach: the main message of the model should be ‘clearness’. Quanti-tative and qualitative analyses both showed a low hit rate of asso-ciated contexts (~ 23%) – while the main context of other models was perceived up to 75% (via freely used terms in the semantic net of the intended context). Concerning the exterior ‘clearness’ was the most (subjective) liked model – but the intended message wasn’t perceived [Fig. 6 ↦ 144].

A more detailed look at the qualitative analysis revealed that there were several sub-contexts with extremely low hit rates (the sub-context ‘Berechenbarkeit’ (~’predictability’): 6% in quantitative in-terview and 0,01% in qualitative interview. Although the visual logic of the sub-context was transferred very exactly from 2D into 3D, the test persons didn’t associate this sub-context.

139


The beginning of the development process − the linguistic analysis of the semantic network of ‘clearness’ − showed no linkage to ‘predict-ability’. The first implication is that for a clear product message a consistent semantic network of the intended context is necessary. Relating to companies’ reality this finding affects forming and rep-resent brand core values via verbal, visual and tangible messages.

7. Practical Implications

7.1 Impact of MethodThe development of the method is still at the beginning; at the current stage of development it:

A downstream goal of the method can be seen in forming a visual semantic network, according to business practice requirements. Such an instrument for design practice is only possible to develop if there is an instrument to measure the effects of visual elements. To test the efficiency and effectivity of the method itself, improved functionality (on IT-level) is aimed.

7.1 Impact of ProcessThe reflected product development process advised a more detailed process with explicit focus on more feedback curves during the process by applying the qualitative oriented method [Fig. 7 ↦ 144]

7.2 Impact for IndustryThe use of qualitative linguistic and socio-scientific methods in com-bination with quantitative testing methods allows a well-based oper-ationalization of design impacts [Friedrichs 2002]. According to this,

— could be a real alternative to quantitative processes — because it doesn’t provide categories of answers which antici-

pate certain results.— As long as it is embedded in a self-reflexive development pro-

cess, it approves the test of consistency of verbal and visual messages

— and makes decisions during the product development process argumentation-based

— and confirms brand values and thereby the brand itself

«Focused»

140

a sustainable communication of abstract brand values and/or in-tended abstract effects like emotions through a process of linguistic references transformed into visual design can be guaranteed.

This can be regarded as a contribution in the field of the measure-ment of design elements, as well as in the field of “idea transfer”, as well as a further step in the well-established communication- and argumentation basis between Marketing, Design and Technology in form of a more conscious design- and product strategy.

141


MindMap: defines meaning, words & images

1. Fantasiehaftigkeit / 2. Weltoffenheit / 3. Tiefgründigkeit / 4. Wissbegierigkeit / 5. Verwunderlichkeit / 6. Mehrsinnhaftigkeit

1.

5.4.

2. 3.

1. 2.

6.

3. 4.

5.

6.

ErkundungsFreudigkeit

1

2

3

Utilization– Exposition of models – Evaluation

Context – Manage MeaningWords & Images

Matrix – Start TransformationContext-Proportion-Surface-Detail

Build full scale model – 3D Research and Investigate

Issue Context

Transfer

Fig. 2: Overview of the three main steps of the research process [see Wirtz 2006]. ↦ 133

Fig. 1: Finding ‘visual representatives’ for the linguistic contexts [see Wirtz 2006]. ↦ 132

142

M1

küns

tl. b

zw. n

atür

lich

M1

leic

ht b

zw. s

chw

er

M1

harm

. bzw

. unh

arm

.

M1

redu

zier

t bzw

. opu

l.

M1

orig

inel

l bzw

. kon

v.

M1

durc

hd. b

zw. i

mpr

ov.

M1

kom

pl. b

zw. e

infa

ch

M1

deze

nt b

zw. s

chri

ll

M1

leis

e bz

w. l

aut

M1

dyna

m. b

zw. s

tat.

M1

war

m b

zw. k

alt

M1

inno

v. b

zw. i

deen

los

M1

bes.

bzw

. allt

äglic

h

M1

hoch

-bzw

. min

derw

.

-2,0

-1

,5

-1,0

-0

,5

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

Sem

anti

sche

Dif

fere

nzia

le p

ro M

odel

l (M

itte

lwer

te)

Fig

. 3: S

eman

tic

diff

eren

tial

s of

spa

tial

per

cept

ions

for t

he e

valu

atio

n of

ess

enti

al d

esig

n pa

ram

eter

s –

Ana

lysi

s ex

ampl

e

(DE|

RE|

SA

200

8). ↦

13

6

143


%

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

cohe

renc

e M

2

bala

nce

M2

prud

ence

M2

cohe

renc

e M

5

bala

nce

M5

prud

ence

M4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Difference

75

50

25

25

0

25

Quantitative Interviews Qualitative Interviews

Model “Klarheit”

Model “Souveränität”

Fig. 4: Comparison of quantitative and qualitative analysis of perception of intended contexts – Analysis example (DE|RE|SA 2008). ↦ 137

Fig. 5: Comparison of equal sub-contexts – Analysis example (DE|RE|SA 2008). ↦ 138

«Focused»

144

DesignFreeze

Scale 1:1 3D Data

Verification

Analysis

Analysis

Qual. Interview

Picture DataSemantic Net

Production Steps

Perceptive Steps

Semantic Net Verbal Data

Qual. Interview

3DData

Verification

BrandCoreCalue

SelectSubCoreValue

Fill inContexts

5

4

3

1 2ABC

6% Berechenbarkeit

Klarheit

Fig. 7: New development process by DE|RE|SA. ↦ 139

Fig. 6: Inconsistency of semantic network and 3D-model with exact transfer of design parameters from 2D to 3D – Analysis example (DE|RE|SA 2008). ↦ 138

145


AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge funding of FFG in course of the FHPlus programme.

References↦ Bentele G. / Steinmann H. / Zerfass A. 1996. (ed.) Dialogorientierte Unternehmens-kommunikation, Vistas, Berlin.↦ Bruhn M. 2006. Integrierte Unternehmens- und Markenkommunikation: strategische Planung und operative Umsetzung, Schäffer-Poeschel. Stuttgart.↦ Bruhn M. / Bobolik P.M. 2007 (2nd ed.). Integrierte Kommunikation. Entwicklungs-stand in österreichischen Unternehmen, facultas, Wien.↦ Dornseiff, F. 2006. Der deutsche Wortschatz nach Sachgruppen. 8. erw. Auflage, de Gruyter, Berlin.↦ Drew S. / West D. 2002. Design and Competitive Advantage: Strategies for Market Acceptance, Journal of General Management, Vol. 28 No. 2.↦ Ebner, M. / Gaubinger, K. / Petutschnigg, A./ Rothbucher, A. 2006. An Interdisciplinary education model for design education at the Salzburg University of Applied Sciences. In: Rothbucher, B. / Kolar, M. / Ion, B. / Clarke, A. Educating Designers for a Global context? pp. 21–26, Hadleys Ltd., Basildon.↦ Esch F.-R. 2006. Wirkung integrierter Kommunikation. Ein verhaltenswissenschaft-licher Ansatz für die Werbung, Gabler, Wiesbaden. ↦ Ettenberg E. 2002. The Next Economy. Will you Know Where your Customers are?, New York.↦ Friedrichs J. 2002. Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung, Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen.↦ Gegenfurtner K.R. 2004 (2nd ed.). Gehirn & Wahrnehmung, Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag, Frankfurt a.M.↦ Gries R. 2003. Produkte als Medien. Kulturgeschichte der Produktkommunikation in der Bundesrepublik und der DDR, Leipzig.↦ Grunig J.E. / Grunig, L. & Dozier, D.M. 1996. Das situative Modell exzellenter Public Relations. Schlussfolgerungen aus einer internationalen Studie. In: Bentele G. / Steinmann H. / Zerfass A. (ed.) Dialogorientierte Unternehmens-kommunikation, Vistas, Berlin.↦ Karmasin F. / Karmasin H. 1997. Cultural theory. Ein neuer Ansatz für Kommuni-kation, Marketing und Management, Wien.↦ Kitchen Ph. J./Schultz D.E. 1997. Integrated Marketing Communications in the United Kingdom: An Exploratory Study. In: Kirchner K. 2001 Integrierte Unternehmens-kommunikation. Theoretische und empirische Bestandsaufnahme und eine Analyse amerikanischer Grossunternehmen, Westdeutscher Verlag, Wiesbaden.↦ Küchler M. 1981. Kontext – eine vernachlässigte Dimension empirischer Sozial-forschung, in: Matthes J. (ed.) 1981 Lebenswelt und soziale Probleme, Frankfurt a. M.↦ Küpper J. / Menke C. (Hrsg.) 2003. Dimensionen ästhetischer Erfahrung, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.↦ Mast C. 2002. Unternehmenskommunikation: ein Leitfaden, UTB, Stuttgart. McKenna R. 2002. Total Access: Giving Customers what they want in an anytime, anywhere, Boston.↦ Schwab H. / Zowislo N. 2002. Praxishandbuch Kommunikationsmanagement. Grundlagen und Instrumente der internen und externen Unternehmenskommunikation, Frankfurt.

«Focused»

146↦ Seybold P.B. / Marshak R. / Lewis J. 2001. The Customer Revolution: How to Thrive when Customers are in Control, New York.↦ Vonwil M. / Lackus M. 2006. Veränderung der Wirtschaftsberichterstattung und ihr Einfluss auf Akzeptanz und Umsetzung Integrierter Organisationskommunikation. In: Boenigk M. et al. (ed.) Innovative Wirtschaftskommunikation. Interdisziplinäre Problemlösungen für die Wirtschaft, Reihe Europäische Kulturen in der Wirtschafts-kommunikation, vol. 9, Wiesbaden.↦ Voswinkel S. 2001. Anerkennung und Reputation. Die Dramaturgie industrieller Beziehungen. Mit einer Fallstudie zum Bündnis für Arbeit, UVK, Konstanz.↦ Wirtz, W. 2006. http://web.mac.com/wolfgangrwirtz/Basic_Research/Check_ Example.html (accessed 17.02.2008)↦ Zuboff S. / Maxmin J. 2002. The Support Economy: Why Corporations are Failing Individuals and the Next Episode of Capitalism, London.

147


«Focused»

148

149



Research team

Email Internet

CreaSearch: Methodologies and Models for Creation-based Research Projects in Design

08Geneva University of Art and Design Institut de recherche en design Magdalena Gerber, Lysianne Léchot Hirt, Florence Marguerat, Manon Mello, Laurent Soldini [email protected] www.creasearching.ch

↦ methodology ↦ design research ↦ art research ↦ creation based research ↦ models

Keywords

CreaSearch is a research project proposing models of creation-based research in design. Creation in design is to be understood as unex-pected and prospective answers to complex problems; it is different from conception, in the sense that it focuses on the aesthetic and critical quality of the answers (prototypes, products), but it also is dif-ferent from artistic creation [Moles, 1970, Steiner, 2001], in the sense that design is linked to a production-consumption system that cannot be confused with the art world. CreaSearch is based on a three-step en-quiry (examination of the art and design research literature, quanti-tative enquiry by email questionnaires to Art and Design Schools worldwide and qualitative interviews with senior researchers). Map-ping how research creation is understood and practised in design and in the arts provides a pragmatic context for developing research models that are methodologically acceptable for designers focused on a creative activity and for the international design research commu-nity. Theoretically focused on action research [Swann, 2002], CreaSearch examines how and to what extent creative projects can be relevant to research. The results of CreaSearch will be published in a book at the end of 2008, and are accessible on the website of the project: www.creasearching.ch

Lysianne Léchot Hirt

«Focused»

150

1. General context of CreaSearch

The international community of design and art research is busy with defining methodologies and criteria suitable for developing and ac-knowledging research activities and programs based on creative projects [Findeli, 2007].

The central questions can thus be: how does a creation project fit into a research project, able to fulfil the universal criterion of com-municable results? What is the epistemological framework for “re-cherche création” [Gosselin, 2006]? What kind of research model could convince the most gifted designers to join research teams without fear of losing their creative skills in this academically framed activ-ity? A strict conception of design research could deny the relevance of such questions, arguing that creation requires different compe-tences than those needed in research. Even if the debate on this topic remains open, a close review of scientific literature on research today shows that the renewal of methodologies, the implication of experimental approaches, the validation of sur prise and/or accident is widely expected to enrich the conventional scientific frame of research, which does not always fulfil contemporary expectation in innovation – the numerous attempts to introduce artists in scientific laboratories can testify to this trend [Arends & Thackara, 2003]. Moreover, strict limitation of fields of competences is an outdated debate in design education and research [Margolin, 2007, Cross 2006]. The research creation topic is the subject of numerous enthusiastic or critical articles by senior authors in the visual arts or in music and dance, but few have systematically discussed such a model for design.

1.1 Institutional contextThe main objective of CreaSearch is to propose a methodological frame for research creation projects in design, suitable with the in-tellectual challenges of design research and with the organisational and administrative peculiarities of the Swiss Universities of Applied Sciences, those being that research must be collective, must in-clude a strong practical aspect, and is not (yet) related with PhD pro-grammes.

151


1.2 Theoretical contextThe main objective of CreaSearch is to understand and differentiate the “feeling of research” that every creative activity generates from

“scientific research” – keeping in mind that, especially in the art and design research, “scientific” must be understood in a broad sense, acknowledging the most advanced methodologies (such as qualita-tive enquiry, self-ethnology or evolutive methodology) in the frame of constructivist epistemologies. Practice-based research [Schön, 1982] or project-based research [Findeli, 2007] are the theoretical grounds that are closest to creation-based research, such as they appear to be practiced and published nowadays in the Art and Design Schools.

1.3 MethodologyCreaSearch is organized in three parts. A bibliographical review, fo-cused on epistemological questions in art and design research. A quan titative enquiry (questionnaires) sent to Art and Design Schools worldwide leading to a comparative overview; qualitative interviews with senior researchers who define their own activity as research creation leading to more precise understanding of the epistemolo-gical and methodological approaches that are at stake. The final step will consist in gathering the multiple-layered conclusions in a publication (book and web-site), thought of as a tool-box for design researchers.

2. Quantitative enquiry

Research creation, basically defined as “research activities, in de-sign and in art, which incorporate the creation process (or the con-ception process) in a research process” (CreaSearch questionnaire) is understood as such by a very large majority of Design and Arts Schools. This soft definition is satisfying enough for conducting, vali-dating and sustaining research creation activities. Some professors did not fill in the questionnaire, but sent back detailed messages in response to our enquiry. This led us to conclude that research crea-tion is widely practiced and discussed. As a theoretical and metho-dological topic, it raises questions that challenge design education and research. An anecdote can be told to underline this seemingly obvious point: among the answers to our questionnaire, we received

«Focused»

152

some radical points of view: according to Ken Friedman, council member of the Design Research Society, “labelling your project Crea-Search suggests that you have already decided on the outcome”, implying that we would define every creative activity in art and de-sign as research, thus leading to maximum confusion; on the other hand, Thomas Lawson states that “we at Calarts [Californian Insti-tute of the Arts] consider research an important component of any art-making, but do not fetishize it [...]”, implying that trying to deline-ate the specific conditions of research creation is meaningless and even a little perverse.

2.1 Questionnaires and AnswersThe questionnaires were divided into two parts: the first focused on definitions, methodologies used, characterization and evaluation of results; the second focused on operational means (financial, techni-cal and human resources). An explanation letter, contextualizing the Creasearch project and team within the University of Applied Sci-ences Western Switzerland was joined. Special comments, mention of websites and sending of additional documentation were possible. CreaSearch quantitative enquiry was lead between February and July 2007; questionnaires were sent by email to 317 art and design schools worldwide; 52 answers returned. Even if the percentage of answers is quite small and disappointing (16%), the variety of schools (Art and Schools, Research Institutes, Universities) and of countries (12 Euro-pean and 4 overseas), not to mention the heterogeneity of comments added to the answers lead us to confirm the relevance of this quan-titative enquiry in our research.

2.2 Analysis of Main Results2.2.1 The Problem of the Written ThesisThe quantitative enquiry made it clear that a large majority of Art and Design Schools state that they conduct research creation pro-jects – independently from their affiliation to PhD programmes. Only Calarts provided a definition of research creation that completely assimilates any creative activity to research. 94% of the answers acknowledged the fact that the goal of research is the production of knowledge, and only 60% said that the goal of research is the pro-duction of artistic works. No schools stated that the production of a

153


work of art or design is sufficient as a research result, but although all schools expect a written text to accompany the work, the range of acceptable texts is extremely large: from “publication” without pre-cision to “thesis” in the academic sense, everything seems possible. This ambiguous status of the written result of research creation is also clearly readable in the literature; the theoretical and intellec-tual frame of this “text” is seldom defined in the art research [Bruneau,

2006]. This lack of clarity is confusing and probably diminishes the quality of research. In design research, the same problem occurs. The use of “logs” or of “process narratives” inspired by qualitative metho-dologies in human sciences is frequent. “Documenting the pro cess” seems enough. Only one school quoted publication in scientific re-views as a compulsory outcome of research. To an even greater extent, the same confusion about “publication” of the results under other forms (exhibitions, demonstrative prototypes, etc) seems to reign among schools; only 45% of the schools quoted exhibition as an out-come for research creation.

2.2.2 The Problem of an (still) Emerging Community of ResearchThe goals of research creation are aesthetic (65%), pedagogic (58%), functional (52%), or technical (35%) innovation. An interdisciplinary research team is the rule: 93% of the schools mention it as compul-sory; but apart from UK and Scandinavia, no one asserts the exist-ence of research communities, and few schools have established special academic or administrative status for their researchers.

2.2.3 The problem (or chance) of Heterogeneous DefinitionsFrom the additional remarks provided we pointed out that some schools do not differentiate artistic research from research; the same funding and evaluation processes are applied. This is also the case in the University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland. Another school identifies research creation with applied research, and fo-cuses not on the written text produced, but on the work or prototype. An Austrian University speaks of “artistic-scientific research”, with-out further precisions. Rather than regretting this heterogeneous state of the art, the CreaSearch team views it as an opportunity to contribute to a discussion that is still very open.

«Focused»

154

3. Qualitative interviews

3.1 Who, How, With What Purpose?The heterogeneity of answers to the quantitative enquiry demanded further discussion to deepen our understanding of what the specifi-cities of a research creation model for design research could be. We initiated a series of semi-directed interviews with researchers in-volved in research creation. Three of the interviewees are leaders of a research institute or program, one is a researcher in sociology who specialises in the study of research groups including artists, and two are researchers. They work in France, Germany, Great Britain and Switzerland. The questions focused on telling creative activities from research, on the management of interdisciplinary teams, on the eval-uation criteria of non-written results, and, to a lesser extent on the ideal organisation of research institutes within Art and Design Schools. These interviews also aimed at drawing a more precise map of the fields of research that are favoured by (or best suited for) research creation. Although CreaSearch is oriented as a methodo-logical project, it is clear to us that “epistemological questions come first” [Findeli, 2007, Cross, 2006]. The Canadian literature on research crea-tion in the arts seems to imply, to a large extent, that research crea-tion means “research into my own creative process”; but on the other hand, our interviewees do insist on the fact that every research question should be accessible to a research creation process. This gap of opinions about what is (or should be) the relevant research field for creation-based research remains open.

Another informal discussion of the CreaSearch project took place with a French research group, Virtù, at the University of Nîmes, under the lead of Alain Findeli. The focus of that discussion was “methodo-logical aggregates”, as one participant stated.

3.2 Analysis of Main HypothesesEvery interviewee made it very clear that research creation should, like every research activity in any discipline, increase knowledge. A definition of knowledge does not seem necessary, but a strong accent is put on the fact that images, objects, artefacts, works of art are “knowledge containers”; research creation is focused on the ex-

155


ploration and exploitation of this knowledge. The research field is not limited; the increase of knowledge about the creative process itself is mentioned as an interesting topic, but by no means the only relevant one; on the contrary, research creation can be open to any research question. Nevertheless, the field of new technologies and media design seems to be peculiarly fertile. Even if the interviewees recognize the necessity of methodology, they all insist on a possible

“patchwork” of many methodologies, including free exploration. The evaluation of non-written results is felt as being a core problem, too often reduced to conventional critical appreciation of the artefacts produced. Resolving this problem requires the constitution of peer-communities. The partition of research activities into separate pro-jects is seen as a weak organisational mode, implying dispersion; research programmes or “avenues” would be more suitable, provid-ing space for experimentation and intertwining different research cultures. Research creation is seen as a chance for developing un-expected interdisciplinary colla borations.

3.2.1 Non-discursive ResultsSchemes, designs, prototypes, products or works of art can be con-sidered as results of the research creation project, along with theses or other written productions (articles, memoirs). What are the criteria of validation for non-discursive results, especially when they are focused on aesthetic innovation? Academic departments have deve l - oped different ways of taking the practical part of a PhD thesis into account – some simply do not judge it, concentrating on an evalua-tion of the written thesis [Bruneau, 2006]. The point is to elaborate a common evaluation of the knowledge value of a work of art or of de-sign; some authors suggest to consider “what would be lost without design” [Pedgley, Wormald, 2007] as a practical start; other insist on eval-uating the quality of the links between the artefact and the thesis [Bruneau, 2006]. The main methodological implication is a necessary antici pation of the evaluation criteria all along the research process. This is a crucial point, because it implies new axiology for design and art products. The value of design and art can be established inde-pendently from the art and design world or market. Even if research creation concerns few designers and artists, it promises real inno-vation in the arts and design fields.

«Focused»

156

3.2.2 PeersBuilding a community of peers must be the next development of re-search creation; but neither the comprehensive nor the extensive meaning of this set is clear. Identities and expertise are at stake, and there is strong resistance to the spectre of normalisation. Not only does research creation imply renewal of the practice of creation in design and in the arts; it also implies radical changes in design and art education. Demystifying the concept of creation [Steiner, 2001,

Doloughan, 2002], forcing it into constant theoretical and methodo lo-gical discussion, research fallouts redraw the outline of design and art professorship. In some countries, and Switzerland is among these, there are few trained researchers in design, and consequently few peers to acknowledge and sustain research creation activities. Networking of information and people are of primary importance in the building of new research models. A better understanding of the goals of research and of the many forms of intellectual rigour is to be massively introduced in the design and arts education.

3.2.3 InterdisciplinarityResearch creation is rarely a solitary activity; only the PhD can didate is forced to act as an individual researcher. One of the most impor-tant methodological challenges is therefore to generate fertile inter-disciplinarity, to invent unconventional division of labour [Fourmentreaux,

2004]. Research groups in the field of new technologies and media are exemplary – they have been well observed and analysed [Nitgen, 2005]. The main methodological implication is to provide space and time in the research organisation for building interdisciplinarity, and, on the epistemological level, to take into consideration the specific ability of artists and designers to act as observers in their own progression and to “paste” very heterogeneous items into their production. Satis-faction must be equal for each researcher. This implies a long-term construction of shared cultures.

3.2.4 Continuous ResearchResearch creation is neither limited to an addition of research pro-jects, nor to a clever sewing of single projects into research programs. Research creation is also a continuous activity of community and network building, of artistic, theoretical and technological survey

157


and exchange, of discussion groups, colloquiums, exhibitions and publications that must be acknowledged with a whole share in the institutional and administrative organisation of research. The main methodological implication is that to some extent, research has to be conducted with both rigour and freedom, without a too precise prediction of the results; research creation should also welcome accidents and chances.

4. Models

4.1 Minimal ModelsA minimal model of research creation is directly driven from the last hypothesis. Research is an attitude, a seemingly disordered chain of continuous activities with no pre-established direction, which is inter-rupted by peer reviews (scientific publication, symposium, artistic exhibition, artefact production) leading to discussions and further developments of the chain of research activities. [Fig. 1 ↦ 161]

The strength of this model is its generality: it describes any research activity. One of its weaknesses is that it does not specify the expecta-tions and implications of the peer reviews; another is that it does not delineate research projects – which are, for the time being, the major form to be respected in fund-raising.

4.2 Conventional ModelsAnother minimal model is found in literature [Gray, Malins, 2004], and it can be refined in many ways. [Fig. 2 ↦ 161]

An ideal-typical model can be drawn from this minimal model, speci-fying the theoretical context, the relevance of methodological choices, the operational needs, and showing how a research project opens up to new questions. [Fig. 3 ↦ 161]

The strength of these models is their ambition to clarify the research process, and their ability to suit any research (applied, fundamen -tal, creative). Significantly, the categories used in the ideal-typical model are those used by experts in funding committees to evaluate pro posals.

«Focused»

158

4.3 Complex ModelsProcess models are suitable for research creation. The point is there-fore not to delineate particular steps to be taken, but to question the specificity of the links between the research context, the creation, and the research results. Iteration is central in research creation – the production of artefacts constantly reframes the research question and the methodology, which in return feed the creation. The status of the public results in research creation can be an artefact or an arte-fact and a written text; in both cases, the artefact can be described as the synthetic result, whereas the thesis is the analytic result. [Fig. 4 ↦ 162]

Two examples of recent research projects in the University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland show different ways of using explora-tory methodologies in research creation, one of them recognized as scientifically satisfying (project presented in international sympo-siums and publication), the other not.

5. Examples

5.1 IDI – Integrated Descriptive Interactivity for Complex CollectionsThis project aims at producing a DVD-rom documenting the long-term activities of a contemporary art museum (Mamco, Geneva). The research question is how to explore and exploit the specific descrip-tive potentials of interactive digital video. The theoretical frame is drawn from primitive cinema theories; the main hypothesis is that video interactivity can be organised in a reduced numbers of “fig-ures”, each of them describing and rendering a specific relationship of the spectator to the work of art; images and sounds are shot and edited integrating interactivity; no additional menu or buttons are requested. The methodology is exploratory, experiments of specific shootings of the works of art exhibited as well as interviews with curators or shooting of archive material are done to illustrate each figure. The result is a DVD-rom allowing the spectator to experiment and feel the works in ways that are much more complex than with conventional reproductions.

159


The research team will not produce a written thesis explaining their findings and their functional, semantic and aesthetic innovation. The DVD-rom is self-explanatory: its conception, construction and shape all point to the integrated interactive figures – in a sense, the DVD-rom is a work of art displaying its own signification.

The clarity of the theoretical frame and the coherence of the main hypothesis have led this project to be presented in two international design research symposiums.

5.2 Variable Environment / Mobility, Interaction City & CrossoversThe goal of this project is to explore innovative designs for emerging technologies – augmented reality and robotics. The research question is not specified otherwise, neither is the theoretical frame. The metho-dology is exploratory; the research team includes designers (Ecal, Lausanne) and computer scientists (EPFL, Lausanne). The work is divided into thematic workshops. The main hypothesis is that design creation can not only shape new tools for everyday life on the basis of emerging technologies, but also points out new questions for the developers of these technologies. The result is a blog documenting the whole research process. An illustrated document reframing the main results is downloadable from the blog – which has been visited more than 20,000 times since it went online (one year).

The lack of a formulated theoretical context and of a formulated an-a lysis of the different workshops methodologies and results is recog-nised by the researchers themselves as the probable inadequacy of the project in design research symposiums. Being strictly explora-tory, this project provides very heterogeneous results, some of which could certainly be deepened and brought to a significant level of theoretical, functional and aesthetic innovation.

5.3 The Scenario ModelThe two examples above show that design creation can be the core activity of design research teams. The reasons why the first is “de-sign-research suited” while the second is not are to be found mainly in the theoretical and methodological contextualisation. This context-ualisation does not necessarily need to be published in the form of

«Focused»

160

an accompanying written document; but in any case, it has to be implemented into the creative process – so as to make it “readable” by the viewer, user, peer, fellow researcher. An interesting example of how theory can be “embedded” in the artefacts of creation based research is to be found in Anthony Dunne’s research projects at the Royal College of Art. Not to imply that every research creation in design should follow the critical design orientation of Dunne’s work, but to underline how his use of a scenario as a starting point for his (and his students) research activities is a clever way to “knit” a theo-retical frame and a research question into a narrative that serves both as the field of research and as the fictional hypothesis, allowing innovative design artefacts to embody prospective knowledge.

6. Conclusion

Research creation is a topic in design research, and we perceive it as a fertile way to “prevent design discourse from taking too strong a turn toward technique as the dominant topic of research” [Margolin,

2006]. Its soft definition allows heterogeneous epistemological, metho-dological and organisational research activities to cohabit. Far from aiming at identifying design and art in a general weak ideal of creati-vity, and far from trusting a strong limitation of fields by rigid defini-tions, CreaSearch tries to show that as long as it is rooted to a solid theoretical basis embodied in the works or artefacts produced, and open to a large interdisciplinary peer-review research creation is not only intellectually relevant, but also challenging for design education as well as for design research.

161


Publication Peer rewiew

A workA prototypeA productAn image...

A research questionA research contextA research method

Public results(texts & artefacts)

Peer evaluation of the results

A new research question

A research question

An adapted methodology

A competent team

An adequate planification

Academic frame New academic frame

Fig. 1 ↦ 157

Fig. 2 ↦ 157

Fig. 3 ↦ 157

«Focused»

162

Public results(texts & artefacts)

Peer evaluation of the results

A new research question

A research question

An adapted methodology

A competent team

An adequate planification

Academic frame Artistic frame New academic frame

Fig. 4 ↦ 158

163


Interviews↦ Florian Dombois, Y Institut für Transdiziplinarität – Hochschule der Künste Bern, CH↦ Jean-Paul Fourmentreaux, sociologist, Centre de sociologie du travail des arts, EHESS (Ecole des hautes etudes en sciences sociales), Paris, F.↦ Thomas Froelicher, director, ARTEM, University of Nancy, F.↦ Patrick Keller, architect, fabric, Lausanne and Ecal, Lausanne, CH.↦ Catherine Quéloz et Liliane Schneiter, CCC critical, curatorial and cyber media, Geneva University of Art and Design, CH.↦ Christoph Zellweger, jewellery designer, Professor Art & Design, Sheffield Hallam University, UK, Lecturer in Design, ZHdK University of Art and Design Zurich and Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts – School of Art and Design, CH.

References↦ Arends B, Thackara D, 2003, eds, Experiment: Conversations in Art and Science, 2003, The Wellcome Trust, London↦ Bruneau M., 2006, Une recherché de reliance, féconde dans son hybridité, in: La recherche creation. Pour une compréhension de la recherche en pratique, Pierre Gosselin et Eric Le Coguiec eds., 2006, Presses de l’Université du Québec, pp. 45–56↦ Cross N, 2006, Design and research. Developing a discipline, Drawing new territories, 2006, Swiss Design Network, 3rd Symposium of design research, Zurich, pp. 13–21↦ Doloughan F. J., 2002, The Language of Reflective Practice in Art and Design, Design Issues, 2002, Volume 18 Number 2, pp. 57–64.↦ Findeli A., 2007, De la recherche création à la recherche projet: un cadre théorique et méthodologique pour la recherche architecturale, Lieux communs No 10, september 2007↦ Fourmentreaux J.-P., 2004, L’engagement des artistes dans le processus d’innovation. Ressorts d’une “recherche création” en contexte d’application, 2004, Centre de sociologie du travail des arts, Paris↦ Gosselin P., Le Coguiec E., 2006, La recherche création. Pour une compréhension de la recherche en pratique artistique, 2006, Presses de l’Université de Québec, 2006, 141p.↦ Gray C., Malins J., 2004, Visualizing Research Process in Art and Design, 2004, Ashgate, Burlington USA↦ Margolin V., 2007, Design History and Design Studies, The politics of the Artificial. Essays on Design and Design Studies, 2007, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, pp. 218–233↦ Moles A., 1970, Créativité et méthodes d’innovation, 1970, Fayard Mame, Paris↦ Nitgen a., 2005, Blurred Disciplines, Expressive Softwares, Art & D, Research and Development in Art, 2005, V2_Nai Publishers, Rotterdam↦ Pedgley O., Wormald P., Integration of Design Projects within a Ph.D., Design Issues, Volume 23, Number 3, Summer 2007↦ Schön D, 1982, The reflective practitioner, 1982, Basic Books, New York↦ Steiner G., 2001, Grammaire de la création, 2001, Gallimard, Paris↦ Swann C., 2002, Action Research and the Practice of Design, 2002, Design Issues, Vol 18, Number 2, pp. 49–61

«Focused»

164

165


«Focused»

166

167


The following article examines a small excerpt of a larger research project in regard to designerly/artistic research in interdisciplinary combination from the perspective of practice-led design research. The project took place in cooperation with the Bern University of the Arts (project management: Arne Scheuermann and Florian Dombois, scientific collaboration: Claudia Mareis) and the practice partner College-M (Peter Berchtold and Jo Maier).1 The designerly/artistic pro ject team consisted of the following disciplines: liberal arts (Anselm Stalder), media art (Peter Aerschmann), communication de-sign (Barbara Hahn/Christine Zimmermann, Jimmy Schmid), literary writing (Sabine Wang) and drama (Johannes Mager). The Swiss Na-tional Science Foundation funded the project through its DORE pro-gram (Duration time: Dec. 2006 – Jan. 2008).

University

Email Internet

Of Sharks and Dolphins: Reflections on Practice-led Design Research based on the Research Project – “Artistic Modes of Depiction for Understanding Managing Professionals in Healthcare”

09University of the Arts Bern Research area: Communication Design [email protected] www.hkb.bfh.ch/kommdesign.html

↦ practice-led design research ↦ health care ↦ communi cation design ↦ sociology ↦ transdiciplinary investigation

Keywords

Claudia Mareis

“Die Metapher ist weit klüger als ihr Verfasser und so sind es viele Dinge. Alles hat seine Tiefen. Wer Augen hat der sieht in allem.”[Georg Christoph Lichtenberg, Sudelbuch F, Gedankenbücher: 115]

«Focused»

168

1. Abstract of the Project

To research and interpret the managerial perception of physicians and managers in hospitals is usually a research question in sociology and organizational research. In 2006, however, for the first time, a group of researchers was formed at the Bern University of the Arts and joined by the practice partner College-M, Bern (education and further training in healthcare management), that researched this proposed topic also from an explicitly designerly/artistic perspec-tive. Proceeding on a completed socio-scientific research effort, whose goal was to explore the individual and collective managerial self-perception of head doctors and hospital directors, designers and artists attempted to put that same scientific material in a respectively specific medial form. Thereby, dichotomic research questions were of interest: on the one hand, it was a question of cha-racterizing the extensive study material as compactly as possible in the form of an artistic presentation and encapsulate it. On the other hand, the demand for knowledge by the designerly/artistic dis-ciplines and their explicitly non-scientific presentational form should be examined. The result was an astonishing diversity and an amaz-ing acuteness of analysis from the different designerly/artistic per-spectives.

In the following, the previous history of the research project will be briefly outlined; the constellation and question of the project will be defined. Subsequently, the approach and the results of the commu-nication design team (Barbara Hahn/Christine Zimmermann) will be presented as a specific focus on the project. According to this exam-ple, first some methodical considerations will be discussed regard-ing “Art as Research”, and particularly regarding practice-led design research. Secondly, links to humanistic and social science discourses as well as science studies will be identified.

2. Previous History of the Project

The project began in 2005, when the research focus communication design of the Bern University of the Arts presented itself at College-M with the goal to generate a research project regarding communi-

169


cation between patients and doctors in the field of social communi-cation. During the talks, it became obvious that there was no mutual research interest in regard to the issue of patient communication. The interdisciplinary research approach “Art as Research” from the Bern University of the Arts [Dombois 2006], however, seemed suitable to handle another issue in the hospital sector. A previous interview survey with members of the management in healthcare administra-tions was conducted by College-M to learn more about their basic position on management. In this total of 15 interviews, head doctors and hospital directors report about their experiences and approach to their managerial work. The biographically narrative interviews have been transcribed and their evaluation and validation has been done utilizing qualitative socio-scientific methodology.2 After com-pletion of the evaluation, the impression remained that the results gained from the material were unsatisfactory. Through alternative designerly/artistic methods of interpretation and analysis, further perspectives should be developed regarding the material that would enable new realizations on the particularities of management in a medical context. These realizations should ultimately serve as a basis for further education measures by College-M (e. g. advanced management training of doctors or didactic tools).

3. Project Constellation and Questions

The research project joined three different research perspectives. Initially, the interdisciplinary approach “Art as Research” shaped the strategy of the project: designers and artists from various disciplines did practice-led research against the background of their respective discipline on a mutual question in a “Do-Tank”3. Secondly, specific desiderata of design research from the area of social communica-tion were addressed. And thirdly, the socio-scientific background of the practice partner, College-M, supplemented the project.

Two different research perspectives and two different research questions result from this project constellation. The research ques-tion from the perspective of the practice partner College-M is: How can the different fundamental positions on management that are held by doctors and hospital directors be labelled and summarized?

«Focused»

170

The approach here is socio-scientific. In addition, there was existing interest for the potential development of a didactic tool for the edu-cation and further training in medical management. In contrast, from the perspective of the Bern University of the Arts, the research question was: What approach do the different designerly/artistic disciplines in the interdisciplinary research setting take and in which aspects do the medial perspectives of the participating disciplines differentiate themselves? What can be said about added value, gen-erated by alternative designerly/artistic procedures, in comparison to the previously utilized qualitative socio-scientific method of ana-lysis? The accompanying evaluation by the Bern University of the Arts and College-M established a metadiscursive level of reflection within the scope of the project. Questions and observations regard-ing the project have been formulated and correlated from both a designerly/artistic perspective as well as a socio-scientific one.

4. Research through Communication Design

The work of the communication designers Barbara Hahn and Chris-tine Zimmermann is of particular interest for the practice-led design research within the scope of the aforementioned research project. Their approach and the results will be presented and discussed be-low.4

Hahn/Zimmermann began their work with the intensive reading of the interviews. This approach corresponded to the micrological close reading and less to a hermeneutic text interpretation. The close reading led to an understanding of the situations described in the interviews regarding healthcare management. It also contributed to familiarization with the interviews as such. The reading material was partially supplemented with both content-relevant, but also already existing visual research on the topic of healthcare manage-ment. During the analysis of the interviews, it was important to Hahn/ Zimmermann to not adapt any methods foreign to design (for exam-ple socio-scientific) in advance, but rather to “approach the material as visual designers and filter out information that had possibly been omitted during the qualitative text analysis of the practice partner.” [Hahn/Zimmermann 2008: 1]. They started their design analysis or inter-

171


pretation of the text material with a series of visual experiments, aimed to result in the filtering out of interesting content-related as-pects – both with regard to the question of the practice partner and with the focus on a separate clustering. In this work phase, there was no systematic methodology in the foreground, rather potential approaches were simulated in a ‘guess-and-verify’ procedure. In this manner, the frequency of certain words was determined and these were proportionally presented by means of various sized font sizes. Or, related terms were color-highlighted in the text in order to make affiliation of content recognizable at a glance. Finally, the idea evolved to work with metaphors and eidetic statements that de-scribed the understanding of management.5 According to Hahn /Zimmermann, eidetic speech in the interviews viewed was particu-larly noticeable: “[...] all interview partners often [used] metaphors in their remarks [...], that described their experiences and their com-prehension in regard to management” [ibd.] The pictures, which were used to describe the management behaviour, ranged from sports or military motifs on to biologic comparisons. For instance, they spoke of sharks and dolphins to describe management behaviour. These metaphors are, according to Hahn/Zimmermann, very expressive and served as subtext in the interviews, which would associate strong imagery during reading. This associative eidetic chain should, according to the strategy of the designers, be further strengthened and consolidated in the form of “metaphor visualization”. To achieve this, each interview was examined by the designers in regard to the use of metaphors and eidetic statements. They were compiled and

“evaluated according to their content-related context and their weighting” [ibd.]. Finally, a “representative image” was sought for each literary metaphor – meaning a picture that should fulfil the appropri-ate visualization of the metaphor. The designers were thereby less concerned about identifying every metaphor in the text or excessi-vely discussing each individual picture selected. The focus was to develop a comprehensive visual system that permits the interviews to be compared amongst each other. A small-scale poster was there-fore developed for each interview.6 Hahn/Zimmermann determined several parameters to systematically embed the selected images in a visual system on this surface to thereby view the statement con-tent of the metaphors.

«Focused»

172

This visual system functions in the following manner: there is an ex-pressive picture for each identified metaphor. In order to visualize the statement content of the individual metaphors in the context of the entire interview, they distinguished between three aspects. Firstly, there was a choice of three picture sizes for the presentation of the syntactic weighting of the metaphor (major or minor state-ment). Secondly, three main colours (and their gradients) were used for colour-coding, to indicate whether the statement content of the metaphors corresponded to a member of the management, a person being managed or the relationship between these two persons. In order to visually elucidate the hierarchic system that evolved from these statements, the statements were respectively vertically posi-tioned on the surface of the poster (top – management person / middle – relationship / bottom – managed person). In addition, posi-tive and negative connotations of the metaphors were determined and made apparent by means of the positioning along a vertical pos-itive-negative axis. Finally, the indicated line numbering served as a reference to find the visualized metaphors in the original interview texts. In the final layout, a poster and a booklet have been designed to correspond to each analysed interview, whereby the poster func-tions both as an independent medium as well as the sleeve for the booklet. Together, booklets and posters communicate the manage-rial perception of the individual interview partners and in addition enable the interviews to be compared with each other. While the poster shows all of the metaphors used in the interview by means of individual pictures, and can thereby be considered a synopsis, the booklets provide the opportunity for the parallel viewing of interview texts and “metaphor pictures”.

The designerly analysis from Hahn/Zimmermann presented itself as an exemplary multi-variant visual presentation of the interview texts, which considered several variables. It provides different versions and levels of reception: first, there is the option of the micrological and comparative image and text reading on the level of the individual metaphors and the assigned pictures. Secondly, each interview is characterized as a unit of text (in the form of a poster) through the collective pictures and the defined visual parameter (size of the picture, arrangement of the picture on the poster surface, colour

173


scheme, etc.). Thirdly, the juxtapositioning of the posters enables a comparison between the interviews and shows the “management profile” of the interviewed person. [Fig. 1 ↦ 178]

5. Discussion about the Results

Before the results from Hahn/Zimmermann are discussed from the perspective of design research, here are a couple of preliminary phrases on the approach “Art as Research”. This follows the theory that content-related formulations can not be decoupled from ques-tions about the aesthetic effect [Dombois 2008: 4 et seq.]. Each realiza-tion is therefore contingent upon the form in which it is commu-nicated; each presentation “is not only mimesis, imitation, but rather poiesis, creation [Dombois 1998: 10]. A form-independent realization seems unthinkable in the sciences too. If one follows this theory, the possibilities held by art and design to express their realization in other (also non-linguistic) presentation forms, which is the normal case in the sciences, becomes highly significant. The visual analysis from Hahn/Zimmermann confirms this. Their findings supplement the qualitative socio-scientific realizations with a further eidetic perspective. In reference to the preliminary socio-scientific issue, they subsequently raise new, fascinating questions – as does the conclusion of the practice partner.

From the perspective of the design research discourse, parallels can be found to the approach of “Art as Research”. Interesting, in regard to this, is Donald Schön’s suggestion to view design as a “reflective conversation with the situation” [Schön, 1983: 76 et seq.]. The focus of this approach is supported by the reflexive, designerly handling of

“things”, meaning the handling of various materials, medial and lin-guistic forms of expression. This specific form of a process and hand-ling-based approach in design is described by Schön in the follow-ing manner: “He [the designer, author’s note] shapes the situation, in accordance with his initial appreciation of it, the situation ‘talks-back’, and he responds to the situation’s back-talk. In a good proc-ess of design, this conversation with the material is reflective. In answer to the situation’s back-talk, the designer reflects-in-action on the construction of the problem, the strategies of action, or the

«Focused»

174

model of the phenomena, which have been implicit in his move”. [ibd.:

79]. Gray/Malins speak in favour of also making this reflection-in- action, which influences designerly practice, prolific for the prac-tice-led research in art and design [Gray/Malins, 2007]. The learning process in art and design is empiric, according to this theory: “we learn most effectively by doing” [ibd.: 1]. They describe the relation of practice and research as a dynamic one: “Practice raises questions that can be investigated through research, which in turn impacts on practice.” [ibd.]. In the project “Artistic Modes of Depiction for Understanding Managing Professionals in Healthcare” the scope of this dynamic is even greater – due to the interdisciplinary research setting. The reflexive dynamic does not only propagate in its own de-signerly practice,7 but evokes, at best, new, comparative and inter-disciplinary issues in all participating artistic and scientific disci-plines. The research project thereby fulfils a requirement, that is occasionally raised in the context of practice-led PhDs in art and design: “[...] that the research has some benefit and impact beyond the individual practitioner-researcher” [ibd.: 4]. That research is ide-ally an undertaking of many was also exemplified in this project.

In addition, the research findings from Hahn/Zimmermann illustrate that not only designerly processes, but also designerly findings or artefacts, are relevant in practice-led design research. This aspect of design research had already been indicated, among others, by Nigan Bayazit: “Design research is concerned with the physical em-bodiment of man-made things, how these things perform their jobs, and how they work. [...] Design research is concerned with what is achieved at the end of a purposeful design activity, how an artificial thing appears, and what it means. [...] Design research is concerned with the embodiment of configurations.” [Bayazit 2004: 16] Knowledge and realization is not then, however, contained (in a naïve sense) in these artefacts. With a view to the recordings of many scientific findings that are predominantly based in written form, the research findings that are in the form of pictures, objects, sounds, etc. can still be posited as new “forms of negotiation”: the knowledge and research demands on practice-led research is first then negotiable according to these artefacts.

175


In addition to its significance for practice-led design research, the visual research from Hahn/Zimmermann provides complex points of contact to existing research desiderata and theory options in cul-tural and literary studies or social sciences. It is thereby to be em-phasized that the references to existing scientific discourses should by no means “legitimise” the designerly research by Hahn/Zimmer-mann. Rather, the creative work by Hahn/Zimmermann should be considered an independent realization production that, for its part, enhances and can stimulate scientific questions. In this manner, for instance, the developed method of “metaphor visualization” encoun-ters thematic overlapping with research articles about cross-media perception of text and image in the more recent cultural and literary studies. [Horstkotte/Leonhard 2006]. The relationship between visuality and verbality, pictures and texts is named there as one of the key sub-jects. Within the same context, the concept of the iconotext [Wagner

1996], which comprises both direct and indirect references of the co-presence of picture and text/language, is also discussed. The work, a visual quotation of verbal images in the reading, is also linked to the critical discussion about the concept of the quote in the sense of a

“strategic and targeted reference to other discourses that will be integrated in a new context” [Horstkotte/Leonhard 2006: 26]. In this context, the term “quotation” [Bal 1999: 11], which refers to the significance of words (and pictures!) that are influenced by their underlying usage and context – but can also be newly influenced by different utiliza-tion – is also substantial.

In the Hahn/Zimmermann approach for text analysis, there are also interesting parallels that can be concluded to the qualitative (and quantitative) socio-scientific text evaluation processes, for instance in regard to open coding in grounded theory [cf. hereto Böhm 2005: 475 et

seq.]. Or in regard to the evaluation process of the qualitative content analysis, like the embedding of the material to be analysed in its communication context or the creation of synoptic content analysis and inductive category development [cf. hereto Mayring 2005: 468 et seq.]. The question arises here, if and how designerly processes can en-hance socio-scientific evaluation processes (and vice versa) in hand-ling text and image, without having to dismiss design-specific strat-egies and methods in favour of a rigorous perception of scientific

«Focused»

176

work. It seems, according to the experience of the research project, that even seemingly “scientifically extraneous” designerly/artistic processes themselves are quite suitable to prolifically enhance quali-tative socio-scientific text interpretation.

In a broader sense, of course, communication designers not only con-cern themselves with the “performative effects” of the written and visual. For example, even in sociology there is an existing conscious-ness for the manipulation of the typeface in the perception of text; this consciousness, however, is often limited to being as close as possible to an ideal of objectivity [Kalthoff 2006: 168]. In the selection of a font for sociological texts, a convention is usually followed that im-plies that particular fonts stand for neutrality, objectivity and for ability of truth: “The pragmatic perspective on the written is founded in its intention of methodical reflection; the performative effects thereby remain unconsidered. The performativity of writing as writ-ing lies in the fact that it not only memorizes an event, but also presents it in a certain manner and visualizes aspects that are not located on a content-related level.” [Kalthoff 2006: ibd.] This is where the work of Hahn/Zimmermann begins – namely not on the level of the writing in the final result, but on that of the images. From the onset, however, their experimental work was not limited to the illustration of text, but instead searched for clusters, variables and keys that might prove to be meaningful and promote insight on the different visual, material and medial levels. With a view to this process, it be-comes clear that the strategies of visual research comprise text and image. The fact that text-based and image-based analysis methods must not be compulsorily evaluated as dichotomic, is something that Sybille Krämer points out when she speaks about a written visuali-zation: “Through the ideogram of the writing, that which is seen by the ‘mind’s eye’ is transformed into something which can be pre-sented to the physical eye.” [Krämer 2001: 361] The same thing happens, under a changed sign, with the treatment of the “metaphor visuali-zation” by Hahn/Zimmermann. The perception of empiric objects, in this case the interview texts, is also constituted here by the inter-play of cognitive processes and the generation of visibility [cf. hereto

ibd.: 354].

177


Ultimately, from an epistomological point of view, corresponding ap-proaches in the science studies can be found in regard to practice-based, interdisciplinary and media critical processes for the entire research project. For instance, in the diagnosis by Gibbons, et al [1994], where it is stated that knowledge is increasingly generated in application contexts in affiliation with different participants in know-ledge handling and with a specific realization interest. Consequently, knowledge developed according to a less institutionalised manner, would exhibit the advantage of being highly flexible and customized [Günther 2001: 69]. In addition, the proposal has been made to replace

“science and researchers” with “knowledge and practitioners” as a conceptual instrument [Bender 2001: 21]. This designation should not imply that the “practitioners of knowledge generation” don’t act ac-cording to the standards of scientific methods, but only that they are no longer defined as researchers in the popular sense. If this proposal is adopted, then designerly/artistic research is an identical form of knowledge generation. And one that is pars pro toto: insights into the specific epistomology of designerly/artistic research can promote insights into the formal, medial relativity of knowledge in general. The project presented here contributes to these insights. It has brought a variety of “knowledge-practitioners” together and collec-tively put new practices of knowledge generation to the test.

«Focused»

178

Fig. 1: Designerly analysis: Hahn/Zimmermann. ↦ 173

179


Endnotes1 Research at Swiss art universities generally takes place in the form of applied re - search and development, due to the federal performance contract. It is thereby welcomed, to collaborate with practice partners and to generate market-oriented applications or services, in the broadest sense, as research findings. Conf. here the specifications of the Federal Office for Professional Training and Technology (BBT) at: http://www.bbt.admin.ch/. This type of research is, however, not suitable for all questions in art and design – particularly the promotion of fundamental research has proven itself to be difficult under these circumstances. Conf. here: Schultheis, Franz (2005).2 In the narrative interview, the point is not about answering concrete questions, but rather the communication of managerial experiences in the form of stories. In reference to the methodology of the narrative interviews, see, for example, Barbara Czarniawska (2004).3 Do-Tank is to be understood here as an alternative, practice-led model to the Think-Tank.4 The description is supported by an abstract submitted by Barbara Hahn and Christine Zimmermann in 2008, as part of their project documentation at the Bern University of the Arts at the end of the research project.5 The term metaphor was not explicitly defined by Hahn/Zimmermann, but rather, in correspondence with the colloquial understanding, conceived of as a rhetorical figure and implemented in the broader sense of “transferred meaning”, “figurative expression” and “set phrase”.6 Within the scope of the research project, four of the 15 total interviews were exemplarily visualised.7 Cf. here also Anne Douglas (2004: 45, cit. after: Gray/Malins 2005): “One of the essential characteristics of practitioner research is that it is one’s own practice that is reflected upon. [...] To look at one’s own creative practice means taking on both a creative and a reflective role, in a sense creating a new research model which may use other models but will inevitably have its own distinct identity.”

References↦ Bal, Mieke (1999): Quoting Caravaggio: Contemporary Art, Preposterous History. Chicago↦ Bayazit, Nigan (2004): Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research. In: Design Issues: Volume 20, Number 1 Winter, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2004 ↦ Bender, Gerd (2001): Neue Formen der Wissenserzeugung. Frankfurt a. Main↦ Böhm, Andreas (2005): Theoretisches Codieren: Textanalyse in der Grounded Theory. In: Flick, Uwe et al. (Hrsg.) (2005): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei Hamburg, pp. 475–485↦ Czarniawska, Barbara (2004): Narratives in social science research. London↦ Dombois, Florian (1999): Über Erdbeben. Ein Versuch zur Erweiterung seismologischer Darstellungsweisen (Diss.). Berlin↦ Dombois, Florian (2006): Kunst als Forschung. Ein Versuch, sich selbst eine Anleitung zu entwerfen. In: HKB/HEAB 2006, Hochschule der Künste Bern (Hg.). Bern, pp. 21–29. (http://www.hkb.bfh.ch/fileadmin/ PDFs/Kommunikation/HKB_2006_FD.pdf)↦ Dombois, Florian (2008): Resonanzböden 1–8. In Holger Schulze (Hg.):

«Focused»

180Sound Studies, Bielefeld↦ Douglas, Anne (1994): The Creative Process as Material for Research Degrees. London↦ Frederichs, Günther (2001): Mode 2 und Erkenntnis. In: Bender, Gerd (2001): Neue Formen der Wissenserzeugung. Frankfurt a. Main, pp. 69–79↦ Gibbons, Michael et al. (1994): The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Sciences and Research in Contemporary Societies. London↦ Gray, Carole; Malins, Julian (2005): Visualizing Research: a guide to the research process in Art and Design. London↦ Hahn, Barbara; Zimmermann, Christine (2008): Kurzbericht Forschungsprojekt “Neue Darstellungsformen und Modelle für qualitative Interviews im Medizinmanagement”. Hochschule der Künste Bern. Bern↦ Horstkotte, Silke; Leonhard Karin (Hg.)(2006): Lesen ist wie Sehen. Intermediale Zitate in Bild und Text. Köln↦ Kalthoff, Herbert (2006): Beobachtung und Ethnographie. In: Ayass, Ruth; Bergmann, Jörg (Hg.) (2006): Qualitative Methoden der Medienforschung. Reinbek bei Hamburg, pp. 146–182↦ Krämer, Sybille (2001): Kann das ‘geistige Auge’ sehen? Visualisierungen und die Konstitution epistemischer Gegenstände. In: Heintz, Bettina; Huber, Jörg (Hg.) (2001): Mit dem Auge denken. Strategien der Sichtbarmachung in wissenschaftlichen und virtuellen Welten. Zürich et al., pp. 347– 364↦ Lichtenberg, Georg Christoph: Sudelbuch J. In: Franz H. Mautner (Hg.): Gedanken-bücher. Eine Auswahl aus den Aphorismen. Heidelberg, 1984↦ Mayring, Philipp (2005): Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. In: Flick, Uwe et al. (Hg.) (2005): Qualitative Forschung. Ein Handbuch. Reinbek bei Hamburg, pp. 468–475↦ Schön, Donald (1983): The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books↦ Schultheis, Franz (2005): Disziplinierung des Designs. In: Forschungslandschaften im Umfeld des Designs. Zürich, pp. 65–83↦ Wagner, Peter (Hg.) (1996): Icons – Texts – Iconotexts. Essays on Ekphrasis and Intermediality. Berlin/New York

181


«Focused»

182

183


University

Email

The Academization of Design and its Consequences for the Visual, Textual and Artefactual Production of Practice-based Research

10Swinburne University of Technology Faculty of Design [email protected]

↦ academization ↦ design identity ↦ practice-based ↦ visualization ↦ academic literacy

Keywords

Postgraduate design research, and particularly its practice-based forms, is currently in a process of academic legitimisation. This legiti-misation has consequences for faculty and student identities particu-larly where the propositions for scholarship in design may marginal-ise the distinctive mix of artifactual, textual and visual vocabularies that characterize practice-based design research. For design, I suggest how the social practice to academic literacies in emergent disciplines can help make transparent the strategies and forms in dissertation text construction, supervision and writing. This paper exemplifies the practical relevance of these strategies through reference to student case studies.

Gavin Melles

1. The academization of Design, Designer Identity and Practice-Based Vocabularies

The restructuring and academization of design in Australia and the United Kingdom, in the late 1980s and early 1990s led many art and design institutes and colleges to be merged or re-designated into the university sector. Prior to this much of design was found in Art Schools and Institutes of Technology [e. g. Broadbent and Davis 1987], and restructuring brought challenges to the academic identities of indi-

«Focused»

184

viduals in the newer professional and vocational disciplines, which continue to resonate [Adams 1998]. In emerging applied academic fields disciplinary consensus remains a much debated project, and this is true for design [e. g. Becher 1989; Cross 1999; Durling 2002]. Studies of recently academized and neighbouring built environment disciplines show continuing tensions and varying allegiances regarding con-ceptions of teaching, research and practice among academic staff [Durning & Jenkins 2005].

With few precedents in the field [e. g. Cliff & Woodward, 2004], I recently completed a qualitative study of conceptions of design research in a university of technology in Australia, recruiting 53 full time and part time design educators for the study. A grounded inductive analysis was employed using qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 7™) to develop data models, which were visualised both during and after analysis [Bazeley 2007]. Emerging from the interviews were a series of themes on academic and industry design research conceptions; debate around possible variation to traditional scholarship to ac-commodate design; the significance of visual and artefactual mate-rials to the design research submission; and the particular research training needs both conventional and ‘designerly’ that postgraduate research demands. [Fig. 1 ↦ 192]

Embedded in the narratives that respondents supplied were claims about the visual, textual and artifactual vocabularies of design as potential components of the design research project. These narra-tives also showed considerable uncertainty regarding scholarship in design at the postgraduate level, which for many respondents was a current concern as students and supervisors of projects.

For pragmatist philosopher and educator, John Dewey, art and aes-thetics were significant modes of public communication and expe-rience, which could transcend ideological and moral boundaries [Dewey 1959]. Dewey deplored the separation of industrial from fine arts as a dichotomy between objects for use (industrial arts) and those for speculation and theorizing (fine arts), emphasizing rather evaluating technology, science and the humanities was about the individual and social consequences of different proposals. Richard

185


Rorty appropriates Dewey’s insights but also emphasizes the power of vocabularies – the value of Freud, Derrida, Wittgenstein and others for redescribing aspects of the world in new ways – to achieve public and private aims [Rorty 1982; Rorty 1989]. I suggest we see the material, textual and visual embodying a set of vocabularies – for ex-ample, realist, romantic, post-modern – and the distinctive weighting of these vocabularies in particular research outcomes as the space for design [Melles 2008b]. Making these choices available and apparent to students is a pedagogic issue and one that, I suggest is best ad-dressed through a social practice approach to academic literacies.

2. Academic Literacy as Social Practice for Design

L’art ne reproduit pas le visible; il rend visible. [Paul Klee]

The field of academic literacy as social practice has emerged from the body of ethnographic and discourse analytic work exploring the form and significance of the multiple literacies that articulate com-munity and cultural practices [e. g. Barton, Hamilton, & Ivanic 1999; Street,

1995]. Studies of academic literacies have focused on the value of the social practice approach to the current epistemological and cultural student diversity in HE in emergent academic disciplines where es-sayist literacy continues to be privileged [e. g. Street, Jones, & Turner 1999]. According to Lillis [2001], the social practice approach sees language as socially situated discourse practice which are ideological in-scribed and research and pedagogy are oriented towards making visible and challenging official and unofficial practices. The opposi-tional, dialogic and socially situated approaches to writing of the academic literacies approach has particular relevance to emergent discipline areas like design.

Fairclough’s [1989] three level characterization of the mutual depend-encies between texts and processes and social conditions of inter-pretation and production has become a common framework for aca-demic literacy studies. In this framework the formal linguistic and rhetorical properties of the text is created in a context of situation composed of processes of production and interpretation. This con-text of situation itself is ultimately dependent on the broader social

«Focused»

186

conditions of genre production and interpretation. In Bakhtinian terms [Bakhtin, Voloshinov, Medvedev & Morris 1994], the text dialogically ad-dresses and is addressed by this context of situation.

In my supervisory work and writing, I have attempted to work out the practical consequences of a social practice approach to practice-based design research. In a recent paper [Melles 2007a], for example, I look at what can be learned through close analysis of existing con-ventions in design research, particularly regarding discourses of scholarship in design regarding text, visual language and artefact in the practice-based academic space. Texts, including the thesis and dissertation, are central resources and objects in the communities of practice [Lave & Wenger, 1991] that students and faculty inhabit. Art and design dissertations may exploit visual rhetorics alongside conventional textual practices, and this is often seen as a distinctive ‘designerly’ characteristic of such work [Edwards 2004]. Visualizing the research process is also relevant at many different stages of the project [Gray & Malins 2004], but is particularly significant for the critical literature or contextual review of substantive and methodological domains, which itself is a form of creative inquiry [Montuori 2005]. It is this use of visuals to mediate and depict knowledge production rather than its ‘natural’ use for illustration or representation of de-sign objects which is the focus here.

3. Knowledge Production, Interdisciplinarity and Design Research

Horlick-Jones and Sime [2004] note that in contrast to conventional disciplinary work, current mode two knowledge production [Gibbons et

al. 1994] typically combines disciplinary and non-disciplinary sources of knowledge, making ‘connections not only across the boundaries between disciplines, but also between scholarly inquiry and the sphere of tacit and experiential knowledges’ [Horlick-Jones and Sime, p. 445]. The ‘struggle’ of becoming competent in multiple disciplines can lead to breadth not depth. Working between ‘disciplines means concept-ualizing and undertaking research in the absence of proven frame-works and models ... [and] often means resolving conflicts between paradigms and methods’ [Golde & Gallagher 1999, p. 283]. As a colleague

187


and I argue in a recent paper [Barnes & Melles 2007], current knowledge production in higher education, particularly for design in the new universities of technology sector, involves the close interaction of many actors and objects throughout the process, and this has con-sequences for contextual reviews.

Boote and Beile [2005] identify key dimensions of adequate contex-tual reviews in the epistemologically and methodologically diverse field of educational research: coverage, synthesis, methodology, sig-nificance, and rhetoric [Fig. 2 ↦ 193]. The criteria that emanate from these dimensions are applicable to postgraduate design research, although they need to be developed to account for the material and visual components of practice-based design research.

Referring to visual arts knowing, Sullivan [2005] defines it as ‘a way artists think as they make use of a cognitive coalition of ongoing dia-logue between, within, and around the self, artworks, viewers and settings, where each is used to create new understandings’ [Sullivan

2005: 190]. While not all design research projects engages fully with this artistic dialogue, project-based work often does require such a ‘coalition’. Design research students may, however, underestimate the potential of visual strategies to generate and enhance the re-search process [Shreeve, Bailey and Drew 2004], including what Gray and Malins [2004] call ‘mapping the terrain’. As I show [Melles 2007b] through exemplification from student projects, the use of such a tool has proved valuable in my work with research students.

4. Case Study Illustrations

To exemplify the principles identified above three student case stud-ies are described below. The value of such narrative case studies has been recognized in the literature on research supervision as a valuable complement to theoretical discussion [Mercer 2001; Ryan &

Zuber-Skerritt 1999; Taylor & Beasley 2005; Wisker 2004]. The accompanying presentation provides visual representations of the relevant student projects.

«Focused»

188

4.1 Student Case Study: The Visualisation of Activity-centred Digital WayfindingThe first example I have taken from a recent supervision project with a Taiwanese Doctor of Design (Practice-based Doctorate) student who is developing a digital wayfinding system for the National Sci-ence Museum in her country. When I joined the project, the student had no overriding model of the design process, and a superficial un-derstanding of the nature of interaction design, preferring to limit herself to aspects of layout and typeface in designing her digital in-terface – at best traditional concerns of information design.

One of the key issues with the practice-based doctorate is that it typically recruits professional designers with little or no exposure to academic design into a project space of ill-determined processes and outcomes – a double challenge for the student. The student not only could not see her project in terms of a more robust concept of interaction design [e. g. Sharp, Rogers & Preece 2006], she had a poor under-standing of the literature in the field on digital wayfinding, including in the museum context, and seemed to believe that a convenience sample survey (n=100) of visitors to the museum was ‘her method’. It seems frequent in practice-based design, that students may not only have limited exposure to academic scholarship but may focus on the text to the exclusion of the visual exclusively since this is the privi-leged institutional form (the text). The student’s impoverished view of design methodology had to be de-centred through supervision meetings, expanded readings in the area, and an insistence that the visual become not only a technique for representation but itself a mediating tool for conversations.

Exploiting the student’s visual literacy and introducing her to activity-centred centred design [e. g. Gay & Hembrooke 2004] helped relocate the questionnaire in a larger process, which she diagrammed as a seg-mented series of concentric circles. The decentering and expansion is exemplified in the visual diagram the student was asked to pro-duce recently. While still demonstrating some weaknesses of con-ception, this diagram has now become a point of conversation with her two supervisors as it provides – from an activity theory view point – a symbolic tool for a mediated conversation about her progress.

189


While the diagram shows no traces of its history and genesis it is the product of multiple readings, social interaction, and visual reformu-lations consistent with the social practice approach to academic literacy.

4.2 A Multi-media Antismoking Campaign for Primary School Aged Children in MalaysiaThe second example is taken from a previously cited case [Barnes &

Melles 2007] of my co-supervision of a multimedia project linked to WHO funding involving the development of a media TV campaign for anti-smoking education aimed at primary school children in Malaysia. The project requires the student to position his research within multi-ple fields, including public health and the economics and politics of smoking in South East Asia, any one of which literatures could have overwhelmed the project. The project incorporates empirical testing data of the multimedia design (n=300) and the transformation of this data from statistical forms (using SPSS) to a communicative format is currently being worked through.

A visual dimension of the project of relevance to this paper has been the representation of the project itself – this ‘map’ serving again as a conversational tool. A pithy early generated map of the design metho-dology and process was requested in supervision conversations as a way of simultaneously 1) making transparent and coherent the multi-ple components of the project 2) exploiting the visual capacity of the student, and 3) providing a mediating symbolic tool for dialogue and further development. This figure, which has been modified and de-veloped over time, provided an essential articulation point for work which followed, and became, as such, thoroughly generative.

4.3 Brokering Meaning with Design (Anita Kocsis PhD Student, University of New South Wales, Australia)The third example comes from my workplace where my contribution was minor but an example of where collegial conversations in rela-tion to design research can serve to help broker meaning in relation to visualization. Anita had developed a human-centred approach to scientific visualization drawing on a hybrid between social science, HCI, human-centred design (HCD) and Phenomenology (in the loose

«Focused»

190

sense of the word). Terms such as advocacy, negotiation, mediation, activist and participation are integral to HCD philosophy, and the work of Bruno Latour is critical to her work. Having developed the notion of brokering and communities of practice in relation to educa-tion [Melles 2008] I suggested to my colleague working on the visualiza-tion of astrophysical data that both concepts may work for her project. Following up this suggestion, communicating with Wenger on the notion of brokering in communities of practice [Wenger 1998], and employing cultural models in discourse analysis [Gee 2005] her visuali-zation work she theorized as brokering. She claims in a recent paper.

“The visualization of scientific and historical content for exhibition spaces presents a twofold problem for the designer. The first prob-lem is to interpret complex or intangible, discipline-specific concepts, while the second is to frame appropriate interpretations through de-sign. Here, designers, one particular community of practice, effec-tively act as a knowledge broker, working with a scientific commu-nity of practice in order that audiences can engage with the boundary object, that is, the visualization of astrophysics data that seeks to dis-seminate scientific knowledge ... it became apparent that the actual meanings and techniques of visualisation were contested ground.”

Thus, this third example shows that the substantive use of visuali-zation within the design project while it exploits the visual literacy of the designer requires an informed (viz. theoretical) positioning of the strategy. Given the limited exposure of designers to the social science and other literature but in an environment of collaborative mentoring such as my workplace, there is scope to contribute to an understanding of the brokering role of visuals and of designers. Somewhat similar to the mediational function of knowledge produc-tion processes in the previous two examples the informationally enhanced spatial representation sits at the intersection of negotia-tions between scientist and designer about the meaning of images.

5. Discussion

Der Begriff ‘sehen’ macht einen wirren Eindruck. Nun, so ist er. – Ich sehe in die Landschaft; mein Blick schweift, ich sehe allerlei

191


klare und unklare Bewegung ... Und nun schau an, was ‘Beschrei-bung des Gesehenen’ heisst! – Aber das ist eben, was man eine Be-schreibung des Gesehenen nennt. Es gibt nicht einen eigentlichen, ordentlichen Fall so einer Beschreibung – und das Übrige ist eben noch unklar. [Wittgenstein, Philosophische Untersuchungen II]

Wittgenstein reminds us that the relationship between textual de-scriptions and real world objects is not correspondence but rather purpose. Purpose is at the heart of the emergent academic disci-pline of design and its exploration of the kinds of vocabularies it wishes to form part of its community discourse and conventions. Judging by the literature, the field is alive with contestation and con-versations around the visual, artefactual and textual. These conver-sations are thoroughly ideological and consequential in their claims for what is right and wrong – and it is in these moral terms that the arguments are often made. And yet the current climate of knowledge production in higher education and the pragmatic legacy recognised by some design disciplines speaks for forms of rigorous plurality and play.

To research students in design we must communicate this playful and rigorous potential of design through pedagogies that do not hide behind the institutional mystery game that the social practice ac-count of academic literacy has uncovered. While play, plurality, and imagination, among other things are potentials for design this should not be an excuse for poor pedagogy in the context of supervision and writing. Given the uncertainty and lack of experience of many design educators who are sometimes thrust into supervision roles with little practical experience or expertise in conventional academic scholarship the likelihood of dominant models of scholarship prevail-ing is high as these research novices, themselves often doctoral stu-dents, aim to find a path in the design research space. Those of us with the will and experience should provide both faculty and stu-dents with the tools, thoughts and environments that offer both pos-sibilities and boundaries for postgraduate research supervision, and the proposals and examples I have offered, I hope, suggest what some of these might look like.

192

Per

sona

l Dim

ensi

onP

oten

tial

Sig

nifi

canc

e fo

r co

ncep

tion

s of

des

ign

res

earc

h

Pro

fess

iona

l and

edu

cati

onal

ca

reer

asp

irat

ions

Nee

d to

be

cred

enti

aled

wit

h hi

gher

deg

ree

and

ther

efor

e co

me

to s

ome

unde

rsta

ndin

g

of a

cade

mic

des

ign

rese

arch

Expe

rien

ce o

f the

nat

ure

of

rese

arch

in in

dust

ryD

iffe

rent

exp

erie

nces

am

ong

olde

r an

d yo

unge

r ge

nera

tion

s af

fect

pot

enti

al p

ract

ical

an

d ac

adem

ic c

once

pts

Gen

dere

d na

ture

of d

esig

n w

ork

Opt

ions

for

rese

arch

eng

agem

ent a

nd c

aree

rs c

onst

rain

ed b

y m

ale

and

fem

ale

re

spon

sibi

litie

s an

d ro

les

Pri

or e

xpos

ure

to r

esea

rch

in

othe

r in

stit

utio

ns a

nd tr

aini

ngB

read

th o

f vis

ion

abou

t oth

er m

odel

s of

res

earc

h an

d op

tion

s fo

r th

e fi

eld

Spe

cial

ism

cul

ture

of r

esea

rch

Dis

tinct

met

apho

rs (p

rodu

cts,

spa

ces,

etc

) and

pra

ctic

es c

entr

al to

res

earc

h

Fig

. 1: S

igni

fica

nt p

erso

nal d

imen

sion

s an

d de

sign

rese

arch

con

cept

ions

. ↦ 1

84

193

Dim

ensi

onC

rite

rion

Cov

erag

eJu

stif

ied

crit

erio

n fo

r in

clus

ion

and

excl

usio

n of

sou

rces

from

rev

iew

Syn

thes

isD

istin

guis

hed

wha

t has

bee

n do

ne in

the

fiel

d fr

om w

hat n

eeds

to b

e do

ne

Pla

ced

the

topi

c or

pro

blem

in th

e br

oade

r sc

hola

rly

liter

atur

e

Pla

ced

the

rese

arch

in th

e hi

stor

ical

con

text

of t

he fi

eld

Acq

uire

d an

d en

hanc

ed th

e su

bjec

t voc

abul

ary

Art

icul

ated

impo

rtan

t var

iabl

es a

nd p

heno

men

a re

leva

nt to

the

topi

c

Syn

thes

ized

and

gai

ned

a ne

w p

ersp

ecti

ve o

n th

e lit

erat

ure

Met

hodo

logy

Iden

tifi

ed th

e m

ain

met

hodo

logi

es a

nd r

esea

rch

tech

niqu

es th

at h

ave

been

use

d in

the

fiel

d

Rel

ated

idea

s an

d th

eori

es in

the

fiel

d to

res

earc

h m

etho

dolo

gies

Sig

nifi

canc

eR

atio

naliz

ed th

e pr

acti

cal s

igni

fica

nce

of th

e re

sear

ch p

robl

em

Rat

iona

lized

the

scho

larl

y si

gnif

ican

ce o

f the

res

earc

h pr

oble

m

Rhe

tori

cW

as w

ritt

en w

ith

a cl

ear

stru

ctur

e th

at s

uppo

rted

the

revi

ew

Fig

. 2: C

onte

xtua

l Rev

iew

(Boo

te &

Bei

le 2

005)

. ↦ 1

87

«Focused»

194References↦ Adams, D. 1998. Examining the fabric of academic life: An analysis of three decades of research on the perceptions of Australian academics about their roles, Higher Education, 36(4), 421–35.↦ Bakhtin, M.M., Voloshinov, V.N., Medvedev, P.N., & Morris, P. 1994. The Bakhtin reader: selected writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, and Voloshinov. London; New York: E. Arnold.↦ Barnes, C. & Melles, G. 2007. Managing interdisciplinarity: a discussion of the contextual review in design research. Proceedings of the International Association of Design Research Society (IASDR) 2007. Hong Kong Polytechnic University, 12–15th November.↦ Barton, D., Hamilton, M., & Ivanic, R. 1999. Situated literacies. London; New York: Routledge↦ Bazeley, P. 2007. Qualitative data analysis with NVivo, SAGE, Los Angeles, Calif. London.↦ Becher, T. 1989. Academic tribes and territories: intellectual enquiry and the cultures of disciplines. Society for Research into Higher Education: Open University Press, Milton Keynes [England] ; Bristol, PA., USA↦ Biggs, M.A.R., & Mostaq, M. 2007. Rigor and Practice-based Research. Design issues, 23(3), 62–69.↦ Boote, D.N., & Beile, P. 2005. Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation. Educational Researcher, 34(6), 3–15.↦ Davis, B., Broadbent J. 1987. The responsiveness of tertiary education to the design needs of Australian industry. Australian Government Publishing Service, CanberraCliff, A.F., Woodward R. 2004. How do academics come to know? The structure and contestation of discipline-specific knowledge in a Design school, Higher Education, 48(3), 269–74.↦ Cross, N. 1999. Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation, Design Issues, 15(2), 5–10.↦ Dewey, J. 1959. Art as experience, Capricorn Books, New York.↦ Durling, D. 2002. Discourses on research and the PhD in Design, Quality Assurance in Education, 10(2), 79–85.↦ Durning, B, Jenkins A. 2005. Teaching/research relations in departments: the perspectives of built environment academics, Studies in Higher Education, 30(4), 407–426.↦ Edwards, H.H. 2004. Art and design students employing aspects of the visual and metaphoric to structure and create meaning in writing. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 3(2), 119–130.↦ Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and power. London ; New York: Longman↦ Gay, G., & Hembrooke, H. 2004. Activity-centered design : an ecological approach to designing smart tools and usable systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.↦ Gee, J.P. 2005. An introduction to discourse analysis : theory and method (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Routledge.↦ Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. & Trow, M. 1994. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamic of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies, Sage, London.↦ Golde, P. 1999. The Challenges of Conducting Interdisciplinary Research in Traditional Doctoral Programs, Ecosystems, 2(4): 281–285

195


↦ Gray, C., & Malins, J. 2004. Visualizing research: a guide to the research process in art and design. Burlington: Ashgate.↦ Guignon, C. & Hiley, D R. 2003. Richard Rorty, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.↦ Harman, G. 2000 Institutional Mergers in Australian Higher Education since 1960, Higher Education Quarterly, 54(4), 343–66↦ Hockey, J. 2003. Practice-Based Research Degree Students in Art and Design: Identity and Adaptation, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 22, 82–91.↦ Hockey, J., & Allen-Collinson, J. 2000. The Supervision of Practice-based Research Degrees in Art and Design. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 19(3), 345–355.↦ Horlick-Jones and Sime 2004 Living on the Border: knowledge, risk and trans-disciplinarity, Futures, 36(4): 441–456↦ Kamler, B., & Thomson, P. 2006. Helping doctoral students write: pedagogies for supervision. Abingdon, Oxon ; New York: Routledge.↦ Lea, M.R., & Street, B. 1998. Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157–172.↦ Lillis, T.M. 2001. Student writing : access, regulation, desire. London; New York: Routledge.↦ Melles, G. 2005. Beyond the Romantic impulse for authentic data to co-construction of meaning in interview-based educational research. Qualitative research journal, 5(2), 21–30.↦ Melles, G. 2007a. Genre-based pedagogy for design-oriented theses in postgraduate design education. visual: design: scholarship 3(2), 5–16.↦ Melles, G. 2007b. Visually mediating knowledge construction in project-based doctoral design research. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 6(2), 99–111.↦ Melles, G. 2008. Curriculum documents and practice in the NZ polytechnic sector: consensus and dissensus. Research in Post-Compulsory Education 13 (1), 55–67.↦ Montuori, A. 2005. Literature Review as Creative Inquiry: Reframing Scholarship As a Creative Process. Journal of Transformative Education 3(4), 374–393.↦ Newbury, D. 1996. Knowledge and research in art and design, Design Issues, 17, 215–19.↦ Pedgley, O., Wormald P. 2007. Integration of Design Projects within a PhD, Design Issues, 23(3), 70–85.↦ Roth, S. 1999. The State of Design research. Design Issues, 15(2), 18–26.↦ Rorty, R. 1982. Consequences of Pragmatism: Essays 1972–1980, Harvester, Brighton.↦ Rorty, R. 1982. Contingency, irony, and solidarity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York.↦ Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. 2006. Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.↦ Shreeve, A., Bailey, S. and Drew, L. 2004. ‘Students’ Approaches to the ‘Research’ Component in the Fashion Design Project: Variation in Students’ Experience of the Research Process’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), 113–30. ↦ Street, B.V. 1995. Social literacies: critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London ; New York: Longman.↦ Street, B.V., Jones, C., & Turner, J. Eds. 1999. Students writing in the university: cultural and epistemological issues. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub.

«Focused»

196↦ Taylor, S., & Beasley, N. 2005. A handbook for doctoral supervisors. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer↦ Uren, V. 2006. Sensemaking Tools for Understanding Research Literatures: Design, Implementation and User Evaluation, International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 64(5), 420–435.↦ Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications↦ Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, U.K. ; New York, N.Y.: Cambridge University Press.↦ Wisker, G. 2004. The good supervisor: supervising postgraduate and undergraduate research for doctoral theses and dissertations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

197


«Focused»

198

199


University

Email Internet

Practice in the Process of Doctoral Research

11School of Art and Design University of Wolverhampton, UK Reader in Design and Applied Arts [email protected] www.niedderer.org

↦ PhD-research ↦ practice ↦ process ↦ methodology

Keywords

This paper presents a reflection on the processes and outcomes of doctoral research with the aim to convey something of the experi-ence, development and rational that are characteristic of the PhD. The reflection highlights in particular the questions of why one might want to do a PhD and how to include practice in support of the con-tribution to knowledge.

Kristina Niedderer

1. Introduction

This paper presents a reflection on the processes and outcomes of doctoral research with the aim to convey something of the experi-ence, development and rational characteristic for doing a practice-based PhD. I use my own PhD as a case study to highlight two issues in particular:

Why a practitioner might want to do a PhD. I explain my motivation for doing a PhD in relation to the debate around research and prac-tice, and I explore how research and practice differ, how they relate, and how research can contribute to practice.

One problem – n solutions: shaping the PhD. I discuss the process and product of the PhD on the example of my own inquiry by comparing

«Focused»

200

its initial development to its final shape. I also explore what the role of practice is and can be in this process in relation to the contribu-tion of knowledge in research.

2. Why a practitioner might want to do a PhD

I start this section by introducing myself and my work, which will lead me to the core of the first problem: why a practitioner might want to do a PhD? With a first degree in gold and silversmithing from Germany, I worked for two years in my profession before studying for an MA at the Royal College of Art, London. After the MA, I started setting up my own studio. Being at the start of a promising career, I seemingly changed course again when I enrolled for the PhD. This raised the questio: why do research, and even a doctorate, as a practitioner?

Personally, I was of course attracted by the prospect of having an-other three years to develop my work and ideas. But I also felt I had reached a point within my work where the traditional means of craft practice would not suffice to approach the encountered problem and to progress my work beyond a certain point. I therefore turned to research, in the hope to find an answer to my questions, or indeed find out what the questions were.

The question of why to do a PhD is not just a personal one. It has been widely discussed in the field of Art & Design. In the introduction to the DS & T journal special edition on issues of research and prac-tice, Durling, Friedman, and Gutherson [2002] state three reasons for doing a PhD:

Presuming a PhD is taken up out of a genuine interest in research, one finds regularly that practitioners start out with the intention to conduct practice-based research with the aim to improve their crea-tive work. Scrivener describes the problem as follows:

— To engage with research and gain/advance new knowledge— As ‘a guarantee of basic proficiency in university disciplines’

and university-level teaching— To further their career and improve their salary

201


“Typically, the candidate researchers, whether artists or designers, are experienced practitioners who want to engage in research that will contribute directly to their on-going practice. Furthermore, they wish to conduct the research through art- or design-making, or, put another way, they do not wish to suspend their creative work or allow it to become separate from, or sub-ordinate to, the research activity” [Scrivener 2002: 30].

Scrivener considers that this request is not a problem as such and not necessarily in conflict with the requirements of research. The ques-tion arises therefore as to why there is a (perceived) problem, and what it is. Scrivener provides another clue when he indicates that problems arise:

“when the candidates’ primary interest is in producing artefacts and when these are closely associated with their self-identification as creators. For these candidates, the artefacts arising from the re-search cannot simply be conceived as by-products or exemplifica-tion of ‘know-how’. Instead, they are objects of value in their own right. Typically, the candidates involved are artists or studio/craft practitioners, focused on producing work that stands up in the public domain (e. g. be worthy of exhibition). For them, doctoral study is seen mainly as an opportunity to develop as creators and to produce more satisfactory work” [Scrivener 2002: 30].

Like Scrivener, I want to advocate that the creation of new creative work is not necessarily at odds with research. However, I see a prob-lem where the aim of “producing work that stands up in the public domain” [Scrivener 2002: 30] remains the main motivation for the practi-tioner-researcher and where the requirement of research to advance knowledge is neglected. Looking at the process and product of PhD research in relation to the process and product of creative/profes-sional practice shall serve to highlight some of the differences of research and practice.

The formal aims of research with regard to process and product are e.g. defined by AHRC [2005] and have further been explained by Biggs [2002]:

«Focused»

202

While there are guidelines and definitions for what constitutes re-search, there does not seem to exist an equivalent formal definition for what constitutes creative/professional practice [Wordsmyth 2001]. I have therefore collated a selective list of characteristics of prac-tice which seem to be commonly recognised:

These characteristics indicate that practice can offer a personal development/benefit for practitioners or for others through creative output. However, there is no necessity or consequence that practice will advance the knowledge of practitioner and/or audience. This indicates a crucial difference between the aims of practice and re-search. In order to explain what this difference might mean, I identify these differences in my own practice and research work:

The practice, which was the starting point for my research, was a set of cups designed to make an impact on social interaction through its use, and so to create a new experience for the user, although not necessarily the same that had motivated the design in the first place.

In contrast, the aim of the research was to understand the charac-teristics of this kind of object, the interactive phenomenon created,

— With regard to process, AHRC [2005] has defined and stated the importance of research question(s), research context, and approach/method.

— With regard to product, AHRC [2005] has defined the difference between research and practice in relation to criteria for the products of research, while other sources highlight an advance in knowledge that is original and communicable [Biggs 2002].

— practice is a personal investigation, [Schön 2002]— practice is an expression of personal experiences, worldviews

etc. [Carroll 1999]— practice creates an experience for the audience, user etc. [Carroll 1999]— practice offers a service to the audience, user, client etc. [Norman 2002] (the products of) practice are for sale.

203


and the principles of designing it. This knowledge created by the re-search can be used within practice to improve the artistic trans-lation of the personal experience into artefacts.

These are clearly different aims yet both, research and practice, serve the same goal of advancing practice, and indeed both were required for a satisfactory development. This explains why a practi-tioner might wish to pursue research, and what the contribution of research to practice might be. Adopting the aims of research through my commitment to doctoral study required me to find an approach and methods appropriate to research, which I discuss below.

3. One problem – n Solutions: Shaping the PhD

In this section I discuss first the relationship between problem, pro-cess, and product within research; and second the role of theory and practice within the process of research.

3.1 Analysing the Relationship Between Problem, Process, and Product in the StudyAs indicated before, I undertook my PhD, because I had encountered a problem, which I felt I could not simply solve by making more work. The problem was that I had made an object called “Social Cups” that seemed to behave differently to other objects, but I did not quite understand how, and I felt unable to make new objects that were not a mere repetition.

The “Social Cups” became the starting point for my PhD. They were designed with the aim to explore the social interaction around the table, and to make the user aware and reflective of this interaction. The shape of the cups is that of a champagne glass, yet without the foot without which they cannot stand. Instead the cups have little connectors by means of which they can be connected. At least three cups need to be connected to build a stable unit. In this way, people are encouraged to explore their interactions and interrelations when using the cups [Fig. 1 ↦ 211].

«Focused»

204

The piece raised strong debate about the potential of the object to function as a social mediator. This sparked the desire for a system-atic inquiry into the phenomenon described. The aim was to under-stand better the characteristics of this kind of objects, of their im-pact and design, and whether they could be useful as a wider concept for design. In the following, I describe how the project was originally imagined to shape up, and then how it actually developed and why.[Fig. 1 ↦ 211]

3.2 The original Design of the Study:Aim: Coming with the mindset of a practitioner to the research, I envisaged my study to be a design inquiry, which would show that the objects that I called performative objects could create awareness (mindfulness) of social interaction and that they were new.

Method: At this stage, I thought it would be necessary to show that one could design different objects with this quality of mindful inter-action. I also thought I had to test the objects, in order to show that they created mindful interaction. I started to design and make objects, and test them by giving them to people to use. A cultural- historical essay was thought to contextualise the exercise.

Outcome: The outcome might have been examples of work and re-sults of the testing as proof that one could design (certain) objects to cause mindful interaction. I might have also been able to say some-thing about the design process in form of some design guidelines.

The problems with this design of the study were several:

The reason for these problems was an initial lack of understanding of what different kind of approach the inquiry could take, and how it

— To establish guidelines for the testing was difficult because of too many variables (characteristics, situation, people, culture-dependency, etc.)

— What if the tests failed? In the current design, I would not have known whether the setup was wrong, or the design of the ob-jects, or whether it was possible to cause mindful interaction through objects at all.

205


could be pursued through an appropriate methodology to build a ro-bust study. Once I had gained this understanding, the study devel-oped as follows.

3.3 Summary of the Actual Study:Aim/Problem: Since I felt that the traditional means of practice would not suffice to solve the problem that I had discovered, I wanted to understand the underlying concept and whether we could design ob-jects to create awareness (mindfulness) of social interaction, what their characteristics were, and what the principles are for designing them.

Conjecture: This led to the proposition of a new category of design object, called performative object (PO). The conjecture was that POs can communicate and cause mindfulness of others in the context of human interaction by means of function. My claim was that POs had not yet been recognised, and my aim to identify them as a separate category of definable design objects.

Research Problem: In order to identify the PO as a separate category it was necessary to find out what POs are by defining their charac-teristics. It was further necessary to distinguish the category of PO from other categories of objects to show their originality, and to as-sess its benefits.

The nature of the study: The most important step in proposing the PO as a new category was to identify the study as a naming and classi-fication study. Fawcett [1999] explains that naming and classification are descriptive theories. They “are needed when nothing or very little is known about the phenomenon in question” and they “state ‘what is’.” With regard to the study of PO, the task of the naming was to identify and qualify the phenomenon under question. The task of the classification was to identify how the phenomenon relates to other (related) phenomena. In this way, the study showed the existence and originality of the concept of PO.

The methodology: In order to demonstrate the existence and original-ity of the category of PO, the study described the phenomenon of PO

«Focused»

206

(concept development). The existence and originality of the concept was tested through the analysis and comparison of examples. The challenge was to maintain the relevance of the study for design. This was achieved by positioning the study in the context of design, by using relevant examples, by indicating the consequences of the study for designing, and by proposing tentative design guidelines.

Outcome: The outcome and contribution of the thesis was that one can identify artefacts with certain characteristics of mindfulness as performative objects (POs) and that one can distinguish them as a separate definable category of design objects. The thesis provides a framework to distinguish and evaluate design with regard to these characteristics, and it also provides some tentative design guide-lines for designing POs.

3.4 How the Definition of the Problem Changed During the Course of the Study, and How this Affected the Nature, the Research Questions, the Methodology, and the Outcome of the ResearchWhat remained of the original study was the proposition of the cate-gory of the Performative Object, what changed can be summarised as follows [Fig. 2 ↦ 210]:

The main aim of the study became the identification of the PO as a new category of design object that can cause mindful interaction by means of its function, rather than to demonstrate that a limited number of objects can be shown to cause mindfulness.

The problem changed accordingly from whether POs can cause mindfulness and how we can design them, to what POs are, how we can distinguish them, and what their significance might be.

The context of the study moved from a context of critical theory/ material culture into the context of design, and its relevance to design despite its more theoretical nature.

The methodology changed from experimental research that seeks to test and verify the predicted theory (which had the problem that

207


the theory did not yet exist) to a naming and classification study, which generates a new theory (that can be tested later). The methods changed accordingly from experiment to concept development and comparative analysis.

The outcome of the study was redefined: it changed from seeking proof of mindfulness through empirical experiment to a theoretical argument that generates knowledge of the characteristics and quali-ties of interaction, mindfulness, and function, thus providing a frame-work for distinguishing these kinds of objects from other objects.

4. The Relationship of Theory and Practice Within my Work

In this section, I explain the role and contribution of my practice in the research process.

The practice was conducted as part of the concept development with the aim of generating insight into the functioning of POs and into the design process as well as of providing examples for the comparative analysis.

For this purpose, the concept of function was explored experimen-tally through creative practice. The practice project consisted of designing and making a number of drinking vessels according to a pre-determined conceptual framework.

The framework was based on having identified five aspects of func-tion in the text “The Thing” by Heidegger [1971, 2000]. Each aspect of function was explored with regard to causing mindfulness through designing and making three drinking vessels in which the relevant aspect of function was gradually made dysfunctional.

The stages of ‘functional’, ‘dysfunctional’, and ‘semi-functional’ in each set of vessels were achieved through a disruption of the relevant aspects of function. In those vessels, which were ‘semi-functional’, i. e. at the cusp between being functional and being dysfunctional, it was still possible to ‘compensate’ for the disruption of function through interaction with the object.

«Focused»

208

For example, in the case of the functional aspect of holding liquid, the dysfunctional vessel has many holes and therefore does not hold and cannot be made to hold any liquid any longer. In contrast, the semi-functional vessel has only five holes, which can be covered with the fingertips of one hand. Thus the function can be restored through interaction, whereby this requirement for interaction could be shown to raise awareness and reflection. [Fig. 3/4 ↦ 211].

The outcome of the practice in terms of artefacts was a series of 5 × 3 drinking vessels of conceptual-experimental character, some of which served as examples for the comparative testing in the thesis.

The outcome of the creative practice in terms of the research process was a record of the design process, which provided knowledge of the relationship of function and mindfulness. In this way, the analysis through creative practice made an important contribution to the conceptual understanding of function and its relationship with mind-fulness with regard to performative objects. The knowledge gained allowed also to develop tentative design guidelines as a direct contri-bution of the overall study to design practice.

What the project did not provide, and was not meant to provide, was a body of creative work that would stand for itself. If that would have been the outcome, this might have been an additional benefit, but it was not essential to the progress and contribution of the practice to the overall research project. Furthermore, not having to produce a body of ‘artistic work’ that would stand for itself was a liberation, which allowed for a much freer experimentation. Instead, what was important for the research was to find out what would happen within the established framework, and to gain some knowledge from the process about function in the performative object.

5. Conclusion

In this paper, I have discussed why a practitioner might want to study for a PhD, and how this might contribute to their practice. I have set my own motivation for doing a PhD in the context of a comparison of the aims of research and practice to answer these questions. I have

209


further discussed my PhD project in its initial and in its final design in order to show the importance of getting the research design right in order to gain robust and valid results. This analysis has shown how research questions, context, methods, and outcomes relate and determine the contribution to knowledge. Finally, I have shown how theory and practice can merge within research, and where and how practice might contribute to research and vice versa.

210

Asp

ects

Ori

gin

al o

utse

tFi

nal o

utse

t

Aim

Pro

posi

tion

of P

O; n

arro

w u

nder

stan

ding

of

PO

as

new

kin

d of

obj

ect

Pro

posi

tion

of P

O; w

ider

und

erst

andi

ng o

f PO

as

new

cat

egor

y of

des

ign

obje

ct

Con

text

Mat

eria

l cul

ture

/cri

tica

l the

ory

Des

ign

Que

stio

nsC

an P

Os

caus

e m

indf

ulne

ss?

(H

ow) c

an w

e de

sign

them

?W

hat a

re P

Os?

Can

we

dist

ingu

ish

PO

s...?

W

hat a

re th

e co

nseq

uenc

es o

f ide

ntif

ying

them

?

Met

hodo

logy

Des

igni

ng P

Os

+ u

ser-

test

ing;

cri

tica

l ess

ay

desc

ribi

ng th

e co

ncep

t, de

sign

ing,

and

test

ing

Con

cept

dev

elop

men

t A

naly

sis

of e

xam

ples

to d

emon

stra

te e

xist

ence

of

the

cons

ept o

f PO

; Com

pari

son

to d

emon

stra

te it

s or

igin

alit

y

Out

com

eS

how

that

obj

ects

can

cau

se m

indf

ulne

ssS

how

that

PO

s ex

ist,

and

can

caus

e M

; Sho

w

that

they

are

a n

ew/s

eper

ate

cate

gory

; fra

mew

ork

for

iden

tify

ing

them

;Ten

tati

ve d

esig

n gu

idel

ines

.

Fig

. 2: D

efin

itio

n of

pro

blem

: Cha

nges

dur

ing

the

cour

se o

f the

stu

dy. ↦

20

6

211


Fig. 3: Series I, Project 1: “Holding Liquid”. Cup 1: Drinking vessel (tumbler) and Cup 2: Drinking vessel (perforated). Kristina Niedderer, 2001. ↦ 208

Fig. 4: Series I, Project 1: “Holding Liquid”. Cup 3: Drinking vessel (with 5 holes that can be covered with the fingers). Kristina Niedderer, 2001. ↦ 208

Fig. 1: “Social Cups”. Kristina Niedderer, 1999. ↦ 203/204

«Focused»

212References and Endnote↦ AHRC definition of research 2004–5. The UK Arts and Humanities Research Board, Guidance notes. URL: http://www.ahrc.ac.uk: 1. The Board’s definition of research is primarily concerned with the definition of re -

search processes, rather than outputs. This definition is built around three key features and your application must fully address all of these in order to be con si - dered eligible for support:

— it must define a series of research questions or problems that will be ad dressed in the course of the research. It must also define its objectives in terms of seeking to enhance knowledge and understanding relating to the questions or problems to be addressed.

— it must specify a research context for the questions or problems to be addressed. You must specify why it is important that these particular questions or problems should be addressed; what other research is being or has been conducted in this area; and what particular contribution this project will make to the advancement of creativity, insights, knowledge and understanding in this area.

— it must specify the research methods for addressing and answering the re - search questions or problems. You must state how, in the course of the re search project, you will seek to answer the questions, or advance available knowledge and under standing of the problems. You should also explain the rationale for your chosen research methods and why you think they provide the most appropriate means by which to answer the research questions.

2. This definition of research provides a distinction between research and practice per se. Creative output can be produced, or practice undertaken, as an integral part of a research process as defined above. The Board would expect, however, this practice to be accompanied by some form of documentation of the research pro - cess, as well as some form of textual analysis or explanation to support its position and to demonstrate critical reflection. Equally, creativity or practice may involve no such process at all, in which case they would be ineligible for funding from the Board.

↦ Biggs, M. 2002. The rôle of the artefact in art and design research. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, Vol.10 (2), pp.19–24.↦ Carroll, N. 1999. Philosophy of Art. A Contemporary Introduction. London: Routledge.↦ Durling, D., Friedman, K., and Gutherson, P. 2002. Editorial: Debating the Practice- Based PhD. In the International Journal of Design Science and Technology. 10 (2): p. 7–18.↦ Fawcett, J. 1999. The Relationship of Theory and Research. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company.↦ Heidegger, M. 2000. Das Ding in Vortraege und Aufsaetze. Guenther Neske Verlag, p. 157–179.↦ Heidegger, M. 1971. The Thing in Poetry Language Thought. London and New York: Harper & Row, p. 165–186. (Translation & Introduction by A. Hofstaedter).↦ Norman, D.A. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books.↦ Schön, D. 2002. The Reflective Practitioner. Ashgate, Aldershot, UK. 2002.↦ Scrivener, S. 2002. Characterising Creative-production Doctoral Projects in Art & Design. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, Vol.10(2), pp. 25–44.↦ Wordsmyth. 2001. Wordsmyth. The Educational Dictionary. Wordsmyth Collabo ratory. Robert Parks, ed. 2001. ARTFL (Project for American and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language). Chicago: Divisions of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL: http://www.wordsmyth.net/. Date accessed: 2001 February 2.

213


«Focused»

214

215


University

Email Internet

Teaching Research Methods for Design. Experiences in Progress: Pilot Experiences with the “Research Methods for Design” Course within the Product Design Curricula at the Facoltà del Design of Politecnico di Milano

12Politecnico di Milano, Facoltà del Design Dipartimento Indaco [email protected] www.design.polimi.it

↦ design research teaching ↦ design research methods ↦ product design curricula

Keywords

Based on the last three-year teaching experience for the “Research methods for design” course within the programmes of the School of Design of Politecnico di Milano, this contribution offers a reflection from a personal perspective on difficulties met when introducing design research principles and methods to students at the beginning of their design curricula at University. In the context of Politecnico degree and higher degree programmes in design, the area of research methods for design is still in a formative stage as an academic disci-pline and perspectives on the form and nature of design research cur-ricula are in progress. Although a community of enquiry has formed and it is moving ahead to consolidate what is known in an increas-ingly grounded form, there is uncertainty and open debate about the nature of design research, the institutional framework that should support it and the scholarly models of design research education.

In the last five years there has been an increasing introduction of design research theories, principles and tools within the design pro-

Silvia Pizzocaro

«Focused»

216

grammes at the School of Design, where design research, either as a topic or a set of methods and tools, is now part of required courses, design studios and complementary or elective activities.

This paper first outlines in short the status of the School of Design of Politecnico di Milano, which has been formally integrating design re-search education within design curricula at the higher degree and Ph.D. level.

Then it pinpoints some criteria and conceptual frameworks that may flexibly shape the contents of an introduction to design research for novice students in the product design curriculum.

It finally addresses – from a personal perspective – some persistent difficulties encountered when exposing local higher degree first year students to a tentative generalized body of theories, methods and tools for design research.

Introduction

The Politecnico di Milano is a science and technology university educating engineers, architects and industrial designers through a variety of programmes. There are now three study levels: Laurea, Laurea Magistrale, Ph.D.

Milano has a long tradition in the practice of design, a profession dating back to the early years of the century, well based on local crafts and industries. It was Milano itself, with the Politecnico, that fostered the creation of Italy’s first degree course in industrial design in 1993, exploiting the long lasting dialogue with the entre-preneurial and management tradition of the small and medium size companies and manufacturers of the local and national industrial system.

The recent history of the degree course in industrial design – which has now become the established School of Design – is marked by both consolidated and experimental teaching models. Since the be-ginnings the faculty engaged by this degree course has represented

217


a variety of cultures, merging the scientific and academic subjects stemming from design studies either in architecture and engineer-ing. A relevant number of entrepreneurs, experts, designers from the areas of management, services and culture, as well as professional associations, often join the local academics and play an essential role in the educational programmes of the School of Design. Nine years after its creation, the School is now articulated into two cam-puses, in Milan and in Como. Some figures may outline the scale of the institution: about 4,000 students, with a coherent number of teachers, assistants, practitioners and experts who support full time academics.

3+2

Since 2004 the School of Design adopted a revised structure accord-ing to the readjustment of the Italian academic system. The traditional five-year degree course in industrial design – once representing the possible path for secondary school leavers requiring a professional education – has been reorganized in terms of subjects and purposes, in order to meet the new demands of the evolving social and techno-economical system. The recent reform of the Italian academic sys-tem has led to the introduction of a number of new institutional ele-ments, including:— the degree and higher degree: the traditional five-year course

has been split into two progressive levels, namely a three-year Degree and a Higher Degree of a further two years, shaping a structure now referred as “3+2”;

— university education credits: the system once based on yearly programmes is now converted into a system of university edu-cation credits (cfu, equivalent to the international credits Ects – European credit transfer system). University education credits are understood as units measuring the learning work, including the individual study demanded from a student. For the School of Design each credit corresponds to 25 hours of work. The aver-age quantity of work associated with learning by a student on a full-time basis is conventionally established as 60 credits per year.

«Focused»

218

In the academic context of the discipline of design, the first level Degree (Laurea, 180 cfu) is expected to accomplish the general pro-fessional training and cultural education of junior designers. The second level Degree (Laurea Magistrale, 120 cfu) is expected to offer specialized skills in a particular area, or to extend the knowledge and skills acquired during the three years of the Degree programme, to complete the profile of an advanced designer [Fig. 1 ↦ 227].

1. Designing Design Education

The present status and organization of the School of Design is the result of revisions and integrations of the traditional academic framework. Historically, the Italian university has been organized on the basis of a vertical division of knowledge with the educational pathway framed as a deductive process. Until very recently, in most disciplines academic education was organized in a linear and se-quential manner, with theory and related knowledge representing the starting phases of the learning process and the technical and practical activities – the practice – deferred at the end of this pro-cess or, in some cases, to the very final phases of the curricula.

This system was revised when the recent restructuring of the aca-demic system took place. Specifically, it has been assumed that it is not possible any longer to conceive forms of advanced education rigidly divided into compartments. Thus, the learning process is now interpreted as an inductive process, where theory and practice go side by side, with theory informing practice and practice being grounded in theory.

Current academic curricula in industrial design (first and higher degree) are expected to provide the theoretical, scientific and pro-fessional knowledge required by a practitioner for the design, manu-facturing and improvement of products. The industrial product is not meant as a physical artifact only, but as the complex of factors aimed at communicating the product itself while giving it a sense (such as the aspects of graphic design and the design of brands, web sites, etc.).

219


The three-year first Degree programme is expected to form gradu-ates who are design technicians, practitioners for all the technical duties required by product conception, production and distribution. The Higher Degree graduates are expected to supervise and define the strategic dimensions of design activities. These graduates are educated to be able to coordinate complex design activities, i. e. the creation of extensive and articulated product systems.

Those who have completed a Higher programme may attend a Ph.D. programme, the academic curriculum for advanced training in design research. The design area features a multifaceted Ph.D. programme (exploring the areas of product design, multimedia communication, interior design, design methods for product development, service system design, cultural heritage).

2. Design Research for Beginners

The Politecnico di Milano is a research institution and the School of Design operates under strict connection with the research units (Udrd) of the Department of Industrial Design (Indaco).

While at the first degree level (Laurea, articulated into the curricula in Industrial Design – Product, Communication Design, Fashion Design and Interior design) students are not specifically exposed to an integrated process of research in the very early phases of their curricula, the concept development and the testing of the design outcomes of their degree thesis is explicitly required to be based on the evidence of some investigations. Within the curricula in product design, the basic explorations informing the degree thesis project usually include data gathering, facts assembling or case study sur-vey, and may include – to a very limited extent – usability testing, rapid ethnography, short task analysis, rapid user profiling.

At the higher degree level (Laurea Magistrale, articulated into the curricula of industrial Design – Product, Communication Design, Fashion Design, Interior Design, Furniture Design, Yacht Design, Service System Design, Design and Engineering) there are more effective opportunities to integrate the creative design process with

«Focused»

220

research activities, instilling a form of awareness of design research as a pre-requisite to a more formal approach to design research methods: at this level education in specific methodologies is rein-forced by the more mature profile as a practitioner that students start to express. Starting from the first year of the higher degree level, our students are formally exposed to approaches to design research through specific courses, i. e. “Research Methods for De-sign”, and through elective and complementary studios.

The complete first year of the two-year high degree product design curriculum is based on the following courses and studios: a design workshop, Semiotics, Communicating Design, Research Methods for Design, Strategic Design, History of Contemporary Art (for the opening semester) and Material and Technologies, Design Concept Studio, Project and Process, System-Product Development Studio (for the second semester).

The Research Methods for Design course contents vary according to the curricula (product design, communication design, fashion, interior design, system service design, etc.). These courses open a perspective on different ways to conceive research and to relate it to design, to encourage design approaches where theory, practice and research are integrated to sustain creative activity.

3. A Pilot Course

At the higher degree level, all first year students of the two-year product design curricula are offered the Research Methods for De-sign course, which was introduced in Autumn 2003 as a required. The Research Methods for Design course that I propose to the stu-dents (around 85–90 per section of the curricula in product design) is aimed at introducing students to the idea of design research.

Students engaged in this semester-long course are:— provided lectures proposing an overview about developments

around the idea of design research— exposed to snapshots of research methods as well as case stud-

ies (ranging from ethnographic observation to immersive tech-

221


The introduction of non-specific and broad based design research methods, with an even distribution of attention to many methods, may contrast with some students needs and expectations to acquire more narrow-focused skills. Nevertheless, the intention of this course is to provide richer, although less specific, stimuli for innovative thinking and enlarged visions.

In its present form, the course is not a foundation course nor an intro-ductory one: it is a first year course built around the need to encour-age students' awareness of design research as a ground to inspire their creative learning. It is between a partial grammar of design re-search (some concepts, tools and techniques) and a partial syntax of the language of design research.

4. Tools for Reflection

As this course aims at introducing the elements of some design re-search methods while offering some points of reflection around the idea of design research, its contents are divided into two sections, namely “Tools for reflection” and “Tools in action”.

“Tools for reflection” takes the form of a sequence of ex cathedra lectures and it emphasizes the role of definitions – either formal or descriptive – to clarify the dimensions of the context of design research. Here, I assume that definitions are not meant to settle matters once and for all [Buchanan, 2001, p. 8]: rather, they are critical to point at and suggest possible directions to be explored. The follow-ing list summaries a flexible index of definitions usually to be argued through lectures during the semester:

niques, participatory activities, literature survey, case study gathering, scenario building)

— trained with various methods through short research exercises and assignments to gain simplified experience (rapid ethno-graphy, user profiling, shadowing, product testing)

— What’s research and what’s design research— What’s a design research methodology — What are generations in design methodology

«Focused»

222

At the same time, while trying a tentative context for research for design, research about or in design and research through design, a selected number of seminar lectures serve at introducing entwined topics derived from three main areas of reflection:

These seminar lectures flexibly introduce some views on historical roots of design research [Bayazit, 2004; Margolin, 2002], generations in de-sign methodologies [Broadbent, 2002], different forms of systematic enquiry [Friedman, 1999, 2000; Sato 2000, 2004; Poggenpohl, 2000], kinds of design research [Margolin, 1997; Hanington, 2003; Popovic, 2003], the design-science relation [Friedman, 1997; Gero, 2000], the designerly ways of knowing and thinking [Cross, 1982, 1995, 2000, 2004].

5. Tools in Action

At the same time students are solicited to approach a selected number of research methods. “Tools in action” is a sequence of fur-ther introductory outlines equipped with simplified instructions for guided exercises, proposing snapshots of research methods so to en-courage the student active involvement in simplified techniques of:

— the discourse around design research — user studies — studies on designerly ways of thinking

— rapid ethnography— user profiling— interviews— scenario building

— What’s scientific design— What’s design science — What’s a science of design— What’s a design research question— What’s a tool for design research— What’s quantitative design research— What’s qualitative design research— What’s ethnographic research— What’s human centred research— What’s action research for design

223


During the semester students are prompted to produce short exer-cises, tests, simulations, as well as carrying out two formal longer assignments, which usually take the form of a simplified ethno-graphic research for the re-design of a simple product and the analy-sis of a design research case study.

Although the course also explicitly includes the topics of action research and research on designerly ways of thinking [Cross, 2004], it is user-centred research that is becoming prominent for students. Indeed, the emphasis on direct interaction with people and their real life throughout their course activity, using simplified research methods coherent with to their daily context, is strongly encouraged. The prominence of methods derived from user-centred research or from user studies is motivated not only by the viability of some of these methods within the limited time and resources available, but it is the research activity largely favoured by students themselves and to be encountered in complementary classes, design studios and projects throughout their curriculum.

6. Filling Gaps and Missing Links

The need to articulate and maintain a sequence of introductory lec-tures within the course is motivated by the fact that although the value of design research is increasingly recognized and emphasized within the School of Design, we still face students whose idea of design research is definitively vague.

— role play— shadowing— questionnaires/surveys— opinion polls— immersive experience— lead user— rapid prototyping— usability testing— think aloud protocols— case studies

«Focused»

224

Although situated between an advanced beginner level and expert level as far as their developed expertise in design is concerned, higher degree students are still between a naïf and a novice level as far as their research awareness is concerned. This implies that most of them are in the transition from that naive state where they ex-press interest in emulating conventional situations to a novice state where they start considering the featuring of a situation under expert guidance and follow strict rules to deal with it. To paraphrase Dorst [2008, p. 8] these students encounter design research as a formal proc-ess for the first time and to tackle its complexities they need to learn a whole series of techniques. But before that, I propose that it is an idea, a perception of design research that has to be transmitted to start their research expertise.

As a matter of fact, it keeps on being difficult for our local students – who are often familiar only with data gathering and fact assembling – to recognize that there are many kinds of design research and that research does not mean a single kind of activity [Buchanan, 2001, p. 17]. When reminding the important distinction of clinical, applied and basic research that is employed by universities as well as corporate and governmental bodies, it still keeps on being difficult not only for designers and design educators but even more for students to distin-guish those kinds of research within the boundaries of design.

Such an indefinition also reflects the status of a local design research culture that is just now building a more consolidated identity. This is partly due to the peculiar background and the state-of-art of the culture of design research in Italy, where design has a long lasting professional tradition but no strictly formalized tradition in design research. Notwithstanding the history of Italian design and its cultural impact, national accreditation of the Ph.D. research pro-grammes in design and the degree programmes (Laurea) in indus-trial design dates back to the Nineties. Thus, although consolidated in its vocational character, design is still in a formative stage as an academic discipline and a field of academic enquiry. Design curric-ula are continuously revised and innovative perspectives are just starting to be settled on the form and nature of formalized design research within and outside the academic context.

225


Further, I tend to agree with Hanington [2005] that many common per-ceptions still exist that impede the complete integration of research into the process of learning of our higher level students, as well as in the creative process of some designers. Most of these perceptions are founded not only in a lack of familiarity with design research and the opportunity to exploit its methods in general, but also in some scepticism on the effective extent to which research results may affect the design process as well as a reluctance to recognize that research may not only inform but inspire design.

This is the reason why – when revising the course contents for forth-coming semesters – I tend to be more and more concentrated on questions like: how to convince students of the value and utility of design research? Why do we need to convince them of something that seems so self-evident for successful design? What is the miss-ing link between design research and design?

These questions reflect the open debate focusing on one side on some resistance expressed by designers to integrate some kind of design research into their practice [Melican, 2004, p. 180] and on the other on those signs of a waiting-to-happen revolution in the design pro-fessions [Dorst, 2008, p. 8]. If it is true that a complete re-casting of the role of the designers through the adoption and incorporation of research into their professional practice is underway, why would a designer do research? What would designers need to know about re-search? How would that help designers design? How would designers develop actionable understandings of research results?

I have no robust responses at the ready. Rather, some preliminary, personal premises may clarify my view:— the research approach to design does not contradict the crea-

tive and artistic aspect of design. There’s no contradiction be-tween the aesthetic dimensions of product values and qualities and the design research criteria that may inform that product. The main difference lays in the statement that it is the param-eters of a design problem that may establish the basic require-ments of a design solution;

«Focused»

226

— research methods for design may (and indeed should) trans-form the practice of design, not the core aims of design. Al-though a large number of leading designers use articulated problem-solving methods – but others are not concerned with how design is done in addition to doing it [Coonley, 2004, p. 197] – and a growing number of designers, scholars and scholar-prac-titioners are active in the field of design research, it’s the prac-tice of design that is expected to change, not the objectives of design;

— a research approach to design does not contradict the role of intuition. Although we can not know what goes on the mind of a designer and we can not know whether a design solution emerges on the base of rigorous enquiries or through an uncon-scious process of selection of possible alternatives in the de-signer mind, intuition still remains there;

— finally, fully exploiting the potentials of research methods for design implies involving a rich relationship between theory and practice, between learning and learning-in-practice, between the conceptua lization of our surrounding phenomena and the understanding of phenomena themselves along the designer ability to articulate that increased understanding as conscious knowledge.

227


Laurea1st level Degree

Laurea Magistrale2nd level Degree

DottoratoPhD

1st year 1st year 1st year

2nd year ↦ 2nd year ↦ 2nd year

3rd year 3rd year

↦ 1st level Specialization courses

↦ 2nd level Specialization courses

↦ Professional practice ↦ Professional practice

Fig. 1: The 3+2 (plus 3) educational system. ↦ 218

«Focused»

228References↦ AHRC Arts and Humanities Research Council, 2007. Research Review, Practice-Led Research in Art, Design and Architecture, eds. Chris Rust, Sheffield Hallam University, Judith Mottram, Nottingham Trent University, Jeremy Till, University of Sheffield, version 2: November 2007.↦ Archer, B., 1995. The Nature of Research. Co-Design, January 1995, pp. 6–13.↦ Bayazit, N., 2004. Investigating Design: A Review of Forty Years of Design Research. Design Issues, Vol. 20, Number 1, Winter 2004, pp. 16–29.↦ Broadbent J. (2002). Generations in design methodologies. In Common Ground, D. Durling, J. Shackleton (eds.), Staffordshire University Press, Stoke-on-Trent.↦ Buchanan, R., 2001. Design Research and the New Learning. Design Issues, Vol. 17, Number 4, Autumn 2001, pp. 3–23.↦ Coonley, C., 2004. Where are the design methodologists?, Visible Language, 38.2, Special issue, pp. 196–215.↦ Cross, N., 1982. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Design Studies, Vol. 3, number 4, pp. 221–227.↦ Cross, N., Clayburn Cross, A., 1995. Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, vol. 16, n. 2, April 1995, pp. 143–170.↦ Cross, N., 2000. Design as a discipline. In Doctoral education in design: foundations for the future, eds. D. Durling and K. Friedman, Staffordshire University Press, Stoke-on-Trent, pp. 93–100.↦ Cross N., 2004. Creative Thinking by Expert Designers. The Journal of Design Research, Vol. 4, Issue 2, 2004.↦ Dorst, K., 2008. Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, Vol. 29, n. 1, January 2008, pp. 4–11.↦ Findeli, A., 2000. 00685. Re: Frayling’s “categories”. PHD-DESIGN. date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 10:56:30–0500. Archived at URL: www.jiscmail.ac.uk.↦ Frayling, C., 1993. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art Research Papers 1:1 (1993/4).↦ Friedman, K., 1997. Design Science and Design Education. In The Challenge of Complexity, ed. P. McGrory, University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH, Helsinki. pp. 54–72.↦ Friedman, K., 1999. Research methods for design. DRS. Design Research Society. Date: 30 Nov 1999 23:05:30 +0100 BST. URL: www.mailbase.ac.uk.↦ Friedman, K., 2000. Creating design knowledge: from research into practice. IDATER 2000. International Conference on Design and Technology, Educational Research Development, eds. P.H. Roberts and E.W.L. Norman. Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University, Loughborough.↦ Gero, J., 2000. Research methods for design science research. In Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future, eds. D. Durling and K. Friedman, Staffordshire University Press, Stoke-on-Trent 2000, pp. 154–156. ↦ Hanington, B., 2003. Methods in the Making: a Perspective on the State of Human Research in Design. Design Issues, Vol. 19, Number 4, Autumn 2003, pp. 9–18.↦ Hanington, B., 2005. Research Education by Design: Assessing The Impact of Pedagogy on Practice. In Joining Forces, Proceedings of the conference, Helsinki, University of Art and Design Helsinki, 21–22 September 2005.↦ Margolin, V., 1997. Getting to know the user. Design Studies, Vol. 18, n. 3, July 1997, pp. 227–236.

229


↦ Margolin, V., 2002. The politics of the artificial. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London.↦ Melican, J., 2004. User studies: finding a place in design practice and education. Visible language, 38.2, Special issue, pp. 168–193.↦ Poggenpohl, S.H., 2000. Constructing Knowledge in Design, Part 2: Questions – an approach to design research. In Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future, edited by D. Durling and K. Friedman, Stoke-on-Trent: Staffordshire University Press.↦ Popovic, V., 2003. An approach to knowledge generation by research and its utilization in practice. Situating doctoral research around artifacts. In 3rdDED Tsukuba. Proceedings of the Third Conference Doctoral Education in Design, edited by D. Durling and K. Sugiyama. Tsukuba: Chiba University and University of Tsukuba.↦ Sato, K., 2000. Constructing knowledge of design, Part 1: Understanding concepts in design research. In Doctoral Education in Design: Foundations for the Future, edited by D. Durling and K. Friedman, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire University Press.↦ Sato, K., 2004. Perspectives of Design Research: collectives views for forming the foundation of design research.Visible Language, Special issue 38(2), pp. 218–237.

«Focused»

230

231


«Focused»

232

233


University

Email

Collaborative Design: The Electric Industry in Soviet Russia 1973–79

13Royal Institute of Technology, KTH Stockholm and Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin [email protected]

↦ collaborative work ↦ designs labs ↦ interdisciplinary projects ↦ design in the USSR

Keywords

Margareta Tillberg

ElektroMera was a path-breaking project from many points of view. It was the largest design program ever launched in the USSR that was not exclusively military. Another important factor was that if the atomic and space programs were firmly established in Stalin’s industrial system, ElektroMera went against the grain of the old

What are our first associations when we hear “Russian” or “Soviet” design? We probably do not have many, if then perhaps sputniks and weapons: Kalashnikovs, Molotov cocktails and the like. In addition to cosmic travel and the military, names from the Russian avant-garde could turn up: Rodchenko’s advertisements, Tatlin’s clothes, maybe even Alexandra Exter’s constructivist plastic costumes for the 1924 science fiction film Aelita.

This paper will give an entirely different perspective on design prac-tice in the Soviet Union.1 I will present the working methods of the innovative and groundbreaking design program “ElektroMera” (Rus-sian for “Electric Measurement Instruments”) proposed for the “Elec-tric Measurement Instruments Association” (“SouizElektroPribor”).2 The ElektroMera program developed a rigid state industry conglomer-ation into a Western-style company in the Soviet Union between 1973 and 1979. With the logo “M” reminiscent of an electric impulse dia-gram, its competitors were giants such as Siemens.

«Focused»

234

structures. In the Soviet Union complex production schedules and plans were drawn up with hundreds, or even tens of thousands of people collaborating from different branches and scientific fields. In this way, the large-scale projects on space shuttles, airplanes and nuclear industry were realized, as were the prognoses for everyday consumption. Nevertheless, when it came to designers, they mostly worked with small scale, isolated artifacts. ElektroMera also began as an individual commission of a small choice of electric measuring instruments produced for export. The progressive director of a Kiev factory commissioned a designer group at a branch of the State Research Institute for Technical Esthetics3 in Kiev – VNIITE4 – to re-style a small collection of his products. As a result of the new design, the export rate rose by more than eight times. Business partners were in the Eastern Bloc and Asia.

The designer group realized that this was their chance to elevate de-sign in the Soviet Union to a completely different level. Design, con-ceived as the visual and organizational restructuring of the world for increased quality of life, was introduced only in the 1960s in the Soviet Union (I will come back to this later). Hitherto, the inhuman system had reduced the worker to little more than an obedient serv-ant, an automat at the conveyor belt. The director of “SoiuzElekro-pribor”, Mikhail Shkabardnia, agreed to expand the project to include all his factories. Not only had this director the enormous power to supervise a conglomerate of factories, but also the unusual will to implement change within the whole branch of electric measuring instruments. From one day to the next, the commission grew drasti-cally. Instead of an individual commission, ElektroMera developed into a long-term program. The initial commission was expanded and reformulated to include practically the complete material production of this whole branch, including all activities involved in the production processes. The new concept “design-programming” was launched.5 The aim of the program was a “systematic approach to planning, self-financing, organization and automatization of control and management”.6

The project was unprecedented in all aspects: the planning, the scale, the goals, the organization of the processes and the inculcation of

235


the finished products. It was no less than a coup in which a group of designers took temporary control over the entire production line of a whole branch. The ambitious goals were to reorganize and coordi-nate a whole industrial branch to become compatible throughout a country with a population of over 300 million and eleven time zones. This meant a complete restructuring of the production processes and the implementation of a fundamentally new system for both electronic and electrical measuring instruments. In addition, a corpo-rate design had to be produced for a group of enterprises comprising 32 factories from Vilnius (Lithuania) and Leningrad on the Baltic Sea in the west to Krasnodar, Erevan (Armenia) and Tbilisi (Georgia) in the south.

Dmitry Azrikan was, as the director of the state design institute put it, the “main catalyst for the new ideas in this field”.7 With abilities to discern gestalt patterns, organizational structures, and functions linked to form from his art-design- and engineering background, together with Dmitry Schelkunov, formal supervisor of the whole project and the point of contact with the authorities, he represented the motor of ElektroMera. Schelkunov was a master of translating visual into verbal language, and the author of numerous instructional and methodological papers. Azrikan, who made a proposal for a total redesign of a set of electrical equipment, became the leader of the production system and of the design group. The participants of the inner group were Ramiz Guseinov, a talented graphic designer who supervised the visual information, Andrei Meschaninov, a prominent designer from the VNIITE-branch (Institute of Technical Esthetics) in Leningrad, who led the systems of packaging and instruments, Vladimir Isakov, an architect who supervised the redesign of the production interiors and factory exteriors, and Kostas Yakovlevas-Matetskis from Vilnius branch of VNIITE.

The goodwill that allowed these young, smart, and hungry individu-als to work autonomously on this project came from a tight network at the top of the political hierarchy. In order to save Soviet industry, its members – Alexei Kosygin, Soviet Prime Minister, Konstantin Rudnev, Minister of Instruments Industry, Dzhermen Gvishiani, Chairman of The State Committee for Science and Technology8 (and

«Focused»

236

Kosygin’s son-in-law), and Yuri Solovyov, founder of VNIITE, The All-Union Scientific Research Institute for Technical Esthetics (indus-trial design) – were prepared to try out new methods for innovation.

The goal for VNIITE as a design institute was to implement design early on in the production process in order to increase efficiency. Founded in Moscow in 1962 under the auspices of the State Commit-tee for Science and Technology, VNIITE was the major research in-stitute for design in the Soviet Union. One of the ideas behind this new research institute was to “invent” design methods within the planning economy by maximally exploring the relation technology – science – art. The need to “catch up with the west” was considered to be urgent. Five years later, fifteen branches of VNIITE had been founded all over the USSR with about 200 additional “artists’ con-struction” (i. e., design) groups with “laboratories.” Within just a few years about 10,000 people had become involved in the institute. Until 1991, when state subsidies decreased drastically, VNIITE was the biggest institute for design research in the world.9 The unique posi-tion of VNIITE as a state institute for design was that it had the ex-pertise and the magnitude to initiate and participate in large-scale projects, projects that only the biggest international companies were able to afford. Two such large-scale projects were initiated; the practical “ElektroMera” and the theoretical “Methods for Artistic Construction”.10 Here I will talk about the practical project “Elektro-Mera”.

The factory association that ElektroMera was to restructure com-prised 32 factories with a staff of up to 20,000 workers in each. Their production, including around one and a half thousand devices, appa-ratus, instruments and assemblies of instruments, covered almost every part of the economy. The technological level was considered to be satisfactory, even when compared to international standards,11 but the ergonomic functionality and aesthetic appearance destroyed every possibility of export. It became the designers’ collective task to solve this problem. They were supported by the VNIITE state sys-tem with its networks of designer bureaux and scientific research institutes. With large organizational processes to be managed with numerous participants, each working on some specific detail of the

237


overall design, the interdisciplinary working methods applied in the ElektroMera design program as well as those generally applied in the state design developed in the Soviet Union in the 1960s–80s, show many similarities to what is today called collaborative design.

Initially ElektroMera was intended to coordinate only the corporate design of the various companies, but the program was successively extended to organizational restructuring as well, remembers Marina Mikheeva, engineer, industrial designer and collaborator of Arzikan for eighteen years.12 From the beginning, an effective network was set up throughout the USSR. In addition to the Moscow headquar-ters, the main participants were in Kiev, Vilnius and Leningrad with more than fifty contributing designers, ergonomists, architects, engi-neers, methodologists, standard experts, managers and economists. The vision of the design group was to coordinate the “technical com-patibility”, to induce “ergonomic equivalence” and to create “visual harmony”.13 Brainstorming meetings and planning seminars took place. Successively interior and landscape designers, experts on various materials and inventors were included. Professionals from various branches participated: Irina Mamontova worked on the graphics with Ramiz Guseinov, Marina Mikheeva on product design. The design of the uniforms was made by a Moscow designer bureau, which was also linked to VNIITE. As Dmitry Azrikan put it: “A City of the Sun was to be built in one selected industrial branch, in the middle of a grey country that had turned into an enormous garbage dump”.14

The ElektroMera system’s approach was not created in a void. The Scientific Organization of Labor15 which the singer-poet Alexei Gastev had launched in the 1920s inspired by Fordism and Taylorism, was revived in the 1960s. Further the Hochschule für Gestaltung in Ulm (HfG) with its scientific, rational outlook and module furniture func-tioned as a model for its Soviet counterparts (HfG-director Tomas Maldonaldo had visited Russia, and his articles were published in Soviet design journals). And cybernetics, as an interdisciplinary ap-proach to re-structure complex systems, had a peak in the Soviet Union in the 1960s and 1970s. In the Soviet Union cybernetics was a social movement which was used as a radical method to reform not

«Focused»

238

only science, but society as a whole. In the early 1960s it was praised as “science in the service of communism”.16

The language of cybernetics was an important tool in opening up communication between different disciplines which had earlier had little or no contact. When it came to design, the experience from computerization increased the role of engineering principles in com-bination with visual communication.17 In articles on ElektroMera, references were made to articles by A. A. Malinovsky on topics such as “Basic methods and definition of system’s theory in connection to biology” and “Theory of structures and its position in a system’s approach”.18 A. A. Malinovsky was the son of Alexander Bogdanov (a pseudonym), the “father of organization theory” whose path-break-ing Tektology or “Universal Organization Science” was published in 1913. By the 1970s there was a renewed interest in this pioneer of cybernetics in Russia.19 If cybernetics is a language using verbal and mathematical signs, design is a visual language. With their re-spective ambitions to embrace whole systems and not only isolated artifacts or factories, cybernetics and state design coincided. In combination with the centralized planning system this opened end-less possibilities.

The Story of Electromera

In the same issue of “Technical Esthetics,” on the pages following Brezhnev’s call for increased labor efficiency and industrial output, Dmitry Azrikan and Dmitry Schelkunov presented their concept for a complete restructuring of the electrical branch association “Soiuz-ElektroPribor”.20 The duo proposed a rationalized system to be a pplied to the production processes as well as to the products them-selves. Thanks to their combination of unusual skills and youthful boldness they energetically plunged themselves into this enormous project. Common difficulties in collaborate design practice were eliminated thanks to the state system. As the ElektroMera project was not one artifact (no matter how complex), but a whole branch, the number of nodes and issues were tremendous. Would this com-plex system be manageable? Would so many people be able to col-laborate? How could people be persuaded to reveal their professional

239


secrets and patents, their guarantee for existence? How could the complex dynamics between all these actors – individual and collec-tives – be handled? How could the goals of this collective action be managed? Would it even be possible to produce maximum utility value for the ElektroMera project with the given conditions?

How to redesign production processes of hundreds of thousands of workers that produced more than 1,500 artifacts? A radical solution had to be found. VNIITE mobilized all their fields of expertise, from engineers and inventors to ergonomists, from professionals working on graphics and packaging, exterior and interior design of production complexes, to clothing. The category “coherence” was introduced not only to the products themselves but to the entire strategy of the production processes. The long-term perspective of “unification” boosted the economy of the project due to reduced production costs and working hours.

Before ElektroMera, products were produced without any planning or interaction. Surprisingly enough, as one would perhaps think that the totalitarian Soviet Union was an all-embracing, all-surveying ma-chine, making everything run according to the master plan. In prac-tice it was entirely different. The products consisted of “a chaotic collection of non-compatible instruments, extremely non-practical, dangerous, and disagreeable”, according to Azrikan. This was the chance for the VNIITE design group to show what could be achieved with new design methods: to turn an “enormous featureless bureau-cratic formation, which put ugly deformed products on the market, into a first class design production with irreproachable corporate design that would be able to compete on the free market”.21 The system of material objects were subdivided into “Means of Produc-tion” (buildings, equipment, transportation, uniforms, publications, documentation, etc.) and “Product”.22 The most difficult task was to organize already existing means and products, to analyze their functionality in order to find out how they could be optimized and yet decreased in number. They were therefore grouped together and approached as one single system. The goal was to give the user an impression of one coherent system.

«Focused»

240

The nomenclature and the assortment of the products had to be op-timized.23 The challenge was to formulate a maximum of functions from a limited selection of simple elements.24 The approach to the restructuring of the product was to unify its procedures according to a clustering principle based on a complex set of standardizations. The strategy proposed was to bring together, or alternatively to re-duce the number of functions provided (which occasionally meant an additional function). The engineers of the companies unified the use of existing measuring instruments and in some cases even in-vented new ones by analyzing the functions hierarchically (analogies were made to a tree trunk, its branches and leaves). The initial step was to make the parameters, the metrology and constructions com-patible. Modules were defined to give a distinct and relatively clear-cut overview, thus enabling a quick and convenient modernization. Rapid technology innovation, which makes parts of the artifact ob-solete and therefore causing the whole instrument to be replaced, was reduced here to a minimum: only those parts of the construc-tion that needed to be replaced were involved. With these changes, the engineer did not have to make decisions on designs issues for every new step. Instead of the existing “monstrous chaos” a ready and applicable system would be in place to support every step of the production processes.

Ergonomics and Communication

The classification structure of the whole production system were changed by optimizing the user-centered functions.25 This basic ergo nomic outlook was a revolutionary change in that it focused the well being of the producer (the factory worker) when it came to con-ditions of production. When the consumer was considered, user-friendli ness was of major importance. As for the situation before ElektroMera, little consideration was paid to the application of ergo-nomics as the concern of human capabilities in relationship to their work demands. The contact between the operator and the instru-ment was investigated in theory. All the same, the practice was not standardized at all, but completely random. For example, there is an acceleration pedal on the right side and a brake pedal on the left side of a car, regardless of the kind of car you are driving. The team

241


found many varieties of such positions within the instruments groups, which of course led to mistakes being made, and occasion-ally even accidents. The task was to coordinate a great number of different instruments, all however, with the common denominator of being measuring instruments with a common interface.

Unified ergonomic principles imply a consequent system of inter-faces between man and machine.26 The overall concept was a “nec-essary set of functions connected to the user”27 to facilitate the operations of the various complexes of different instruments. As the operator needs to fulfill a number of various tasks, a lot of research was done to keep the variety of the operations to a minimum. At the same time, maximum information and control management should remain. This is the most visible linking factor.

Measuring instruments are constructed according to three schemes: a/ the circuit (the interior construction, the “filling”, the drive); b/ the elements that connect the instrument with its user, and c/ the ele-ment that connects the instrument with its surroundings. The func-tions therefore had to be directly linked to the constructions. This demanded a collaboration between the engineering construction specialists, the ergonomists and the designers. When the initial re-construction had been done, ergonomical and form-giving steps followed. The visual factors linked and revealed all functions on the exterior of the instruments. The functions visible on the exterior panel or terminal were subdivided into following groups: 1/ “Controls”: In-formation control and managing elements, the concrete organs for control (handles, switches, toggles, key(boards), buttons etc.); ele-ments for exterior commutation (plugs, sockets); indicators (scales, casing, frames, dials, pointers, digital elements, signal lamps). And finally locks, supports, circuit control labels, and handles of various kinds (for transportation, for taking out of the stand). This is the basis for the production pyramid that is included in all other orders. 2/ Front panels, consoles. Finding a unified visual language for the front panels is considered to be especially important from an ergo-nomic, but also an aesthetic point of view. 3/ Shells and membranes (cases, covers, jackets, housings). The difference in the ElektroMera project, compared with previous constructions, is that the casings

«Focused»

242

are completely separate from any interior function (which earlier was not always the case). 4/ Carrying constructions linked to the surrounding space (stationary pillars and posts, frames, stands, cabinets and boxes, trucks and trolleys).

Great effort was put into communicability and transparency. The im-mediate “perceptibility” of the whole system was of utmost impor-tance. The graphic language connected the operator with the instru-ment. The unity of the system lay in its ability to communicate with the user. The machines should “actively turn” to the user and the high technological level should be visible and reflect the perception of the operator.28 As the most visible factor of the whole design pro-gram, the corporate design “cemented” all the components into a visual entirety. All these visible signs were potential carriers of a common language for the whole Electro-Measurement-Instrument-Association. The system of activities and processes were subdivided into the following groups: objects that perform multiple functions, including information, buildings, equipment, administration, trans-portation, storage, uniforms, and objects that carry out purely infor-mational functions (instructions, educational, orientation and secu-rity, public relations).

The text and symbol system facilitated communication between op-erator and machine, between different instruments and their sur-roundings. Text and symbols were combined. One profile was used for the instruments, another for the packaging, and a third one for the industrial interiors. Short texts on the instruments described their functions, to which association, factory, department and even operator they belonged – in short, the exact location of each specific instrument in the system of production. The ‘mirror’ of this informa-tion was a list of all the participating instruments – the carriers of texts. Simple graphic codes (color, text, symbols) signaled the level of significance and importance of each instrument within the sys-tem. Color and graphic language were coordinated. Different colours were used in different spheres, but the style unified production, dis-tribution and consumption. Within the production sphere, there were different colors for the management and production spheres, which, however, taken together produced a unified style. All this collected

243


information was clearly displayed on a matrix in the language sys-temized for the whole system.

Instead of the given obsolete, unclear, non-transparent and inflexi-ble system, the ElektroMera suggested a fundamentally different approach: clear communication, visibility, transparency, and the possibility to survey in a coup d’oeuil. According to its authors, the Elektro Mera design program cannot simply be reduced to the visual corporate style of a company. It was not only about the relation bet-ween consumer and producer. It was not only about a visible system but about a functional system that aimed to restructure the produc-tion processes on a fundamental level as well.29 The new concept was to conceive all the different devices as one single product and to link the functions in the organization of the products as well as in the production between many companies in a whole branch association. These were aspects that increased the well being of the workers, a perspective that hitherto had not existed within Soviet production.

The Road to Communism

The story of ElektroMera lasted six years, from 1973 to 1979. Soon after the program was finished, products started to appear on the market and new standards were implemented. A new interface for instruments including pictograms was introduced. It is still applied today.30

ElektroMera was a pilot project that was followed by design pro-grams on tape recorders for private consumption, a system for recy-cling paper, outdoor activities, watches, medical technology and airports.31 One program for the Moscow subway system included unified escalators, trains, dispatching points, methods for cleaning, turnstiles (from all that moves to all you see).32 Actually, ElektroMera was a turning point for all the activities at VNIITE. Most of its ten branches in their respective Soviet republics came to be part of one design program or another. The design programs became something of a “white horse” for Yuri Solovyev, on which he could ride into any Soviet governmental office, national or international congress.33 As the leader of the state design institute, Solovyov received numerous

«Focused»

244

awards for the design programs for “the outstanding contribution to international design” by the Industrial Designers Association of America (IDSA) at the ICSID congress in Washington in 1985. Show-ing the ElektroMera project to a delegation from Siemens visiting Moscow Solovyov remembers: “They were shaken: if this program were implemented and its products to appear on the market, they said it would be a very serious blow for them.”34

The final ElektroMera proposal was received enthusiastically in the Ministry of Instrument Engineering. One thousand boards were used for the presentation, such was the magnitude of the project. The fu-ture results of realized design programs would initially be a transi-tion from design of piece-goods to design systems, and later cheap and effective products for the masses. Profits could be enormous, with paradise on the horizon. But ElektroMera had yet to be incul-cated into the production.

Design and innovation was not popular among the majority of fac-tory directors. “The less we changed existing products, the better, the industry thought” remarked Andrei Meschaninov, a designer with more than thirty years experience, and responsible for the control elements of the front panels in ElektroMera.35 Why? The answer is quite simple. Each factory director achieved a certain sum of money for material and wages from the state and in return he had to deliver a certain quantity of goods – coats, ice-creams, or whatever. Quan-tity is what counted (I have heard a story, true or not, where a factory delivered only left shoes – but in great quantity, so the plan was ful-filled). If, however, a director wanted to introduce new production methods, new designs and new inventions, there were no incentives to do so. Only the leaders of the country could initiate investments in new fields. And even they needed tedious anchoring into the plan.

Only at the top were concerns expressed about optimizing profits. Ambitions to succeed on the market abroad occurred only among the highest echelons. Paradoxically enough, the standardization in-stitute became the organ that enabled the design system, at least some extent, to become real products. What is usually the case was here the other way around, as design is what breaks with current

245


models and thus threatens what already exists. One such incentive was the “znak kachestva”, a quality symbol introduced in 1967, inspired by the German “Gute Form” and Italian “Compasso d’oro”. Without these, the State Standard Committee could impose nega-tive sanctions for the enterprise. This quality symbol, however, was difficult to achieve and easily lost – any product could at any time be excluded from production – decisions came from above. Another detail worth mentioning is that in the Soviet Union, the director was more often an engineer than an economist 36 – which is one explana-tion for the high interest in technical problems at the cost of frequent economic neglect.

The general mood as well as the existing structures were inert. Nevertheless, many clever people tried to change from within, chal-lenged by the enormous potential of the system being centralized and nationwide. The initiative to develop complex design programs –

“total design” – which included regulation of the processes from above, in accordance with socialist planning ideals, was one of these. “We were naïve in our belief that through design we would be able to improve the face of socialism, to give it human features. We thought that we could re-tailor the old Soviet costume and with the same costume transform the system. This is what we honestly tried to do”, according to Dmitry Azrikan.37 The production system did not accept design, as it was forced upon them through decrees. “If the government levers were not moved, nothing moved. The commis-sions came from above, and so did design. Everything had to come through a decree. Creative initiative was simply lost. As the big money was spent on weapons”, says Andrei Meschaninov, with ex-perience from many years of struggle to change the system from within, “no incentive was left for innovations, there was no interest. The system was idling”, he laconically concludes.38

The timing for the launching of the program was simultaneously timely and unlucky. At the time of starting mass-production at the beginning of the 1980s, the national economy was stagnant. It had come almost completely to a standstill, or it was “paralyzed” as people used to say. In 1990, just before its dissolution, the Soviet economy was less than 20% the size of the USA’s, from 60% twenty

«Focused»

246

years earlier.39 Gorbachev came to power to bring change, but the system was too instable to endure.

What the State Research Institute for Technical Esthetics could do (which Solovyov and his collaborators were perfectly aware of) was to initiate, participate and run projects on a scale that only very large international conglomerations would otherwise be able to af-ford. In the USSR, additionally, the cooperation took place not only within one, but between many companies. It is therefore not surpris-ing that South Korea imported the whole format of Soviet state de-sign with its carefully worked out methodologies.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the system of a state design disappeared. The organizational and economical sup-port was no longer in place. Dmitry Schelkunov, one of the leaders of ElektroMera said in hindsight: “Today it would be impossible to organize such collectives that would be able to create and to work out such a commission. A project like this could only work in a well-defined industrial branch structure, where a whole class of products could be approached as one unified object.40 In 2007 attempts were made to re-introduce state design. But the infrastructural means are no longer in place. What gave potential was at the same time part of the problem.

“The global challenge that could have made cheap and effective products and thus save natural resources, slipped out of our hands” Dmitry Azrikan, former initiator and leader of one of the largest col-laborative design programs in the former Soviet Union, stated in a paper to be presented at the ICSID congress in Toronto in 1997. He considers the socially oriented design to be a subversive protest movement. “It was dynamite against the system. Our projects were concrete protests against an inhuman economy and alienation of the material culture from any human values. Our products were projects of disagreement.” But the products were neither produced nor the projects inculcated. “Our designer work became a purely futurologist activity, but not of any less quality than programs that I have seen in the West.”41

247


At the last minute however, the art philosopher, designer and manu-facture engineer, who emigrated to the United States in 1992, deci-ded instead to show works by his students from Western Michigan University. “Who would be interested anyway in old Soviet prob-lems?” he thought.42

Why should this interest us today? Considering the incompatibility between the products of different firms, coherence within different systems (offices, schools, wherever electrical devices are used), maybe the collaboration efforts of the state design programs to save the Soviet Union have something to tell us after all. Dell is incom-patible with Hewlett Packard, electrical outlets differ in Buenos Aires, Tokyo and Paris. Standards for television signals – NTSC for USA and Japan and Pal/Secam for Europe – make globetrotters un-happy. HD DVD formats compete on the market with Blu-Ray. The incompatibility of user-unfriendly computer programs and telecom-munication products, complicated user manuals are simply a nui-sance. “The only difference between the Western and Soviet situa-tion is that the Western products are much better than the Soviet ones were” Azrikan sums up.43

The choice of electrical devices was a symbol laden one. With Lenin’s famous proclamation “Communism equals Soviet power plus the electrification of the whole country,” electricity became the symbol of a bright future. Lenin’s vision was truly grandiose. He had fantas-tic plans to bring light to the remotest village, also in a literal sense. The city lights were to be spread all over his empire through an electrical network that was to successively integrate neighboring countries – the USA with Alaska for one should be connected with Siberia. How physically dark it must have been when Lenin came to power in 1917. Three years later H. G. Wells, the best selling science fiction author in Russian, came for a visit.44 When Lenin demonstra-ted a map of his future plans during an evening session in the crene-lated Kremlin, small flashing lamps marked out the locations of the electrical power stations, industrial centres and cities. In order to give this demonstration, however, the electricity in the rest of Mos-cow had to be switched off. Nevertheless, Wells and the other com-rades were convinced. Full support was given to the “State Plan for

«Focused»

248

the Electrification of Russia”, GOELRO, the first major Bolshevik project. In this way, the prototype for the whole future planning sys-tem – all dreams about a better world – was based on electricity. Ten large hydroelectric plants connected to a network of more than thirty regional power plants and the most important large-scale in-dustries, all electricity-powered bases were built in little more than ten years. The road to Communism certainly was a dark and cold one. Accord-ing to the Plan, Communist Paradise had to be built by 1980. In 1979 ElektroMera, the largest collaborative design program in the USSR that was not exclusively military, was launched to realize this. That same year Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan.

249


Fig. 1: Comic from Brochure made for the exhibition “Design in der UdSSR”, a VNIITE exhibition in Berlin, 1982, by Dmitry Azrikan.

«Focused»

250Endnotes1 I thank the Swedish Research Council for their financial support of the work on this paper, the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science and the Humboldt-University, Helmholtz-Zentrum, “Das Technische Bild” in Berlin for infrastructural support, Yuri Solovyov and Dmitry Azrikan for patiently answering my questions, Lindy Divarci for correcting my English.2 All the translations from Russian are made by the author, M.T.3 The foreign sounding word “design” was forbidden in the USSR and came into unofficial use among designers themselves only in the late 1960s. Officially, the name was acknowledged as late as 1987 when the “Designers’ Union, Russia” (Soiuz dizajnerov Rossii) was founded. Interview with Yuri Solovyov, Moscow, Russia, April 2008. Instead “technical esthetics” and “artist construction”, with connotations from the 1920s classical Russian avant-garde when terms such as “artist-constructor”, “engineer-constructor”, were applied. On the 1920s avant-garde, see for example Maria Gough, The Artist as Producer. Russian Constructivism in Revolution (University of California Press, 2005).4 Vsesoiuznyi nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut tekhnicheskoi estetiki.5 Yuri Solovyov, Moia zhizn’ v dizajne (Moscow: Soiuz dizajnerov Rossii, 2004):194.6 D. A. Azrikan and D.N. Schelkunov, “O kontsepsii firmennogo stilia VO “Soiuzelektro-pribor”,” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 2 (1976); see also: D. A. Azrikan, “Tipologicheskaia model’ kompleksa produktsii,” in Problemy tipologicheskogo modelirovaniia kompleksnykh ob’ektov dizajna, Trudy VNIITE (Moscow VNIITE, 1985); D. A. Azrikan, “Cherty sistemnogo ob’ekta dizajna,” in Tekhnicheskie i metodolog-icheskie problemy khudozhestvennogo kompleksnykh ob’ektov, Trudy VNIITE (Moscow: VNIITE, 1979); D. A. Azrikan, “Metodicheskaia model’ ob’ekta dizajna,” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 9 (1982); D. A. Azrikan, “Obraz tselesoobraznosti tekhnomira,” in Khudozhestvennoe modelirovanie kompleksnogo ob’ekta, Trudy VNIITE (VNIITE, 1981); D. A. Azrikan, “S tochki zreniia proektirovschika,” in Esteticheskie problemy khudozhestvennogo konstruirovaniia kompleksnykh ob’ektov, Trudy VNIITE (Moscow: VNIITE, 1981; D. A. Azrikan, “Sistema sredstv elektroizmeritel’noi tekhniki” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 9 (1981); L. A. Kuzmichev and D.N. Schelkunov, “Dizajn-programma VO “Soiuzelektropribor”,” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 9 (1981).7 Solovyov, Moia zhizn’: 193.8 Ministerstvo priborostroeniia SSSR and Gosudarsstvennyi komitet po nauke i tekhnike soveta ministrov SSSR.9 See for example D. Azrikan, “Vniite, Dinosaur of Totalitarianism or Plato’s Academy of Design?,” Design Issues 15, no. 3 (1999); N. Voronov, Rossijskii dizajn. Ocherki istorii otechestvennogo dizajna., 2 vols. (Moscow: Soiuz dizajnerov Rossii, 2001): 125–341.10 Solovyov, Moia zhizn’: 192.11 Ibid: 193.12 Interview with Marina Mikheeva, Moscow, April 2008.13 D. Azrikan, personal communication, April, 2008. 14 D. A. Azrikan, “O proekte “Soiuzelektropribor’”, manuscript for a paper never presented at the ICSID congress in Toronto in 1997.15 “NOT – Nauchnaia Organizatsiia Truda”.16 See further Slava Gerovitch, From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. A History of Soviet Cybernetics (Cambridge Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 2002).

251


17 Voronov, Rossijskii dizajn: 32218 Azrikan, Metodicheskaia model’, TE 1982/9.19 A. A. Malinovsky wrote the entry “Tektologiia” for the Filosoficheskaia entsiklopediia, Moscow 1970. Malinovsky the younger was a famous genetist and ardent opponent of Lysenko. He translated the work What is Life? The Physical Aspect of the Living Cell by Ernst Schrödinger (London 1944) into Russian. His father’s career was full of complications as Lenin saw him as a rival. It was not until 1989 that Bogdanov was fully rehabilitated and a two-volume edition of his Tektologiia was published at the Institute of Economics of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, see Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Systems Thinking in Russia, eds. John Biggart, Peter Dudley, Francis King. (Ashgate, 1998). For an introduction to Bogdanov’s thoughts connecting art with science, see for example Margarete Vöhringer, Avantgarde und Psychotechnik. Wissenschaft, Kunst und Technik der Wahrnehmungsexperimente in der frühen Sowjetunion. (Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2007).20 Azrikan & Schelkunov, “O kontseptsii”, TE 1976/2: 2–8.21 Azrikan, “O proekte “Soiuzelektropribor’”.22 Azrikan & Schelkunov, “O kontseptsii”, TE 1976/2: 3.23 This systems approach to artifacts and products was one of the hobby-horses of the founder of VNIITE, Yuri Solovyov, see Y. Solovyov, “Ob assortimente bytovykh izdelij”, Tekhnicheskaia estetika, 1966/6.24 Azrikan, “O proekte “Soiuzelektropribor’”; Azrikan & Schelkunov, “O kontseptsii”, TE 1976/2: 4.25 Azrikan, “ Tipologicheskaia”, Trudy VNIITE 1985/48; Azrikan, “Metodicheskaia model’, TE 1982/9.26 V.M. Munipov and V.P. Zinchenko, Ergonomika: chelovekoorientirovannoe proektirovanie tekhniki, programmnykh sredstv i sredy (Moscow: Logos, 2001).27 Azrikan & Schelkunov, “O kontseptsii”, TE 1976/2: 3.28 Ibid: 6.29 Ibid: 8.30 Solovyov, Moia zhizn’: 194, and interview with Andrei Meschaninov, St. Petersburg, Russia, March, 2008.31 For design programs on tape recorders, see D. A. Azrikan, “Tipologicheskoe proektirovanie: bytovye magnitofony,” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 2 (1986), on radios, see D. A. Azrikan, “Perspektivnaia kontseptsiia dizajna bytovoi radio-elektroniki,” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 6 (1987).32 Solovyov, Moia zhizn’: 196.33 Dmitry Azrikan, personal communication, April 2008.34 Solovyov, Moia zhizn’: 194.35 Interview with Andrei Meschaninov, St. Petersburg, Russia, March 2008.36 T. J. Grayson, “The Factory”: 125.37 Azrikan “”O proekte “SoiuzElektroPribor”.38 Interview with Andrei Meschaninov, St. Petersburg, Russia, March 2008. 39 Gregory & Stuart, Soviet and Post Soviet.40 Dmitry Schelkunov as quoted from Solovyov, Moia zhizn’: 195.41 Qutotations from Azrikan, “O proekte “Soiuzelektropribor’”, manuscript for a paper never presented at the ICSID congress in Toronto in 1997.42 Personal communication, April 2008.43 Personal communication, April, 2008.

«Focused»

25244 For H.G. Wells visit with Lenin, see Richard Stites, Revolutionary Dreams. Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution, (Oxford University Press, 1989): 41ff.

References ↦ Alexander Bogdanov and the Origins of Systems Thinking in Russia. John Biggart, Peter Dudley, Francis King, eds. Ashgate: 1998. Azrikan, D. A. “Cherty sistemnogo ob’ekta dizajna.” In Tekhnicheskie i metodo-logicheskie problemy khudozhestvennogo kompleksnykh ob’ektov, Moscow: VNIITE, 1979: 76–90.↦ —. “Metodicheskaia model’ ob’ekta dizajna.” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 9 (1982): 1–6.↦ —. “O proekte “Soiuzelektropribor’”, manuscript for a paper never presented at the ICSID congress in Toronto in 1997.↦ —. “Obraz tselesoobraznosti tekhnomira.” In Khudozhestvennoe modelirovanie kompleksnogo ob’ekta, Moscow: VNIITE, 1981: 82–97.↦ —. “Perspektivnaia kontseptsiia dizajna bytovoi radioelektroniki.” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 6 (1987): 7–10.↦ —. “S tochki zreniia proektirovschika.” In Esteticheskie problemy khudozhestvennogo konstruirovaniia kompleksnykh ob’ektov, Moscow: VNIITE, 1981: 143–70. ↦ —. “Sistema sredstv elektroizmeritel’noi tekhniki.” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 9 (1981): 5–25.↦ —. “Tipologicheskaia model’ kompleksa produktsii.” In Problemy tipologicheskogo modelirovaniia kompleksnykh ob’ektov dizajna, Moscow: VNIITE, 1985: 43–57.↦ —. “Tipologicheskoe proektirovanie: bytovye magnitofony.” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 2 (1986).↦ Azrikan, D. A., and D.N. Schelkunov. “O kontsepsii firmennogo stilia VO “Soiuz-elektropribor”.” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 2 (1976): 2–8.↦ Azrikan, Dmitry. “Vniite, Dinosaur of Totalitarianism or Plato’s Academy of Design?” Design Issues 15, no. 3 (1999): 45–77.↦ Gerovitch, Slava. From Newspeak to Cyberspeak. A History of Soviet Cybernetics. Cambridge Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 2002.↦ Maria Gough. The Artist as Producer. Russian Constructivism in Revolution. University of California Press, 2005.↦ Gregory, Paul, and Robert Stuart. Soviet and Post Soviet Economic Structure and Performance. 7 ed. Boston: Addison Wesley, 2001.↦ Grayson, T. J. “The Factory”. The Soviet Union, R.W. Davies and D. J. B. Shaw, eds. London: 1979.↦ Kuzmichev, L. A., and D.N. Schelkunov. “Dizajn-Programma VO “Soiuzelektro-pribor”.” Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 9 (1981): 1–4.↦ Munipov, V. M., and V. P. Zinchenko. Ergonomika: chelovekoorientirovannoe proektirovanie tekhniki, programmnykh sredstv i sredy. Moscow: Logos, 2001.↦ “Resheniia XXV s’ezda KPSS – v zhizn’!”. Tekhnicheskaia estetika. Biullenten, no. 2 (1976): 1.↦ Solovyov, Yuri. Moia zhizn’ v dizajne. Moscow: Soiuz dizajnerov Rossii, 2004.↦ Stites, Richard. Revolutionary Dreams. Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution, Oxford University Press, 1989.↦ Vöhringer, Margarete. Avant-garde und Psychotechnik. Wissenschaft, Kunst und

253


Technik der Wahrnehmungsexperimente in der frühen Sowjetunion, Göttingen: Wallstein Verlag, 2007.↦ Voronov, N. Rossijskii dizajn. Ocherki istorii otechestvennogo dizajna. 2 vols. Moscow: Soiuz Dizajnerov Rossii, 2001.

«Focused»

254

255


«Focused»

256

257


This paper proposes ‘Information Environments’ as a new field for design exploration reflecting current trends in professional graphic design practice but also in relationship to the shifting paradigms of our contemporary information and knowledge-based society. I have been asked to talk about the development of the research unit for In-formation Environments (IE) – a newly established group at the Uni-versity of the Arts London, which brings together 30 art and design researchers and educators with external partners in government, in-dustry and design agencies, to explore the way in which information is sent, received, mediated and understood in both physical and vir-tual spaces. A selection of research projects undertaken by IE mem-bers will be explored in relationship to defining what is meant by ‘in-formation’, establishing its history, engaging with the communities and environments in which it is disseminated and the technologies used in its mediation.

University

Email

Information Environments: Design Research and the Everyday

14University of the Arts London Research unit for Information Environments [email protected]

↦ information ↦ environments ↦ multimodality ↦ graphic design

Keywords

Teal Triggs

Information is all around us. It’s there when we turn on the television or radio and hear the latest news flash, log online to surf Wikipedia or use Google, or rely on directional signs to get to a destination. Bill-boards tell us what to buy and posters warn us of the dangers around us. Oversized screens in city centres tell us about local and global events. Information shapes our behaviour and informs our percep-tions of the everyday. Yet, as designers, how might we better under-stand the mediation of information within the context of its various

«Focused»

258

environments? Perhaps it is no surprise that the discipline of Graphic Design and its role in the communication field has shifted dramati-cally over the last decade – primarily in response to new digital tech-nologies and the recognized multimodality of the informational land-scape.

How Might we Define ‘Information’?

Defining what is meant by ‘information’ has long been the undertak-ing of key academics in the disciplines of communication, mathemat-ics, information and computing sciences [e. g. Shannon and Weaver 1949,

Roszak 1986] as well as by cultural theorists [e. g. Chomsky 1988, Manovich

2006]. Whether considering information as instructional, informative or as propaganda, each discipline has its own view. Robert Losee [1997], on the other hand writing in the Journal of the American Soci-ety for Information Science, proposes an all-encompassing defini-tion where information is ‘the characteristics of the output of a proc-ess, these being informative about the process and the input.’ Such a general definition ‘allows frameworks, theories, and results to be transferred across disciplinary boundaries, and provides for dialogue across these boundaries, while at the same time allowing individual disciplines to focus on the specific information phenomena of their discipline.’ [Losee 1997: 2] [Fig. 1 ↦ 265] Information is characterized by its ‘newness’; its informational impact, and described in terms of ‘information carrying’ or ‘information producing’. [Losee 1997: 3] Else-where, Shannon and Weaver’s now classic model diagrammed the way in which information/messages move from one point to another taking into account the points and processes of transmission, recep-tion, mediation and the ‘accuracy of understanding’. As we know, this model has had a profound influence on the visualisation of informa-tion. Information designers are in the business of Graphic Design to translate and structure what ‘cannot be understood as matter or as energy’ [Erloff and Marshall 2007: 214] into a form which is made acces sible and communicates effectively to an end-user. In this way, designers cannot ignore the integral links between what information is, how information is communicated and to whom – each having a direct bearing on interpretation, the creation of meaning and ultimately, knowledge.

259


Information and the Everyday ‘Environment’

As an example of the way in which information is sent, mediated, received and understood within the everyday environment, it is worth taking as a starting point my journey each day from home to work.

Once outside my front door, my journey to work takes me through the centre of the local high street where video surveillance cameras keep a vigilant eye as I make my way to the mainline train station. En route, I take a call from the office on my new hand-held personal device – an iPhone with full GPS, internet connection, and image-making functions. Once in the train station I check the digital depar-ture screen to confirm the expected arrival time of my train before pulling out my Oyster Card and swiping it across the sensor on the barriers to allow me entry to the train platform.1 Once through the barriers, I catch a glimpse of an image of myself amongst the chaos of the morning’s commuters transmitted on a series of 12-inch video monitors set dangling above the barrier, before taking the stairs up to the platform to catch the London Waterloo train. Once on the train, LED signs confirm for me where the train is going, while mini-ature surveillance cameras tucked in the corners of the train car-riage supposedly ensure safety. A similar pattern of monitoring con-tinues once I depart from the train at Waterloo Station.

Eric Sadin describes the city as ‘an ensemble of data’ and a ‘network of public equipment through which this data circulate(s).’ [Sadin 2007:

191] What I have described as part of my journey has highlighted the way in which we are subjected to a process of ‘screening’ for data when the ‘electronic profiles of daily life’ are captured. [Amoore: 2007:

140] And yet, the visual preponderance of video monitors, digital signs and surveillance cameras encountered on my journey are also in-tended to be ‘vigilant modes of visuality’ – a phrase which Louise Amoore [2007] uses to describe the ‘watchful eyes’ of a post-9/11 culture. A manifestation of the West’s concerns about a terrorist threat, this visibility of equipment clearly indicates a paradigm shift in communication practices – in how information is seen (or heard, in the case of, for example, the train station’s tannoy system) and as a ‘carrier’ and ‘producer’ of meaning.

«Focused»

260

Digital technology has facilitated the advent of the city as an ‘aug-mented space’ where physical space is ‘overlaid with dynamically changing information.’ [Manovich 2006: 220] The city is now read as ‘spa-tialized textual propositions’ of multimodality ‘in which common sem-iotic principles operate in and across different modes.’ [Kress and van

Leeuwen 2001: 2] While information is linked to behaviour, it is also linked to notions of power relations. We only have to be reminded of George Orwell’s fictional accounts of the Ministry of Truth and its control of information (read propaganda) to the masses.

However, information also redefines our relationship to the spatial environment. The philosopher Vilém Flusser has observed: that ‘the architecture no longer designs objects, but relationships... Instead of thinking geometrically the architect must design networks of equa-tions.’ [Flusser in Sikiaridi and Vogelaar 2006: 83] Information in our urban en-vironment forms complex systems of social and communication net-works. It is also mediated through scale – that which is monumental, for example the informational facades of Times Square – and also miniaturized (and portable) communication networking devices such as PDAs. Information has become at the same time public/private; global/local, while at the same time fluid, flowing easily between the physical environment and emerging spaces of digital information. The emergence of a new spatial hybridity has been described as ‘soft urbanism’, which is to say the ‘dynamic interaction’ between ‘information-communication processes in public spaces.’ [Sikiaridi and

Vogelaar 2006: 86]

Research Unit for Information Environments

It is clear that the shifting paradigms in our contemporary infor-mation and knowledge-based society demands further study. And, it is with this in mind that the University of the Arts London research unit for Information Environments (IE) was established in July 2007, bringing together 30 researchers from across the University working in the areas of fine art, graphic design, architecture, typography history, theory and visual culture. Many of the researchers maintain active links to professional practice whilst also engaging in teaching on degree programmes at the University.

261


We define Information Environments as any physical or virtual spaces which are populated by communities, such as those found in com-mon areas of urban spaces, museums, the Internet and learning environments, and where the exchange of ideas, concepts and know-ledge is communicated. The Unit takes as its starting point commu-nication and information in relationship to the three main thematic areas of History/Community/Technology. The unit functions as a catalyst for facilitating critical and practice-led engagement with what is meant by information and environments in this past, present and future contexts.

As a relatively new research unit, we are still in the process of devel-oping both individual and collaborative projects that engage with issues about information and communication within specifically defined environments. The following projects should be viewed as ‘research in progress’ rather than providing a reflection of final out-comes. However, the process under which many of them came into being – in particular, those which involved external interdisciplinary partners, is worth noting. The development of the Unit as an organ-isational entity with collaborators (internal and external project members) has become a focus of developing a methodological ap-proach to Unit activity. Such interactions are manifest in meetings between researchers in engineering, business management and pro-duct design from Cranfield University in Hertfordshire, with whom we are currently developing collaborative projects in the areas of nanotechnology, defence and resilience and social networks/future cities.

However, in this paper I would like to profile four projects undertaken by IE members which may be categorized under the three general themes of information in relationship to: transformational environ-ments, interactive environments, and learning environments.

Theme 1: Information and Transformational EnvironmentsOne of the areas IE is involved with deals with the nature of fine arts practice and the urban experience. One such example is the recent exhibition ‘Sound proof’ held at E:vent Gallery in London. In her role as co-curator (with gallery owner Colm Lally), IE member Monica

«Focused»

262

Biagioli invited six artists to share their responses to the site of the 2012 London Olympic Games (situated in the Lower Lea Valley in East London). The chosen venue for the main Olympic Park site, along with its surrounding neighbourhoods is in a period of radical regen-eration from being one of London’s poorest areas to an international sports venue. The transformation of the area has been described as ‘the most extensive ... since the Victorian era.’ [BBC News 2003] The invited artists used sound materials, drawings and annotations as a way documenting their observations and experiences. Recordings became a form of ‘audio cartography’ mapping perceptions of the East End’s immigrant population in relationship to perceived threats of terrorism, through to the recording of local wildlife and bird sounds. The result was six one-hour sound recordings assembled into a six-hour programme with an accompanying set of visual maps produced in a limited edition publication. Here information – as the visual map – is mediated through sonic arts practice.

In the same way that sonic arts practice mediates spatial transfor-mation, so too might we use the techniques and methods of oral his-tory to help local community voices be heard. A ‘Sense of Place: The Lives and Histories of Residents from the Aylesbury Estate’ emerges not only from the physical geography and architecture of a defined area, but more importantly through the people who inhabit these spaces. The main intent of the project is to explore a ‘sense of place’ as remembered and understood by the Aylesbury Estate, South London. Originally built in 1963, the estate has a long and varied his-tory. With the new plans for the estates regeneration as part of the Elephant & Castle project, this ‘New Deal for the Communities’ estate is undergoing a significant period of change. The aim of the project is to capture the rich diversity of the estate as it is and was, by en abling residents to document and (re)present their own re-flections, personal memories and historical accounts of life on the estate. This project is about collecting life stories rooted in the past but creating a receptacle for ‘living oral histories’.

At the same time, ‘A Sense of Place’ is providing an opportunity to look at collaborative design methods in local community situations, but also to explore the applications of oral history as a method in

263


the service of Service Design. An aspect of this research is to take Richard Buchanan’s notion of service design as ‘service’ in the im-provement of people’s lives, and aims to locate a place for Oral His-tory within that definition using the regeneration of the Aylesbury Estate as a case study. At its most basic level, Service Design is about face-to-face interactions and promotes the use of communi-cation design methods and role-playing. Part of this process involves conversations, and it is here that Oral History as a method and La Tour’s notion of Actor-Network-Theory as a framework are of poten-tial interest.2

Theme 2: Information and Interactive EnvironmentsIn the autumn of 2007, Peter Anderson was appointed as the unit’s Research Fellow for Information Environments. Anderson, who is Director of Peter Anderson Studio Ltd. is a graphic artist and de-signer whose work over the years has achieved international acclaim. The Altnagelvin Hospital project in Northern Ireland is an example of his ongoing interest in developing work across fields spanning the theoretical as well as physical, and the technologi cal potentials of materials. In this case, he means development of branded artworks made, at best, to help healing directly; at worst to provide a positive distraction in order to help healing. This hospital work is designed to engage the viewer from different perspectives and to provide a focal point and symbol of restfulness and intrigue for the hospital. The work is due to be completed later this year.

Theme 3: Information and Learning Environments

‘My desk is very messy and chaotic. I collect anything and every-thing ... I suppose this is why the [design] process for me cannot be linear.’ [student observation, 2007]

In the late 1970s, the emergence of new-build campuses in the United States brought with it an early review of how traditional notions of the classroom as a space were considered. Educators focused on how the design of the campus itself became a metaphor for an ‘educational world-view’, as well as a concrete expression of the na-ture of knowledge and the process of teaching and learning. In other

«Focused»

264

words, ‘Any statement about where one learns is necessarily a state-ment about how one learns.’ [Whisnant 1979: 549] Taking this as my start-ing point, I have become interested in exploring how the contempo-rary graphic design studio in higher education might be understood as an environment which impacts learning and the design process.

This project was conducted with students enrolled on the Graduate Certificate/Diploma Design for Visual Communication course, LCC, as part of the teaching of a two-week project on design research methods. Students had previous undergraduate degrees in subjects other than Graphic Design. Their understanding of discipline-based methods emerged from the diagnostic mapping of their research process. Students were also asked to photograph the workspaces where they developed ideas and solutions to course briefs. While the findings of the project confirmed, for example, that scale of space impacted scale of processes and final solutions, it also suggested that students found ways to ‘reimagine’ their solutions using digital spaces. Further image analysis also revealed the way in which work-ing environments were adapted to function as striated and nomadic spaces. [Deleuze and Guattari 1987] This has led to further work for devel-oping a theoretical framework for exploring the relationship between learning and spatial needs.

Members of IE are also working together toward an exhibition to be held in July this year drawing together a selection of current projects. It is hoped such an approach will inform and engage broader discus-sions around the future of space and learning environments. The ex-hibition is divided into the following indicative themes using case studies and/or blue-sky prototypes/visualisations: Creative Spaces and Places, Rethinking Learning Spaces and Transcending Spaces.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that information is a defining characteristic of the everyday experience. We are aware that our current definition of in-formation is broad. However, it is hoped that through the research projects undertaken by IE members that a more focused set of cri-teria will emerge.

265


Information

aesthetics

age

architecture

flow

landscape

management

mining

modelling

overload

revolution

science

society

superhighway

technology

mis information

dis information

Fig. 1: Examples of quantifying/defining the term ‘information’. ↦ 258

«Focused»

266Endnotes1 The Oyster Card is a form of electronic ticketing that was introduced to London’s transportation (2005) using RFID technology (radio frequency identification). Amongst other things it tracks customer’s movements while also allowing for the collecting of personal data. 2 This idea is expanded in: Triggs, T. 2008. ‘Oral History in the Service of Service Design’. Forthcoming paper to be presented at the Networks of Design conference, University College Falmouth, 3–6th September 2008.

References↦ Amoore, L., 2007. ‘Vigilant Visualities: The Watchful Politics of the War on Terror’. Security Dialogue, Special Issue on Securitization, Militarization and Visual Culture in the Worlds of Post – 9/11, pp. 139–156.↦ BBC News., 2003. ‘London Olympic site revealed’ [online].news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3260619.stm [accessed 20 April 2008].↦ Chomsky, N., 1988. Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. Pantheon, New York. ↦ Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1987, reprint 2007. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.↦ Erloff, M. and Marshall, T., 2008. Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology. Basel: Birkhäuser.↦ Kress, G. and van Leewuen, T., 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.↦ Losee, R.M., 1997. ‘A Discipline Independent Definition of Information’. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 48 (3): 254–269.↦ Manovich, L., 2006. ‘The Poetics of Augmented Space’. In Triggs, T. and Jewitt, J. (eds). A Special Issue: Screens and the Social Landscape, Visual Communication 5(2): 219–240.↦ Roszak, T., 1986. The Cult of Information: The Folklore of Computers and the True Art of Thinking. New York: Pantheon Books.↦ Sadin, E., 2007. Times of the Signs: Communication and Information: A Visual Analysis of New Urban Spaces. Basel: Birkhäuser.↦ Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W., 1949. The Mathematical Theory of Communication, University of Illinois Press, Urbana. ↦ Sikiaridi, E. and Vogelaar, F., 2006. ‘Soft Urbanism: Neighbours Network City (NNC) in the Ruhr Region, found in Seijdel, J (ed). Open: Hybrid Space: How wireless media mobilize public space. NAi Publishers, No. 11, pp. 82–94.↦ Whisnant, D., 1979. ‘The University as a Space and Future of the University’, The Journal of Higher Education, 50(4): Jul–Aug. pp. 544–558.

267


«Focused»

268

269


University

Email Internet

Changing Perspectives: the Relationship Between Research, Writing and Visual Practice in MA Design Education

15University of the Arts London Central Saint Martins College, MA Communication Design [email protected] www.csm.arts.ac.uk/courses/ ma-communication.htm

↦ design education ↦ MA level ↦ theory and practice ↦ critical context ↦ design research ↦ writing as practice

Keywords

This paper will look in more detail at these issues but also at the revi-sions that the critical context program at the MA Communication Design at Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in London has undertaken this year to produce a more integrated approach. The aim was to structure the program in such a way that the students could better understand how design qualifies as a research method, how critical theory can advance their ability to ask questions with regard to design and finally to build a stronger connection between studio work and the dissertation.

Axel Vogelsang Rathna Ramanathan Ken Hollings

1. Background and context

1.1 An MA in Communication Design at Central St Martins The MA Communication Design course at Central Saint Martins College of Art & Design is a two-year full-time program with a final outcome of a body of visual work and a written dissertation ranging between 5,000 to 8,000 words. The course has four pathways or spe-cialisations – graphic design, illustration, digital media and photo-graphy. The MA is unitized, with the two-year period divided into

«Focused»

270

three units, each with a specific outcome. The students undertake the first two units in the first year of their study, and the third unit is a period of self-initiated study with individual tutorials.

In the history of the course, the critical context component has al-ways sat uneasily in relation to studio practice. While there have been attempts to integrate the two components of the course, either through flexible marking or submission dates, the critical context or ‘written element’ has always stood separately. Tutors who handle studio practice have never been involved with critical context and vice versa. However, there is some history of involving both studio and context tutors in the final assessment of the dissertation.

The course has recently undergone some modification with the pri-mary intention of bringing the various components of the MA to-gether in a more holistic model. There is an interest in initiating briefs that involve both studio and context. Changes include a more pro-longed time period allowing context tutors to introduce students to aspects of research and writing that aid their design practice. The outcome has ceased to be merely a separated dissertation, distinct and removed from their practical work, but an outcome that is a body of work. As this modification was put into practice only in autumn 2007, this is the first year and the model is a work in progress.

While students in various sciences are exposed to the idea of re-search at a very early stage, design students who enroll on the MA are likely not to understand their work in terms of research before they enroll. The idea of extending context beyond one’s own visual practice and maybe that of one’s role models often seems foreign; and when it comes to choosing a research topic many design stu-dents appear overwhelmed. This is due in part to the fact that the course attracts a large international community and many students who have strong portfolios have not been exposed to concepts of analysis, critical thinking, or dialogue. For these students, research is a somewhat alien concept; and they do not understand how this can enrich their work. Additionally, a number of students have Eng-lish as their second language or have not written a dissertation previ-ously; and these are hurdles that need to be overcome and accounted

271


for while teaching. These premises present design education with a predicament: On one hand MA students are actively encouraged to view their design context in a broader sense and explore areas that are connected to their practice. On the other hand they are often focused on visual aspects and unsure as to how to present or deal with concepts that may have a verbal or written outcome.

Another factor that influences the situation is the role of research in design education. Though design research enjoys some tradition in British graduate and postgraduate design programs, there is very often a lack of integration between studio work and the dissertation up to the MA level. It is as if Frayling’s antiquated trinity [1993] has been cemented into the fundamentals of British design education: the dissertation is where students do research into design, while the studio is the place to do research for design. Thus the part that is officially seen as research is very often a piece of critical theory, seen as slightly detached from the studio work and without further impact on the future career of the designer.

1.2 Critical Context ProgrammeThe critical context program is the only route within the MA Commu-nication Design course where students from different pathways come together. The aim of the program is to equip students with research skills, encourage critical thinking and analysis and impart some sense of a larger contemporary design context [2007]. This is done in different ways through the four facets of the program [Fig. 1 ↦ 280]: 1. Critical thinking workshops conducted in the autumn by the

team, which introduces the international community of students to research methods and critical thinking.

2. Lectures on media and cultural theory, which run through the autumn and spring terms.

3. Research seminars conducted in the spring.4. A series of lectures by design and visual practitioners, and film

screenings.

The program is managed by three tutors, all of whom teach part-time and have full-time creative practices. Each member of the team brings different specialisations, experiences and skills.

«Focused»

272

2. Changing the perspective/designerly ways of knowing

Most designers are used to working on a given brief. Accordingly the thinking, working and research that go with the brief is very much goal-oriented. As the aim is to create a more explorative research culture and a different way of thinking, three workshops were devi-sed. These workshops were developed as an aid to help students con-textualise their work, interests and ideas and then use these ideas as a starting point for a research project.

2.1 ‘Memories of the Future’: the First Research WorkshopStudents were asked to reflect on their aspirations as designers and represent a design manifesto by means of a found object. They were asked to give the object a caption that would communicate and contextualise their manifesto. During the workshop students were encouraged to consider their object as a part of a ‘Memories of the Future’ exhibition. They were asked to reflect on the manner in which they were displaying their chosen exhibit, about what they wanted to communicate and whether they were successful in their communi-cation.

At the end of the workshop students were asked to write a short para-graph describing their choice of found object and how it represented their aspirations as a designer. They were also asked to comment on whether they thought they were successful in their communication.

Summation of the workshop and its final outcomes:1. The workshop was useful in enabling the students to feel com-

fortable in talking about their work and in getting them to present outcomes that were not design/style based but more content-led.

2. Students described the ‘found object’ brief as ‘liberating’. Given the freedom to choose a non-designed object, objects ranged from blocks of cement to more interactive objects such as a pot of tea and cakes.

3. Some students gave the brief a more active, performance-style interpretation. Others challenged the brief. Both interpretations showed an ‘owning’ of the brief which was very positive. One

273


graphic design student was inspired to create a website of his manifesto.

4. One drawback was that a number of students interpreted the brief in a very personal way that was unconnected to the larger design context. Tutors had to work hard to bring them out of themselves and to start talking about how their work related to the contemporary context.

5. The main reason that this brief was formulated was to intro-duce the student to connections between studio and context in a direct way with interconnecting briefs. However, as the briefs were conducted entirely separately, it was unclear as to its value in achieving this aim.

2.2 ‘Eight Influences’: the Second Research WorkshopStudents were asked to note down eight things that had the most influence on their design practice. Suggestions given included col-laborations or the work of other creative practitioners, challenges/ problems, mentors/role models, concepts, artefacts, cultural con-texts and visual chronicles. They were supposed to write each influ-ence on a separate Post-It note, also noting briefly what it was about that person or subject that influenced their work. As part of the workshop, students were asked to present to the group three to five influences on which they received feedback from the tutors and their peer group.

During the second part of the workshop, students were given an A2 sheet of paper and asked to create a map of their influences. Further connections were encouraged by the creation of more influences or laying out links and connections between the eight influences. The intention of this workshop was to encourage the design student to look above and beyond their personal selves and expressions. Yet at the same time, introduce them to the concept of research as a per-sonally initiated directive.

Summation of the workshop and its final outcomes:1. Student feedback indicated that they found this exercise use-

ful, particularly because it forced them to analyse their practice in terms of distinct subject areas.

«Focused»

274

2. The task of asking students to note down what it was about the person/subject area that influenced the work was an important one. Presenting their influences allowed students to indicate their knowledge of the chosen subject area and its context (and thereby their natural ability for research).

3. Feedback from students indicated that having everyone present their influences in front of the group was a source of inspiration. Students began to see themselves as a research community brimming with ideas.

4. The mapping exercise was thought provoking. Students started to see connections and links between influences that they had not realised in their work. They also were encouraged to see their work as a starting point for an infinite number of new con-nections and it forced them to describe their sometimes ex-tremely generalised influences into more specific terms.

5. Making connections between seemingly unrelated ideas pro -vi ded students insight into new creative possibilities. Also, ven-turing outside of a single discipline or pathway inspired stu-dents.

2.3 ‘Making Connections’: the Final Research WorkshopStudents were given two texts (groups 1 & 2: texts by Roland Barthes and Vilem Flusser, Groups 3 & 4: texts by Desmond Morris and Georges Bataille) and asked to create a new piece of writing of at least 200 words that was based on connections they saw between the two texts. The brief gave students strong guidelines: a) your exploration must involve reading and analysing the texts (what ideas does the author refer to? is the narrative a metaphor for a larger concept? what key images are used? etc.) b) follow your own responses and act on your initiative (what, according to you, are the connections between the texts?) c) use research to make connections that are interesting and unusual and take you outside your comfort zone (what other work has the author produced that explores similar con-cepts? in what time period/culture was this text written? what in-fluences are displayed in the text? what other texts/events/objects have in turn been inspired by it?)

275


Summation of the workshop and its final outcome:1. Students found this exercise a challenge. A number of students

were intimidated by the requirements of the brief (asking them to interrogate and make connections with texts and generate their own text). A number were unused to writing.

2. The more complex texts (such as Barthes) brought out more in - teresting responses. Some students used the complexity of the text to their advantage by researching the author’s con text and other work by him in order to understand the text better. Others searched for the original French text for the same reason.

3. Most student responses (in group 2) were conceptual and less artifact-based. There were very different (and valuable) respon-ses from the group, which was encouraging.

4. With this brief, there was less of a designed/artifact-based response to the brief.

3. What If: ’When Thinking goes on Holiday’

3.1 Dissertation SeminarsAt this point and with the help of the workshops students had mostly located their research interests based on their mind-maps and they had started to investigate their topics. They should have got very close to defining their research questions as well as the primary and secondary sources of their research. During the next phase, students would meet their supervisor in a seminar. These seminars take place every three weeks on average. The groups comprising approximately sixteen students contain a mix of all pathways. The idea being that the discussion should not be centred or dominated by a single parti-cular subject area. During the seminar each student reflects on his recent progress, successes, problems and frustrations and discusses these issues with other students and the super visor. The alternative would be to offer one-on-one tutorials. However, these have shown to support two tendencies: some students tend to push the responsi-bility for their research question and topic to the supervisor, and the supervisor with her/his greater experience and knowledge might un-intentionally exert too much influence on the individual topic. The seminar, in contrast, forces the students to take responsibility and develop ownership of their topic.

«Focused»

276

3.2 The ‘What-If’ BriefOne of the aims of critical context on the MA Communication Design is to develop a stronger relationship between studio, theory and writ-ing. While there is currently a strong element of writing about prac-tice inherent to the program, it is important to make students under-stand that theory might also work as an inspiration for the visual practice. Accordingly the students were presented with a brief that asked them to carry their research question into the studio and thus to examine their topic on a more hands-on level. This brief operates on the basis of the question “what if?”. Students were supposed to investigate conceptual possibilities arising from their research ques-tions. Designers, used to design briefs to which their response is ‘what should I do?’ were pushed instead to ask ‘what should I think?’

The following are a few examples of the varied and interesting briefs that students devised for themselves: one student whose research question centred on performance art as a vehicle to communicate scientific theory came up with the idea for a park with a trail that could teach its visitors about quantum theory. One photography stu-dent used an occult text, ‘The Lesser Key of Solomon’ to create ava-tars for a new videogame, which she modeled in clay, while a digital media student used campaign maps of the Vietnam War as a tem-plate to demonstrate changes and lines of influence in contempo-rary rock music from the period. An illustration student dealing with the concept of taboos in design, asked the question: What if I mani-pulated existing imagery by placing them in different contexts, changing colours and texts? Would this make the taboo image less or more offensive? The project using highly sensitive imagery gener-ated thoughtful responses from the audience as it caused them to question the nature of taboos [Fig. 2 ↦ 279]. Another graphic design student, researching the impersonalisation and isolation created by advertising in populated public spaces, created a personal project which used a Philip Larkin poem on a train display screen as a way of making connections [Fig. 3 ↦ 279].

Summation and outcomes of the what-if brief:1. The nature of the brief (in particular, the question ‘what if...’)

forced some students to decide on their research topic. For

277


others, it clarified their topic. Interestingly, there were some students for whom the brief initiated a total rethink of their re-search project. One illustration student found that in preparing for her ‘what if’ presentation on aspects of children’s book de-sign, she had taken her subject as far as it would usefully go; she consequently went on to research the depiction of the fe-male breast in western art with extremely encouraging results.

2. Many students experienced new angles and new aspects of their initial research questions. The visual nature of the project provided them with a new perspective or a new way of looking at their research.

3. Weaker students who were struggling with the dissertation were also weak when it came to the what-if presentation.

4. The fact that the emphasis was as much on the process as on the outcome was not fully understood by some students.

Conclusions

In recent years many students experienced their dissertation as a slightly detached exercise in cultural theory, which was neverthe-less helpful to develop their capacity for critical and investigative thinking. Thus it was the aim of these minor modifications to bring critical context and visual practice closer together. But the plan was not to redirect the focus away from writing about other people’s work towards writing about one’s own visual practice. The critical context at MA Communication Design aims at a third way: It is driven by the idea that theory and writing should be an essential part of the de-signer’s toolbox allowing him a more conceptual approach towards design. This is because in an increasingly flexible and fast-moving media environment a postgraduate student should not focus on narrow expert knowledge but rather on a wider understanding of the designer’s context and how his own field relates to other domains.

The designer who learns to devise his own briefs and to think con-ceptually will be better prepared to take over responsibility when it comes to jobs that ask for visionary concepts rather than for prob-lem solving.

«Focused»

278

The respective amendments have proved to be a great step forwards in achieving the initial aim. For a lot of students both the idea- and connection-finding workshops proved a good starting point from which to develop their topic while the what-if brief was a valuable extension of the dissertation towards visual praxis. On the other hand there is not enough evidence so far to conclude that the new approach would particularly support those students that would nor-mally have had problems in finding and developing a research topic. Also, however encouraging the outputs of this year are, the results have to be seen in the context of the fact that each year of MA stu-dents develops its own inherent dynamics. The next two years will show more clearly how the new approach affects and hopefully im-proves the students’ work.

279


Fig. 2: The what-if brief asked students to shift their research from a reflection about practice towards a reflection through practice. Here a highly provocative response that investigates the nature of visual taboos. ↦ 276

Fig. 3: Another response to the what-if brief. The coldness and efficiency of a train display screen is turned into a platform for poetic reflection. ↦ 276

28

0

YE

AR

1Y

EA

R 2

autu

mn

spri

ngsu

mm

er

unit

s 1+

2 en

dau

tum

n un

it 3

begi

ns

OC

TN

OV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MA

RA

PR

MA

YJU

NJU

LA

UG

SEP

OC

TN

OV

DEC

I

II

III

wor

ksho

ps

lect

ure

seri

es

I

II

III

IV

Vse

min

ars

‘wha

t if’

bri

ef

diss

erta

tion

subm

issi

on o

f dar

ftsu

bmis

sion

of f

inal

Fig

. 1: A

gra

phic

tim

e-lin

e sh

owin

g ho

w th

e fa

cets

of t

he c

onte

xt p

rogr

am fi

t tog

ethe

r. ↦

27

1

281


References↦ Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design, (2008), MA Communication Design Course Description, [Online], Available at: http://courses.csm.arts.ac.uk/pdf/Course70.pdf, [accessed 03 April 2008].↦ Frayling, C. (1993), ‘Research in art and design’ in Royal College of Art research papers, Royal College of Art

«Focused»

282

283


«Focused»

284

285


University

Email

Internet

A Definition of Design Knowledge and its Application to two Empirical Studies

16Technische Universität Dresden Chair of Methods of Psychology [email protected] [email protected] www.tu-dresden.de/design www.psychologie.tu-dresden.de/methoden

↦ design knowledge ↦ assessment of design results ↦ research methods ↦ design methods

Keywords

In this paper we will explain a detailed definition of design knowledge which is then used as a basis for the selection and development of methods supporting novice designers in handling knowledge within the industrial design process. We will describe two empirical studies on the application of supporting methods in different stages of the design process. We will discuss in detail how the effect of these meth-ods can be proven. In the first study, the improvement of the results has been analyzed, whereas the second study incorporates additional investigation of time savings and precision of goal setting.

Christian Wölfel Claudia Prescher

1. Introduction

That knowledge plays a meaningful role for innovation in product development is largely undisputed. There is, however, no agreement about which kinds of knowledge are relevant for the disciplines in-volved. Obviously, industrial designers need a special kind of know-ledge at the start of a product development. This has been observed by analyzing design projects completed by students whose design education is preceded by an engineering curriculum. The problem has been described in qualitative case studies. Design students pre-

«Focused»

286

pared diaries and retrospective descriptions of their design proc-esses, collected notes and sketches with timestamps. In addition, these students have been observed and interviewed. The investiga-tion has shown that some students have difficulties gaining know-ledge at the start of the design process. One reason for this could be the uncertainty that novices feel at the beginning of design proc-esses. Design problems are wicked problems: the goal as well as the path leading to it is not known at the start. This causes wide room for goal setting and realization.

Designing requires knowledge. Some novices mistakenly start the design process with an extensive knowledge acquisition from exter-nal sources. But the source of the larger part of knowledge used in the design process is the designer himself [Goel 1995]. He must how-ever be able to activate and use this source. We aim to provide meth-ods, which help novices to start knowledge acquisition in their own archive. In doing so, two aspects play a central role. First, the design-er’s attention must be focused on the knowledge, which is important for the design process. Second, the problem must be simplified to a manageable wickedness.

In this paper, we will define design knowledge in the sense of the problem stated above. We will describe two studies, which follow dif-ferent approaches to supporting the acquisition of design know ledge. The first study investigates the achievement of training about hand-ling knowledge for design students. The second study investigates the impact of developing and analyzing narrative scenarios of usage and prototypical users by certain methods. We will discuss problems in analyzing the effect of the methods and possible solutions.

2. A Definition of Design Knowledge

There is a broad debate about the term design knowledge in the recent time. It concerns function, structure and content of design know ledge. The term design knowledge is fuzzy and comprises dif-ferent applications. In order to be able to select and develop meth-ods we need to define the term for our purposes. Our definition of design knowledge is built upon elements and definitions of diverse

287


scientific disciplines. Overlappings, inconsistences and some con-tradictions of terms and contents that occur will not be discussed in this paper.

The goal is not known at the start of the design process. Due to the fact that it must be anticipated, we can ascertain from the categori-sation of design knowledge according to Van Aken [2005] that the above-mentioned activation problem deals primarily with prescrip-tive object knowledge. From here on we will use the term design knowledge to mean this subset.

Jonas [2004] describes not-knowing in the design process. At the start of a design process, the designer knows almost nothing about the goal. He knows just as little about the path leading to it. Notions about the process, the environment and implementation of the design object do exist, but these are neither precise nor verifiable [Lawson 2006 and others].

Design knowledge is prior knowledge. Phases of systematic and op-portunistic behaviour alternate while designing. During opportun-istic phases, the designer recalls previous tasks or problems that he has solved in a certain manner and applies them to the problem at hand, even in cases in which a systematic approach might lead to another, possibly better solution [Hacker & Sachse 2006]. (Unconscious) use of prior knowledge can be observed in many disciplines [Schön

1983], and studies show that it is inevitable [von der Weth 1994 and others]. In contrast to the field of engineering, design cultivates this behav-iour [p. e. Cross 2003, Lawson 2004, Dixon/O’Reilly 2004].

Design knowledge is tacit knowledge. Design knowledge, for the large part, is knowledge that exists but cannot be expressed in words. According to Polanyi [1966] this tacit, or implicit knowledge, cannot be converted into explicit knowledge. However, tacit (design) knowledge can serve as the basis for generating explicit (design) knowledge [Nonaka & Takeuchi 1995, Rust 2004].

Design knowledge is episodic knowledge. The knowledge used by de-signers can be divided into neuro-scientific knowledge categories

«Focused»

288

[summarised e. g. by Uhlmann & Schulze 2007]. During the design process each of these categories of knowledge is used, but at the start the focus lies on declarative knowledge, including its factual and episodic knowledges. In industrial design, episodic knowledge plays a very important role [Lawson 2004, Uhlmann & Schulze 2007 and others]. The same has been proven for engineering disciplines [Visser 1995, von der Weth 2001].

Many studies suggest that design knowledge is everyday knowledge [Lawson 2004, Visser 2006, Uhlmann & Schulze 2007 and others], i. e. it is not solely knowledge gained from education or work, but from the entire day-to-day life of the designer. Many tangible and intangible socio-cultural references contribute to the design process [Strickfaden 2006].

Design knowledge is objective, subjective and emotional knowledge. Design knowledge concerns experiencing. In contrast to design engi-neering, design focuses on the experiential relationship between the design object and the user. This experience is an individual one, and the evaluation of the object tends to be holistic. These judgements include objective as well as subjective and emotional criteria, even for the object’s technical functions. Experiencing, subsuming many names, traditionally belongs to research about design metho dology and has recently been given more attention [p. e. Press et al. 2003, Budd et

al. 2003, Uhlmann 2005].

From the descriptions and definitions listed above, we conclude the following attributes of design knowledge:

3. Application to Empirical Research

This description of design knowledge can serve as a guide for the selection and development of strategies and methods, which support

— It is not known at the very beginning of the design process — It must be acquired from the — prior (and experiential) knowledge — episodic and factual knowledge — socio-cultural and everyday knowledge— It is implicit and tacit — It is objective, subjective and emotional.

289


dealing with knowledge in the design process. This has been and will be done in two studies.

The first study investigates the implementation of certain stategies of handling knowledge according to Reinmann-Rothmeier and Mandl [2000] at the start and during the whole design process. This incorpo-rates for example goal and time analysis, methods for knowledge identification, development and evaluation. This is done for example by using “W“-questions, analogy methods or mind maps for visuali-zation. In addition to that, the participants learn to use the Question-Answering-Technique [Winkelmann et al. 2003] and principles of the task-oriented information exchange [according to Neubert & Tomczyk 1986].

The second study investigates the impact of the development and analysis of narrative scenarios [Steinmüller & Schulz-Montag 2003, Gassner &

Steinmüller 2006], which focus on the relations between users and the object to be designed. This set of methods is directly applied at the start of the design process. It can be used by individuals or teams and incorporates rather simple brainwriting and brainstorming methods on topics concerning target groups and users experiencing the product and as its core the development and analysis of narra-tive scenarios about prototypal representatives of target groups ex-periencing and using the product to be designed.

Whether such methods are successfully applied in the design proc-ess or not depends not only on the subjective advantage of the designer. Soft criteria like contentedness or acceptability are one requirement for the success of such methods. However, the impact must be proven by hard criteria (e. g. time saving, improved solutions, better cost-benefit ratio), being stronger arguments for a broad application of such methods in education or practice.

In literature, diverse strategies for the assessment of design solu-tions have been described:— Using task-specific criteria: e. g. Römer [2001], Atman, Cardella,

Turns & Adams [2005]— Comparison to a reference solution: e. g. Wandke & Graf [2005]— Using criteria not specific to the task: e. g. Meijer [2006].

«Focused»

290

The first and the second approach require the awareness of all pos-sible solutions, which is impossible in industrial design. Below, we will discuss the difficulties of the assessment of design solutions currently explored in two design research studies.

4. Study 1: Training for Handling Knowledge in Industrial Design

4.1 Research QuestionIn the first study, we focus on training for handling design knowledge. The participants will learn strategies for dealing with design know-ledge, which should be applied especially during the clarification of the task at the start of the design process.

These strategies can also be applied later on in the design process whenever it comes to the acquisition, development and the structur-ing of knowledge. The training concentrates on identifying and map-ping design knowledge as completely as possible at the start of the design process. The knowledge acquired from the designer’s own de-clarative and especially episodic memory is then used as a basis for goal setting and concept development at the beginning of the actual designing. Relevant questions and hypotheses for this paper are: Does the training for handling knowledge in industrial design affect the quality of design solutions?

Additionally, the participant’s acceptance of the training as well as their increase knowledge has been tested.

4.2 Research MethodsThe study has been planned and carried out as quasi experiment. A total of 13 students of industrial design engineering participated in the study. The design of the study is shown in Figure 1 [Fig. 1 ↦ 297].

— Hypothesis 1.1: Solutions created by designers who attended the training achieve better expert assessments than solutions the same designers created before the training

— Hypothesis 1.2: Solutions created by designers who attended the training achieve better expert assessments than solutions created by designers in the control group who did not attend the training.

291


The impact of the training will be tested using the evaluation model of Kirkpatrick [1998]. In this paper we only refer to the transfer level of that model. To be able to reveal the impact of the training success at the transfer level, the test persons tackled different design tasks before and after the training. In order to get comparable results, the assessment of the solutions had to be carried out task-unspecific. In cooperation with experts we developed an evaluation scheme incorporating the following criteria: creativity, aesthetics (overall, syntactic and semantics), ergonomics, functionality, technical and economic feasibility and overall impression. The assessment scale ranges from 1 being “very good” to 6 being “unsatisfactory”. Few de-sign solutions have then been assessed by three experts testing this scheme. The data of the assessments of the different experts re-vealed only little correlation and thus could not be taken as appro-priate for this study. As a result, three other experts with similar work experience had been given more precise instructions for test assessment of a few design solutions. After that, these experts con-secutively assessed all design solutions of the study.

4.3 ResultsIn order to prove the reliability of the scheme, the correlation of the experts has been calculated using the Intraclass Correlation Coeffi-cient (ICC). The ICC not only considers the tendency of correlation but also the mean level of the variables, hence it can be used to value the reliability of the assessments. The ICC ranges from -1 to 1, usually 0.7 and more stands for good relia bility [Greve & Wentura 1997]. 0 signifys no correlation. Reliability can not be estimated from negative ICCs and are therefore set to 0 [Wirtz & Caspar 2002].

In this study, ICCs for each criterion of the assessments of each ex-pert have been calculated. Already the mean values of the assessors per criterion and per date of measure vary significantly in 21 of 27 cases. In the best case, the ICC is 0.52 (p=0.001), calculated for the creativity criterion in the pre test. As explained above, this does not stand for good reliability. Reliabilities of all other criteria must be rated 0 or are only slightly above zero. Figure 2 shows the creativity criterion of the pre test assessments [Fig. 2 ↦ 297].

«Focused»

292

Because the reliability of the expert assessments could not be pro-ven, differences between the test and control group have then been calculated separately for each expert to verify the hypotheses according to the following formula:

Additionally, differences have been calculated based on the mean values of the assessments. Figure 3 shows the results for the criteria creativity, functionality and overall impression [Fig. 3 ↦ 298].

For a better understanding, figure 4 shows the mean values of the assessments of all assessors for test and control group on the exam-ple of creativity. Differences visible in the graph could not be verified statistically [Fig. 4 ↦ 298].

Further tests investigated the acceptance of the training as well as the increase of knowledge about handling knowledge. The partici-pants appreciated the training and increased their knowledge about handling knowledge in the industrial design process.

4.5 DiscussionThe impact of the training on handling knowledge in industrial design can only be taken as beneficial if a certain sustainability of the train-ing effects can be proven. This regards the application of the learned methods in design practice. We aimed to prove this by using design tasks in the tests. In order to investigate the effect of continuous application of the methods in everyday design practice, a follow up test has been run, which again comprised design tasks.

Despite exact instructions to the assessors, neither correlating as-sessments, nor significant improvements of the design solutions could be detected. This leads to the following considerations: The assessment process seems to leave too much room for the assess-ments. Possibly the assessors set different focuses when assessing

µ1tg + µ2tg µ1cg + µ2cg – µ0tg > – µ0cg 2 2

0; 1; 2 ...time (0=pre test; 1=post test; 2=follow up test)tg ...training group / cg ... controll group

293


for example creativity (e. g. holistic object vs. parts). Therefore crite-ria must be defined more precisely for future studies.

The explanation of the assessment scheme as well as test assess-ments, which are not part of the study obviously do not suffice. Addi-tional test assessments should be carried out until there is a rough agreement about the quality of the design solutions. Admittedly, this is very time-consuming.

In addition, the unfavourable number of test persons must be men-tioned. Only 13 students could participate, which makes it hard to prove effects statistically. Also, the design tasks must be examined and equalized as far as possible.

The hypotheses of this study could not be proven, which is first of all caused by the applied research methods. Nevertheless the hypo-theses do not have to be rejected. A reliable method for the assess-ment of design solutions must be developed in order to offer a basis for studies investigating the improvement of design processes. In the study described below, we pursue this problem by exploring the impact of the development and analysis of narrative scenarios in the industrial design process.

5. Study 2: Narrative Scenarios of Usage and Users

5.1 QuestionThe second study focuses on the start of the design process. Stu-dents get support during the clarification of the task before the actual designing begins. They are systematically supported by a set of methods for the development and analysis of narrative scenarios of the users’ relation to the object to be designed. The application of these methods, including simple brainwriting and brainstorming among other techniques, will help to focus on user experiencing. They will also simplify the design problems to a manageable wicked-ness. This should lead to more confidence in the design process and to less goal alterations, saving time which can be better used for the actual designing. The development and analysis of the narrative sce-narios should serve as a goal oriented acquisition of knowledge. That

«Focused»

294

enables the conscious development of design concepts and widely avoids wrong decisions. Clarification of the tasks should be comple-ted faster, thus design concepts can be developed earlier. Further-more, it can be expected that the time saved will be used to put more effort on the actual designing resulting in improved design solutions. From this, two questions can be derived:

Do students cope better with the clarification of the task when they apply the narrative scenarios?

In addition to that we will inspect whether the narrative scenario has an impact on the quality of the design results. This leads to the fol-lowing question: Can design results be improved by the application of the narrative scenarios?

5.2 Research MethodsThe study has been planned and realized in different phases. Overall there have been four pre studies with proband groups from 10 to 25 students of industrial and engineering design. The pre studies have been connected with short time and semester design projects.

Pre studies 1, 2 and 3 were about the transfer of the theoretically derived set of methods into practice focusing on the instructions. Pre studies 3 and 4 helped to further improve the instructions and the procedure of the experiment with a focus on data collection and data quality. The following main study will incorporate a larger number of probands in test and control groups.

— Hypothesis 2.1: Students who apply the narrative scenarios alterate their goal less often than students who do not apply the set of methods.

— Hypothesis 2.2: Students who apply the narrative scenarios complete the clarification of the task faster than students who do not apply the set of methods.

— Hypothesis 2.3: Students who apply the narrative scenario are contented than students who do not apply the set of methods.

— Hypothesis 2.4: Objects designed by students who apply the narrative scenario will get better assessments than objects designed by students who do not apply the set of methods.

295


The impact of the narrative scenarios will be analyzed in different ways. Soft criteria such as contentedness with the situation, confi-dence regarding the process, motivation for the work to be done will be measured using questionnaires at measurement points in both test and control group.

Collected data such as notes and sketches, the individual design process documentations drawn up by the probands and additional interviews will be analyzed regarding dates of design concept crea-tions, number of goal redefinitions etc.

The design solutions will be assessed. In doing so, we will try to avoid the methodical problems shown in study 1. The study design will al-low task-specific criteria leading to more exact expert assessments. Admittedly, it must be pointed at the long time between the applica-tion of the narrative scenarios and the assessments, which causes uncontrollable variables aggravating the interpretation of the impact of the method applied. However, data gathered about the design process can be used to facilitate handling these variables. Further-more, contents of the narrative scenarios will be tracked in design concepts and solutions. This will be used for additional discussion of the assessments.

5.3 ResultsPre tests showed that the communication of the methods to be ap-plied at the start of the design process as well as the data collection have been successfully implemented in design projects. Both con-tentedness and confidence have been improved. Because of several uncontrollable variables (e. g. differing design tasks), this result does not meet scientific standards yet. There is no statement whether design concepts developed earlier served as a basis until the end of the design process or rather lead to more goal alterations. Also, time savings in the clarification of the task have not been proven yet. First statements about this are expected from the last pre study. In order to gain results meeting scientific standards, a main study incorpo-rating a larger number of test persons in test and control groups will be carried out.

«Focused»

296

6. Conclusion

This paper is aimed at explaining a detailed definition of design know-ledge, which then has been used as a basis for the selection and development of methods supporting novice designers in handling knowledge within the industrial design process. Presenting two em-pirical studies on the application of supporting methods in different stages of the design process, we discussed problems occurring in proving the effect of these methods.

In the first study, we presented the investigation of the transfer level, being only an excerpt of the research. The improvement of design solutions by the application of the training could not be proven. The main reason lies in methodical problems with getting reliable assess-ments of design solutions. After a revision of the assessment pro-cess and the content of the training further tests will be carried out in order to investigate the impact of the training.

In study 2, we tried to avoid the methodical problems described above. The application of narrative scenarios at the start of the design process allows different research methods. The advantage of task-specific criteria for the assessment of design solutions counteracts the disadvantage of a larger number of uncontrollable variables oc-curring between the application of the methods and the assessment. According to the research problem described in the paper, confi-dence and contentedness of the test persons have been evaluated. These central but soft criteria have been supplemented with hard criteria such as time saving at the beginning of the design process. Final results can not be derived from the current state of work.

Both studies are part of larger research programs and will be pursued. Apart from the continuing development of supporting methods, an improvement of research methods can be expected.

297


pretest treatment post test follow-up test (after 10–12 weeks)

Q

training group

–Y tg; pre x1

(with training)

–Y tg; post

–Y tg; follow-up

control group

–Y cg; pre x0

(without training)

–Y cg; post

–Y cg; follow-up

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1

2

3

4

5

6

unsa

tisf

acto

ryve

ry g

ood

expert 1expert 2expert 3

participants

Fig. 1: Study design with test group and control group including one pre and two post tests (Y: Quality of the design solutions). ↦ 290

Fig. 2: Assessments for the criterion “creativity” (pre test) (trans. from Prescher 2008). ↦ 291

«Focused»

298un

sati

sfac

tory

very

goo

d

pretest post test follow up

trai

ning

gro

up

trai

ning

gro

up

t ra

inin

g gr

oup

con

trol

gro

up

con

trol

gro

up

con

trol

gro

up

expert 1 expert 2 expert 3 mean

mean difference (p)

mean difference (p)

mean difference (p)

mean difference (p)

creativity 0.6 (0.309) 0,8 (0.250) 0,3 (0.827) 0,5 (0.400)

functionality -0,1 (0.864) -0,2 (0.716) -0,4 (0.493) -0,4 (0.318)

overall impression

-0,3 (0.546) 0,2 (0.796) -1,0 (0.145) -0,4 (0.403)

Fig. 4: Mean and standard deviation of the assessments for “creativity“. ↦ 292

Fig. 3: Results of student’s t-test, changes in the mean group performance between pre and follow-up tests. ↦ 292

299


References↦ Atman, C.J.; Cardella, M.E.; Turns, J. und Adams, R. 2005. Comparing freshman and senior engeneering design processes: an in-depth post study. Design Studies. 26 (4), S. 325–357↦ Budd, J., Taylor, R., Wakkary, R. & Everden, D. 2003. From Industrial Design to Experience Design: Searching for New Common Ground. In ICSID 2nd Education Conference. Critical Motivations an New Dimensions. (pp. 137–141). Hannover: iF International Forum Design↦ Cross, N. 2003. The Expertise of Exceptional Designers. In N. Cross & E. Edmonds (Eds.). Expertise in Design. (pp. 23–35). Sydney: Creativity and Cognition Press, University of Technology.↦ Gassner, R. & Steinmüller, K. 2006. Narrative normative Szenarien in der Praxis. In F. E. P. Wilms (Ed.). Szenariotechnik. Vom Umgang mit der Zukunft. Bern: Haupt.↦ Goel, V. 1995. Sketches of thought. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.↦ Greve, W. & Wentura, D. 1997. Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung – Eine Einführung. Weinheim: Psychologie Verlags Union↦ Hacker, W. & Sachse, P. 2006. Entwurfstätigkeiten und ihre psychologischen Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten. In U. Konradt, B. Zimolong & Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie (Eds.). Wirtschafts-, Organisations- und Arbeitspsychologie: Bd. Bd. 2. Ingenieurpsychologie. (Band 2). Göttingen: Hogrefe.↦ Jonas, W. 2004. Mind the gap! – On knowing and not-knowing in design. Bremen: www.thebasicparadox.de. last visit: 12.10.2007↦ Kirkpatrick, D.L. 1998. Evaluating Training Programs. The four level. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers↦ Lawson, B. 2004. What designers know. Oxford: Elsevier Architectural Press.↦ Meijer, M. 2006. Using cognitive conflict in design teams as an asset – Research on the use of cognitive conflict in design teams. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology.↦ Neubert, J. & Tomczyk, R. 1986. Gruppenverfahren der Arbeitsanalyse und Arbeitsgestaltung. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften↦ Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.↦ Polanyi, M. 1966. The tacit dimension. New York: Anchor Books.↦ Prescher, C. 2008. Trainieren von Umgang mit Wissen im Designprozess – Zur Beurteilung von Entwurfsergebnissen. In: Hentsch, N., Kranke, G. & Wölfel, C. (Eds.): Industriedesign und Ingenieurwissenschaften. Technisches Design in Forschung, Lehre und Praxis. (pp. 47–56) Dresden: TUDpress Verlag der Wissenschaften↦ Press, M. & Cooper, R. 2003. The design experience: The role of design and designers in the twenty-first century. Aldershot: Ashgate.↦ Reinmann-Rothmeier, G. & Mandl, H. 2000. Individuelles Wissensmanagement: Strategien für den persönlichen Umgang mit Information und Wissen am Arbeitsplatz. Bern: Huber↦ Römer, A. 2001. Unterstützung des Design Problem Solving: Einsatz und Nutzen einfacher externer Hilfsmittel in den frühen Phasen des konstruktiven Entwurfs-prozesses. Dissertationsschrift. Technische Universität Dresden. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:swb:14-1023713239343-48735, published 2001, last visit 12.02.2008↦ Rust, C. 2004. Design Enquiry: Tacit Knowledge and Invention in Science. Design

«Focused»

300Issues: history, theory, criticism, 20 (4), 76–85.↦ Schön, D. A. 1983. The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.↦ Steinmüller, K. & Schulz-Montag, B. 2003. Szenarien: Instrumente für Innovation und Strategiebildung. Essen: Z_punkt.↦ Strickfaden, M. 2006. (In)tangibles: Sociocultural references in the design process milieu. Doctoral Thesis, Napier University. Edinburgh↦ Uhlmann, J. 2005. Die Vorgehensplanung Designprozess für Objekte der Technik: Mit Erläuterungen am Entwurf eines Ultraleichtflugzeuges. Dresden: TUDpress.↦ Uhlmann, J. & Schulze, E.-E. 2007. Evaluation of design knowledge: empirical studies and application of the results in product design education. ConnectED International Conference on Design Education 2007. Sydney.↦ van Aken, J. E. 2005. Valid knowledge for the professional design of large and complex design processes. Design Studies, 26 (4), 379–404.↦ Visser, W. 1995. Use of episodic knowledge and information in design problem solving. Design Studies, 16 (2), 171–187.↦ Visser, W. 2006. The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.↦ von der Weth, R. 1994. Konstruieren: Heuristische Kompetenz, Erfahrung und individuelles Vorgehen. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 38 (12), 102–111.↦ von der Weth, R. 2001. Management der Komplexität: Ressourcenorientiertes Handeln in der Praxis. Psychologie-Forschung. Bern: Huber.↦ Wandtke, H. & Graf, N. 2005. Wie können Entwickler beim Entwurf von Assistenz-systemen unterstützt werden? In: Karrer, K.; Steffens, C.; Gauss, B. (Eds.). Beiträge zur Mensch-Maschine-Systemtechnik aus Forschung und Praxis. Festschrift für Klaus-Peter Timpe, Düsseldorf: Symposion Publishing. S. 131–147↦ Winkelmann, C.; Wetzstein, A.; Dreesen, A. & Hacker, W. 2003. Forschungsprojekt Methodenentwicklung zur Wissensintegration (MIK). Unterstützung der frühen Phasen des konstruktiven Entwurfsprozesses. Fragengestützte Reflexionstechnik (FRT). Projektberichte, Heft 28, TU Dresden↦ Wirtz, M. & Caspar, F. 2002. Beurteilerübereinstimmung und Beurteilerreliabilität. Göttingen: Hogrefe

301


«Focused»

302

303


Biographies of Authors

Claudia Acklin ↦ 19

Claudia Acklin is Head of BA Design Management, International, at Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Lucerne, Switzerland. She is a member of the Faculty Design and Research Group “Design and Management”, at Lucerne University of Ap-plied Sciences and Arts, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Acklin studied social pedagogy and journalism and worked for more than 12 years as a journalist (Tages-Anzeiger, Swiss Na-tional Radio etc.). During that period she produced and directed two full-length documentaries revolving around “taboo” issues such as dying from AIDS (“Ich lebe gern. Ich sterbe gern”) and young suicides (“Hunger nach Leben”). She is the co-author of a dozen interviews with people involved with the Letten experience in Zurich, which received international fame as “Needle Park”.

In the past ten years she has mainly been working in the educa-tional field as a lecturer, school co-director and a developer of new study programmes, such as the Master of Advanced Studies Digi-tal Media or the BA Design Management at Lucerne School of Art and Design. She has been the Head of the programme since its successful start in 2006 and has been doing research in the area of accessibility, design and management. Lately, she developed a tool to support SMEs in their use of design. This year she was a found-ing member of the association “Swiss Design Transfer”, a regional centre for design promotion and support.

Rosan Chow ↦ 41/55

Rosan Chow is a research scientist at the Deutsche Telekom Labo-ratories. She holds a Bachelor and Masters Degree in Communi-cation Design and a Ph.D in Designwissenschaft. She has studied, practised and sessionally taught design in Canada, the US and Germany. She is a research fellow at the Communication Research Institute in Australia and the project manger of the newly estab-lished Design Research Network. Her research focuses on design theory and design research methodology.

«Focused»

304

Alain Findeli ↦ 67

Alain Findeli is Full Professor at the School of Industrial Design of the University of Montreal where he has been teaching for about 30 years. Trained as an engineer in physics (INSA, Lyon) and researcher in materials science (IIT, Chicago and Polytechnics, Montreal), he reoriented his career and interests toward the hu-man and social aspects of engineering, technology, and design (M.A. in Architecture, Montreal; Doct. in Aesthetics, Paris). He concluded his extensive study of the history of design education in his book ‘Le Bauhaus de Chicago: l’oeuvre pédagogique de Làszlò Moholy-Nagy’ (1995). His current research topics and recent pub-lications cover more general philosophical issues of the theory and practice of design (logic, aesthetics, ethics) as well as some key pedagogical aspects of design research education. He is the founder and current scientific and pedagogical director of the Master’s program in “Design & Complexity” in Montreal. As a Guest Pro-fessor at the University of Nîmes (France) in 2006, he is planning to introduce a research agenda on the most recent developments of design theory and methodology (service and social design, sus-tainable public projects, quality of place in urban living environ-ments).

Karmen Franinovic ↦ 95

Karmen Franinovic is an architect and interaction designer fo-cused on the creative, critical and active use of technology in every-day life. In her projects, she seeks to stimulate social and bodily movements, and to raise awareness of interaction with/in the urban surroundings and its diverse ecologies. Her theoretical re-search on play, hospitality, participation and enaction manifests in interactive artefacts, responsive environments, digital archi-tectures and installations. Currently, she focuses on tangible in-teraction and sonic feedback embedded in objects and architec-ture. Franinovic leads sonic interaction design research projects at Zurich University of the Arts (ZHdK) supported by European Science Foundation and European Commission Sixth Framework Programme.

305


Ken Hollings ↦ 269

Ken Hollings is a writer based in London. His work appears in a wide range of journals and publications, including The Wire, Sight and Sound, Strange Attractor, Frieze, Blast and Nude, and in the anthologies The Last Sex, Digital Delirium, Undercurrents and London Noir. He has written and presented critically ac-claimed shows for BBC Radio 3, Radio 4, Resonance FM, NPS in Holland and ABC Australia. His novel Destroy All Monsters was hailed as ‘a mighty slab of trippy, cult, out-there fiction, mind-bending reading’. He has worked with a wide range of composers, producers and artists on mixed-media presentations, including collaborations with Graham Massey of 808 State at the Royal Institution in London, Rechenzentrum at Club Transmediale in Berlin, American artist Aleksandra Mir at the Zurich Kunsthaus in Switzerland, Thomas Dolby at the ICA and London Fieldworks at the Whitechapel Gallery in London. He has also taken part in events with William Burroughs, John Cage, Erik Davis and Lydia Lunch. Hollings is currently finishing work on his new book, Wel-come to Mars: Science and the American Century 1947–1959, based on his 12-part radio series on Resonance FM, due for publication in June of 2008. Since 2004 Hollings has been delivering a course of lectures to MACD students on radical media theory, urbanism and information design. He joined the Critical Context team with Rathna Ramanathan and Axel Vogelsang in 2005.

Hans Kaspar Hugentobler ↦ 19

Hans Kaspar Hugentobler is a lecturer and senior researcher in Design Management at Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. He graduated from Illinois Institute of Technology with a Master’s degree in Human-centered Innovation and holds Diplo-mas in Communication Sciences and Design. Hans Kaspar has lived and worked in Germany, USA, Taiwan and China, and has consulted with organizations such as Deutsche Telekom and the Taiwan Design Centre. He is founder of Chen Hugentobler Associ-ates, a consulting firm that helps plan next generation product, service and customer experience solutions. Affiliations: European Academy of Design (committee member), Design Management Net-work, DGTF.

«Focused»

306

Gesche Joost ↦ 55

Gesche Joost has been head of the Design Research Lab of Deutsche Telekom Laboratories in Berlin since 2005. Her research focuses on interface design, aspects of gender in design and audio-visual rhetoric. Joost studied design at the University of Applied Scien-ces, Cologne, and received a doctorate at the University of Tübin-gen in rhetoric. 1998–2003 she was active as an interface designer in Cologne, Vienna and Tokyo. Joost is member of the executive board of the DGTF (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Design theorie und Forschung) and member of the Jury in the German National Aca-demic Foundation (Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes). Further-more, she is a member of the circle of consultants of the minister of finance Peer Steinbrück. Joost lives and works in Berlin.

Melanie Kurz ↦ 115

Melanie Kurz studied product design (Diplom) and communica-tion planning (Master of Arts) at the University of Applied Scien-ces Schwäbisch Gmünd. She received a doctor’s degree at the Uni-versity Duisburg-Essen (faculty Art and Design) and worked inter alia for Alexander Neumeister and BMW Design. Currently she holds a Creative Director position for design strategy and user interface design. Melanie Kurz gives lectures in design history and design theories at the University of Applied Sciences in Munich.

Manuela Lackus ↦ 129

Manuela Lackus was born 1978 in Offenburg (D), since 1991 she has lived in Switzerland near Zurich, where she studied media- and communication science, German literature and philosophy. In 2005 she graduated with her master’s thesis in the field of inte-grated communication. Since April 2006 she has been a member of the research staff of the study course ‘design and product man-agement’ at Salzburg University of Applied Sciences and writes her doctoral thesis at the University of Amsterdam, focusing on the problem of interface communication in product development processes.

Main research works were a study among 76 big and medium sized companies (2005) for measuring integrated communication levels,

307


a qualitative study (2007/2008) among 30 managers, marketers and designers of big and medium sized, some quantitative stud-ies as well as the development of an innovative interdisciplinary method to control consistency of brand- and product messages. Focus of her research activities is to use interdisciplinary method sets and theories for practical oriented problem-solving in the product development process.

Research team Léchot Hirt: ↦ 149

www.creasearching.ch

↦ Lysianne Léchot HirtLysianne Léchot Hirt (MA in litterature – Geneva University) is head of the Research Institute in Design of the HEAD-Geneva where she also teaches contemporary art history. She has been a member of the Swiss Design Network since 2003 and president since 2006. She has written many articles and texts of catalogs on contemporary art and organized and moderated numerous na-tional and international symposiums.

↦ Magdalena GerberMagdalena Gerber, designer, ceramist, teaches in the postgraduate course REAL in the HEAD-Geneva and is a member of the organi-zation team of the CERCCO. Her creations and ceramic researches have received several prices and are internationally exhibited.

↦ Laurent SoldiniLaurent Soldini, product designer, is a project manager at the ECAL in the Research Department and also works as an indepen-dent designer.

↦ Florence MargueratFlorence Marguerat (MA in litterature – Geneva University) teaches at the HEAD-Geneva. She was editor of the Geneva daily paper Le Courrier, of which she led the cultural column, and has par-ticipated on many juries and publications among which, quite recently, a text on Pierre Huyghe for the Centre pour l’Image Con-temporaine in Geneva.

«Focused»

308

↦ Manon MelloManon Mello, designer in visual communication, works as assis-tant of the Research Institute in Design of the HEAD-Geneva and as an independent graphic designer.

Claudia Mareis ↦ 167

Claudia Mareis, Design Theorist and Design Researcher. Gradua-tion from Art School of Biel/Bienne in Switzerland. Several years of professional experience as communication designer, amongst others at Total Identity in Amsterdam. Postgraduate studies in Cultural Sciences at University of the Arts Zurich and Humboldt University Berlin. Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Cultural Studies in the Arts Zurich and Art University Linz. She works as a researcher and lecturer at Bern University of the Arts. There she is responsible for the field “Research through Design”.

Gavin Melles ↦ 183

Gavin Melles joined the Faculty of Design, Swinburne in mid-2006 from the University of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine and Health. He is currently a research fellow and has a background in lin-guistics and education. Since arriving at Swinburne, Melles has taught into the research induction course (HDR904) for the Doctor of Design students, advised and supported doctoral students in design, and acts as associate supervisor for a number of Masters and Doctoral projects. He has published into design education and pedagogy, reviews regularly for conferences and journals in design and education, including Artifact, Ethnography in Educa-tion and also continues to publish on educational research and curriculum in general, including with a focus on methodologies. He is currently involved in and writing about several projects re-lated to doctoral design programs, practice-based pedagogy, and the academization of design.

Kristina Niedderer ↦ 199

Kristina Niedderer, PhD, MA (RCA), is a Reader in Design and Applied Arts at the University of Wolverhampton, UK. She leads the Material Design and Applied Art Research Group, within the Centre for Art, Design, Research and Experimentation (Cadre).

309


She is a design researcher and craft practitioner who was origi-nally apprenticed as a gold and silversmith and worked as a journey(wo)man with Ulla and Martin Kaufman in Germany. She then trained as a designer and design researcher in the UK, with an MA (RCA) and a PhD in Design.

From 2005 to 2007, she was a Research Fellow in the Faculty for the Creative and Cultural Industries where she led the Experien-tial Knowledge Project and the Experiential Know ledge Confer-ence 2007. In 2005, she held a position of Artist in Residence at Middlesex University, which was supported by the Arts Council England, and in which she conducted research into the creative possibilities of Argentium™ Sterling Silver. She is currently an external PhD supervisor at Middlesex University.

In her practice, Niedderer is working at the intersection of craft and design while specialising in silver and tableware design. With her doctoral work, she has moved beyond traditional craft prac-tises, using research in the development of her work. Her work focuses on the exploration of design as a means for mediating mindful interaction through the use of objects in social contexts. Her work is shown regularly at trade fairs and galleries in Eng-land and Germany.

Silvia Pizzocaro ↦ 215

Silvia Pizzocaro, is Associate Professor at Politecnico di Milano. Academic experience includes appointments as Professor at Poli-tecnico di Milano since 1996 for the Degree course in Industrial design; tutor and research supervisor within the Department of Industrial Design of Politecnico di Milano; post-doctoral research fellow; co-ordinator for research projects funded by the European Commission; scientific co-ordinator and chair of the organising committee for the Design plus Research conference held in 2000 at Politecnico di Milano. Principal areas of research interest are: theory of design, the design of research into design, doctoral edu-cation in design, research methodology.

«Focused»

310

Claudia Prescher ↦ 285

Claudia Prescher studied Psychology at the Technische Universi-tät Dresden, Germany. Since 2004, she has worked as a research associate on various projects at the university’s Chair of Methods of Psychology, where she also teaches and advises students. Her doctoral dissertation investigates the conditions that foster inno-vation within product development.

Rathna Ramanathan ↦ 269

Rathna Ramanathan is a graphic designer and lecturer from Chennai, India and currently based in London. She holds a PhD in the History of Graphic Communication and Typography from the University of Reading and an MA in Communication Design from Central Saint Martins, London. Ramanathan has taught design and typography in India and currently teaches at Central Saint Martins and the London College of Communication. She is the Association Typographique Internationale [ATypI] Country Delegate for India and the Secretary of the Printing Historical Society, UK. Ramanathan runs her own design studio Minus 9, which specialises in cross-cultural and editorial design. Her work has received a number of international design awards and been featured in The Sunday Times, Eye, Step and Building Letters, amongst others.

Bernhard Rothbucher ↦ 129

Bernhard Rothbucher is head of Research Department: Design- and Product Management DE RE SA (DEsign REsearch SAlz-burg), SUAS and head of Industrial Design (Full Professor): dpm – Design and Product Management (BA/MA studycourse), SUAS. Rothbucher is a Lecturer at the Freie Universität Bozen, ITA. He is founder and head of aka buna design consulting, Salz-burg: Industrial Design, Interior Design, Design Strategy.

Rothbucher received a doctor’s degree in philosophy in 2003 at the Chiba University, (Tokyo Met.), Japan, from the Design Culture Department., Prof. Miyazaki. He holds a master degree in Indus-trial Design Studies from University of Art and Industrial Design Linz Austria (1997).

311


Margareta Tillberg ↦ 233

Margareta Tillberg, a slavist and art historian, is a research associate at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm and currently visiting scholar at the Humboldt University Berlin, Helmholtz Center, “Das Technische Bild,” and at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin.

Tillberg has been a visiting lecturer for theory and history of art and color at the department for design (scientific associate), Bau-haus University, Weimar and assistant professor for history and theory of design and art, Växjö University, Sweden.

Tillberg has participated in numerous international conferences and published widely on Russian visual culture, especially from a point of view of transdisciplinarity and transformation processes. Her present project is about design, art and cybernetics: Russia in the 1960s/1970s.

Teal Triggs ↦ 257

Teal Triggs is Professor of Graphic Design, co-Director of the research unit for Information Environments (IE) and Head of Re-search, School of Graphic Design, London College of Communica-tion, University of the Arts London.

As a graphic design historian, critic and educator her writings have appeared in numerous international design publications in-cluding Émigré, Eye, Visible Language, Blueprint, Grafik, ZED, and Journal of Design History. She is co-editor of the academic interdisciplinary journal Visual Communication (Sage Publica-tions). She is currently working on a book about the graphic lan-guage of fanzines (Thames & Hudson) based upon her PhD thesis undertaken in the Department of Typography & Graphic Commu-nication at the University of Reading. Triggs is also co-founder of the Women’s Design + Research Unit (WD+RU). Under the remit of Information Environments, Triggs is currently working on a two-year project that traces the life histories of the residents of the Aylesbury Estate, Elephant & Castle, London, funded by a consor-tia of industry partners. She is also completing a research project

«Focused»

312

on responsive environments and design studios at the University of the Arts London culminating in an exhibition on the future of learning spaces (July 2008). She is Director of Studies for a number of practice-led research degree students in the areas of infor-mation environments, typography, and drawing conversations. Triggs is Course Director (designate) for MA Design Writing Criti-cism, LCC and is also co-organising with Dr Laurene Vaughan (RMIT, Australia) New Views 2: Conversations and Dialogues in Graphic Design, an international symposium and exhibition to be held at London College of Communication (July 2008). Triggs is a Fellow of the International Society of Typographic Designers and a signator of the First Thing First Manifesto 2000.

Axel Vogelsang ↦ 269

Axel Vogelsang is an information architect, design researcher and lecturer from Germany, currently based in London. After years as an art director in advertising he turned to the development of digi-tal media applications in 1997 and has since worked for companies and institutions such as Red Bull, Fiat, The Royal College of Art, SMARTlab. He holds an MA in Communication Design from Cen-tral Saint Martins College, London, where in 2008 he has also delivered his PhD thesis. His research centres on the relationship between text and image in digital media with a specific emphasis on the Internet and Web 2.0. The wider context of his research is interactive narrative, changing literacies and the structuring of information. In 2004 Vogelsang won an artist in residency at the GlobIS-lab at the ETH Zuerich as part of the Artists in Labs pro-gramme by the Zurich University of the Arts. He is also a constant member of the Sitemapping jury of the Swiss Federal Office of Culture (BAK) which funds media art in Switzerland. Since 2002 he has taugth on the Critical Context seminar at the MA commu-nication design at Central Saint Martins College and he has also given workshops in the UK and Switzerland. From summer 2008 Vogelsang will hold a research lectureship at the Lucerne Univer-sity of Applied Sciences and Arts.

313


Christian Wölfel ↦ 285

Christian Wölfel studied Industrial Design Engineering at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany. He was a visiting stu-dent at the Burg Giebichenstein, University of Art and Design, Germany. His diploma thesis, CarCoverMachine, won the IMB Innovation Award. Since 2005, he has been a research associate at the Center for Industrial Design, Technische Universität Dresden, where he works on research projects and as a lecturer and advisor. His research interests concern design processes and methods, with a focus on knowledge in the early stages of the design process.

«Focused»

314

315


Image-Inventory

«Focused»

316

RQ 01 RQ 02

RQ 03 RQ 04

R0 03R0 01 R0 02

R0 06

R0 09

R0 04

R0 07

R0 05

R0 08

317


FS 03FS 01 FS 02

R0 10

E 01

E 05

E 02

E 06

E 03 E 04

RF 01 RF 02

RQ Research Question, RO Research Objectives, FS Funding Source, E Empiricism, RF Research Field, RM Research Method, A Analysis, RP Research Partners, RT Research Team, RE Research Evaluations, P Publications, RFI Research Findings, D Deliverables

«Focused»

318

RM 01

RM 05

RM 02

RM 06

RM 03

RM 07

RM 04

RM 08

A 01 A 02 A 03 A 04 A 05

A 06

RF 07 RF 08

RF 03 RF 04 RF 05 RF 06

319


RP 01

RT 01

RT 06

RE 01

P 01

RFI 01

D 01

RP 02

RT 02

RE 02

P 02

RFI 02

D 02

RP 03

RT 03 RT 05

RE 03

P 03

RFI 03

D 03

RP 04

RT 04

RE 05RE 04

RQ Research Question, RO Research Objectives, FS Funding Source, E Empiricism, RF Research Field, RM Research Method, A Analysis, RP Research Partners, RT Research Team, RE Research Evaluations, P Publications, RFI Research Findings, D Deliverables

«Focused»

320

Impressum

Editor and Distribution Swiss Design Network

Concept and EditingRoman Aebersold, Bettina Minder, Arne Scheuermann

Project ManagerBettina Minder

Graphic DesignCybu Richli – Fabienne Burri, Luzern, www.c2f.to

ProofreadingLynne Constable, Luzern

PrintingDruckerei Odermatt AG, Dallenwil

BindingBuchbinderei Schuhmacher AG, Schmitten

Edition1000 Ex.

Copyright © 2008, Swiss Design Network, All rights reserved.

Lysianne Léchot Hirt, President SDNHEAD Genève15, Bld. James-FazyCH–1201 Genèvewww.swiss-design.orgPhone: +41 22 388 51 28E-Mail: [email protected]

ISBN 978-3-9523138-0-0

The publication has been made possible by substantial contributions from:Bern University of the Arts, Communication DesignLucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Faculty Design

Thanks to

ISBN 978-3-9523138-0-0

«F

OC

US

ED

» —

Cu

rrent D

esign

Resea

rch P

rojects a

nd

Meth

od

s

«FO–CU–SED»— Current Design Research Projects and MethodsSwiss Design Network Symposium 2008


focused – swiss design network symposium 2008...5 swiss design network symposium 2008 introduction...

Documents