Engaging with Challenges in Design Education

PROCEEDINGSDRS LEARNxDESIGN 2021

6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers

24–26 September 2021 Jinan|China

EditorsErik BohemiaLiv Merete NielsenLusheng PanNaz A.G.Z. BörekçiYang Zhang

VOLUME 2

Proceedings of the DRS LEARN X DESIGN 2021 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers Engaging with Challenges in Design Education 10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers

国际设计教育学者大会10周年

Editors Erik Bohemia

Liv Merete Nielsen Lusheng Pan

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi Yang Zhang

First published 27 December 2021 Conference Design Identity and Cover Credit: Katja Thorning Conference Secretary: Jianglong Yu Zodiac Designs organised by Peiyuan Zhang and Rui Zhang

Zodiac Designers

梁雨荷 Yuhe Liang

郭梦楠 Mengnan Guo

陈 元 Yuan Chen

刘昕昊 Xinhao Liu

姚梦雅 Mengya Yao

吴国强 Guoqiang Wu

纪 青 Qing Ji

赵 亮 Liang Zhao

谭 玲 Ling Tan

郭 萌 Meng Guo

杨迪凯 Dikai Yang

张东京 Dongjing Zhang

张博超 Bochao Zhang

赵子悦 Ziyue Zhao

张大立 Dali Zhang

徐晨蕾 Chenlei Xu

纪 青 Qing Ji

刘 鑫 Xin Liu

勇君文 Junwen Yong

柴维倩 Weiqian Chai

陈宇星 Yuxing Chen

朱日能 Rineng Zhu

王 淼 Miao Wang

吴文越 Wenyue Wu

赵子悦 Ziyue Zhao

郑新遥 Xinyao Zheng

陈长社 Changshe Chen

潘 越 Yue Pan NAUFAN NOORDYANTO

Editors Erik Bohemia Liv Merete Nielsen Lusheng Pan Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi Yang Zhang

Section Editors Úrsula Bravo Catalina Cortés Jeannette LaFors Fabio Andres Telle Natalia Allende Eva Lutnæs Karen Brænne Siri Homlong Hanna Hofverberg Ingvill Gjerdrum Maus Laila Belinda Fauske Janne Beate Reitan Lesley-Ann Noel Renata Marques Leitão

Hannah Korsmeyer Sucharita Beniwal Woodrow W. Winchester III Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi Fatma Korkut Gülay Hasdoğan Arild Berg Camilla Groth Fausto Medola Kate Sellen Juha Hartvik Mia Porko-Hudd Ingvild Digrane Bryan F. Howell

Jan Willem Hoftijzer Mauricio Novoa Muñoz Mark Sypesteyn Rik de Reuver Katja Thoring Nicole Lotz Linda Keane Yashar Kardar Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu Ayşegül Özçelik Sarper Seydioglu Yang Zhang Ziyuan Wang Xiang Xia

©2021 Editors and Authors

All rights reserved. Apart from fair dealing for the purposes of study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the applicable copyright legislation, no part of this book may be reproduced by any process without written permission from the authors.

Publisher Design Research Society admin@designresearchsociety.org www.designresearchsociety.org Master digital copy https://learnxdesign.net/lxd2021/drs2021-learnxdesign ISBN 978-1-912294-43-5 (electronic) Volume 1 ISBN 978-1-912294-44-2 (electronic) Volume 2 ISBN 978-1-912294-45-9 (electronic) Volume 3 ISBN 978-1-912294-46-6 (electronic) Volume 4

i

General Conference International Planning Committee « Lusheng Pan, Conference General chair, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Yang Zhang, Shandong University of Art & Design / Nanjing University of the Arts, China « Erik Bohemia, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Jianglong Yu, Conference General Secretary, Shandong University of Art & Design, China International Academic Organising Committee « Liv Merete Nielsen, Chair, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Yang Zhang, Shandong University of Art & Design / Nanjing University of the Arts, China « Naz A G Z Börekçi, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Erik Bohemia, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway International Scientific Programme Committee « Liv Merete Nielsen, Chair, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Erik Bohemia, Co-Chair, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Katja Thoring, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences, Germany « Eva Lutnæs, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Úrsula Bravo, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile « Roland M. Mueller, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany « Naz A G Z Börekçi, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Lesley-Ann Noel, North Carolina State University, USA « Yang Zhang, Shandong University of Art & Design / Nanjing University of the Arts, China « Juha Hartvik, Åbo Akademi University, Finland « Bryan F. Howell, Brigham Young University, USA « Arild Berg, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Yashar Kardar, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Derek Jones, The Open University, UK « Ingvild Digranes, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway Patrons of the Conference « Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo Metropolitan University Norway « Janne Beate Reitan, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Derek Jones, The Open University, UK « Nicole Lotz, The Open University, UK International Scientific Panel « Natalia Allende, Design for Change, Chile « Sucharita Beniwal, National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, India « Arild Berg, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Erik Bohemia, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Karen Brænne, Volda University College, Norway « Úrsula Bravo, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile « Jun Cai, Tsinghua University, China « Catalina Cortés, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile « Ingvild Digranes, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway « Laila Belinda Fauske, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Camilla Groth, University of South East Norway, Norway « Juha Hartvik, Åbo Akademi University, Finland « Gülay Hasdoğan, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Jan Willem Hoftijzer, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands « Hanna Hofverberg, Malmö University, Sweden « Siri Homlong, Konstfack, University College of Arts, Crafts and Design, Sweden « Bryan F. Howell, Brigham Young University, USA « Derek Jones, The Open University, UK « Yashar Kardar, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Linda Keane, AIA & The School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA « Fatma Korkut, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Hannah Korsmeyer, Monash University, Australia « Jeannette LaFors, Kelefors Consulting, USA « Nicole Lotz, The Open University, UK « Eva Lutnæs, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Renata Marques Leitão, Cornell University, USA « Ingvill Gjerdrum Maus, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Fausto Medola, Sao Paulo State University, Brazil « Roland Mueller, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany & University of Twente, The Netherlands « Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Lesley-Ann Noel, North Carolina State University, USA « Mauricio Novoa Muñoz, Western Sydney University, Australia « Ayşegül Özçelik, Aalborg University, Denmark

ii

« Mia Porko-Hudd, Åbo Akademi University, Finland « Janne Beate Reitan, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Amos Sculley, Rochester Institute of Technology, USA « Kate Sellen, OCAD University, Canada « Sarper Seydioğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Andrés Téllez, University of Bogota Jorge Tadeo Lozano, Colombia « Katja Thoring, Anhalt University, Dessau, Germany « Arno Verhoeven, University of Edinburgh, UK « Woodrow W. Winchester, III, University of Maryland, Baltimore County « Ziyuan Wang, Central Academy of Fine Arts, China « Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu, Ted University, Turkey « Yang Zhang, Shandong University of Art & Design / Nanjing University of the Arts, China « Zhanjun Dong, Shandong University of Art & Design, China International Scientific Review Panel « Dilek Akbulut, Gazi University, Turkey « Bilge Merve Aktaş, Aalto University, Finland « Natalia Allende, Design for Change Chile, Chile « L.N. Ece Arıburun Kırca, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey « F. Zeynep Ata, Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey « Asja Aulisio, Politecnico di Torino, Italy « Kardelen Aysel, Yasar University, Turkey « Dean Conrad Bacalzo, Wenzhou-Kean University, USA « Robert Barnes, London Metropolitan University, UK « Birgit Bauer, HTW Berlin University of Applied Sciences, Germany « Sucharita Beniwal, National Institute of Design, India « Audrey Bennett, University of Michigan, USA « Arild Berg, Oslo Metropolitan University – Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Gizem Bodur, Atilim University, Turkey « Erik Bohemia, Shandong University of Art & Design, China / Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Naz A G Z Börekçi, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Noora Bosch, University of Helsinki, Finland « Suzie Boss, PBLWorks (National Faculty emeritus), USA « Karen Braenne, Volda University College, Norway « Úrsula Bravo, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile « Charlie Breindahl, University of Copenhagen, Denmark « Lore Brosens, University of Ghent, Belgium « Jun Cai, Tsinghua University, China « Ece Canli, University of Minho, Portugal « Jui-Feng Chang, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Christos Chantzaras, Technical University of Munich, Germany « Fan Chen, Tongji University, China « JiaYing Chew, University of the Arts London and National University of Singapore, Singapore « Catalina Cortes, Universidad del Desarrollo, Chile « Füsun Curaoğlu, Eskişehir Technical University, Turkey « Bengü Dağlı, Dogus University, Turkey « Santiago De Francisco Vela, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia « Juan Alfonso de la Rosa, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia « Rik de Reuver, MODYN BV, The Netherlands « Dekuan Deng, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Ingvild Digranes, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Norway « Meng Yue Ding, Tianjin University, China « Sandra Dittenberger, New Design University, Austria « Hua Dong, Brunel University London, UK « Zhanjun Dong, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Richard Elaver, Appalachian State University, USA « Nesrin Ahmed Elmarakbi, Northumbria University, UK « Özlem Er, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey « Laila Belinda Fauske, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Laura Ferrarello, Royal College of Art, UK « Eliana Ferrulli, Politecnico di Torino, Italy « Stefano Follesa, University of Florence, Italy « Ge Fu, freelancer, China « Francesco Galli, IULM university, Italy « Peng Gao, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Koray Gelmez, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey « Michael Robert Gibson, The University of North Texas, USA « Emma Gieben-Gamal, University of Edinburgh, UK « Adela Glyn-Davies, University of Derby, UK « Gloria Gomez, OceanBrowser Ltd., New Zealand and University of Sydney, Australia « Gabriele Goretti, Jiangnan University, China

iii

« Colin M. Gray, Purdue University, USA « Wyn Griffiths, Middlesex University, UK « Camilla Groth, University of South-Eastern Norway, Finland « Cansu Günaydın Donduran, Ozyegin University, Turkey « Selin Gürdere Akdur, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey « David Hands, Lancaster University, UK « Juha Hartvik, Åbo Akademi University, Finland « Gülay Hasdoğan, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Clive David Hilton, Coventry University, UK « JanWillem Hoftijzer, Delft Univ. of Technology, The Netherlands « Hanna Hofverberg, Malmö University, Sweden « Siri Homlong, Konstfack University of Arts, Sweden « Bryan F. Howell, Brigham Young University, USA « Hsu-Chan Hsiao, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Oscar Huerta, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Chile « Benjamin Hughes, Beijing Institute of Technology, China « Marwa Abdulhameed Isa, Bahrain Polytechnic, Bahrain « Rachel Jane Jahja, RMIT University, Vietnam « Thessa Jensen, Aalborg University, Denmark « Min Jiang, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Li Jie, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Derek Jones, The Open University, UK « Yashar Kardar, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Linda Keane, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, USA « Janey Klingelfuss, University of Chester, UK « Fatma Korkut, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Hannah Korsmeyer, Monash University, Australia « Jeannette Renee LaFors, Kelefors Consulting, USA « Andreas Lanig, DIPLOMA Hochschule, Germany « Renata Leitão, Cornell University, USA « Jia-bao Liang, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Zhengping Liow, Singapore Polytechnic and National University of Singapore, Singapore « Yuan Liu, Politecnico di Milano, Italy « Leon Loh, Kyushu University, Japan « Nicole Lotz, The Open University, UK « Jennifer Loy, Deakin University, Australia « Eva Lutnæs, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Kristina Maria Madsen, Aalborg University Business School, Denmark « Renae Mantooth, North Carolina State University, USA « Anastasios Maragiannis, University of Greenwich, UK « Ingvill Gjerdrum Maus, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Bree McMahon, University of Arkansas, USA « Fausto Orsi Medola, Sao Paulo State University, Brazil « Juan Giusepe Montalvan Lume, Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, Peru « Roland Maximilian Mueller, Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany « Kelly Murdoch-Kitt, The University of Michigan, USA « Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway « Lesley-Ann Noel, North Carolina State University, USA « Mauricio Novoa Muñoz, Western Sydney University, Australia « Jody Nyboer, Syracuse University, USA « Anniliina Omwami, University of Helsinki, Finland « Melis Örnekoğlu Selçuk, Ghent University, Belgium « Ayşegül Özçelik, Aalborg University, Denmark « Dalsu Özgen Koçyıldırım, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Verena Natalie Paepcke-Hjeltness, Iowa State University, USA « Meng Pang, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Şule Taşlı Pektaş, Baskent University, Turkey « Stefano Perna, University of Naples Federico II, Italy « Alejandra Virginia Poblete Pérez, Universidad Tecnológica Metropolitana, Chile « Mia Johanna Porko-Hudd, Åbo Akademi university, Finland « Camilo Potocnjak-Oxman, Australian National University, Australia « Katelijn Quartier, Hasselt University, Belgium « Gonzalo Raineri, Universidad Finis Terrae, Chile « Prithvi Raj, Aakaar: Humanistic Co-Design, India « Noemi Sadowska, University of the Arts London, UK « Selen Sarıel, Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey « Angelika Seeschaaf Veres, OCAD University, Canada « KM Sellen, OCAD University, Canada « Bahar Sener-Pedgley, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Sarper Seydioğlu, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Zhabiz Shafieyoun, University of Illinois Urbana- Champaign, USA

iv

« Linmeng Shan, Bohai University, China « Saadeddine Shehab, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA « Han Shi, Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China « Mengya Shi, Hebei University of Economics and Business, China « Valentina Sierra Nino, University of Florida, USA « Liliana Soares, Instituto Politécnico de Viana do Castelo, Portugal « Anne Solberg, University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway « Kirsten Bonde Sorensen, Danish School of Media and Journalism, Denmark « Ricardo Sosa, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand « Michal Stefanowski, Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Poland « Awoniyi Stephen, Texas State University, USA « Ruth Stevens, UHasselt, Belgium « Shiping Tang, Nanjing University of The Arts, China « Andrea Taverna, Politecnico di Milano, Italy « Anne P. Taylor, School Zone Institute, USA « Fabio Andres Tellez Bohorquez, Appalachian State University, USA « Marije ten Brink, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences and Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands « Nazli Terzioglu Ozkan, Linköping University, Sweden « Katja Thoring, Anhalt University, Germany « Jinliang Tian, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Şebnem Timur, Istanbul Technical University, Turkey « Gülşen Töre Yargın, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Canan Emine Ünlü, TED University, Turkey « Robin Vande Zande, Kent State University, USA « G. Arno Verhoeven, University of Edinburgh, UK « Marianne von Lachmann, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil « Stefanie Voß, University of Applied Sciences HTW Berlin, Germany « Xiaohua Wang, Shan Dong Yingcai University, China « Zhenzi Wang, Yunnan Arts University, China « Vanissa Wanick, Winchester School of Art, UK « Andrea Wilkinson, LUCA School of Arts, Belgium « Fan Wu, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Lu-Ting Xia, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Artemis Yagou, Deutsches Museum, Germany « Zeynep Yalman-Yıldırım, Middle East Technical University, Turkey « Peian Yao, Università Degli Studi Firenze, Italy « Gizem Yazıcı, Izmir Institute of Technology, Turkey « Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu, TED University, Turkey « Derya Yorgancıoğlu, Ozyegin University, Turkey « Teng-Chin Yu, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan, China « Xiaojuan Zhang, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Yang Zhang, Shandong University of Art & Design / Nanjing University of the Arts, China « Jianpeng Zheng, Shandong university of Arts & Design, China « Xiaojie Zhu, Shandong University of Art & Design, China Assistants « Zhen Xu, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Xiaojie ZHU, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Jueyun Li, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Zi Ye, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Yinglei Wen, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Xiaohui Yang, Shandong University of Art & Design, China « Xiaojie Lin, Shandong University of Art & Design, China Interpreters « Hong Liang, China « Ning Wang, Qingdao Dingwen Communications, China « Linlin Qiu, China « Shan Gao, China « Yu Ting, Ningbo University of Finance & Economics, China « Xueqin Wang, Zhong kai University of Agriculture and Engineering, China

v

Table of Content Volume 1 | 卷1

10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers ........................................... 1 Lusheng Pan

Jinan 2021: Engaging with Challenges in Design Education ................................................................................... 3 Erik Bohemia, Liv Merete Nielsen, Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi and Yang Zhang

Ankara 2019 – Insider Knowledge ........................................................................................................................ 30 Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi, Fatma Korkut and Dalsu Özgen Koçyıldırım

London 2017 – The Allure of the Digital and Beyond ........................................................................................... 35 Derek Jones

Chicago 2015 – Education and Design to Enlighten a Citizenry............................................................................ 38 Robin VandeZande

Oslo 2013 – Design Learning for Tomorrow ......................................................................................................... 45 Liv Merete Nielsen

Paris 2011 – Researching Design Education ......................................................................................................... 50 Erik Bohemia

Section 01 Track 01: Design Thinking to Improve Creative Problem solving ......................................................................... 59

Úrsula Bravo, Catalina Cortés, Jeannette LaFors, Fabio Andres Tellez and Natalia Allende

End Users in Students’ Participatory Design Process ........................................................................................... 68 Noora Bosch, Tellervo Härkki and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen

Integrating Design Thinking into STEAM Education ............................................................................................. 78 Xuejiao Yin, Shumeng Hou and Qingxuan Chen

Inclusive education driven by design .................................................................................................................... 91 Úrsula Bravo and Maritza Rivera

Measuring the Impact of Integrating Human-Centered Design in Existing Higher Education Courses .............. 100 Saadeddine Shehab and Carol Guo

Research on the performance evaluation and preference of design thinking methods in interdisciplinary online course ................................................................................................................................................................. 111

Juan Li, Shuo-fang Li , Meng-xun Ho and Zhe Li

I Can and I Will .................................................................................................................................................... 123 Zhengping Liow

Nordic Life Design ............................................................................................................................................... 138 Kirsten Bonde Sørensen

Different Ideas, Lots of Ideas .............................................................................................................................. 152 Jody Nyboer and Brad Hakanson

Assessment of Ideation Effectiveness in Design Thinking .................................................................................. 167 Farzaneh Eftekhari, Mohammad Jahanbakht and Farnoosh Sharbafi

Study on the Implementation of the Innovative Enterprise Product Design Model for ID Students ................. 184 Shuo-fang Liu, Jui-Feng Chang and Chang-Tzuoh Wu

A New Design Thinking Model Based on Bloom’s Taxonomy ............................................................................ 196 Fan Wu, Yang-Cheng Lin and Peng Lu

FIDS for Kids: Empowering Children through Design ......................................................................................... 212 Ruthie Sobel Luttenberg and Natalia Allende

Workshop: How to Design to Improve Life ........................................................................................................ 216 Catalina Cortés and Mariano Alesandro

Section 02 Track 02: Empowering Critical Design Literacy ................................................................................................... 222

Eva Lutnæs, Karen Brænne, Siri Homlong, Hanna Hofverberg, Ingvill Gjerdrum Maus, Laila Belinda Fauske, and Janne Beate Reitan

vi

Experiencing Sustainable Fashion: Have Fun and Feel Clever ............................................................................ 226 Hanna Hofverberg and Ninitha Maivorsdotter

Framing students’ reflective interactions based on photos ............................................................................... 232 Marije ten Brink, Frank Nack and Ben Schouten

Critical design literacy through reflection in design ........................................................................................... 245 Ingvill Gjerdrum Maus

Encountering development in social design education ...................................................................................... 255 Lesley-Ann Noel

Exploring practices of critical design literacy...................................................................................................... 264 Eva Lutnæs

Volume 2 | 卷2 Section 03

Track 03: Alternative problem framing in design education .............................................................................. 277 Lesley-Ann Noel, Renata Marques Leitão, Hannah Korsmeyer, Sucharita Beniwal and Woodrow W. Winchester III

Play Probes ......................................................................................................................................................... 280 Line Gad Christiansen and Sune Klok Gudiksen

Environmental Education in Protected Areas in Petrópolis ............................................................................... 294 Marianne Von Lachmann, Rita Maria de Souza Couto and Roberta Portas

Reframing Ageing in Design Education ............................................................................................................... 307 Emma Gieben-Gamal

Tilting to Transform ............................................................................................................................................ 315 Noemi Sadowska and Tara Hanrahan

Beyond Problem-Solving .................................................................................................................................... 318 Allison Edwards and Hannah Korsmeyer

Section 04 Track 04: Collaboration in Design Education ...................................................................................................... 322

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi, Fatma Korkut and Gülay Hasdoğan

Collaboration with NPOs in Industrial Design Education.................................................................................... 327 Zeynep Yalman-Yıldırım and Gülay Hasdoğan

Towards Radical Synergy for More Just & Equitable Futures ............................................................................. 338 Audrey G. Bennett, Ron B. Eglash, Roland Graf, Deepa Butoliya , Keesa V. Johnson, Jenn Low and Andréia Rocha

Transitioning From University to Work in Service Design .................................................................................. 358 Daniela de Sainz-Molestina and Andrea Taverna

Educational Programs in Between Design and Supply Chain ............................................................................. 369 Gabriele Goretti and Gianni Denaro

Collaboration Practices in Industrial Design Education ...................................................................................... 380 Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi, Gülay Hasdoğan and Fatma Korkut

Reflections on Shared Mood Boards .................................................................................................................. 395 Anniliina Omwami, Henna Lahti and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen

Preparing to Introduce Design Thinking in Middle Schools ................................................................................ 405 Michael Gibson, Keith Owens, Peter Hyland and Christina Donaldson

Socially-Engaged Distance Design Collaboration ................................................................................................ 414 Kardelen Aysel and Can Güvenir

Improving Intercultural Collaboration with Visual Thinking ............................................................................... 424 Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt and Denielle J. Emans

It’s the Cultural Difference That Makes the Difference ...................................................................................... 432 Clive Hilton, Muxing Gao and Rong Wei

Cross-Cultural UX Pedagogy: A China-US Partnership ........................................................................................ 439 Ziqing Li, Colin M. Gray, Austin L. Toombs, Kevin McDonald, Lukas Marinovic and Wei Liu

vii

Process Based Collaborations ............................................................................................................................. 451 Rebekah Radtke, Hannah Dewhirst, Joe Brewer and Ingrid Schmidt

Advisory Committee Structures of Chinese Design Schools ............................................................................... 459 Fan Chen, Lin Li and Jing-Yi Yang

Section 05 Track 05: Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations ............................................................................ 476

Arild Berg, Camilla Groth, Fausto Medola and Kate Sellen

Learning Design, Co-Designing Learning ............................................................................................................ 479 Stefano Perna and Pietro Nunziante

Siloed in Breaking Silos ....................................................................................................................................... 489 JiaYing Chew

Design for Justice Lab ......................................................................................................................................... 499 Santiago De Francisco Vela, Laura Guzman-Abello and Santiago Pardo Rodríguez

Challenges in Multidisciplinary Student Collaboration....................................................................................... 516 Melis Örnekoğlu-Selçuk, Marina Emmanouil and Jan Detand

Systemic Design Education in Interdisciplinary Environments ........................................................................... 529 Asja Aulisio, Amina Pereno, Fabiana Rovera and Silvia Barbero

Interdisciplinary Boundary Experiences ............................................................................................................. 540 Laura Ferrarello and Catherine Dormor

Using Creative Practice in Interdisciplinary Education ....................................................................................... 553 Bilge Merve Aktaş and Camilla Groth

Co-Creating a Cross-Material Silk and Porcelain ................................................................................................ 567 Anne Solberg and Ellen Baskår

Construction of Curriculum System of Design Education ................................................................................... 581 Han Shi, Feng Xue, Jing Pei, Yijing Li, Zhihang Song, Chunli Ma and Shangshang Yang

Essential Medications ......................................................................................................................................... 592 Kate Sellen, Nav Persaud, Stuart Werle, Mariam Al Bess, Nick Goso, Ruslan Hetu, Habiba Soliman, Alyssa Bernado and Norm Umali

Card-Based Learning Objective Design ............................................................................................................... 598 Stefano Perna and Moritz Philip Recke

Volume 3 | 卷 3 Section 06

Track 06: Learning Though Materiality and Making ........................................................................................... 604 Juha Hartvik, Mia Porko-Hudd and Ingvild Digranes

Thinking with Card .............................................................................................................................................. 607 Benjamin Hughes

Imaginary Museums ........................................................................................................................................... 613 Ke Jiang and Benjamin Hughes

Section 07 Track 07: Sketching & Drawing Education and Knowledge ................................................................................ 626

Bryan F. Howell, Jan Willem Hoftijzer, Mauricio Novoa Muñoz, Mark Sypesteyn and Rik de Reuver

Sketchnoting Experience of First-Year Students ................................................................................................ 631 Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness, Annaka Ketterer, Ella Kannegiesser, Madeline Keough, Victoria Meeks and Ayla Schiller

Online Comprehensive Teaching on Digital Hand-drawing ................................................................................ 647 Ming Zhu

Exploring the Experiential Reading Differences between Visual and Written Research Papers ........................ 660 Bryan F. Howell, Asa R. Jackson, Henry Lee, Julienne DeVita and Rebekah Rawlings

Visualizing Your Knowledge and Connecting the Dots ....................................................................................... 676 Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness

viii

New Immersive Workflows for Design and Production ..................................................................................... 679 Mauricio Novoa Muñoz, Wendy Zhang, Jose Manuel Rodriguez Diaz, Bryan F. Howell and Jan Willem Hoftijzer

Section 08 Track 08: Design Learning Environments ........................................................................................................... 687

Katja Thoring, Nicole Lotz and Linda Keane

Unlocking Wellbeing-Affordances in Elementary Schools .................................................................................. 689 Ruth Stevens, Ann Petermans and Jan Vanrie

Architecture for Education ................................................................................................................................. 703 Anne P. Taylor

Senseed: A Multisensory Learning Environment ................................................................................................ 718 Ge Fu

A Game Implementation Approach for Design Education ................................................................................. 737 Duhan Ölmez and Fehmi Doğan

Architectural Design Studio as an 'Extended Problem Space' ............................................................................ 746 F. Zeynep Ata and Fehmi Doğan

Immersive Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 756 Yuan Liu, Dina Riccò and Daniela Anna Calabi

Teaching with Virtual Simulation: Is It Helpful? ................................................................................................. 772 Meng Yue Ding, Yi Ke Hu, Zhi Hao Kang and Yi Jia Feng

Materiality of Space and Time in the Virtual Design Studio ............................................................................... 780 Ruth M. Neubauer and Christoph H. Wecht

Designing Criteria for Developing Educational Multimedia Games ................................................................... 789 Chaitanya Solanki and Deepak John Mathew

The Intellectual Diet in Pastoral Spaces of Activity in Digital Design Education ................................................. 800 Andreas Ken Lanig

Rethinking Experiential Learning in Design Education ....................................................................................... 807 Alessandro Campanella, Eliana Ferrulli and Silvia Barbero

Utilising Collaborative Online International Learning ........................................................................................ 816 Adela Glyn-Davies and Clive Hilton

Hybrid Spaces Teaching for “Chinese Traditional Costume Craft” ..................................................................... 823 Shunhua Luo, Jingrui Yang and Chunhong Fan

Critique Assemblages in Response to Emergency Hybrid Studio Pedagogy ...................................................... 830 Christopher Wolford, Yue Zhao, Shantanu Kashyap and Colin M. Gray

The Leftovers of Participation ............................................................................................................................ 844 Andrea Wilkinson and Steven Lenaers

Students and Teachers Becoming Co-Designers of Learning ............................................................................. 848 Gloria Gomez and Rodney Tamblyn

Volume 4 | 卷4 Section 09

Track 09: Futures of Design Education ............................................................................................................... 856 Yashar Kardar, Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu, Ayşegül Özçelik and Sarper Seydioglu

Ten Scenarios for the Future of Design Education ............................................................................................. 859 Lore Brosens, Johannna Renny Octavia Annelies Raes and Marina Emmanouil

Doing Research in Design ................................................................................................................................... 868 Sandra Dittenberger, Stefan Moritsch, Agnes Raschauer and Julia Pintsuk-Christof

Learning Remotely Through Diversity and Social Awareness ............................................................................. 879 Ferrarello Laura, Fiadeiro Rute, Hall Ashley, Galdon Fernando, Anderson Paul, Grinyer Clive, Stevens John and Lee Chang Hee

From Eyes to Ears ............................................................................................................................................... 900 Daniela Hensel, Birgit Bauer and Stefanie Voß

ix

Social Implementation of Design Workshops Output ........................................................................................ 910 Yanfang Zhang, Christian Cruz, Shinichiro Ito and Tokushu Inamura

Section 10 Track 10: Design Educators as Change Agents ................................................................................................... 920

Xiang Xia, Yang Zhang and Ziyuan Wang

Teaching for Values in Design ............................................................................................................................. 923 Elisabet M. Nilsson and Anne-Marie Hansen

Design Educators: Change Agents in RE-Designing Education ........................................................................... 931 Robin Vande Zande

Framing Research Assistants’ Pedagogical Roles in Design Studio Courses: Initial Findings .............................. 934 Koray Gelmez, Pelin Efilti, Enver Tatlısu, Tuğçe Ecem Tüfek and Onur Yılmaz

Transformative Teaching Practice Through a Design Thinking Approach in Social Settings .............................. 948 Janey Deng Klingelfuss and Markus Klingelfuss

Reform of Product Design Teaching ................................................................................................................... 960 Meng-Dar Shieh, Hsu-Chan Hsiao and Yu-Ting Hsiao

Inquiry Practice Design Teaching in Application-Oriented University ................................................................ 976 Jianpeng Zheng

Learning Patterns in Architectural Design Studios ............................................................................................. 987 Julie Milovanovic

Professionalization of the Discipline of Interior Architecture ............................................................................ 996 Katelijn Quartier

On the Signature Pedagogy of Photography Courses....................................................................................... 1003 Yuanyuan XU

Problems in the Reform of Design Teaching and Solutions .............................................................................. 1012 Lei Sun

What Have You Learned? ................................................................................................................................. 1028 Selen Sarıel

Research on the Green Design Course in Industrial Design ............................................................................. 1038 Lu-Ting Xia, Chun-Heng Ho and Xing-Min Lin

Cultivate Leadership Contagion ........................................................................................................................ 1044 Francesco Galli, Zhabiz Shafieyoun and Gerry Derksen

Mash Maker: Improvisation for Student Studios ............................................................................................. 1055 Ryan Slone and Bree McMahon

Research on China’s Industrial Design Education ............................................................................................. 1061 Yun Fan, Jianglong Yu, Yang Zhang and Erik Bohemia

Teaching Workshop: Universal Design for Learning ......................................................................................... 1072 Hsiao-Yun Chu

Author Index ..................................................................................................................................................... 1077

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers DRS LEARNxDESIGN 2021

国际设计教育学者大会10周年

Lusheng Pan https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.329

As the DRS LEARNxDESIGN General Chair, it is my hope, that in the next decade, the future conference organising committee members will look at back this 10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers volume of conference proceedings with an affection. The volume reflects the dedicated work of close to 500 individuals who in various ways contributed to production of these proceedings as authors, peer reviewers, planners, volunteers, editors, managers, technicians, or designers. The 10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers reflects incredible determination of those who came before us who initiated and establish conference as the key platform for the Design Research Society’s Education SIG to disseminate research related to Design Education. I would like to thank to the Design Research Society to entrust Shandong University of Art & Design to host this key International Conference for Design Education Researchers. This has been a first time a Chinese University has hosted a key International Design Education conference of this size. I would especially thank to the International Academic Organizing Committee members Erik, Liv, Yang and Naz, who contributed their enthusiasm and expertise to make the event a wonderful success. Great gratitude is to be given to staff from OsloMet, UDD, and METU who have generously set up the specific Zoom links for the parallel sessions and thus made it possible to translate these sessions. By embarking on hosting the 10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Shandong University of Art & Design’s aim was to make a significant contribution to national and international research on design education. To achieve this aim Shandong University of Art & Design has made a number of important commitments. One of these was to initiate a new Design Education Research Centre. The university has made a substantial planning to inaugurate the centre shortly after the conference. To bridge the persistent Global South and North divide as the host, Shandong University of Art & Design, has widen the International Scientific Programme Committee memberships. To enable recent graduates to provide a significant input into what should be covered at the conference which focuses on how they should be educated we have made call for the emerging scholars. Our focus is to deliver a high-quality academic conference. Thus, the focus was on the quality rather than the quantity. We have supported a rigorous peer review process to include the high selected quality academic papers in the conference proceedings Drawing is a fundamental language for designers. It supports to analyse, organise, communicate, reflect, negotiate, persuade, explain, discuss, and present design concepts, products, experiences, and services. It is used throughout New Product Development process, from strategic initiation to its implementation. Thus, I was supportive of the International Academic Organising Committee proposal to introduce a Track which will challenge authors to use visualisation methods to communicate their papers in a visual form. In 2016 the Chinese Ministry of Education has included the Design discipline to the “Special Catalogue of General Colleges and Universities” with aim to scale up the design education. Since 2016, more than 2000 of institutions have been delivering design programmes. Every year more than 540 000 students enrolled into Design programmes. The number of students studying design and related majors in the school now exceeds 2 million. The design discipline has become the most prominent one in more than 140 first-level disciplines

2

and more than 90 undergraduate majors in China. I would like to thank to the local committee in Shandong University of Art & Design. Thanks to the design group who was responsible for designing the beautiful gifts and certificates of the top submissions. Also, I want to say thank you to the cultural event group. They provided the delegates with cultural feasts. I really appreciate support from the assistants who recording the sessions. Great gratitude should be given to our interpreters, who help us to enjoy the conference with their efforts.

Lusheng PAN Shandong University of Art & Design, China ceo@sdada.edu.cn Professor Dr. Lusheng PAN, Vice-Chair of China Federation of Literary and Art Circles, Chair of China Folk Literature and Art Association, President of Shandong University of Art & Design, founder of Oriental Folk Art Museum, senior expert and leading talent in national philosophy and social sciences, enjoying special government allowance of the State Council. He also serves as the main leader of the Teaching Steering Committee of design specialty in Colleges & universities of Ministry of Education. His research focuses on design education and folk art. He has presided more than 30 national research programs, undertaken over 20 major national & provincial social service projects, published more than 30 books and over 200 academic papers.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Jinan 2021: Engaging with Challenges in Design Education 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers: DRS Learn X Design 2021

Erik Bohemia, Liv Merete Nielsen, Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi and Yang Zhang https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.330

10th Anniversary of the DRS Learn X Design Conference Series The year 2021 has been particularly special for the DRS Learn X Design (LxD 2021)1 organising teams. The conference series marked the 10th anniversary since the first event was held in Paris in 2011 (Bohemia et al., 2011)2, see the reflection on page 50. Since then, the conferences have been organised biannually. The DRS/CUMULUS 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers was held in Oslo in 2013, on the theme of Design Learning for Tomorrow – Design Education from Kindergarten to PhD (Lloyd & Bohemia, 2013; Nielsen et al., 2015; Reitan et al., 2013)3, see the reflection on page 45. The DRS/CUMULUS/Design-Ed Learn X Design 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers was held in Chicago in 2015, on the theme of Education and Design to Enlighten a Citizenry (VandeZande et al., 2015)4, see the reflection on page 38. The DRS Learn X Design 4th International Conference for Design Education Researchers was held in London in 2017, on the theme of The Allure of the Digital and Beyond (Pritchard & Lambert, 2017)5, see the reflection 35. The DRS Learn X Design 5th International Conference for Design Education Researchers was held in Ankara in 2019, on the theme of Insider Knowledge (Börekçi et al., 2019)6, see the reflection on page 30. The theme for the 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers hosted by the Shandon University of Art & Design was Engaging with Challenges in Design Education (Bohemia et al., 2021). The general 2021 conference theme reflected the unprecedented changes which took place in design education around the world since the first event was held in Paris a decade ago. For example, in China since 2016, more than 2000 of institutions have been delivering design programmes. Every year, also in China alone, more than 540 000 students enrol into Design programmes. And the number of students studying design and related majors in the Chinese schools now exceeds 2 million. The design discipline has become the most prominent one in more than 140 first-level disciplines and more than 90 undergraduate majors in China. China’s growth of design programmes and design student graduates at universities is shifting the very foundation of how design is taught (Pan, 2021). In additional, the Design is being taken up increasing by other disciplines (Bravo & Bohemia, 2021) and being incorporated into general education (Lutnæs, 2019) which requires us to reconceptualise the design education and its purposes (Bravo & Bohemia, 2020; Lloyd, 2011). This echoes advocation by scholars such as Anita Cross (1984), Buchanan (2000), and Nielsen and Brænne (2013) for design to become part of the general education. At the time when the general conference theme was proposed, Covid-19 which forced the most rapid and radical changes on design education, was not yet on horizon (see Figure 1). However, as the education has been rapidly transformed due to the Covid-19 pandemic that has affected the entire world, the general theme

1 https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2021-learnxdesign/ 2 https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2011-learnxdesign/ 3 https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2013-learnxdesign/ 4 https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2015-learnxdesign/ 5 https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2017-learnxdesign/ 6 https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2019-learnxdesign/

4

of the conference indivertibly became a fitting theme.

Figure 1. SUAD proposed to host the 2021 DRS Learn X Design conference in 2019. On the right, students practicing a performance routine at one of the SUAD theatres. The plan was to introduce conference participants to different cultural activities. Note: The conference visual identity evolved over the time

The DRS Learn X Design 2021, 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers took place online between 24–26 September 2021. It was hosted by Shandong University of Art & Design (SUAD) in Jinan, China. During this online international conference, the participants reflected on the ongoing challenges which have affected their practices. The process of sharing different perspectives with the international design education community members facilitated collective learning. The challenges that design educators experienced were reflected in the conference tracks, such as managing design education in times of crisis; and those related to ethics and our personal, societal and educational circumstances.

Submissions Altogether 338 authors from 39 counties contributed 168 submissions as full research papers, case studies, visual papers or workshop proposals. The case studies and visual papers submission categories were introduced for the first time in this conference. The idea for the visual papers’ category came from the Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE) conference which introduced this submission category at its 2018 event (Childs et al., 2018). The idea for the case studies was take from the 2019 Academy for Design Innovation international conference (Bohemia et al., 2019). After a round of double-blind peer review process, which was supported by 219 members of the International Scientific Panel7, 50 (30%) submissions were accepted, 56 (34%) submissions were provisionally accepted8 pending satisfactory further peer reviews managed by the track chairs, and 58 (35%) submissions were rejected. This was followed by the subsequent peer review process involving the track chairs and co-chairs. The outcome of this final process was the inclusion of 91 submissions, which were scheduled in the conference programme and included for publication in the proceedings. The overall acceptance/rejection rate across the four categories was 46% (see Table 1), which is on par with the general DRS biennial international conferences (Boess et al., 2020).

7 Please see the full list on page ii. 8 If both peer reviewers indicated that a submission required a major revision then the submission was rejected outright.

5

Table 1. Submissions received for the 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers: DRS Learn X Design 2021

Received Accepted Rejected

Aggregate 168 91 (54%) 46%

Research Papers 103 53 (51%) 49%

Case Studies 39 24 (61%) 39%

Workshop 19 11 (7%) 58%

Visual Papers 7 3 (4%) 43%

Laying Out the Track Themes With the aim of living up to the expectations of the 10th anniversary conference, one of the major concerns of the organisers was to articulate its relevance and appeal to attract diverse international design research community. The tracks facilitated achieving this goal. The tracks, by defining the conference scope by defining the subject matter and the extent to which the topics are explored, are the backbone of a conference. The tracks overview the existing pathways, determine new ones for research in an area, and set up the community for the conference. With its tracks, a conference can draw attention to the significance of a discipline and address the members of its community. One of the particularities for the organization of this conference was the openness that the organisers strived to achieve, with voice given to a wide group of international scholars. The conference track themes were constructed altogether with a motivated group of international scholars and colleagues leading the process as track chairs and co-chairs. The track chairs from diverse backgrounds were invited to propose the themes guided by their specific research. Thus, the LxD 2021 tracks’ scope diverted from traditional design education conferences which focus is explicitly on educational topics such as assessment or student group work. Instead, the LxD 2021 tracks themes were guided by specific tracks’ chairs research areas, like how problems framing limits the potential solutions, and then related this area to education. As the International Academic Organising Committee, we were very excited to be working together in this process. With the aim of making this process beneficial beyond experienced researchers, it was decided to give an opportunity to early career researchers in chairing a track for this conference. A call was made in August 2020, titled Fishing for the Big Idea. This is how the track Futures of Design Education was incorporated into the conference, with four early career researchers leading the process (see Figure 2, and Volume 4, on page 854).

Figure 2. Fishing for THE BIG IDEA™; The team of the early career researchers, the School of Small Fish, who initially proposed the theme: Bauhaus is Dead!

6

A total of 44 track chairs and co-chairs9 from 14 countries (Australia, Baltimore County, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, India, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Turkey, UK, USA) worked together and in parallel, in bringing their own approaches and points of view, with topics that supported and complemented one another, and allow the germination of new discussions in the area. The wide geographical distribution required synchronisation among all which was facilitated by regular meetings distributed into an extending timetable, and long collaborative working hours. Many meetings were held online, with the altruism of the track chairs who were in different parts of the world (see Figure 7). Despite the challenges, these meetings also brought the benefits of including diverse perspectives which led to new ideas.

Figure 3. Regular meeting of track chairs and co-chairs provided opportunity to shape the conference scope

Figure 4. Share your Passion opening session for the Articulation of Alternate Futures symposium, which was held in September 2020, provided the track chairs with opportunity to know each other’s interests

9 Track chairs and co-chairs are listed under the heading International Scientific Panel on page i.

7

Figure 5. Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi outlining a track proposal titled ‘Collaboration in Design Education’ at during the ‘Articulation of Alternate Futures’ symposium which was held in September 2020.

Figure 6. On the left, Liv Merete Nielsen introduced Úrsula Bravo who proposed the track titled ‘Design Thinking to Improve Creative Problem-solving’ and on the right, Katja Thoring outlined proposal for the track titled ‘Design Learning Spaces’ during the ‘Articulation of Alternate Futures’ symposium which was held in September 2020.

Figure 7. The geographical location of the LxD 2021 Track chairs and co-chairs

The 10-year anniversary conference programme and the four-volume conference proceedings have been organised within the 10 track themes managed by the track chairs with support from their co-chairs (see Table 2).

8

Table 2. List of Tracks and Submission Categories

Submission Types

Track No Track Title

Full

Res

earc

h

Pap

ers

Cas

e

Stu

die

s

Wo

rksh

op

s

Vis

ual

-

Pap

ers

Track 01 Design Thinking to Improve Creative Problem-solving o o o

Track 02 Empowering Critical Design Literacy o o o

Track 03 Alternative Problem Framing in Design Education o o o o

Track 04 Collaboration in Design Education o o o

Track 05 Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations o o

Track 06 Learning Through Materiality and Making o o o

Track 07 Sketching & Drawing Education and Knowledge o o o o

Track 08 Design Learning Environments o o o o

Track 09 Futures of Design Education o o o o

Track 10 Design Educators as Change Agents o o o

The track titled Design Thinking to Improve Creative Problem-solving chaired by Úrsula Bravo and co-chaired by Catalina Cortés, Jeannette LaFors, Andrés Téllez and Natalia Allende asked scholars to consider the challenges of taking design-based approached those who do not intent to be trained as designers such as children, youth, teachers, and leaders in schools, universities, and other educational contexts (Bravo et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 59. The Empowering Critical Design Literacy track chaired by Eva Lutnæs and cochaired by Karen Brænne, Siri Homlong, Hanna Hofverberg, Ingvill Gjerdrum Maus, Laila Belinda Fauske and Janne Beate Reitan aimed to explore the current educational practices, academic discourses and implications of design education empowering for critical design literacy (Lutnæs et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 222. The next track titled Alternative Problem Framing in Design Education; chaired by Lesley-Ann Noel, and co-chaired by Renata Marques Leitão, Hannah Korsmeyer, Sucharita Beniwal, and Woodrow W. Winchester III, was asking scholars to consider how we might move design education away from problems, pain and othering (Holliday et al., 2010) towards positive models of framing challenges such as joy, desires, utopia and other positive or alternative re-frames (Noel et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 277. The following track Collaboration in Design Education chaired by Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi and co-chaired by Fatma Korkut and Gülay Hasdoğan intention was to explore the benefits and challenges of collaboration in design education. For example, the submissions tackled issues related managing collaborations and strategies which facilitate maintenance and commitments of the parties to support design education (Börekçi, Korkut, & Hasdoğan, 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 322. The Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations track which was chaired by Arild Berg and co-chaired by Camilla Groth, Fausto Medola and Kate Sellen, focus was on the challenges related to co-creation practices when disciplinary world views ‘crash’ and what the implications of these are for design education (Berg et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 476. The Learning Through Materiality and Making track which was chaired by Juha Hartvik and co-chaired by Mia Porko-Hudd and Ingvild Digranes was informed by the Scandinavian educational practices which aimed to provide children and young people an opportunity to process materials in order to gain experience, knowledge and learning that can be useful at different stages of life, in study, professional and leisure activities (Hartvik et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 604. The Sketching and Drawing Education and Knowledge track which inspired the new submissions Visual Papers category was chaired by Bryan F. Howell and co-chaired by Jan Willem Hoftijzer, Mauricio Novoa Muñoz, Mark Sypesteyn, and Rik de Reuver focused was on research that reveals insights into how and why sketching and visual knowledge is reflected in education (Howell et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 626. The Design Learning Environments: Exploring the Role of Physical, Virtual, and Hybrid Spaces for Design Education chaired by Katja Thoring and co-chaired by Nicole Lotz and Linda Keane provided a rich forum for the scholars explore how the physical and digital spatial environments of educational institutions can be designed in order to better facilitate learning (Thoring et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 687. The track titled Futures of Design Education: Beyond Time & Space which was chaired by Yashar Kardar and

9

co-chaired by Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu, Ayşegül Özçelik, and Sarper Seydioglu was based on recent graduates’ experiences. The track asked the scholars to venture beyond the ‘studio’ to explore possibilities of new design education models conscious of members’ social dynamics, identities, communities, and their role in enabling new education models which are more inclusive, personalised, and sustainable (Kardar et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 856. The final track titled Design Educators as Change Agents which was chaired by Yang Zhang and co-chaired by Xiang Xia and Ziyuan Wang. The track’s broad theme focused on design educators as change agents of design education (Xia et al., 2021), see the track’s introduction on page 920.

The four submission category types In addition to the ten tracks, the prospective authors were able to select one of these four submission categories:

• Research Papers

• Case Studies

• Visual Papers

• Workshop Proposals The full research papers submissions were between 3500 and 6000 words in length. The case studies provided a platform for sharing a reflective account of a project(s). The case studies submissions were between 1500 and 3000 words in length. The workshop proposals provided an opportunity for scholars to explore new and emerging practices and research topics, facilitate debates, gather data, and test on-going research. They enabled practitioners to showcase their work in collaboration with design researchers. The workshop proposal submission were no more than 1500 words. The visual papers allowed scholars to used sketched images to communicate the primary information while text plays a supporting role. The visual papers needed to contribute new knowledge.

Preparatory Events Two international events supported the main conference and marked certain milestones in the preparations. The first event was titled Articulations for Alternate Futures. It was an open symposium that took place one year prior to the conference, on 22–23 September 2020. The Articulations for Alternate Futures symposium invited prospective conference track chairs to introduce their main themes. The purpose was to articulate potential track themes and then further develop them in relation to each other, thus making sure that the themes complemented one another rather than compete. How the calls could be made or improved were also discussed to make sure the call for submissions would be open and addressing a wide range of academic, practical and research interests. The symposium was open to the participation of an extended audience, who were interested in the conference topic and would consider contributing. Altogether, over 110 participants have joined the two-day online symposium. Based on the discussions, the tracks were reorganised, merged, shuffled and reformed until the call for submissions was made in February 2021.

Figure 8. Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi is outlining programme for the Articulation of Alternate Futures symposium, which was held in September 2020.

10

The second supporting event was the Explorations of Alternate Futures symposium, held on 10–11 May 2021, where track chairs and organisers came together to rehearse the programme and the setting for a more inclusive and fulfilling online conference experience. This two-day symposium was attended by around 90 participants.

Figure 9. Exploration of Alternate Futures symposium which was used to prototype the online conference delivery

The online symposium held a year ahead of the conference helped the organisers to prototype the September 2021 conference and to identify which elements should be kept and which needed to be discarded. For example, the online parallel sessions were envisaged to take place in the breakup rooms, thus simplifying how delegates might enter the conference as they needed only one online meeting link. However, the online Zoom platform allowed only one interpretation channel to and from Chinese across all the breakup rooms. Thus, subsequent parallel sessions had dedicated meeting links. The timing and overall rhythm of the session delivery, social events and regular breaks were also tested. On the other hand, demonstration of the traditional Baduanjin stretching exercise by Master Ms. Feng Yujuan during the breaks was one of the highlights of this event. The event participants were introduced to eight Baduanjin basic steps. Fatma Korkut, 2019 LxD co-chair, stated that:

In general, I think the mood was perfect; people felt engaged and motivated. Geographical and institutional diversity was high. Thematic diversity was not that high, in my opinion. Perhaps some tracks intersect heavily around design thinking and design literacy. I felt excited about mini-exhibitions concerning visual design thinking (Bryan), and data-driven design (Roland). The presentation by young researchers was terrific; I listened to it with tongue in cheek :)) We should have more student presence in this conference series. Plus, we need to encourage more visual events.

Figure 10. Master Ms. Feng Yujuan demonstrated the traditional stretching exercise: Baduanjin

Derek Jones, the DRS Design Education SIG convener, described the LxD 2021 planning process as

…inverting the normal conference procedure. Instead of a closed, small committee (that gets larger), it will be a wider, more open and inclusive community of organising contributors from the start. Instead of waiting to see what papers might be received and how to organise their review, it will make the

11

contribution process an integral part of the conference process, again, from the very start. It is this change in process that is particularly exciting and one that is potentially a better template for academic quality.

Derek perceived that the adopted conference planning and organising provided the following benefits:

Firstly, it avoids ’track isolation’, where track chairs are responsible for everything as individuals - almost as mini conferences in their own right. Whilst this can work well in some subjects, the LxD 2021 proposal was to avoid such separation and isolation. This has already begun with this first symposium, where negotiation and discussion of subjects and themes between track chairs was in evidence, exploring domain overlaps and synergies. This will continue through the online platform. Secondly, it shares knowledge between track chairs and subject domains which assists with the work and effort involved in being a track chair. Already, the sharing that took place in the first symposium indicates that contributors are keen to assist with this and with the best of intentions - to make each track as academically competent as possible. Thirdly, it builds community. This was enabled right from the introduction through the setting, the tone and the intention of conference and process. Introducing track chairs to one another has already established a number of new connections that were evidenced in the discussion during the second day. Many follow-ups have taken place (not least for me!) and this will only continue, developing both the social and academic community of design educators. Fourthly, it will improve the academic quality of the work. By making gate process more visible it becomes more easily open to questioning and scrutiny (something also encouraged directly by Erik and the team). This, in turn, helps co-develop a community understanding of quality as well as the boundaries of this quality. It also supports and fosters new academics, helping them to see what a peer review process is (and is not!), as well as inviting them to contribute to its shaping. Finally, however it has been achieved, there was no sense of anyone acting as if they knew more than anyone else - no grandstanding; no arrogance; no ‘appeals to authority’. This felt like a community willing to listen to and evaluate each others’ experience of knowledge and quality in design education research. This is the best traditions of a Community of Practice - something familiar to designers and design educators alike. And, of course, it’s critical not to forget the importance of facilitation and organisation. All too often the work behind the scenes is invisible and the event itself can seem easy, simple and effortless. That the team made it look like easy was obviously due to significant effort and professionalism. The event was superbly hosted (accommodating, personable, relaxed, inclusive) and felt clearly supported academically and professionally.

The Derek’s account has captured the spirit the organisers aimed to foster a more inclusive and open collaboration to break away from the dominant hierarchical conference planning and organisation. The idea was to bring on board voices which are generally excluded from these events which meant to preconfigure (Raekstad & Saio Gradin, 2019) and distribute the decision making and responsibility to a wider cohort of participants. Following the Exploration of Alternate Futures symposium, the contributing authors were notified of their submission status. Thirty percent of the submissions were accepted, and 35% were provisionally accepted, requiring a second round of revisions which were managed by the specific track chairs. The camera-ready papers10 were finally received on the 8th of June 2021. This meant the organisers were ready to work on the conference proceedings and prepare the conference programme.

Decision Time Around this time, May 2021, a difficult decision had to be made, of carrying out this conference online rather than face to face in China, under the generous hospitality of SUAD. The main reasons for this were the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, and the difficulties due to traveling restrictions and different travel administrations across the world. It would have been wonderful to have the conference face to face in China, and meeting with the DRS LxD 2021 community there, but unfortunately this has not been possible. Regardless of the change of setting, the conference preparations continued for hosting a memorable

10 These would form these conference proceedings.

12

conference and accommodating the community in the best ways possible. Many long working hours, working out of details and resolving technical issues have taken place in the background, from a group of dedicated people. Special thanks are owed to Jianglong Yu, the Conference General Secretary, and the Local SUAD Team, in the coordination of all this.

.

Figure 11. On the left, Jianglong Yu, the Conference General Secretary who worked closely with Yang Zhang, the International Academic Organising Committee co-chair.

Figure 12. One of the many regular planning meetings of the International Academic Organising Committee members

Figure 13. The local conference organising team was led by SUAD President Professor Pan Lusheng

13

Conference Visual Identity A sense of community can be conveyed and strengthened with the branding and visual identity for a conference. Many thanks to Katja Thoring for her efforts in developing the visual identity for the DRS LxD 2021 conference. She has produced countless propositions for the logo and its adaptation into graphic assets to be used on the conference website, proceedings cover, submission templates, social media announcements and email banners.

Figure 14. ‘Call for Submissions’ website banner (author: Katja Thoring)

Figure 15. ‘Call for Submissions’ DRS banner (author: Katja Thoring)

With the hopeful expectation of the conference to take place face to face in China, she also has developed propositions for prints of fabric masks to be distributed to participants (Figure 17, left). The DRS LxD 2021 logo is based on the “X” of the conference’s name. The initial ideas were developed in SUAD, with the green splash centred in order to form the “X”, indicating the “mark” that the conference leaves behind. Katja developed this idea into a fuzzy but focal “X”, representing the intersection of dense and repeated movements, indicating the crossing of paths and leaving multi-coloured marks as a community. The conference visual identity was strengthened with the fascinating graphics developed exclusively for the DRS LxD 2021 conference, by students from Chinese universities, co-ordinated by their professors, and by the Local SUAD Team. More than 100 separate images were produced, representing the ox, which is the zodiac sign of the year 2021 (Figure 17, Right). In Chinese culture, the ox symbolises wealth, prosperity, diligence, and perseverance. This Chinese zodiac sign marks the year 2021 as one of heavy responsibilities and endurance, to which it is surely easy to relate.

14

Figure 16. Mask design by Katja Thoring which protected the conference participants as well as identify them, thus reducing the need to produce name badges.

Figure 17. Left: Early visual identity explorations for conference participants’ masks and proceedings cover, by Prof. Zhang Yan. Right: An example of the graphic images produced by SUAD for the “year of the ox” of the “year of the dog”.

Conference Programme The DRS Learn X Design 2021, 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers has accommodated ten tracks responding to the main conference theme Engaging with Challenges in Design Education. The proceedings have been organised into 10 sections each corresponding to one of the ten tracks. The tracks’ chairs and the co-chairs introduced by the specific (Berg et al., 2021; Börekçi, Korkut, & Hasdoğan, 2021; Bravo et al., 2021; Hartvik et al., 2021; Howell et al., 2021; Kardar et al., 2021; Lutnæs et al., 2021; Noel et al., 2021; Thoring et al., 2021; Xia et al., 2021). We would like to thank the track chairs and co-chairs for their involvement in the chairing of the tracks, and the selfless work they have placed into the quality of the track contributions (Table 2, page 5). To enable the participation of delegates from all over the world within reasonable day times, the International Academic Organising Committee decided to schedule compact daily programmes lasting around 5 to 6 hours, including frequent social breaks. The compacted schedule resulted in having up to 8 parallel sessions to accommodate the accepted presentations and workshop deliveries. Taking the Central European Time as the basis, the programme hours indicated an early morning for the participants located in the Western Hemisphere, afternoon time for those located around the Greenwich Time Zone, and the evening times for the participants located in the Eastern Hemisphere.

15

Scientific Programme In total, the scientific programme of the conference included 28 presentation sessions for the delivery of 80 research papers, case studies and visual papers, and 12 workshop sessions for the delivery of 11 workshops. The three-day programme for the conference accommodated plenary sessions to begin each day.

Day One On the first day, 24 September 2021 Friday, following the conference opening by Erik Bohemia, the welcome speeches were given by Professor Pan Lusheng, the President of SUAD (see Figure 20), the general conference chair; and Professor Liv Merete Nielsen (see Figure 30), the chair of the International Scientific Programme Committee. The plenary session of the first day included keynote addresses by the five track chairs: Linda Keane, Úrsula Bravo (see Figure 19), Eva Lutnæs (see Figure 18), Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi and Bryan Howell. Two parallel sessions were carried out, one for paper presentations and one for the workshops.

Figure 18. On the left Eva Lutnæs introducing the track Empowering Critical Design Literacy and on the right Lesley-Ann who chaired the track Moving Beyond Pain-Points: Alternative Problem Framing in Design Education.

Figure 19. Úrsula Bravo introduces the track Design Thinking to Improve Creative Problem-solving.

Figure 20. Left: Professor Pan Lusheng, President of SUAD, giving his welcome speech, 24 September 2021. Right: Professor Richard Buchanan, giving his keynote address, 25 September 2021.

Day Two On the second day, 25 September 2021 Saturday, the plenary session included keynote addresses by the three track chairs: Lesley-Ann Noel (see Figure 18), Arild Berg, and Xiang Xia.

16

Figure 21. Katja Thoring, who chaired the track Design Learning Environments, is addressing questions from participants.

Figure 22. Presentation by Lore Brosens

17

Figure 23. The three-day conference programme pattern of session distribution. Each column represents one of days, from left day 1, middle day 2 and on the right is the day 3.

18

Figure 24. The distribution of authors of the accepted submissions.

This was followed by the keynote address by Professor Richard Buchanan, titled Promoting Educational Practices to Support Critical Approaches by the Design Academics and the Students. Richard Buchanan is Professor of Design & Innovation at Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University and Chair Professor of Design Theory, Practice, and Entrepreneurship, College of Design & Innovation, Tongji University. He is one of the editors of the Design Issues: A Journal of design history, theory, criticism published by MIT Press. Buchanan reflected on his experiences while he was the Head of the School of Design and the Director of the Center for Design and Organizational Change at Carnegie Mellon University (Buchanan, 2004). He discussed the challenges he and his colleagues experienced while trying to develop educational practices which will support critical approaches by the design academics and the students. Although most of the design schools, faculties, departments are aiming to develop more critical practices, implementing and embedding the critical pedagogical practices are extremely challenging as it requires the cultural transformation of the practices of how the design academics are trained (educated), see Figure 20.

Three parallel sessions were conducted on this day, dedicated mostly to paper presentations and for workshops.

Day Three On the third day, 26 September 2021 Sunday, the plenary session included keynote addresses by the two track chairs: Juha Hartvik and Yashar Kardar.

Figure 25. Juha Hartvik introducing the track Learning Through Materiality and Making.

This was followed by the announcement of the awards, Top Submissions in Research Paper, Case Studies and

19

Workshop Proposals Categories, carried out by Liv Merete Nielsen and Yang Zhang. Two parallel sessions were conducted on this day for paper presentations and workshops.

Top Awards Three categories for top awards were selected based on the double-blind evaluation from the peer review members of the International Scientific Review Panel. The three categories were: Research Paper, Case Studies and Workshop Proposals. They are listed alphabetically following the first author’s name.

Figure 26. Liv Merete Nielsen and Yang Zhang chaired the Awards Ceremony for the research and visual papers, workshop proposals and case studies.

Top Research Papers The following nine research papers were awarded.

● Systemic Design Education in Interdisciplinary Environments: Enhancing A Co-Disciplinary Approach Towards Circular Economy Track 05, A. Aulisio; A.Pereno; F. Rovera; S. Barbero

● Ten Scenarios for the Future of Design Education: A Critical Literature Review and Reflection to Map Scenarios on a Macro, Meso, and Micro Level Track 10, L. Brosens; J. R. Octavia; A. Raes; M. Emmanouil

● Collaboration Practices in Industrial Design Education: The Case of METU from a Historical Perspective, 1981-2021 Track 04, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi; G. Hasdoğan; F. Korkut

● Exploring the Experiential Reading Differences Between Visual and Written Research Papers Track 07, B. Howell; A. Jackson; H. Lee; J. DeVita; R. Rawlings

● I Can and I Will: A Study of ‘Grit’ in a Collaborative Team Learning Studio Pedagogical Culture Track 01, Z. Liow

● Study on the Implementation of the Innovative Enterprise Product Design Model for Industrial Design Students Track 01, S.-F. Liu; J.-F. Chang; C.-T. Wu

● Different Ideas, Lots of Ideas: A Design Course that Enhances the Creative Abilities of College Students Track 01, J. Nyboer; B. Hokanson

● Measuring the Impact of Integrating Human-Centered Design in Existing Higher Education Courses Track 01, S. Shehab; C. Guo

● Reform of Product Design Teaching Based on Bionic Concepts Track 11, M.-D. Shieh; H.-C. Hsiao; Y.-T. Hsiao

20

Figure 27. Presentation of Awards in the Research Papers category

Top Case Studies ● Preparing to Introduce Design Thinking in Middle Schools

Track 04, M. R. Gibson; K. M. Owens; P. Hyland; C. Donaldson

● Essential Siloed in Breaking Silos: A case of Interdisciplinary Curriculum (Mis)Alignment Track 05, JiaYing Chew

● Mash Maker: Improvisation for Student Studios Track 11, R. Slone; B. McMahon

Top Workshop Proposals ● Workshop: How to Design to Improve Life: The Compass, A Problem-Solving Tool by The Index Project

Track 01, C. Cortes; M. Alesandro

● Tilting to Transform: Sensorial Problem-Framing Track 03, N. Sadowska; T. Hanrahan

Figure 28. Presentation of Workshop Proposals Awards.

The final plenary session celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Learn X Design conference series. This session brought together the organisers and chairs of the past Learn X Design conferences: Erik Bohemia, Paris 2011 (Bohemia, 2021); Liv Merete Nielsen, Oslo 2013 (Nielsen, 2021); Robin Vande Zande, Chicago 2015 (Vande Zande, 2021), Derek Jones, London 2017 (Jones, 2021) and Fatma Korkut, Ankara 2019 (Börekçi, Korkut, & Koçyıldırım, 2021) were invited to present their reflections on “the ways in which the conferences have contributed to the development of design education research.” Their reflections also are included in this conference proceedings. During this session, the early career researchers who have organised the Futures of Design Education track shared their insights with the conference delegates. Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu, one of the members, said that:

…with the conference, I had a chance to discover what is going on in the backstage of preparing an international conference from selection of themes to reviewing papers and preparing the online

21

conference setting which I found quite informative for a recent graduate student and an early career researcher like me. Especially, having discussions with other track chairs to enhance the themes in the early stages of the conference creation process was inspiring since it offered our team a sense of belonging to a bigger and supportive design community.

Lilyana’s team member Yashar Kardar said that for him:

…this was a great experience! Being part of the conference enabled me to meet and learn from researchers from almost all over the world, and work closely and learn from experienced, passionate, and encouraging people such as Erik Bohemia, Derek Jones, and Naz Börekçi. This created an exceptional chance get an insight into the general state of design education research and the global dynamics influencing its development. It also personally has given me the courage to want to contribute to the design research community at a much larger scale. I think activities that would include young researchers such as myself, and members of my team build an incredible opportunity to empower young researchers from all over the world. We think that the mixing of scholarly discussions at a high level and social interaction is at the core for making these conferences attractive and important.

Figure 29. Robin Vande Zande reflected on the 2015 LxD conference which was hosted in Chicago.

The farewell speech for the conference was given by Professor Xin Li (see Figure 30), Vice President of SUAD, after which, the conference was closed by Professor Liv Merete Nielsen (see Figure 31).

Figure 30. Professor Xin Li, Vice President of SUAD who closed the conference with her farewell speech

22

Figure 31. On the left, Lilyana Yazirlıoğlu reflecting her and her team members’ experience of organising a conference track, and on the right, Liv Merete Nielsen is summarising the event.

Social Programme: Conveying the Significance of Chinese Culture It was believed that the conference programme would be enriched with social events, both for the conveying of the significance and richness of Chinese culture, and for providing an attractive and embracing medium for the delegates to come together. Various social gatherings were planned for the 15-minute and 30-minute breaks between the sessions, throughout the three conference days. These gatherings included relaxing exercise sessions, where Master Ms. Feng Yujuan demonstrated traditional stretching exercise, the Baduanjin; the audition of traditional Chinese music, and unmoderated chat rooms designated for tea breaks.

Figure 32. Left: Master Ms. Feng Yujuan beginning her exercise session, 26 September 2021. Right: Professor Junfeng Li presenting on Confucius, 26 September 2021.

Figure 33. The conference delegates were able to relax during the breaks listening to examples of Chinese music.

23

A tea ceremony demonstration took place by Tea Master Ms. Yumei Yang. The Chinese people, in their drinking of tea, place much significance on the act of “savouring”. “Savouring tea” is not only a way to discern good tea from mediocre tea, but also how people take delight in their reverie and in tea-drinking itself. Snatching a bit of leisure from a busy schedule, making a kettle of strong tea, securing a serene space, and serving and drinking tea by yourself can help banish fatigue and frustration, improve your thinking ability, and inspire you with enthusiasm. You may also imbibe it slowly in small sips to appreciate the subtle allure of tea-drinking, until your spirits soar up and up into a sublime aesthetic realm. Buildings, gardens, ornaments and tea sets are the elements that form the ambience for savouring tea. A tranquil, refreshing, comfortable and neat locale is certainly desirable for drinking tea. Chinese gardens are well known in the world and beautiful Chinese landscapes are too numerous to count.

Figure 34. Tea Ceremony by Tea Master Ms. Yumei Yang.

The Chinese zodiac signs, and the designs that were prepared by Chinese students for the conference were presented in two break sessions. As in the Western cultures, traditional China has 12 Chinese zodiacs.

However, these traditional Chinese zodiac signs are arranged in a 12-year cycle used for dating the years. They represent a cyclical concept of time, rather than the linear concept of time. The Chinese lunar calendar is based on the cycles of the moon and is constructed in a different fashion than the solar calendar. Every year is assigned an animal sign according to a repeating cycle from Rat to Pig. These traditional Chinese zodiacs are: the rat, ox, tiger, rabbit, Chinese dragon, snake, horse, sheep, monkey, rooster, dog and pig (see Figure 34).

Figure 35. Chinese Zodiac session.

Design education in China was introduced in three break sessions, by Professors: Sun Lei from SUAD; Zhao Chao from Academy of Arts & Design, Tsinghua University; and Zhao Quanquan from Nanjing University of the Arts; describing to the audience how design education is organised at these three top ranking Chinese universities. This was also an opportunity for the conference delegates to meet with scholars from the design

24

programmes in China. The SUAD museum, composed of Sun Changlin Art Museum and Oriental Chinese Crafts Museum was presented to the audience in two break sessions. The museum’s collection consists of ancient and modern ceramics and stone Buddha statues, traditional folk life utensils, toys, Chinese New Year pictures, embroideries and many more artefacts.

Figure 36. Entrance to the Museum of Folk Arts.

Figure 37. The Museum of Folk Arts.

Figure 38. Introduction to Confucius’ Philosophy presented by Professor Junfeng Li.

On the final day of the conference, a presentation was given in the main break session by Professor Junfeng Li titled Introduction to Confucius’ Philosophy. Confucius is famous for his philosophy because he made many wise sayings in ancient China that helped many people learn about nature, the world, and human behaviour.

25

All presentations were simultaneously interpreted for the international audience.

The Proceedings The Learn X Design 2021 conference proceedings have been assembled into 4 volumes. Altogether, there are over 1000 pages of material.

Figure 39. Each of the four volumes’ cover pages was allocated one of the conference colours.

The proceedings from each conference reflect how topics have been given priority. Some years the conferences have been further developed and published in special issues of scientific journals. Also, after this conference such special issues will be conducted.

DRS Learn X Design 2021 Community The conference registration never went on sale as it was fully subscribed, if only the authors and their co-authors of accepted submissions would attend the event. The participation was strictly by invitation only. The invited participants were the authors and their co-authors, the international and the local organising committee members, the track chairs, and co-chairs, 10 bursary holders, and selected scholars based in China.

Figure 40. Call for Bursary submissions (source: Katja Thoring)

Participants from 28 countries have registered. Over 500 people have actively contributed to a variety of roles such as expert peer reviewers (see the list on page ii), authors (see the Index of Authors on page 1077 in the Volume 4), track chairs and co-chairs (see the list on page i), the local planning and organising committees and assistants (see the list on page iv).

Acknowledgment and Special Thanks As we conclude this editorial, we would like to thank the Shandong University of Art & Design for generously hosting the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers. We would like to thank you to the SUAD Council’s for taking the steps to enable diverse scholars from all around of the world to contribute advancing the field Design Education Research by lowering the barriers and to enable participation of scholars from marginalised communities by kindly offering to cover the registration cost for the Track Chairs/co-chairs and Authors/co-authors of accepted submissions, keynotes and those awarded SUAD President’s bursaries to attend the conference.

26

Figure 41. Left: A moment in the conference on Zoom, 26 September 2021. Right: Distribution of the LXD 2021 community across the world, Google My Maps. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1ARZs4DHHChLzrah63RO3OOjLjlw2ZKye&usp=sharing

We also thank the Design Research Society Special Interest Group in Design Education, DRS EdSIG, for giving us the opportunity and trust to organise it. We would like to thank the General Conference International Planning Committee, International Academic Organising Committee, Patrons of the Conference, International Scientific Programme Committee, and International Scientific Panel for their contribution. We would also like to thank the following institutions that have provided their kind support in the realization of the conference: Design Literacy International Network, Hochschule Anhalt, Hochschule für Wirtschaft und Recht Berlin, Middle East Technical University, Oslo Metropolitan University, The Open University (UK), Tulane University, Universidad del Desarrollo and Åbo Akademi University.

We felt the power of the community with this conference, however online, and found it to be a good opportunity for the community to expand itself in numbers, as well as in knowledge and mindsets. We hope that it has been a fulfilling conference experience for its participants also. We thank the DRS Learn X Design 2021 community for contributing to the conference and taking an active part in its realisation. It is not yet decided who will host the 7th DRS Learn X Design conference in 2023. In line with the previous conferences, we will be very happy to support those who will contribute to the continuity of design education research. Endings for events are never easy, especially when there is a lot of time and commitment involved. Nevertheless, we consider endings to be new beginnings. We will now begin a new decade for the DRS Learn X Design conference series and look forward to meeting with the design education researchers community in 2023.

References Berg, A., Groth, C., Medola, F., & Sellen, K. (2021). Track 05: Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations.

In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 2, pp. 476–478). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.312

Boess, S., Cheung, M., & Cain, R. (2020). DRS2020 Editorial: Synergy. In S. Boess, M. Cheung, & R. Cain (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS: 2020 Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. xxvi–xxix). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.100

Bohemia, E. (2021). Paris 2011 – Researching Design Education: The initiation of the international conference series. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 50–57). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.377

Bohemia, E., Borja de Mozota, B., & Collina, L. (Eds.). (2011). Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium for Design Education Researchers: Researching Design Education. CUMULUS//DRS. http://www.designresearchsociety.org.

Bohemia, E., Gemser, G., Fain, N., de Bont, C., & Assoreira Almendra, R. (2019). Conference Proceedings of the Academy for Design Innovation Management: Research Perspectives In the era of Transformations. Academy for Design Innovation Management. http://academicarchives.org/index.php/adim/index

Bohemia, E., Nielsen, L. M., Pan, L., Börekçi, N. A. G. Z., & Zhang, Y. (Eds.). (2021). Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Design Research Society. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2021-learnxdesign/.

Börekçi, N. A. G. Z., Koçyıldırım, D. Ö., Korkut, F., & Jones, D. (Eds.). (2019). Proceedings of the Design Research

27

Society Learn X Design Conference, 2019: Insider Knowledge. DRS. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2019-learnxdesign/.

Börekçi, N. A. G. Z., Korkut, F., & Hasdoğan, G. (2021). Track 04: Collaboration in Design Education. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 2, pp. 322–326). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.319

Börekçi, N. A. G. Z., Korkut, F., & Koçyıldırım, D. Ö. (2021). Ankara 2019 – Insider Knowledge: Reflections on the Fifth International Conference for Design Education Researchers. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 30–34). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.19.327

Bravo, Ú., & Bohemia, E. (2020). Editorial "Design Literacy for All". RChD: creación y pensamiento, 5(8), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5354/0719-837X.2020.57649

Bravo, Ú., & Bohemia, E. (2021). Design Process Models as Metaphors. FormAkademisk 14(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4655

Bravo, Ú., Cortés, C., LaFors, J., Tellez, F. A., & Allende, N. (2021). Track 01: Design Thinking to Improve Creative Problem solving. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 59–67). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.315

Buchanan, R. (2000). The Problem of Character in Design Education: Liberal Education and Professional Specialization. International Conference, 11–13 Decemeber 2000, Perth Australia. Retrieved 13 October 2001 from http://design.curtin.edu/DesEd2000/preconference01.html

Buchanan, R. (2004). Design, Making, and a New Culture of Inquiry. In D. P. Resnick & D. S. Scott (Eds.), The Innovative University (pp. 159–180). https://www.cmu.edu/innovativeuniversity/chapters_ch12.html

Childs, P., Green, S., Hall, A., Bohemia, E., Kovacevic, A., Buck, L., & Dasan, A. (Eds.). (2018). DS 93: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE18), Diversity or Conformity? The Design Society. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/40745/DS+93%3A+Proceedings+of+the+20th+International+Conference+on+Engineering+and+Product+Design+Education+%28E%26PDE+2018%29%2C+Dyson+School+of+Engineering%2C+Imperial+College%2C+London.+6th+-+7th+September+2018.

Cross, A. (1984). Towards an understanding of the intrinsic values of design education. Design Studies, 5(1), 31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(84)90026-7

Hartvik, J., Porko-Hudd, M., & Digranes, I. (2021). Track 06: Learning Though Materiality and Making. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 3, pp. 604–606). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.316

Holliday, A., Hyde, M., & Kullman, J. (2010). Inter-Cultural Communication: An Advanced Resource Book (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Howell, B. F., Hoftijzer, J. W., Muñoz, M. N., Sypesteyn, M., & Reuver, R. d. (2021). Track 07: Sketching & Drawing Education and Knowledge. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 3, pp. 626–630). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.320

Jones, D. (2021). London 2017 – The Allure of the Digital and Beyond: Fourth International Conference for Design Education Researchers. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 35–37). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.17.325

Kardar, Y., Yazirlıoğlu, L., Özçelik, A., & Seydioglu, S. (2021). Track 09: Futures of Design Education. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 4, pp. 856–858). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.321

Lloyd, P. (2011). Does Design Education Always Produce Designers? In E. Bohemia, B. Borja de Mozota, & L. Collina (Eds.), Researching Design Education: 1st International Symposium for Design Education Researchers: Researching Design Education (pp. 210–227). CUMULUS ASSOCIATION and DRS. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2011-learnxdesign/

Lloyd, P., & Bohemia, E. (2013). New perspectives on design learning, thinking and teaching. Art, Design &

28

Communication in Higher Education, 12(2), 145–147. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.12.2.145_2 Lutnæs, E. (2019). Framing the concept design literacy for a general public. In E. Bohemia, G. Gemser, N. Fain,

C. de Bont, & R. Assoreira Almendra (Eds.), Conference proceedings of the Academy for Design Innovation Management 2019: Research Perspectives In the era of Transformations (pp. 1294–1304). ADIM. https://doi.org/10.33114/adim.2019.01_224

Lutnæs, E., Brænne, K., Homlong, S., Hofverberg, H., Maus, I. G., Fauske, L. B., & Reitan, J. B. (2021). Track 02: Empowering Critical Design Literacy. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 222–225). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.313

Nielsen, L. M. (2021). Oslo 2013 – Design Learning for Tomorrow: Reflections on the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 45–49). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.13.318

Nielsen, L. M., & Brænne, K. (2013). Design literacy for longer lasting products. Studies in Material Thinking, 9, 1–9. Retrieved 20 April 2015, from

Nielsen, L. M., Brænne, K., & Maus, I. G. (2015). Editorial: Design Learning for Tomorrow — Design Education from Kindergarten to PhD. FORMakademisk, 8(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1409

Noel, L.-A., Korsmeyer, R. M. L. H., Beniwal, S., & III, W. W. W. (2021). Track 03: Alternative problem framing in design education. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 2, pp. 277–279). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.314

Pan, L. (2021). 10th Anniversary of the International Conference for Design Education Researchers. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 1–2). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.329

Pritchard, G., & Lambert, N. (Eds.). (2017). Proceedings of the Design Research Society Learn X Design Conference, 2017: The Allure of the Digital and Beyond. DRS. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2017-learnxdesign/.

Raekstad, P., & Saio Gradin, S. (2019). Prefigurative Politics: Building Tomorrow Today. Polity Press. Reitan, J. B., Lloyd, P., Bohemia, E., Nielsen, L. M., Digranes, I., & Lutnæs, E. (Eds.). (2013). Design Education

from Kindergarten to PhD – Design Learning for Tomorrow: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. ABmedia. https://uni.oslomet.no/drscumulusoslo2013/proceedings/

Thoring, K., Lotz, N., & Keane, L. (2021). Track 08: Design Learning Environments. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 3, pp. 687–688). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.317

Vande Zande, R. (2021). Chicago 2015 – Education and Design to Enlighten a Citizenry: 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 1, pp. 38–44). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.15.326

VandeZande, R., Bohemia, E., & Digranes, I. (Eds.). (2015). Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference for Design Education Researchers. Aalto University. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs2015-learnxdesign/

Xia, X., Zhang, Y., & Wang, Z. (2021). Track 10: Design Educators as Change Agents. In E. Bohemia, L. M. Nielsen, L. Pan, N. A. G. Z. Börekçi, & Y. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings of the DRS Learn X Design 2021: 6th International Conference for Design Education Researchers (Vol. 4, pp. 920–922). Design Research Society. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.322

29

Erik Bohemia

Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Design Education Research Centre, Shandong University of Art & Design, China

erikbohe@oslomet.no

Dr Bohemia’s ongoing research is in the broad area of ‘Materialities of Designing’ with focus on how cultural elements are shaping designers’ approaches. He has co-chaired over 20 key international academic conferences with international societies such as the Design Institute Management (DMI); Design Research Society (DRS) and Design Society (DS).

Liv Merete Nielsen

Oslo Metropolitan University – OsloMet, Norway

livmn@oslomet.no

Chair of the DRS//cumulus Oslo 2013 conference and chair of the International Scientific Programme Committee for LearnXdesign, Jinan 2021. Nielsen is professor emerita at OsloMet. She is the founder of Design Literacy International Network (DLIN) and a member of the convening group for EdSIG/DRS. She has had a leading role in developing national curricula for design, art and craft in Norway. Nielsen is honorary member for the national organisation Art & design in education. She is editor and author for several books, articles and journals.

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi

Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey

nborekci@metu.edu.tr

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi received her BID from METU Department of Industrial Design (1995), MFA from Bilkent University Interior Architecture and Environmental Design (1997) and PhD from University of Kent at Canterbury / KIAD (2003). She is currently associate professor at METU Department of Industrial Design. Her research interests include design education, design methodology, and university-industry collaboration.

Yang Zhang

Design Education Research Centre, Shandong University of Art & Design, China

Nanjing University of the Arts, China

zhangyang810703@hotmail.com

Professor in Shandong University of Art & Design and Nanjing University of the Arts, China, who has a strong background in design education, such as foundation design education, design methodology, research principle, design creativity, land-scape design, and interior design. He received his Ph.D. degree from School of Design, Loughborough University, United Kingdom.

Volume 2 | 卷2

Section 03 Alternative Problem Framing in Design Education: Moving Beyond 'Pain-Points'

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Track 03: Alternative Problem Framing in Design Education

Lesley-Ann Noel, Renata Marques Leitão, Hannah Korsmeyer, Sucharita Beniwal and Woodrow W. Winchester III https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.314

Problem Framing helps designers define issues they want to focus on and make issues more focused and addressable. In Industrial design, and several other design disciplines, designers use ‘pain points’ or points of friction in the user experience to support problem framing, and to elucidate areas where they can intervene and improve the experience of the person they are designing for. Many design challenges start with a search for ‘pain points’ that designers can solve. This is a specific and useful type of problem frame. However this can lead to an excessive focus on (and even fetishization of) the pain and distress of other people. There is also a tension around who defines the problem and why.

The focus on pain and deficit approaches can send problematic messaging about a community’s lived experience, reinforcing a one-dimensional portrayal of these people as depleted or broken (Leitão 2020; Tuck 2009). The ways in which issues are framed can depend on one’s positionality and point of view. In the same way that designers can choose to frame issues around pain points, they can also choose to frame issues with other starting points that are not pain and damage-centered.

For this track, we invited authors to share alternative framing that they were using in design education that did not start with a ‘painpoint’. The participants in this track were invited to:

● consider how world views impact problem framing ● examine issues of othering and unequal relationships of power in the framing activities of designers ● interrogate how problems and painpoints are defined and described, including who declares these as

points of pain. ● share alternative methods of framing design problems that move away from damage and pain-

centered approaches. ● share alternative approaches to framing that are grounded in questions around the future, utopia,

happiness and other bold new approaches in design. ● share relevant culturally-situated practices such as ‘jugaad’ that may have alternative starting points

This track aimed to challenge current norms in ‘problem’ framing in design practice and education from Pre- K to PhD and beyond, and in both formal and informal education. The track sought to highlight alternative approaches by considering local epistemologies, critical and speculative approaches, fantasy, ‘make believe’ and games, as well as the role of happiness as a starting point in design. Three papers and two workshops were selected for this track.

In their paper, Christiansen and Gudiksen propose play-based strategies as a means of empathising with and understanding the issues that concern youth. It can be very difficult to connect with and understand young people between the ages of 14 - 17 years old after one has passed their age. They examine how play can be used to gain a better understanding of young people by unearthing hidden social problems that may affect their lives. The study stems from an emancipatory interest by the researchers in giving young people greater control in the research process, allowing the youth to determine what information they share during the research. They describe the experience of using the cultural probe method with ninth graders to understand

278

their interests and needs. The research uncovered themes such as family, identity, relationships and creativity as key themes for the youth.

Von Lachmann, Couto and Portas also consider a youth perspective in their response to the call. In their paper they examine a research question that focuses on understanding how behaviours that are environmentally destructive and that have a negative impact on the quality of life can be changed. They provide a survey of environmental education-based activities that were conducted in Petropolis as examples of how engagement with nature can promote empathy and construct citizenship. They propose that a focus on protected areas and environmental concerns as an alternative way of framing issues could lead to the development of future agency and citizenship while promoting curiosity and the desire to learn.

Gieben-Gamal shares reflections on a case study about an undergraduate design course that sought to address deficit-based views of ageing as a problem that needs to be fixed. The course draws on critical and cultural gerontology and combines this with theory from action research and participatory design. The experience and empathy gap between the designer and the user who is older, prompted the creation of this course, the learning outcomes of which are not tied to the proposals of solution. Gieben-Gamal draws on literature to problematize the act of problem framing and solution proposing. The paper provides useful examples for other design educators on combining critical theory with design practice, on incorporating reflective practice as well as including much-needed discussions about power in design.

Sadowski and Hanrahan employ a sensory approach to alternative problem framing where participants, in the workshop that they lead, respond to a design prompt with exaggerated senses of smell, sight, taste, touch and feel. Sensory-focused ideation that is used in these workshops is meant to disrupt ordinary ways of thinking and nudge the participants towards new and unexpected ways of thinking about issues, while also creating an opportunity for participants to slow down and reflect on design activities.

In their workshop, Edwards and Korsmeyer prompt participants to reflect on the role of collaborative materials in design workshops. After discussing co-design materials, participants collaboratively create their own tools. One of the aims of this workshop is to encourage participants to think beyond the problem-solving aspect of design and to consider other roles for designers, as well as to collectively challenge and create new ways of framing and representing problems.

The contributions to this track reflect a diverse range of approaches targeted for different age groups such as issue framing strategies for children, youth and for older people. The papers also demonstrate non-pain-centered approaches to problem framing such as methods focused around play, environmental education, critical reflection, sensory experiences and co-design, collectively they provide rich models and examples of ways in which design educators can shift from a focus on pain and deficits and towards alternative ways of framing issues in design.

References Leitão, R. M. (2020). Pluriversal design and desire-based design: Desire as the impulse for human flourishing. In

Pivot 2020 Conference Proceedings. June 4, New Orleans. doi:10.21606/pluriversal.2020.011 Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409–428.

doi:10.17763/haer.79.3.n0016675661t3n15

279

Lesley-Ann Noel North Carolina State University, U.S.A. lmnoel@ncsu.edu Lesley-Ann Noel an Assistant Professor at the College of Design at North Carolina State University where she teaches. Her current research focuses on co-design, equity, social justice and speculative design. She has worked on research and consulting projects in public health, social civic innovation and design education for primary school-aged children. She is the creator of “The Designer’s Critical Alphabet”. Renata Marques Leitão Cornell University, U.S.A. renatamarquesleitao@gmail.com Dr. Renata M. Leitão is an assistant professor in the Department of Design + Environmental Analysis at Cornell University. She is a social justice-focused design researcher with eleven years of experience in collaborative projects with Indigenous and marginalized communities. Her research is at the intersection of critical, participatory and communication design, and design anthropology. Hannah Korsmeyer Monash University, Australia Hannah.Korsmeyer@monash.edu Hannah Korsmeyer is a designer, research consultant, educator, and PhD candidate in the WonderLab cohort of the Emerging Technologies Research Lab at Monash University. Following a background in neuroscience then critical design, Hannah’s current research focuses on phenomenology of practice, methods of critical engagement, co-design and feminism(s). Sucharita Beniwal National Institute of Design, Ahmedabad, India sucharita_b@nid.edu Sucharita Beniwal, trained as a Textile Designer and Social Designer in India. She worked for ten years in the textile industry and with craft-makers. She locates her teaching and research practice to question privilege while seeking indigenous practices & ways of knowing within the discourse of democratization of design. Woodrow W. Winchester III University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), U.S.A. wwwiii@umbc.edu Woodrow W. Winchester, III, is Director, Professional Engineering Programs, at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). His work focuses on developing more inclusive and equitable approaches to technological design and management. He is the founder of Black Futures Design, a studio advancing the application of Afrofuturism in technological design.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Play Probes Understanding young people through playful expressions

Line Gad Christiansen and Sune Klok Gudiksen https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.01.239

Understanding young people can be a difficult matter when one is past that age. Stories of misunderstandings stemming from generational divides are ubiquitous. A virus, such as Covid-19, threatens to create a deeper generational divide and possibly lead to the problem reaching a magnitude not seen before. This paper investigates how probes with play triggers can yield a deeper understanding of today’s youth. By analyzing the outcome of 54 youth-created play probes, clustered themes were identified, and the selected ones have been presented in detail. The preliminary conclusions indicate that the play probes allow access to insights about young people using expressive formats such as construction and fantasy play. This study contributes to design research by illustrating how probes can help learn about the inner workings of the young generations. Further, it suggests that adding play to probes can foster enhanced social interactions in families with teenage members.

Keywords: Probes; Youth; Play; Reframing; Materials

Accelerated generational divides Working with young people and discovering what is going on in their lives can be a difficult task. The amount of information they tend to provide and that can be observed is often only a small fragment of the world and culture they grow up in. Individuals in this specific age group—in this case, ranging from the ages of 14 to 17—are transitioning from being children to becoming adults. This is a critical time and a unique transformation in one’s life—an area of research often neglected in design research.

These young generations are the future; however, there is often a risk of a generational divide arising because of missed opportunities to obtain an in-depth understanding of the lives of these future generations. As stated by Duncan et al. (2009), it can be difficult to learn about this target group, as they are in a transition stage in their life that influences what they might share with people from outside their own network. Studies show that an increasing number of young people get diagnoses such as depression, stress, and other conditions, that are increasingly affecting their mental health (Skovlund et al., 2017).

Through an enhanced understanding of the everyday lives of those younger than ourselves, the proposition is that there is a better chance of building bridges between generations, whereas, on the other hand, there exists a risk of their desires, needs, and struggles being misunderstood and misinterpreted. Using alternative forms of expressions, can be a way to open up for underlying and unforeseen issues in the world of young people.

This paper introduces a possible design research direction we have named play probes. We consider this to be a means for gaining access to insights about young people through expressive formats of their choosing and include play triggers to initiate social interactions with those who are close by. This paper is a part of a bigger research project that investigated how play probes can be developed to aid the quest for understanding young people’s everyday lives, including their thought processes, motives, cultural habits, etc. to be able to understand and design for youth, alternative ways of making inquiries and reach insights that will create

281

opportunities for radical or alternative framing of design problems. Hence aiming to bring to the surface, possibly hidden social problems that affect life situations for younger people and their school life.

The intention of the play probe is to provide a toolkit for working with young people, across fields, such as design, healthcare and education, that can both provide new knowledge and ways of outlet, but also provides value in return to the young people. What the tests of the probes have indicated, is that despite the probes aiming to get insights about the young people filling it out, the participants also respond positive towards it, due to i.e., exploring materials not present in their everyday-lives, experiencing enjoyment in relation to some of the activities, being social in regards to solving the tasks, the exploration of something new and increased attention and curiosity from their parents and siblings. This feedback is based on interviews, informal feedback and what is present in the probes. Hence the play probe is a means for inquiry that also aims to provide immediate value in return to the young people participating, while additionally providing a safe space and ownership over how, when and how the young people share the information, they feel a desire to share, within the frame set by the probe. An aspect emphasized by the teachers involved in this research, is the prospects of using materials and play through these probes, to provide a voice for things the young people have difficulties expressing through words. The world of young people is not divided strictly e.g., in school and leisure, as a lot of their lives surrounds the social life, needs and emotions that occurs both within school and outside the school, and hence though these probes are to be filled out in their homes, they also present relevant information that are present throughout the young people’s school-time, the teachers emphasized their holistic view upon the young people they worked with.

From Cultural probes to Play probes The use of probes as a method gained prominence in research after Gaver, Dunne and Pacenti (1999) introduced the cultural probe. This focused on creating kits that had different activities for the participants to carry out in familiar settings, such as their home or in other everyday natural environments. The activities were of an aesthetic and reflective nature, aimed to provide inspiration to the researcher working with the probes, and were meant to serve as an alternative to the more ethnography-based observational approaches, such as interviews or observations which requires the presence of the researcher (Gaver et al., 1999). As previously stated, working with young people created a desire from us, to give these young people some of the control in how, when and what they wished to share, together with the possibility of going and forth to the probes and even change responses, before handing it back. Both in our interviews with teachers and social workers, it became clear that in many cases where young people are asked to share information, they are met with words only, either written or spoken, and the same goes for how the young people are expected to provide responses.

Design probes Later, the concept of probes was further developed to fit different purposes and contexts. Mattelmäki (2006) defined the Design Probe and emphasized that we need to take the participants and their probes more serious, by not just using them for inspiration. Hence, the author insisted that the probes should be followed up with, for instance, interviews with the researcher to enable the gathering of actual findings and the creation of inspiration to lead to the next stages of design development (Mattelmäki, 2006).

Overall, a probe consists of different activities within a topic with the aim of using, for example, materials, images, and drawings to discover aspects that might not have been found without the probes. It provides a sense of intimacy when being filled out, as the probes are to be filled out at home. This diminishes some of the ethical issues involved in other ethnographic methods, as the participants are in control of what information they provide to the researcher and how they do it.

Sanders and Stappers (2014, p.6) argue, “Methods and tools for making give people – designers and non-designers – the ability to make ‘things’ that describe future objects, concerns or opportunities. They can also provide views on future experiences and future ways of living.” These authors used concepts that were similar to probes but were used more as synthesizing tools that were handed out before e.g., an interview. In this case, the aim was to create a bigger foundation for the subsequent stages of the design process. The emphasis was still on making and on how materials and tools can elicit findings. The use of a sensitizing phase is explained as participants performing “a series of small exercises designed to let them think about past experiences…” (Sleeswijk Visser et al., 2005, p.126).

Diary method Another approach for understanding a target group that inspired this study is the use of diary methods (Bolger,

282

Davis and Rafaeli, 2002). This also offers the benefits of capturing information in real time and in a natural setting for the participants (in their homes, while traveling, and so on). Carter and Mankoff (2005) further elaborate on the use of media in the diary study method. They state that photos can be used later on as cues for associations in, for example, interviews and that the photos often contain crucial information that would not have been available with just a written diary, the background in a photograph for an example.

Play connected to probe design Generally, play is, for many, perceived as something children do. However, it has been found that play exist across all ages and stages of development. Mouritsen (1998, p.13) argues that “the phasing-out of play is a factor in what we understand as children’s development. This does not mean that adults do not or cannot play. They can and do – more than we are normally aware.”

Play is often described as an activity that is the result of an intent to experience fun and enjoyment (Piaget, 1970); but there exist various different foci and definitions for play. In this research, the definition of play that is followed is in line with that of Mouritsen (1998). However, in a play probe, there are conflicting motivational factors, as the activities do not arise internally but are presented in a specific context. Hence, the probes should contain playful triggers for the purpose of creating enjoyment and supporting playfulness for the participants (Youell, 2008), which could transform into a flow state (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).

According to Duncan et al. (2009), it is often a challenge to conduct research of a sensitive nature with young people. They highlight, among others, the transition between being parent-led to shifting to a “young person-centered self-management” (Duncan et al., 2009, p.1692), personal characteristics, socio-cultural characteristics, the resistance to adult authority, and the need for increased independency as factors that complicate the carrying out of qualitative research.

To recap, this study investigates the use of play probes as a proposed method to gain deeper insights regarding young people’s daily lives. The concrete approach used in this study builds on the foundation of three interconnected components: design probes, diary methods, and play triggers.

Research approach During Fall 2020, three ninth grade classes participated in the study. In total, there were 60 students, and each received a play probe, from a researcher they already were familiar with beforehand. They were informed during the handing out of the probes that they should only open their probe when they reached home, and were then encouraged to explore the content. However, it was emphasized that their participation was voluntary and that they could cease their participation at any point and just return the kit as it was. They were also allowed to stop during an activity if they chose to. Finally, the students were also informed that the kit focused on their everyday lives and that they could choose to remain anonymous if they wanted. All this information was sent out to the parents of the young people two weeks before they were presented with the probes. This was carried out with the help of the three class teachers, who also made sure to collect the probes in the end. However, this was mainly due to the Covid-19 situation at that time and the importance of maintaining social distance from the people they did not see regularly.

Close contact was maintained during the weeks that the students had the probes and during the time after they had completed them. The teachers reported back regarding the questions, discussions, and impressions that were generated during this period, as many of the students actively talked about the probes in class. Other purposes for maintaining this contact were in case sensitive material was gathered through the probes, as it was not a continuous study with the young people. The teachers could then follow up with a student in such a case. The only identifying information that the research contained was the first name of the students (if they chose to share it) and which class they belonged to (A, B, or C). Hence, it would not be possible to identify any student without the teachers’ help.

The probes were created based on the intention of using play elements in the kit. A challenge associated with this is that play is often defined as subjective and internally motivated, and, in this case, the students were asked to fill out a probe kit during a specific period of time. They controlled what they did, how they did it, and when they did it within the parameters that had been set for them. However, this might be more dependent on playfulness and play triggers rather than play. It was decided that the probes would be tested with two foci in terms of play:

1. Play as a memory and past experience 2. Play as an active driver

: Play probes ready to be handed out

283

Figure 1. Play probes; packed and ready for handout

For the first focus, the activities created were based on the students thinking back and using their memory. In the pamphlet, they were to just describe their favorite play activity from when they were children. Further, in the playground map, they were asked to couple this memory with current activities (for more details, see the list of activities in Table 1. For the second focus, different types of play types (Legaard, 2018) were chosen, and the activities were then created mainly as per these types, while also placing emphasis on exploring the value of the materials. This was done because it is believed that, for this research, not all play types were equally engaging across the 60 students. Thus, there was a need to test more approaches to understand and ensure that there were playful triggers within the probe.

The diary methods (Bolger, Davis and Rafaeli, 2002; Carter and Mankoff, 2005) inspired the probe activities of the Pamphlets, the Two Spheres, Images of a Week, and Use Your Phone. Both the typical diary forms of writing and describing aspects of a typical week were included, along with photography in two forms and a physical aspect in the Two Spheres activity.

284

Figure 2. Example of the content, among others the pamphlet and a disposable camera

For the analysis, the probes were catalogued and structured to enable a comparison of the activities that had some features in common. This also made it possible to obtain an overview of the material for discovering patterns within the data. Mattelmäki (2006) stated that there is no clear method for conducting the analysis of probes but found a set of guidelines based on ethnographic and qualitative research. Hence, some of the author’s suggestions include following up with interviews, structuring the materials systematically, and being explorative when dealing with those suggestions. The author further presents different foci for the analysis of probes, one being interpretation in terms of the material. This was chosen as the material is at the center of the majority of the activities included in the probe.

As for the case studies (Stake, 1995; Flyvbjerg, 2006), the probes were of a qualitative nature, and, to obtain findings from them, they were first structured, grouped, and then directly interpreted (Stake, 1995). Thereby, different themes arose, of which some seemed to be more emphasized than others. The following table presents the topics and themes that were generated from the probes. On the next page see table 1 and 2 for an elaborated overview.

285

Table 1. Overview of themes and topics from the probes

286

Identified selected themes As previously stated, there were three themes that became clear throughout the probes: (1) family, (2) identity, and (3) relationships. These themes contained both positive, negative, and neutral statements or information, but they paint a picture of what—among many other things—is possibly going on in the minds of young people. Each of the three themes have been discussed below with examples taken from the probes.

Table 2. Overview of themes and topics from the probes

Family In the probes focused on play memory-based activities, family was often highlighted. This included incidents and specific events, such as a family trip or a holiday, but also included more generic memories as well, such as spending time together as a family. From the teachers’ feedback, the most highlighted factor that the students talked about was that their parents and (older) siblings were curious about the probe and it evoked a lot of conversations over the dinner table. Further, many of the students even happily informed the teachers that their family got involved in the activities from the probe. One of the interviewed teachers said that it was her general impression that young individuals were left alone too often and desired a higher degree of interaction with their family and interest from their families in their lives. This can also be seen from the probe activities that were focused on the students’ current everyday lives or, rather, from the lack of the presence of their families in those probe activities as compared to the memory-based ones. Although, as stated, family was mentioned in many probes, it does not seem to take up much of the young people’s attention in their everyday life. Friends, sports, and hobbies all receive greater attention. The few incidents in which the family was present (out of a total of 54 probes) are listed as follows (translated from original language):

287

● Pamphlet: On what transpires during a week, girl, 15 years old: Day 1: A movie, Day 2: My family, Day 3: My girlfriend, Day 4: A song, Day 5: first language lesson in school, Day 6: Nature (I was out walking), Day 7: A new song

● Five things to bring to an island: girl, 15 years old: 1. Family, 2. My friends, 3. My pony, 4. My phone, 5. A ship

● Playground map and pamphlet, boy, 14 years old: Pamphlet, about challenges: cycling to school, filling the dishwasher, vacuuming, doing my homework and spending time with my family during the day. In the playground map, about the seesaw: It is where I am together with my five-year-old brother. It makes me happy.

● Two spheres: On activities with others, girl, 15 years old: Playing board games with my family

From some of the activities, there is a clear connection between family, memories, feeling safe, and being home. These elements were connected more than half the time when family was mentioned, mainly in terms of memory and, less often, in activities, as there was greater focus on more current information.

Figure 3. A girls’ sketch of her family

Two examples from the probes:

● Playground map: Comparing with a playhouse, girl, 15 years old: The playhouse is my home: safety and family.

● Playground map: Comparing to the slide, boy, 14 years old: It reminds me of when I was with my family in “Djurs Sommerland” (a theme park in Denmark).

Identity The creations produced from the silk clay activity often contained specific human behaviors or traits that were either directly or indirectly linked to the person carrying out the activity. This seems to reflect either a specific trait that the young people would like to portray or, like in the case with the lizard (see below), contain information about their possible struggles.

The following text examples are translated from original language and were accompanied by creations such as the one shown in Figure 4 below:

Girl, 15 years old, chose a lizard-like creation: “I think of myself as a lizard. It keeps to itself, often in the dark They are sometimes seen; but if they are scared, they lose their tail.”

Girl, 15 years old, chose a dog-like creation: “Because it is mainly happy and believes in the best in other people. I would be a dog, as I can often be a bit naïve.”

Girl, 15 years old, chose an owl-like creation: “My friends said that I should make an owl, because they think that I am clever.” (shown in figure 4)

288

Boy, 15 years old, didn’t create anything, only described it: “Its name would be Carsten because it is an awesome name. It is a smart monster but sporty. And of course, has a lot of power.”

Boy, 14 years old, chose a hero-like creation, with a round body, small feet, and an antenna: “He is very strong like me.”

Figure 4. An owl made of silk clay, by one of the students

One interesting aspect is that social media was mentioned in only two out of the 54 probes. This includes the pamphlet where the students described their interests, inspirations, etc. during a week and all the other probes’ activities. The two incidents where social media was mentioned are as follows: Girl, 15 years old, stating that she would bring her phone, and, hence, social media, as one of the five things she would bring to an island. Another girl, 15 years old, in the Two Spheres activity, states TikTok as something she likes to do on her own. YouTube, computers, and games, on the other hand, were highlighted multiple times.

The lack of the mention of social media can of course be due to many factors, not explored for this paper, such as the following:

The probe had a physical context to it, and, hence, social media was not in focus. Social media might be such an integrated part of their lives that they perceive it as an integrated element of everything else. Mentioning the computer or phone (which others do) automatically includes social media Social media is not as important to these young people as we think.

Relations Friends do play a significant role, as mentioned previously, in terms of both physical interactions, such as in the context of parties, fitness, and sports, and being together, e.g. the word “hygge” in the original language (roughly translated to coziness) was mentioned multiple times, often together with friends. Digital platforms or interactions are also highlighted across the probe activities, genders, and classes. The majority of the boys mentioned games, and FaceTime, calling each other, and the game “Among Us” was present throughout a large number of the probes.

In the pamphlets aimed toward inspiration, entertainment, and motivation, friends also take up a large amount of space. In contrast, friends are not mentioned at all in the pamphlet focused on frustration.

One example stands out; a 15-year-old girl described and drew the following when asked about what challenged her during a typical week in the pamphlet (translated or described and written in chronological order):

289

Drawing, with no explanation: A measuring tape around a stomach. Written and drawn: “Afraid of being too loud.” “Wanted to hit him.” “I couldn’t sleep.” “It was embarrassing to be the last” (drawing of a goal line). See Figure 5 below, of the sketches.

Figure 5. A girls’ sketches of challenges during a typical week

She also filled out a significant higher number of “activities I like to do alone” (16) compared to “activities I like to do with others” (4) in the Two Spheres activity. Further, she did not mention the word friends anywhere in her probe. Friends were present and explicitly mentioned in all of the other 53 probes in various contexts and activities.

Possible implications Different themes and statements were identified from the probes. There was significant variation among the probes in terms of what is shared and to what degree; but even in those probes that present limited information, subtle attributes of the individual filling it out, can be seen. For instance, the case of the girl mentioned in the previous section signifies a feeling of solitude. However, this can also be seen in some of the other probes. One of the boys, for instance, presents a considerable number of different struggles through his probe, and not much else; he claims to be tired in school, to have issues at home, and a created a silk clay creature that placed an emphasis on being strong. Whether this is what he perceives or desires is unclear, but it is the only thing that he presents that has a different character than the struggles. Many of the boys seem to have difficulties regarding sleep; they mention being tired, having difficulty getting up in the morning, feeling tired in school, etc. This seems to be an issue mainly presented by the boys, with only a few girls mentioning sleep as an issue.

It might not be surprising that relationships, family, and identity are the three themes that were clearly seen in the probes given the stage at which the lives of the students were when they filled out the probe. However, the probes can reveal aspects of what lies beneath these themes and what can be further explored. Additionally, it can perhaps also help us acquire an enhanced understanding of the world that they live in. In general, they still need their families and the interaction with them while also having a separate part of their lives that goes on outside the family and inside themselves by finding their own identity. These three themes might be important layers in their process of defining themselves as individuals.

A fourth theme could have been creativity, which occurs across all classes, genders, and types of probes. The

290

existence of a creative outlet, whether it be programming, writing stories, painting, or playing music, is present in a majority of the probes. This also correlates with the tendency observed during the silk clay activity, which seems to have triggered an interest and the investment of time for the participants who were presented with this type of activity.

First findings about play probes From the 60 probes, 54 kits were handed back, either completely or partially filled out. Below, some of the findings from play probes as a method, have been highlighted and elaborated upon.

The informal interviews conducted with the teachers indicate that the students who participated in this study generally found the activities to be “fun but strange.” During the teacher interviews, all of the teachers mentioned that their students came up to them and talked about the probe informally. Further, a few days before returning the probes, all the teachers had a conversation with their students about the probes. In all three classes, the following feedback was stated multiple times:

● The students enjoyed the fact that the probes encouraged conversations and involvement from their families. The teachers further elaborated on this, as it was their general impression that young people often wished for more interaction with their families.

● The students enjoyed carrying out the activities and shared their thoughts and results with each other.

● They found the activities to be strange and talked curiously about them with others, including teachers, families, and peers.

Probe kit considerations There was a tendency that the tasks that focused on the struggles and entertainment in the participants’ lives were filled out more often than those focusing on motivation or inspiration. The richness of the associated information was also (in most cases) deeper. There were more details even in the sketches compared to those that provided information about motivation or inspiration.

The materials seemed to frame the activities, and those asked to create lists, descriptions, etc. during activities often completed the tasks in a different way than those who were directly presented with the materials (the Two Spheres, the Dream Job Bag). For example, when asked to fill out what would be in their dream job bag, a computer was often drawn—sometimes as the only thing, sometimes together with a few other generic objects, such as a phone (see Figure 6). The influence of the materials could be seen in the Two Spheres activity as well:

Those who were asked to write down a list, on average, wrote down 2.65 things. In the (physical) spheres, the average was 4.3. Often, there was a bit more elaborate description of the activities for the spheres as compared to the list.

Figure 6. Two examples from the Dream Job Bag

One of the activities involved silk clay, in which the participants were asked to construct a character. In total, 20 of the probe kits contained this activity. With one exception, all of the containers had been opened, and the

291

silk clay had been interacted with. Further, 14 participants had created some version of a character and described its features. The animal-like creatures seemed to have been given the most features that were related to humans.

Selected probes, that were filled out, was presented to i.e., teachers and healthcare-professionals working with young people. During those interviews an emphasis were put on how the young people in general approached the silk clay differently than many of the other activities. One example was a boy who in all the activities emphasized in different ways – both explicit and implicit, that he found the play probe tedious, however when looking at the silk clay figure, he put more effort both into the creation of it and the background-story of it and presented a bit more personal information about himself and his values regarding how to be a friend (see figure 7).

Figure 7. A silkclay-dog created to represent friendship

Early conclusions on play probes Particularly construction activities, anchored in the ideas of construction play and fantasy play (Legaard, 2018), seemed to evoke an interest and involvement from the students. This conclusion is based on the feedback received from the teachers and the actual probes. They are also the ideal types of play for a probe, as they can be encouraged through the materials and framing.

At this stage, activities with an emphasis on games or physical play have not been tested, and social activities have only been tested to a low degree. More tests and research into a variety of play probes are needed.

What can be said though is that there are indications to suggest that a play probe is a useful tool for gaining insights into young peoples’ lives, both directly from the probes and through the playful aspects. The feedback gathered from the teachers supports these indications and the young people overall responded to the probes positively. Through feedback from people working with this target group and the analysis of the probes, there are indications towards positive results, when applying some of the approaches from the play probes, also when working with e.g., mental health in young people.

For the data acquired from the probes to be more detailed, the probes need to be revised in relation to playfulness. The content of the probes should have a more specific focus rather than “everyday lives,” as this tends to be too broad to reach a firm conclusion. Further, interviews with the young people participating would have been optimal afterwards, but it is not possible at this time. The play probes could even be employed for a possible alternative direction for further development: as a conversation tool between parents and their teenager.

Play probes will be continuously explored. The next step will be to take the findings presented in this paper and develop a better framed play probe in collaboration with experts working with young people, such as

292

researchers and/or teachers, in order to use the probes as a tool for depicting a specific field of questioning combined with the use of follow-up interviews with the participants. We imagine, as a second step, that the insights and inspiration attained from the results of the probes can be translated into categories of tangible materials that can be used in cross-disciplinary co-design workshops.

Acknowledgements A big “thank you” to all the ninth-graders who participated in this study and their teachers. Despite the challenging times, the study was conducted despite the pandemic. You people made this research possible.

References Bateson, P. (2014). Play, playfulness, creativity and innovation. Animal Behaviour and Cognition. 1(2), pp.99-

112. Bolger, N., Davis, A. and Rafaeli, E. (2002). Diary methods: capturing life as it is lived. Annual Review of

Psychology. 54, pp.579-616. Carter, S. and Mankoff, J. (2005). When participants do the capturing: the role of media in diary studies.

Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI. USA. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial. Duncan, R.E., Drew, S.E., Hodgson, J. and Sawyer, S. N. (2009). Is my mum going to hear this? Methodological

and ethical challenges in qualitative health research with young people. Social Medicine. 69, pp.1691-1699.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry. 12(2), pp.219-245 Gaver, B., Dunne, T. and Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: cultural probes. Interaction. 6(1), pp.21-29. Howard, J. and McInnes, K. (2013). The essence of play: a practice companion for professionals working with

children and young people. UK: Routledge. Jääskö, V. and Keinonen, T. (2003). In: Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. Publication Series of the University

of Arts and Design. Helsinki, pp.89-96. Karoff, H.S. (2013). Play practices and play moods. International Journal of Play. 2(2), pp.76-86. Legaard, J. (2018). The road to happiness is paved with playful interventions. Proceedings DSR. 6, pp.2572-

2586. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design Probes. Publication Series of the University of Arts and Design. Helsinki. Mouritsen, F. (1998). Child culture-play culture. DK: Odense University Printing Office. Piaget, J. (1970). Science of education and the psychology of the child. Trans. D. Coltman. Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2014). Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in

codesigning. CoDesign. 10(1), pp.5-14. Skovlund, C.W., Wessing, L.V., Mørch, L.S. and Lidegaard, Ø. (2017). Increase in depression diagnoses and

prescribed antidepressants among young girls. A national cohort study 2000-2013. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry.

Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R. and Sanders, E.B.N. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts. 1(2), pp.119-149.

Stake, R.E. (1995). The art of case study research. California: Sage, Thousand Oaks. Youell, B. (2008). The importance of play and playfulness. The European Journal of Psychotherapy and

Counselling. 10(2), pp.121-129.

293

Line Gad Christiansen Designschool Kolding, Denmark lc@dskd.dk Line Christiansen is a PhD fellow at Design for Play, Design School Kolding (Denmark). With a background as an (playful) interaction designer and her work with children and young people both with and without special prerequisites, her focus is now play, safe spaces and learning. She aims to understand and evoke playful behaviour for young people through design and materials, and depict the possible benefits hereof. Sune Klok Gudiksen Designschool Kolding, Denmark skg@dskd.dk Sune Gudiksen is Associate Professor at Design for Play, Design School Kolding (Denmark). He is lead of several research projects investigating how play and game-based design methods can be used to support innovation activities and organizational development. His research interest is in play and game-based design methods, that supports reframing and imagination of better design, innovation and learning processes in the industry.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Environmental Education in Protected Areas in Petrópolis Rio de Janeiro: children as agents of empathy for and engagement with the cause of nature conservation

Marianne Von Lachmann, Rita Maria de Souza Couto and Roberta Portas https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.02.130

This article presents examples of environmental education programs and events run in protected areas of Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil, and a brief overview of novel findings in the history, sociology, anthropology, and geography of childhood, converging with those from the area of education, in which children’s agency in cultural production, the diversity of children’s cultures, and multiple childhoods are recognized. This article outlines the importance of continued efforts to take children from private and public schools, from kindergarten to high school, to engage in playful activities in preserved nature, as demonstrated in the initiatives described. When the full potential of protected areas is harnessed for children’s development and education, in particular by helping them forge emotional bonds with space, which transform space into place and are essential for human memory, then new ways of fostering empathy and engagement with nature conservation can come to light. These attributes kindle and excite curiosity, the desire to learn and discover, boosting the learning process in an organic, spontaneous, and integrated way.

Keywords: Partnership Design, protected areas, play, empathy, teaching materials

Introduction This article presents examples of environmental education programs and events run in protected areas in Petrópolis, Rio de Janeiro state, Brazil, and a brief overview of novel findings in the history, sociology, anthropology, and geography of childhood and their convergence with new ideas in the area of education, in which children’s agency in cultural production, the diversity of children’s cultures, and multiple childhoods are recognized. Drawing on these conceptions, the aim is to outline the importance of continued efforts to give children of all ages from private and public schools the chance to engage in playful activities in preserved nature.

The experiment presented here is based on the master’s research conducted by Marianne Von Lachmann at the graduate program in Design of the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, under the supervision of the co-authors Dr. Rita Maria de Souza Couto and Dr. Roberta Portas. Developed within an exploratory, qualitative approach, it is guided by the methodology of Partnership Design, which, according to Couto (2017), implies interactive work that can only be achieved when there is real social commitment and direct contact with the stakeholders in order to draw on their first-hand experience of the reality.

In Brazil, organized civil society first became engaged with environmental matters in the 1980s, with the first national meetings, social movements, and scholarly output. The National Environmental Policy, based on Law # 6.938 of 08/31/1981, included environmental education as a principle and provided for “environmental education at all levels of teaching, including community education, aiming to provide them with the means to participate actively in defense of the environment” (BRASIL, 1981). Environmental education is also part of the National Curriculum, launched in 1997, and is included in the Federal Law signed on April 27, 1999, that defines the National Environmental Education Policy (BRASIL, 1999).

295

In 2000, with the passing of Law # 9,985, the national system of protected areas was established, and recommendations were put forward for the design and execution of environmental education programs, including mechanisms to regulate how society participates in the management of protected areas, strengthening the relationship between the state, citizens, and the environment.

Under the new system, protected areas must have a management and assessment plan, a buffer zone, and ecological corridors, including measures to ensure alignment with the economic and social needs of neighboring communities. In other words, the law that establishes the national system of protected areas sets the criteria and standards for a more participative approach to the creation, execution, and management of protected areas. Although public policies promote the implementation of educational actions in communities contiguous to protected areas, and environmental education programs are included in many protected areas’ management plans, most communities in their buffer zones have a sensitive relationship with them due to land-related issues, making it harder for the objectives set in their management instruments to be achieved.

The examples of environmental education programs and events presented in this article have not been published elsewhere and are not available to the general public. This survey was only made possible by adopting Partnership Design, through which it was possible to identify the hubs of the networks that enabled these programs, as described below. It should also be noted that each of the initiatives was developed through institutional partnerships, making it impossible to attribute individual authorship.

Spatial dimension of protected areas in the municipality of Petrópolis According to the mapping developed by the Petrópolis campus of CEFET/RJ in 2020, more than half of the municipality of Petrópolis is occupied by protected areas, not counting private natural heritage reserves. The largest ones are Serra dos Órgãos National Park (PARNASO) and the Petrópolis Mountainous Region protected area (APA Petrópolis), both federal protected areas run by the Chico Mendes Institute for Biodiversity Conservation (ICMBio).

Figure 1. Map of public protected areas in Petrópolis, 2020 (Source: CEFET/RJ, Petrópolis Expedition Project archive).

Covering 20,024 hectares in the municipalities of Teresópolis, Petrópolis, Magé, and Guapimirim, PARNASO was founded in 1939 to preserve the outstanding landscape and biodiversity of this stretch of the Serra do Mar mountain range in the state of Rio de Janeiro. Forty percent of the protected area is in the municipality of Petrópolis and occupies a central position in the state’s Atlantic Forest mosaic and Serra do Mar biodiversity corridor. It is considered the largest forest patch in the state of Rio de Janeiro and is of extreme biological importance, being essential for the preservation of water sources and having great ecotourism potential. During the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio in 1992, it was named the Atlantic Forest Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO. Meanwhile, APA Petrópolis is mostly (70%) in the municipality of Petrópolis. It was the first protected area in Brazil to be classified as being of sustainable use, in September 1982, and covers 68,224.29 hectares. Both areas are under considerable stress because of the rapid and unruly urbanization process in the area, not to mention the freezing of funds from the federal budget.

New findings and their relevance for children’s activities in preserved nature This article is the result of a field experiment guided by the question: “How can behaviors with destructive

296

effects on the biophysical environment and the quality of life of the population be changed?”. The aim was to acquire knowledge and a broader understanding of children’s cultures and their agency and autonomy in constructing these cultures, drawing on insights from the Social History of Childhood, the Sociology of Childhood, and the Anthropology of Childhood. The purpose is also to find effective ways of exploring and enabling engagement with conservation and empathy with preserved nature, the core of the study. The conceptions of childhood resulting from the innovative research in these disciplines recognize that childhood is experienced by children in myriad ways, constituting what Manuel Jacinto Sarmento (2007, p. 28-29) calls “cultural belonging” (2007, p. 28-29); i.e., culture shapes childhood. Within a given cultural space, different conceptions of childhood will coexist, depending on the social class, predominant religion, ethnic group, education level of the population, and other socioeconomic factors.

Similarly, we also draw on contributions from the Geography of Childhood and the notion of topophilia, which relates to the attachment people feel for spaces, which is a prerequisite for turning space into place. These concepts help shed light on experiences shaped by emotional attachment to spaces, without which there can be no human memory or experience (LOPES, 2013, 2019). For Lopes, the concept of topophilia, coined by Yi-Fu Tuan (1980), is an essential precondition for human memory and the learning acquired through lived experiences. It is a concept that highlights the importance of games and playing as elements of culture and for transforming space into place, constituting channels through which children can express their love for a space, enabling the development of memory and nourishing the production of meanings by children. These conceptions can be used to assess initiatives capable of helping forge links with and appreciation of preserved nature, and which develop environmental education inside and outside the classroom, as reported below.

Environmental education initiatives in Petrópolis’s protected areas The environmental education initiatives implemented in Petrópolis’s protected areas are the result of the public environmental governance mechanisms developed in Brazil in the aftermath of the United Nations Conference on the Environment (Stockholm, 1972) and their consolidation by social movements with the broad participation of society. The National Environmental Education Policy (Law 9,795 of 1999) defines environmental education as “processes through which the individual and the collective build social values, knowledge, skills, behaviors, and competencies aimed at the conservation of the environment, an asset destined for the common use of the people, essential for the healthy quality of life and its sustainability” (Art. 1). According to José da Silva Quintas (2006), environmental education is a government responsibility, pursuant to the Federal Constitution, since it is necessary to fulfill the principles set forth in article 225. According to law 9,795, everybody has the right to environmental education as “part of the broader educational process,” which “must be included and coordinated with all levels and modes of education, both formal and non-formal” (Articles 3 and 4). In Petrópolis’s protected areas, environmental education programs and actions are carried out through the formation of networks between organizations, which then have a seat on their boards: residents’ and farmers’ associations, community leaders, sports associations, NGOs, and small tourism businesses. At PARNASO and APA Petrópolis, their respective technical teams carry out the planning and structuring of the initiatives.

1 -– Environmental Education Activities at PARNASO 1.1 PARNASO environmental education program and educational events

As a member of the National Environment System, ICMBio promotes programs integrated with preservation and sustainable development activities, as listed in Decree 4,281 of 06/25/2002 (BRASIL, 2002), which regulates the National Environmental Education Policy. Accordingly, PARNASO’s technical team have developed “two major projects: the Boa Vizinhança Project, which brings together actions aimed at integrating and mediating conflicts with surrounding communities, including the work of the Advisory Council; and the Cenário Verde Project, which includes actions aimed at raising visitor awareness and the use of the park as an educational space, through school visits.” (PARNASO Management Plan).

Launched in 2001, the Cenário Verde project supports formal education both by including environmental topics in school curricula and by raising visitor awareness. It has three lines of action: production of educational material; training of teachers from nearby schools; and interpretive trails and information leaflets. In the first line of action, the PARNASO educators act as assistants, meeting teachers’ requirements in alignment with their schools’ pedagogical programs. Between 2010 and 2019, the programs attracted an average of eight thousand participants a year, including students and educators from more than 150 educational institutions, mostly public schools from Teresópolis. In the second line of action, four courses were held between 2006 and 2008 for teachers from 30 public schools. As for the interpretive trails and information

297

leaflets, the third line of action, signs written in accessible language have been put up at the Teresópolis and Guapimirim headquarters, providing information on local environmental themes such as the city–forest relationship, riparian forests, and ecological succession. In addition, two leaflets have been produced: one with guidelines on appropriate behavior in natural environments, information on camping areas, water sources, and ecological concepts for the Petrópolis-Teresópolis crossing; and another from the Philips Guide, with general information for visitors.

Implemented in 2005 during the reformulation of the PARNASO administration, the Boa Vizinhança project “brings together all PARNASO’s non-formal environmental education actions and has the general objective of strengthening the relations between neighboring communities and the Park, through environmental education actions that contribute to the development of critical thinking about the environmental problems faced by each community, the development of values aimed at environmental preservation, and active participation with the purpose of improving the quality of life of these groups” (PARNASO Management Plan). To this end, it seeks to include the people living in the immediate vicinity of the park in its management process by involving them in initiatives already underway, in partnership with entities with a seat on the Board.

The most successful and far-reaching environmental education actions for the municipality of Petrópolis have originated from the Boa Vizinhança project. These include the acquisition of the new Petrópolis headquarters and the signing of a memorandum of understanding by the presidents of ICMBio and the Association of Rural Producers of Bonfim (APRB) on 30/09/2019, both part of the process of redefining the borders of PARNASO in Bonfim, concluded with the enactment of Bill 8,823 of 2017. These initiatives put an end to an over 30-year-long land conflict and include the delivery of equipment for a sanitation system in the neighborhood and the beginning of the land titling process for the rural properties that had previously been considered illegal for being inside the Park’s territory.

Environmental education, as conceived by PARNASO, is an integral part of the memorandum of understanding, in which ICMBio undertakes to carry out environmental education in the Bonfim neighborhood twice a year. In addition to Bonfim, the Boa Vizinhança project is also present in other districts and communities bordering PARNASO in Petrópolis.

Figures 2 and 3 Partnership with Christian (catholic and evangelical) churches in Petrópolis, a pilot for visits by disabled people on educational trails, using a Julietti wheelchair prototype and adapted backpack, summer of 2020 (Source: Marcus Gomes Archive).

1.2 Educational Events

Held since 2005, the Nature at Party events are planned in partnership with farmers’ and residents’ associations and/or NGOs according to the interests of each group involved and themes of relevance to the management of the park. The 2005 model, widely reproduced until today, is based on leisure, sporting, and cultural activities, interspersed with lectures focusing on themes designed to reflect processes underway in the territory. Throughout the year, several cultural and educational events are held for the local community and society at large to raise awareness and engage the public with environmental issues, always in partnership with businesses, associations, and the local government.

2 – Núcleo de Alfabetização Ecológica (Ecological Literacy Group)

Located in Sertão do Carangola, a neighborhood in Cascatinha, the most densely populated district in Petrópolis, Núcleo de Alfabetização Ecológica is a non-profit organization founded in 2007 by two civil organizations: SEOP (Education and People’s Organization Service) and Água Doce, from Petrópolis and Magé,

298

respectively. The project stems from the installation, in 1996, of a biodigester and a biosystem for the community’s sanitation. In 1998, the first actions were carried out by voluntary instructors in outdoor areas as extracurricular leisure activities, including community vegetable farming, composting. and fishing for children and teenagers. In less than ten years, in response to the exceptional results achieved by the sanitation system and the environmental education initiatives taken with children in the neighborhood, a group of Italian citizens financed the construction of a headquarters to enable educational programs to be organized and expanded. The new premises, opened in September 2007, host activities involving music, cooking, sports, handicrafts, weaving, sewing, capoeira, citizenship, basic sustainability, as well as remedial education. An average of 50 children between the ages of five and fifteen participate every year.

3 - INEA Environmental Education Program / Piabanha Regional Superintendence

Between 2010 and 2017, under the umbrella title of Environmental Caravan, the Piabanha regional office of the Rio de Janeiro State Environment Institute (INEA) formed partnership networks with the purpose of carrying out a set of projects to coordinate and join up the issues of water availability, forests, protected areas, local people’s quality of life, food production, environmental awareness, and climate change. Designed to sensitize students from the public school system in nine municipalities covered by the Piabanha River Basin Committee, including Petrópolis, the largest in area and population, the partnership network was administrated by INEA, municipal environment, and education departments, the Piabanha River Basin Committee, COMDEP (Petrópolis municipal development company) and Águas do Imperador (water utility), which elected a district of the municipality in which the program would be carried out during each quarter. The INEA regional office contacted the public schools in that district to select the theme to be worked on. Through different actions in the schools, which included interactive presentations, painting workshops, films, walks with students on trails at the partner protected areas, distribution of seedlings, gardening, composting, and exhibitions, the program gained great visibility, while also attracting the interest and engagement of the population. In addition to the workshops, the schools had to complete one of the following tasks: clean a stretch of the river in their neighborhood and erect educational signs made by the students; reforest the riparian forest; perform water analyses; produce interpretive trails, or visit water and sewage treatment plants.

Three districts took part in the program every year, totaling 144 workshops, as well as a number of schools, universities, and individuals, which varied according to the demographic density of each district. In 2015, the year in which the program had its largest audience, around 15,000 people from 74 schools and six universities from the nine municipalities participated. In addition to the partners of the administrative group, mentioned above, the network included the municipal departments of culture, agriculture, sport and leisure, planning and economic development, and civil protection and defense; the fire department; universities; PARNASO; APA Petrópolis; Três Picos State Park; REBIO Araras; Central Fluminense Mosaic; Petrópolis municipal protected areas; the INEA seed bank and environmental education team; FIRJAN (Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro); Association of Residents and Friends of Petrópolis, the Petrópolis Visitors Center; SESC; and several NGOs.

Once or twice a year, the network of partners selected a public space – usually Praça da Liberdade square, in the center of Petrópolis – to hold a large exhibition of the work produced by the students from the local schools in the workshops and the classroom. These exhibitions were designed to show how important the protected areas and forest remnants are for preserving water supplies and biodiversity, and involved sharing information and promoting exchanges, recreation, and entertainment for the other visiting schools from the Caravan and for the public in general. The interactive model – pedagogically important for raising awareness – represented a riverbed between two mountains, one with vegetation and the other one deforested, made especially to explain the importance of forests to the water cycle.

4 – REBIO Araras (State Biological Reserve of Araras)

Of great relevance to the context of the Central Fluminense Mosaic, it was only possible to begin providing environmental education in this protected area as of 2012, after park rangers were employed to work there. Since then, REBIO Araras has received groups of public school students every year, from preschool to high school. The actions consist of guided tours with park rangers along interpretive trails chosen according to the group’s age range, where the participants get to know the preserved nature and observe the flora and fauna along the route. School visits include a presentation at the headquarters by the protected area’s technical team. The language and illustrations used are adapted to different age groups and include supplementary materials and slideshows. The topics covered include institutional data, the types of protected areas and their mission, the importance of preserving nature, the work of park rangers, characteristics of the Atlantic Forest

299

biome, its flora and fauna, ecosystem services, the importance of forests and the Araras biological reserve for regulating the region’s climate, scientific research, and how to take care of forests. In 2020, due to the COVID 19 pandemic, environmental education actions were suspended.

Figure 4 Students from Professor Paulo Monte Municipal School on a visit to the Araras biological reserve. Araras, Petrópolis, November 2017 (Source: Amigos da REBIO Araras Archive).

5 – APA Petrópolis (Petrópolis Protected Area) Cycling Environmental Cup This event was held by the Petrópolis Protected Area in May 2012, organized by its technical sustainable development committee and the Cycling Federation of the State of Rio de Janeiro, aiming to raise public awareness about the existence of the protected area, emphasizing the importance of preserving the region’s natural heritage. The project consisted of two activities: a four-stage cycling competition, environmental education, and pro-sustainability activities. The organizers’ intention was to take advantage of the tournament to encourage cycling along the local roads and to offer environmental education and social sustainability actions in each of the competition areas. Additionally, the event was designed as a pilot for possible replication in protected areas with similar characteristics. The educational activities included poetry and photography contests on related themes to enable non-cyclists to take part and to expand support for environmental conservation among citizens. On average, around 100 to 200 cyclists participated in each stage, in various categories, including children, with a Kids Cup contest taking place in two of the four stages.

Figure 5 Leaflet for the APA Petrópolis Environmental Cup (Source: Marcos Werneck Archive).

6 - Muda Tudo Plant Nursery Located in Vale das Videiras, Petrópolis district, Muda Tudo Plant Nursery (Viveiro Muda Tudo) was inaugurated in October 2016, bordering the Araras biological reserve, APA Petrópolis, the Palmares, Santana River, and Guandu River protected areas, PARNASO, and the Tinguá biological reserve. In December of that same year, representing Vale das Videiras Residents’ Association (AMAVALE), Muda Tudo became a deputy

300

member of the Piabanha River Basin Committee. This movement resulted in the beginning of a project to recover the springs, protect the banks of the watercourses, create ecological corridors, and improve water quality and quantity, the most urgent issue for the region’s residents. In 2019, in an initiative related to the actions reported above, AMAVALE began measuring the amount of rain with rain gauges installed at five different points in the valley. Based on the data collected, it was found that in winter 2020, it rained 70% less than in the same period of 2019. The activities offered at the headquarters attract an average of 30 people each day. From its inauguration until March 2020, 40 events were held, including lectures and workshops covering topics central to the nursery’s objectives, namely: the planting of seeds and seedlings native to the Atlantic Forest; ecological restoration; composting; sorting of waste for recycling, and reuse; bioconstruction, conscious nutrition; syntropic farming; and others. Key among the more than one thousand people who experienced the events were the 300 students from preschool to middle school age from Américo Fernandes Ribeiro Municipal School, adjacent to the Nursery.

7 - CEFET/RJ Petrópolis Expeditions Project The CEFET/RJ Expeditions Project was launched in 2016, offering a mixture of environmental education and interpretation activities on trails in protected areas in Petrópolis. The aim is to study the natural and social diversity along the routes and protected areas and foster multidisciplinary actions in the areas of ecology, geography, health, and physical education. In 2020, due to the pandemic, the project was adapted to a remote format, with a greater focus on research in three main areas: protected areas and trails in the municipality of Petrópolis, the long-distance trail in PARNASO, and how to enable visits to natural areas during the pandemic. A survey of all the protected areas situated entirely or partially in the municipality was prepared with a view to collating data not available in official sources. The pandemic prompted greater reflection about society and nature and the benefits of hiking on trails for physical and mental health, leading the project team to organize the data from the expeditions in previous years. The expansion of knowledge on the areas visited led to investigations into how to improve the carrying capacity of natural attractions, risk mapping, improved management, trail signaling, among others. The multidisciplinary nature of the group, with professionals from diverse and complementary areas, such as adventure tourism, geoprocessing, technologies, race relations, and environmental conflicts, was important for the success of the mapping process and demonstrated the importance of knowing the limits of protected areas to better plan the activities to be carried out. The data gathered demonstrate the importance of public use for the protection of natural resources, helping to increase local awareness and environmental management in the municipality.

Figure 6 PARNASO Trail, Expedition Project (Source: CEFET/RJ archive, Petrópolis campus).

8 - Environmental Intelligence Project run by the Petrópolis Municipal Department of the Environment This is the local department of the environment’s first environmental education program. It draws on a teaching methodology and a theoretical framework and involves fifteen subprojects and an annual schedule of permanent actions. The project aims to motivate and develop formal and non-formal environmental education in schools, residents’ associations, factories, and public departments in Petrópolis, through six thematic areas: protected areas and water; citizenship and heritage; meteorology and civil defense; waste, waste sorting, and crafts; animal welfare; Atlantic Forest seeds and trees. Between August 2017 and March 2020, more than 700

301

initiatives were carried out through a large network formed of the department’s technical team, who conceived the project, and their partners INEA, ICMBio, municipal protected areas, IPHAN (national heritage protection agency), the Imperial Museum, CEFET, Air Force, Municipal Department of Security and Civil Defense, Fire Department, COMDEP, Municipal Guard, COBEA (animal welfare group), in addition to residents’ associations and various NGOs. Approximately 1,800 students from public and private schools, from preschool to university level, participated in activities such as educational ecological walks on city trails, visits by staff of the municipal department of the environment to schools, factories, and communities to give awareness-raising presentations, planting Atlantic Forest tree seedlings in schools, universities, and degraded areas, river cleaning efforts, training of public and private teachers, support for sporting events, distribution of Atlantic Forest tree seedlings in squares in the center of Petrópolis, among others. Special attention was paid to documenting the actions in order compile information and contacts and thereby collate the data and facilitate access to references for the continuous improvement of the local government’s environmental education initiatives.

Figure 7 Planting of seedlings in Cuiabá valley, December 2018 (Source: Archive of the Petrópolis Municipal Department of the Environment, Environmental Intelligence Project).

9 - Project Workshop for the Bonfim Farmers’ Association Held at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic, on 15 August 2020, by the Bonfim Farmers Association, this initiative was guided by the principle that all human activity causes environmental impacts and all environmental impacts can be minimized. Empowering those who observe and live with environmental problems leads to the full exercise of citizenship and solutions to the environmental problems that affect them. Fifteen participants attended the eight-hour workshop, which was sponsored by local residents and the Environment Committee of the Vale do Mata Porcos Residents’ Association, from a valley adjacent to Bonfim. The support of the Bonfim health center was essential for the event, which took place in an open-sided building, in compliance with safety protocols. The main objective – to train citizens to take a stance toward socio-environmental issues and become agents of change – was developed in four modules, through the presentation of a simple model for devising projects and basic training in relevant areas. The focus was to show in practical terms how low- and medium-impact environmental problems can be solved to a large extent with small individual actions and also to show that more complex cases must be conveyed to the government in clear language in order to enable an effective solution to be reached. The participants included employees of ICMBio, the Bonfim health center, fire fighters, and local farmers, artisans, and small ecotourism entrepreneurs.

10 - 2020 Children’s Day celebration in Bonfim held by the local partnership network

On the initiative of the Bonfim Farmers’ Association, with a view to carrying out environmental education activities to celebrate Children's Day in Bonfim, a partnership network was formed in the neighborhood as a spin-off from the aforementioned Project Workshop. Joining the farmers’ association in the network were the family health center, Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School, Bonfim Residents' Association, the Environment Committee of the Vale do Mata Porcos Residents' Association, and the Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Design Education (LIDE) of PUC-Rio,1

1 Master's research advised by Dr. Rita Maria de Souza Couto and Dr. Roberta Portas, with funding from the

302

The initial idea was to celebrate Children’s Day with an outdoor event at the new Petrópolis headquarters of PARNASO. Due to the pandemic, the original plan was canceled and replaced by a program designed to take the essence of the original program to families with children enrolled at Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School, through the production of kits and the use of the school system for the delivery of materials, in place since the beginning of the quarantine. Having learned at the Project Workshop about the master's research and fieldwork to be carried out through the distribution of kits with materials from nature, the partners held a meeting on 25 August 2020, to plan its execution.

At the meeting, it was decided that three kits would be produced for each family: a memory game with 9 pairs of cards containing photographs of the region’s fauna and flora; a six-sided leaflet to playfully address three major local environmental challenges (fire prevention, recycling of solid waste, plastic kites), and a box containing two games with nature materials (“Nature Dominoes” and “Family Mandala").

The lively engagement of the partners and volunteers was paramount to the achievement of the proposed goals: in less than 60 days, 264 kits were delivered to 88 families together with the “Little Animals” series, donated to the Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School collection, demonstration videos, and the installation of the “Give your garbage a good end” banner in the neighborhood ecopoint.

The second-grade elementary school teacher sent the following comment on WhatsApp about the benefits the kit activities brought to the children and their families: “I found that playing together is not only fun, it also brings people together, creates a common repertoire of themes that enrich family life. We noticed that the children’s interaction with nature goes far beyond being provided with a green area to play. (...) During lockdown, the games became important as an alternative for play and learning among family members during the period of isolation.”

Figure 8: Nature materials collected for “Games with Materials from Nature.” Photo taken by the researcher on Sep. 14, 2020. (Source: LIDE collection

Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) – Financing Code 001, connected to the Interdisciplinary Laboratory of Design Education (LIDE) of the Graduate Program in Design of PUC-Rio.

Figure 9: Cardboard packaging collected to assemble the boxes for the “Games with Materials from Nature” kits. Photo taken by the researcher on Oct. 14, 2020. (Source: LIDE Collection).

303

Figure 10: “Little Animals” donation to the Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School collection. Photo taken by the researcher on Sep. 9, 2020. (Source: LIDE Collection).

Figure 11: Delivery of kits to families at school on Oct. 9, 2020. (Source: Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School director’s collection).

Figure 12: Children playing with the Memory Game. Photo posted by the family on the school’s WhatsApp group on Oct. 12, 2020. (Source: Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School director's collection).

Figure 13: Figuring out how to play “Games with Materials from Nature.” Photo posted by the family on the school’s WhatsApp group on Oct. 13, 2020. (Source: Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School director’s collection).

Figure 14: Making a kite following the instructions in the “Six-sided leaflet.” Photo posted by the family in the school’s WhatsApp group on Oct. 11, 2020 (Source: Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School director’s collection).

Figure 15: Children playing with “Games with Materials from Nature.” Photo posted by the family in the school’s WhatsApp group on Oct. 10, 2020. (Source: Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School director's collection).

304

Figure 16: Children playing with the kits. Photo posted on the Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School WhatsApp group on Oct. 10, 2020. (Source: Odette Young Monteiro Municipal School director's collection).

Figure 17: Installation of the “Give your garbage a good end” banner at the neighborhood ecopoint. Photo taken by the researcher on Oct. 10, 2020. (Source: LIDE Collection).

Concluding remarks According to Barbosa (2014, p. 645-667), family, school, and media cultures intersect in children, since they are the basis for their daily activities, “in which they repeat their actions, propositions and reiterate their achievements,” leading to the creation of multiple “children's cultures” and “multiple childhoods.” This web of cultures constitutes the environment in which children develop and grow up and is also linked to play and the interweaving of fantasy and reality that are so characteristic of childhood. Children interact, influencing and being influenced by others, in an intense, ongoing process of understanding the world and producing meanings and possibilities for building their existence (Pinto, 1999, p. 33-73).

Regardless of the size or capacity of the physical infrastructure, resources invested, and scientific knowledge, efforts to enable children and youth to try out activities in preserved nature – the common denominator of practically all the initiatives mentioned here – are pursued in recognition of a conception of childhood that envisages some degree of autonomy and agency for children in such activities. Furthermore, the ability of preserved nature to encompass the broad spectrum of cultures and childhoods existing in any given school group, allowing each child to experience the space in their own unique way both individually and in a group, spontaneously leads to the medley of multidisciplinary knowledge from which these innovative findings came. For Pinto (1999, p. 70), a “plurality of focuses is an essential condition for a better understanding and appreciation of the place of childhood in society.”

The objectives of the programs and actions presented here point to an urgent issue for (early) childhood education: the importance of raising awareness about the seriousness of schooling being based on the acquisition and development of knowledge, using models that separate science, art, and life, with preset, predictable proposed solutions, as indicated by the research group on Childhood, Training and Culture (Infoc) at PUC-Rio, led by Sonia Kramer, Maria Fernanda Nunes and Cristina Carvalho (2013).

The urgency is related to the construction of the concept of citizenship and the “3 Ps” (provision, protection, and participation). The Infoc research concludes that without the command of language, to be acquired in elementary school, children and adults cannot operate in the world, develop and be developed by discourses, interact with cultures, and construct meanings. The research recommends schools to adopt pedagogical practices “that favor the construction of singular meanings constituted in historical events” (p. 47).

The environmental education initiatives described in this article, most of which are non-formal activities run in coordination with public and private schools, essentially addressed the following question: how can empathy and engagement with nature be fostered among the public? The answers, despite varying widely among the different projects, centered on the same point: you have to know something before you can appreciate it.

The forging of bonds between people and spaces depends on knowledge, which arises from games and playing. Playing in preserved nature should be seen as a strategy for transitioning from one stage of migration to another. As highlighted by the members of Infoc, “operating at points of transition can help create spaces in

305

school and preschool settings where narratives can be constructed that foster personal, institutional, and political change” (p. 47).

The results of the programs and events reported on here, based on the field research conducted by Marianne Lachmann, recognize children’s agency in cultural production, the diversity of children’s cultures, and multiple childhoods. When the full potential of protected areas is harnessed for children’s development and education, in particular by helping them forge emotional bonds with space, which transform space into place and are essential for human memory, then new ways of fostering empathy and engagement with nature conservation can come to light. These attributes kindle and excite curiosity and the desire to learn and discover, boosting the learning process in an organic, spontaneous, and integrated way.

Acknowledgment

This study is being financed by CAPES – Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel and by PUC-Rio.

References Barbosa, M. C. S. (2014). Culturas infantis: contribuições e reflexões. Revista Diálogo Educacional, Curitiba, v.

14, n. 43, p. 645-667, set/dez. Brasil. Lei Federal 6.938 de 31/08/1981, que institui a Política Nacional do Meio Ambiente. (1981). Recuperado

em 04 junho, 2021, de https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/1980-1987/lei-6938-31-agosto-1981-366135-publicacaooriginal-1-pl.html

Brasil. Lei Federal 9.795 de 27/04/1999, que institui a Política Nacional de Educação Ambiental. (1999). Recuperado em 05 dezembro, 2020, de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9795.htm#:~:text=L9795&text=LEI%20No%209.795%2C%20DE%2027%20DE%20ABRIL%20DE%201999.&text=Disp%C3%B5e%20sobre%20a%20educa%C3%A7%C3%A3o%20ambiental,Ambiental%20e%20d%C3%A1%20outras%20provid%C3%AAncias

Brasil. Lei Federal 9.985 de 18/07/2000, que institui o Sistema Nacional de Unidades de Conservação. (2000) Recuperado em 05 dezembro, 2020, de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/l9985.htm#:~:text=LEI%20No%209.985%2C%20DE%2018%20DE%20JULHO%20DE%202000.&text=Regulamenta%20o%20art.,Natureza%20e%20d%C3%A1%20outras%20provid%C3%AAncias.&text=Art.,-1o%20Esta

Brasil. Decreto Lei 4.281 de 25/06/2002, que regulamenta a Lei 9.795 de 27/04/1999. (2002) Recuperado em 04 setembro, 2020, de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/decreto/2002/d4281.htm).

Couto, R. M. de S. O Design Social na PUC-Rio. (2017). In: Oliveira, A. J; Franzato, C.; Del Gaudio, C.. (Org.). Ecovisões Projetuais: pesquisas em Design e Sustentabilidade no Brasil. 1ed. São Paulo: Blucher, v. 1, p. 7- 42.

Huizinga, J. (2014). Homo ludens: o jogo como elemento da cultura. São Paulo: Perpspectiva. Instituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da Biodiversidade. Educação ambiental em unidades de conservação:

ações voltadas para comunidades escolares no contexto da gestão pública da biodiversidade. Guia informativo, orientador e inspirador. MMA/WWF, Brasília, Brasil, (2016). Retrieved from https://www.icmbio.gov.br [accessed on 05 Dez 2020]

_______________________. Gestão e Plano de Manejo do PARNASO. (2008). Retrieved from https://www.icmbio.gov.br/parnaserradosorgaos/o-que-fazemos/gestao-e-manejo.html [accessed on 05 Dez 2020]

_______________________. Portaria 426 de 11/05/2020. (2020), Retrieved from https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou [accessed on 05 Dez 2020]

Kramer, S.; Nunes, M. F.; Carvalho, M. C. (2013) (orgs.). Educação infantil: formação e responsabilidade. 1ª ed., Campinas, SP: Papirus.

Lopes, J. J. M. (2013). Geografia da infância: contribuições aos estudos das crianças e suas infâncias. Revista Educação Pública, Cuiabá, volume 22, n. 49/1, p. 283-294, maio/ago.

Lopes, J. J. M. (2019). Geografia da infância, justiça existencial e amorosidade espacial., ainda no prelo. Milano, M. S. (2001). Unidades de conservação: técnica, lei e ética para a conservação da biodiversidade. In:

Direito ambiental das áreas protegidas – o regime jurídico das unidades de conservação. Coord. Antônio Herman Benjamin. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, p.3 a 41.

Pinto, M. e Sarmento, M. (1999) As crianças: contextos e identidades. Braga/Portugal: Bezerra Editora, p. 33 a 73.

PROJETO DE LEI 8.883 de 2017. Recuperado em 05 maio, 2020, de http://www.camara.gov.br/internet/sileg/Prop_Detalhe.asp?id=2155470).

306

Quintas, J. S. (2006) Introdução à gestão ambiental pública. Brasília: Ibama, 2006. (Coleção Meio Ambiente. Série Educação Ambiental, 5).

Rocha, E. A. C. (2008) Por que ouvir as crianças? Algumas questões para um debate científico multidisciplinar. Palestra realizada no Seminário Ouvindo Crianças, promovido pelo Movimento Interfóruns de Educação Infantil do Brasil (MIEIB), com apoio da Save the Children Reino Unido, na Universidade Federal do Ceará (UFC), em agosto de 2005. Cruz, S. (org.). A criança fala: a escuta de crianças em pesquisas. São Paulo: Cortez Editora.

Vasconcellos, V. e Sarmento, M. J. (2007). Infância (in)visível. Araraquara/SP, Editora Junqueira e Martin. Vivacqua, M.; Vieira, P. (2005, outubro) Conflitos socioambientais em unidades de conservação. Política e

Sociedade, número 7.

Marianne Von Lachmann Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio, Brazil marianne@lachmann.com.br Entrepreneur, Bachelor in Public Administration from Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública, Fundação Getúlio Vargas in 1983, postgraduation from Harvard Business School's Owner/President Management Course in 2009, currently developing a Master's research in PUC-Rio's Graduate Program in Design, member of FIRJAN's (Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro) International Relations Entrepreneurial Board, AEB's (Brazilian Foreign Trade Association) Board and FUNBIO's (Brazilian Fund for Biodiversity) Board. Rita Maria de Souza Couto Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio, Brazil ricouto@puc-rio.br Bachelor in Industrial Design and Visual Communication from PUC-Rio, Master's and PHD in Education from PUC-Rio, teacher and advisor for Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral researches in PUC-Rio's Graduate Program in Design, Coordinator of LIDE/PUC-Rio, Joint Coordinator of PUC-Rio's Graduate Program in Design, leader of APRENDESIGN research group: design in teaching-learning situations, author of several books and articles published in National and International magazines and conferences' proceedings. Roberta Portas Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, PUC-Rio, Brazil robertaportas@puc-rio.br Bachelor’s in Industrial Design from the Faculty of the City, with a degree in Visual Communication in 1994, Master’s and PhD in Design from PUC-Rio in 2009, teacher, advisor and Coordinator of the bachelor’s course in PUC-Rio’s Graduate Program in Design, co-advisor for Master and PHD research in PUC-Rio’s Graduate Program in Design, researcher at LIDE/PUC-Rio in the research lines Pedagogy of Design and Design in teaching-learning situations.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Reframing Ageing in Design Education A Case Study

Emma Gieben-Gamal https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.03.248

People in the later stages of life make up one of the most differentiated and experientially rich groups in society which should make design for an ageing population one of the most stimulating areas for design practice. Yet ‘old’ age in the UK is largely framed as a problem to be solved; a position that design often (unconsciously) serves to perpetuate and reinforce. This case study will outline the context for an undergraduate course that seeks to overturn this negative frame that not only ‘others’ older people but also begets a paradoxical self-othering of our future selves. Picking up on the themes of power and voice in framing activities alongside the way problems are conceived and who defines them, the case study will outline the context, content and theoretical underpinnings of the course. It will also use student feedback and responses to demonstrate the value of addressing these issues at an undergraduate level and the ways in which this learning can be applied more widely to other areas of social design.

Keywords: ageing, situated design, framing, reflexive practice, participation

Introduction: The Context for a course on Design for Ageing This case study reflects upon a single semester, 3rd year undergraduate, course titled Design for Ageing which addresses issues of age discrimination and normative concepts of ageing rooted in deficit and decline which still underpin much design practice today. The course sits within a suite of options run by the Design Cultures group in the School of Design that deliver interdisciplinary critical and contextual studies courses that aim to give dedicated time to develop theoretical knowledge and understanding that is integrated with practice. Drawing on critical and cultural gerontology and its related theoretical underpinnings combined with design theory and methodology emerging from participatory and situated design, the course explores ways in which design can re-conceptualise ageing and create more inclusive and emancipatory environments and experiences. Reflective practice and action research theory (Schön, 2008; Burgoyne and Pedler, 2008) underpins the course design as students are encouraged to think reflexively about their personal (and changing) attitudes to ageing as well as how they might develop their own ethically informed design research. This extends to how they might engage with people in more equal partnerships that acknowledge and build on the different and multiple knowledge cultures at play. In analysing the course, I aim to demonstrate how some of the questions asked in the track theme Alternative Problem Framing in Design Education: Moving Beyond ‘Pain-Points’ can be woven into design education. Of key importance are issues of othering and unequal power relationships in design practice and education which will be addressed alongside that of problem framing.

The groundswell in publications and research into design for an ageing population over recent years is testament to the growing sense of urgency that design must respond to the transformative demographic changes taking place in British society and other nations in the global north. According to the UK Government report the 'Future of an ageing population' (2016) the UK is at cross roads: either we face a future society which supports and empowers people in later life or one in which we will be "increasingly unhealthy, disempowered and dependent" (The Rt Hon Oliver Letwin quoted in Harper and Walport, 2016, p.3). Which of

308

these futures we meet depends partly on how the designed environment will enable or disable people to fulfil their lives in meaningful and positive ways. Universal design has for many decades addressed issues of accessibility and assistance but this can perpetuate a deficit model grounded in a medical understanding of ageing and ‘old’ age (Bates, Imrie and Kullman, 2016; Myerson, 2017).

This notion of deficit also ties into a deep-rooted framing of old age as a problem. The World Health Organisation for example warns that action to support healthy ageing will be “impossible unless we change the way we all think, feel and act on age and ageing” and that “negative attitudes and assumptions about older people” form significant barriers to quality of life (WHO, 2017, p. 1 & p. 12). Susan Pickard argues that this negative framing is in turn underpinned by a fear of ageing that represents a “defining existential crisis” of our times (Pickard, 2016, p. 4). This fear drives the two dominant representations of ageing in contemporary culture: on the one hand that ageing is a pathological problem, characterised by a whole set of negative characteristics, whether that’s decrepitude, passivity, dependency, withdrawal from public life etc; and on the other, a seemingly more positive image of active ageing which Featherstone and Wernick nonetheless class as a consumer-driven strategy of denial, “its message is essentially one of denial, keep smiling and carry on consuming” (Featherstone and Wernick, 2005, pp. 9-10). Cultural gerontologists also point out that the pursuit of active ageing, represented by the ‘third age’ is also highly exclusive and “encodes other dimensions of social difference or advantage, for example ethnicity (this is a largely white world) or relationship status (this is a vision of coupledom)” (Twigg, 2013, p. 39).

More recently, designers, especially those working in the field of social design have pointed to the lack of regard for older people in design practice, our refusal perhaps to envisage our future selves, or even outright discrimination towards older people that has led to design that actively reduces access and capacity. A lack of accessibility to public spaces, neighbourhood facilities, varied housing options and accessible public transport has also been the subject of a growing number of national reports (such as the first HAPPI Report published in 2009 and more recently the Future of an ageing population Report, 2016). In 2019 the Housing Learning and Improvement Network hosted its annual conference titled: Is the UK institutionally ageist? Joseph Coughlin, Head of the MIT Age Lab, suggests one reason for this failure of design to adequately address the needs and wants of older people, or to even exacerbate the stigmatisation of older people through poorly considered assistive design is the age gap between designer and user (Coughlin, 2019). Coughlin’s observation speaks to issues of inclusion in the design workforce but it also speaks to a lack of education if design graduates can complete their degrees without any consideration of ageing. Therefore, if art and design institutions want to avoid the charge of institutional ageism I would suggest it is vital that they explore with their students how ageism works across society including the design professions and what strategies can be employed to challenge this and find alternative, socially just ways of working.

This then was the motivation for the course which requires to students to consider: how do we challenge these discriminatory views of ageing and think about ageing in more constructive ways; how do we step outside of our own aged experiences and come to understand the needs and wants of older people; and what design methods best support these endeavours? All of this begins with a rejection of old age itself as a problem and an emphasis on approaching design ‘problems’ from a critical standpoint. This foregrounds the need to address firstly: who defines and articulates the ‘problem’; secondly whether such problems need to be challenged, deconstructed, redefined or reframed; and thirdly who should be involved in these processes and in the process of developing potential responses. In the following section I will unpack how this can be done in an educational setting and the challenges this can involve.

Problems and Framing A critique of the problem-solution model of design and its weaknesses has been well established in design theory since at least 2001 when Dorst and Cross argued that the relationship between problems and solutions is never neat or linear and that the two should instead be understood as emergent and co-evolving through multiple discourses (Dorst and Cross, 2001; Dorst 2006). Nonetheless, in an educational context where courses take place over ten to twelve weeks and may only consist of a few dozen contact hours the pressure to move quickly from problems to solutions can be difficult to resist particularly for students who are keen to hone their making skills. To circumvent this pressure the learning outcomes for the Design for Ageing course are not tied to the articulation of a solution or presentation of a designed output. This gives students time to sit with and explore a potential problem and critique it from multiple perspectives.

In line with this aim, the course assessment brief has been kept as open as possible to enable students to explore self-identified topics that tie in to their own area of practice (the course is open to students across the School of Design, encompassing 10 disciples) as well as individuals or community groups that they may already

309

have established relationships with. The assessment brief intentionally avoids setting a ‘problem’ that students are asked to solve, and instead they are invited to explore an existing area of design practice that engages with older people or issues that affect them. Within this the students are expected to critique the way in which older people are framed by the design case in question, consider what implications this has for older people and whether alternative approaches could be adopted. Within this they are also expected to think through the application of research methods, ethics, and the role of older people in the design process, or their exclusion from it. As part of this they must think about how they can draw older people into their research, and in what capacity; for example, as a critical friend or as a co-investigator/participant. To support this, they are given exercises throughout the course designed to develop their skills and understanding of doing research with people.

In connection with this, and developing previous research (Gieben-Gamal and Matos 2015; Matos and Gieben-Gamal, 2017), the course seeks to provide students with a rigorous critical foundation that provides context to the methodological tools that they might want to employ in the service of social design. To support this, the course is split into two parts. Drawing on critical and cultural gerontology alongside complementary theory from critical disability studies, feminist and intersectional theory, posthumanism, (critical) phenomenology, and theories of place and space, the first part revolves around theory-driven lectures and seminars exploring age discrimination and its roots as well theoretical perspectives that support more emancipatory approaches and constructive framings that build on notions of accumulated capacity, knowledge and experience. Tying into critical perspectives that foreground the lived experience of ageing (Biggs, 1997; Richards, Warren, and Gott, 2012), students are also challenged in this part of the course to consider their own experience of ageing as well as their relationships with older people. Within this, they are introduced to the theory of situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988). To explore this further, they are asked to reflect on their own subject position and think through the unconscious assumptions they might make about older people and their potential for bias. In week one for example they are asked to note down words they associate with the terms ‘old’, ‘ageing’ and ‘elderly’. They are then asked to note down words they associate with an older relative like a grandparent, or a family friend (see figure 1 below). The difference in the two sets of words is striking with each exercise producing the reverse outcome (see table 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Author’s own image (2019) Post-it-note exercise exploring the student’s own associations with ageing. The left image shows post-it notes with words associated with ‘old’, ‘ageing’ and ‘elderly’ the right-hand image shows post-it notes with words associated with older people the students know.

310

Table 1. Post-it-note exercise, September 2019: words associated with old age, ageing, elderly

Positive associations Negative associations

Loved, respected, knowledgeable, wisdom experience and knowledge, gentle, wise, influential, cute

Needy, bored, frail lonely, despondent, health problems, rigid, dependent, dying, fragile, silly, slow, boring, alienated, senile, OAP, dependent, grey and frail, lonely, reliant, slow, slow, grateful, dependent, conservative, bored, incapable, senile, death, ill-health, vulnerable

Table 2. Post-it-note exercise, September 2019: words associated with older people known to the students

Positive associations Negative associations

Wise, money, grandparents, feisty, smiling, creative, religious, strong, baking, intelligent, senior, determined, alive, care-free, nostalgic, smart, funny, warm, kind, rebellious, sweet, kind, warrior, independent, experience, love, active, fun, adventurous, calm, loving, happy

Ill, tired, fidgety, childish, grumpy, afraid

Another self-reflective task, based on Susan Pickard’s work on age consciousness (Pickard, S. 2016), invites students to write about their feelings towards the ageing process. Finally, they are asked to design and conduct an interview with an older person they know about perceptions of ageing to further encourage reflexivity around their own preconceptions and enhance their skills as empathetic researchers.

Having sought to equip students with the theoretical and reflexive grounding to move beyond normative and common-sense understandings of ageing and to critique their own potential for bias which may frame older people as ‘Other’, the second part of the course is designed to enable them to put this learning into practice. Key within this is the question of whose voices should be centred in design processes and how design ‘problems’ should be approached and conceived. To allow for an exploration of this, the second half of the course is structured around workshops during which students develop their own self-directed research projects and explore in more depth issues around research ethics and methods, with a focus on participatory and situated design methods and theory (for example the work of Ehn, Nilsson and Topgaard, 2014; Haraway, 1988; Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Simonsen et al., 2014; Suchman1994).

While full participatory design is beyond the scope of the course, the principles that can be drawn from it are nonetheless important in foregrounding questions of power in design processes. Drawing on Sanders and Stappers idea of the ‘participatory mindset’ (2008) students are encouraged to think speculatively about how they might (re)shape the design methods employed in the case they are studying and to consider who should be involved in this process. Key to this is the way in which the situated knowledge of participants can and should be centred, while de-centering that of the designer (Matos and Gieben-Gamal, 2017; Wilson, McNaney, Roper, Capel, Scheepmaker, Brereton, Wilson, Green and Wallace, 2020). To support this, particular attention is also paid to design research methods specifically addressing work with older people such as the work of Kathrina Dankle (2017) and Prendiville and Akama (2016) who look to design anthropology as a way of foregrounding lived experience as well as developing a reflexive sensitivity to the establishment and maintenance of research relationships. By encouraging students to use their own established relationships with older people in their research, rather than working on a live brief with expectations for resolutions and outcomes, greater emphasis can be placed on methodological reflection rather than solution generation. Students are thus able to think through problem-framing using techniques such as speculative prototying, cultural probes, design hacks and so forth (Galloway and Caudwell, 2019; Sanders and Stappers, 2014) alongside the possibilities of co-creation, in ways that allow them to take risks and be experimental.

Transferability of key insights The course is only in its second year and its last iteration was shaped by the Coronavirus pandemic which meant that it was delivered online and opportunities for engagement with older people were more limited. Nonetheless, each year students have responded positively to the course, and have reflected on their reappraisal of ageing and its significance for design: “It was an eye-opening course, that connected theories on design with design work. I very much enjoyed the course and learned so much. This is a really important topic and especially young people are not aware of ageism” (Anonymous, 2020, Course Enhancement Questionnaire, ECA, UoE). The previous year a student noted that “I found it interesting learning about a

311

community I wouldn't have considered the same until our discussions and lectures making me think more about my future and how older people aren't represented as they should be within society” (Anonymous, 2019, Course Enhancement Questionnaire, ECA, UoE). In the mid-course review students also noted: “I've learned a lot about ageism, and ageing, a topic which is not being addressed that commonly” (Anonymous, Mid-course Feedback Review 2019) and “I learned a lot about ageing and about myself, and that I had this sad reflection on ageing. This is changing right now” (Anonymous, Mid-course Feedback Review 2019).

On reviewing the student submissions, it is also clear that students were able to take on board the key objectives of the course to challenge age discrimination and think through the relationship between design methods, issues of power, voice, and problem framing in critically and theoretically informed ways. Moreover, they were able to produce work that that could address the challenges that older people face due to the disabling effects of poorly designed products and environments but which rejected a framing of older people themselves as a problem to be solved. Figure 2 for example shows the work of a student who explored the representation of older people in advertising and used her own drawings to flip the visual language employed in the representation of younger models and older people as a means to propose counter representations as part of her critique.

Figure 2. Violet Colley, drawings taken from the student’s Design for Ageing course submission, December 2019. Source: Edinburgh College of Art and with permission of the student.

Likewise, another student examined what he termed the ‘sickroom aesthetic’ of assistive devices through a visual analysis of walking sticks and presented small but significant changes that would challenge a deficit model of older age (see figure 3).

Figure 3. James Crang, drawing detail, taken from the student’s Design for Ageing course submission, December 2019. Source: Edinburgh College of Art and with permission of the student.

312

Many other students also focused on design products and the built environment as well as aspects of visual culture such as representation in film, theatre and advertising. However, submissions also focused specifically on methodological questions. One student explored how a cultural understanding of ageing could be used to confront the more dominant medical model in an exploration of collaborative film making that addressed ageing and disability, while another student provided a critique of persona creation in user-centred design, driven by a consideration of research ethics and participatory methods (see figure 4).

Figure 4. Karolin Lüneburg, Persona Template design, taken from the student’s Design for Ageing course submission, December 2020. Source: Edinburgh College of Art and with permission of the student. The front page depicts a person’s possessions and their reflections about them rather than an image of a person to minimise unconscious bias caused by ‘in-group’ identification. The student’s approach also calls attention to the interconnectedness of a person’s identity and the materiality of their lived experience and challenges a deficit-model of ageing.

As well as the quality of work produced by the students, which provides one measure of the success of the course, the level of self-reflexivity that they gained also presents a key transferable outcome. Throughout the course there was an emphasis upon self-reflection and reflexivity and an acknowledgment of the importance of the learning journey, not just for their undergraduate studies but also for professional practice. Underscoring this, Prendiville and Akama argue that “if designing is a process of transforming materials or generating a new value-creation process we must also remember that such transformation firstly occurs within ourselves” (Prendiville and Akama 2016, p. 32).

Thus, in conclusion, a significant shift was seen in the students’ attitudes towards ageing and its relevance to design suggesting a need for this subject of study. Moreover, the value of the approach outlined here, where there is no demand for solutions or project outcomes (although these may be arrived at) is that students have time to unpack and understand the complex social, cultural and political contexts in which design takes place (Janzer and Weinstein, 2016) alongside theoretical and methodological considerations, including their own situated subject positions. The encouragement to students to seek the views of older people or to include them as co-investigators or critical friends also encourages deeper insight into the way people and problems are framed alongside methodological choices and the importance of inclusive perspectives. In so doing students learn to be reflexive and critical practitioners whom, I would argue, are equipped to apply rigorous approaches to designing with people of all ages – and background - in the future.

References

Barac, M., & Park, J. (Eds.) (2009.) HAPPI Report (The Housing our Ageing Population Panel for Innovation). Homes and Communities Agency.

Bates,C., Imrie, R., & Kullman, K. (2016). Care and Design. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated. Biggs S. (1997). Choosing not to be old? Masks, bodies and identity management in later life. Aging & Society,

17, 553–570. Burgoyne, J.. & Pedler, M. (2008). Action Learning. In Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds). Handbook of action

research: participative inquiry and practice (pp. 319–332). Sage Publications.

313

Coughlin, J. (2019, 21 August 2019). “Old age” is made up—and this concept is hurting everyone. MIT Technology Review. Retrieved from https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/08/21/75537/old-age-is-made-upand-this-concept-is-hurting-everyone/

Dankl, K. (2017). Design age: Towards a participatory transformation of images of ageing. Design Studies, 48, 30-42.

Dorst, C.H. (2006) Design Problems as Design Paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4-16 Dorst, C.H. & Cross, N.G. (2001) Creativity in the Design Process: Co-evolution of Problem-solution. Design

Studies 22, 425–37. Ehn, P., Nilsson, E. M., & Topgaard, R. (Eds.). (2014). Making futures: marginal notes on innovation, design, and

democracy. The MIT Press. Featherstone, M. & Wernick, A. (1995). Images of Aging: Cultural Representations of Later Life. Routledge Galloway, A., & Caudwell, C. (2019.) Speculative Design as a Research Method. In Coombs, G., McNamara, A.,

Sade, G. (Eds.). Undesign. Routledge Gieben-Gamal, E. and Matos, S. (2015) ‘Think Play: Using Grassroots Movements as Educational Opportunities.

Aalto University School of Arts, p. 12–15 BT–Cumulus Working Papers Dublin 31/13 Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial

Perspective’, Feminist Studies. 14(3), 575-599 Harper, S. & Walport, M. (2016). Future of an ageing population. Government Office for Science. Housing Learning and Improvement Network (2019). Is the UK institutionally ageist? - Housing 21 annual

conference. Retrieved from: https://www.housinglin.org.uk/Events/Is-the-UK-institutionally-ageist/ Janzer, C. and Weinstein, L. (2016) ‘The Citizen Designer: a cautionary note’, in Resnick, E. (Ed.) Developing

Citizen Designers. Bloomsbury Matos, S. & Gieben-Gamal, E. (2017). Social design and participatory research: Transforming the curriculum in

higher education. Design and Power: Proceedings of the NORDES 2017 Conference. Oslo: NORDES. Myerson, J. & Design Museum (2017). New Old: Designing for our future selves. The Design Museum. Pickard, S. (2016). Telling Our Own Stories: Developing Age Consciousness and Authentic Age Identities. In S.

Pickard. Age Studies: A Sociological Examination of How We Age and are Aged through the Life Course (pp. 224-241). Sage.

Richards N., Warren L., & Gott M. (2012). The challenge of creating ‘alternative’ images of ageing: Lessons from a project with older women. Journal of Aging Studies, 26, 65–78.

Prendiville, A. & Akama, Y. (2016). Embodying, enacting and entangling design: A phenomenological view to co-designing services. Swedish Design Research Journal, 9(1), 29-40.

Sanders, E. B-N, & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18. Sanders, E. B-N & Stappers, P. J. (2014) Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in

codesigning, CoDesign, 10(1), 5-14. Schön, D. A. (2008) The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. Basic Books. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative

Work (CSCW). Dordrecht, 2(1), 21–39. Simonsen, J., Svabo, C., Strandvad, S. M., Samson, K., Hertzum, M., & Hansen, O. E. (2014). Situated Design

Methods. The MIT Press. Twigg, J. (2013) Fashion and Age. Dress the Body and Later Life. Bloomsbury. World Health Organisation (2017). 10 Priorities Towards a Decade of Healthy Ageing. Retrieved from:

https://www.who.int/ageing/WHO-ALC-10-priorities.pdf [accessed on 21May 2021]. Wilson, C., McNaney, R., Roper, A., Capel, T., Scheepmaker, L., Brereton, M., Wilson, S., Green, D. P., &

Wallace, J. (2020). Rethinking Notions of 'Giving Voice' in Design. Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

314

Emma Gieben-Gamal Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom e.gieben-gamal@ed.ac.uk As a Lecturer in Design Cultures my research and teaching centres around design for social justice with a focus on ageing and disability. My work is driven by critical and participatory perspectives and I am interested in how design and design education can learn from critical methodologies that challenge dominant ways of knowing and doing. I am also Co-Director of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion for Edinburgh College of Art.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Tilting to Transform Sensorial problem-framing

Noemi Sadowska and Tara Hanrahan https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.04.184w

This workshop will engage participants in a sequence of individual and group activities that utilise real and fictional sensorial modalities to reimagine problems and humanise design thinking. The 60 minutes online session will experiment with sensory scenarios and how they can enhance reframing and responsibly ‘tilt’ design problems and approaches, leading also to engaging participants in a discourse on the role of design within society and ecology. This workshop stems from wider research being undertaken into a system of teaching interventions that positively disrupt the curriculum, to catalyse and reinforce learning around design action and eco-social consequence. As such, this session seeks to explore creative and humanity-centred pedagogic approaches for reframing design problems and supporting responsible ideation.

Keywords: problem framing, sensory, design thinking, responsibility, eco-social

Introduction and Aims Workshop activities will explore how sensorial scenarios can enhance reimagining and responsibly ‘tilt’ design problems and approaches. Participants will come together to invigorate problem framing approaches by embracing alternative perspectives and utilising the senses to connect creativity with humanity and ecology across diverse cultural situations. The aim is to engage participants in two short-burst activities that employ real-world and fictional senses to reimagine problems and humanise design thinking. Located within the context of problem framing [rather than definition] this approach challenges framing conventions, by consciously shifting away from a ‘pain point’ perspective and commencing instead with an activity that connects design thinking to our physicality, helping us to “understand the world through the processing of our minds and bodies” (St. Pierre, 2019, p.103). This workshop stems from wider research into a system of teaching interventions that positively disrupt the design curriculum, to catalyse and reinforce learning around design action and eco-social consequence. As such, this session will inform development of ongoing pedagogic research into the impact of learning interventions on self-awareness and responsible design attitudes, where the underpinning action research approach affords continuous analysis and reflection across teaching implementation.

Workshop Outline A 60 minutes virtual workshop incorporating the following stages: Ice-Breaker [4 mins] The session commences with a dynamic activity inviting participants to focus on engaging one sense (to gaze, hear, sniff, feel and taste something in their proximity) and share their interaction – as a way to raise sensory awareness, surface analogous experiences and introduce each other. Activity [52 mins] Following a brief contextual presentation [4mins] the activity has two key phases:

1: Multi-sensory Reflection [8 mins]

316

Participants consider a set problem statement through the perspective of a ‘far’ sensory modality of their choosing (vision, audition, tactition, olfaction or gustation) and utilise this sense to inform rapid collation and iteration of references and concepts. The generated words and images are captured and viewed within a shared, virtual document. 2: Intensification and Imagination [40 mins] In online groups (across four breakout rooms), participants work together to further explore a problem via a heightened or extrapolated sense. Playing with extreme reality or imagined future fictions, is used as a mechanism with which to do this e.g. vision scenarios might be: an entirely myopic population due to prolonged screen-dependency, or nanotechnology that allows the human eye to see in new and extraordinary ways etc. With their exaggerated sense in mind, participants collectively ideate a response to their statement. The four groups then share their ideas and revelations, which are discussed across the collective.

Summary [4 mins] Following the second activity, the workshop is summarized, further questions are collected [for a follow-up response by the facilitators] and the activity is brought to a close.

Number of participants Minimum 12 [4 groups of 3] and Maximum 20 [4 groups of 5]

Outcomes The workshop will result in: 1) opportunities to tilt problem framing conventions via different stimuli, 2) an awareness of how different sensory modalities can be leveraged to connect and heighten students' learning experiences. Viewing problems via mechanisms grounded in the sensations of ‘living’ is the perfect catalyst for debate on what it is to design in, and for, the world – to be a “citizen designer” (Heller & Vienne, 2018). An early pilot of sensory-focused ideation as part of our ongoing enquiry, demonstrated that by foregrounding sensorial awareness within the design process, natural (human and environmental) themes are surfaced. This engages participants in wider discourse on: the role of design within society and ecology, the responsibilities connected to their design, and the incumbent ‘impact and influence’ of their creative choices. The broader research context of this workshop (with its focus on positive disruption and responsibility), offers participants the opportunity to consider how curriculum design interventions and/or wider design education systems can be ‘tilted’ to support responsible design practice.

Relevance and Benefits The workshop is relevant, because it explores an alternative method for problem framing, within design education. It meets key topics within the track concerned with relational, human and speculative future approaches. It is critical for designers to have “… a sense of understanding about the processes and implications of design – an understanding of how design works in the world and structures our lives and interactions with things... systems, each other…” (Marshall, 2014, p.245). The unexpected, yet universal mechanisms of the far senses, makes this a perfect conduit for this relational engagement and reflection. With this in mind, the approach we have chosen to share with the conference participants is both embodied and reflexive. Drawing on the insights from previous research activity, we note how participants embrace this sensory response to imagining and iterating, adopting it as an approach with which to scrutinize or radically interpret design challenges. When invited to extrapolate a chosen sense, playing with extreme reality or fiction to do so, the workshop coaxes speculative thinking around futures and fantasy in relation to design challenges. This is particularly relevant as “‘Design and futures’ together offer ecosystemic and embodied approaches to shaping our collective prospects, informed by a diverse range of practices”, (Candy & Potter, 2019, p.1), and whilst seemingly light-hearted in its invitation, this activity illuminates affinitive and emerging challenges and/or innovations, very much in the present. Benefits of the workshop activities stem not only from gaining a new design approach, or in adapting well-travelled design process methodologies, but also in taking more explicit ownership of the need to pivot and reframe when design should exert influence or impact that is detrimental and/or advantageous. Lupton and Lipps (2018) argue that "[s]ensory design considers not just the shape of things but how things shape us – our behaviour, our emotion, our truth." (p.15). Building on this insight, we believe that participants of this

317

workshop gain the opportunity to pause, reconnect with their bodies and through experiential learning engage with not only how they can better utilise their senses to design, but how they can harness them to see/hear/touch/smell/taste a more responsible route. Thus, whilst the workshop has at its core a desire to reframe design challenges as a means to gain deeper understanding of them, it also seeks to offer a reflexive critique of what it is to design as a human being, a citizen and a “futural agent”, (Fry, 2015, p.32).

References Candy, S. & Potter, C. (2019). Design and Futures. ‘Introduction to the Special Issue’ (Vol. II), (pp 1 – 2).

Tamkang University Press. Fry, T. (2015) City Futures in the Age of a Changing Climate. ‘World’, (pp 17 – 34). London: Routledge Heller, S. & Vienne, V. (2018). Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility. (2nd ed.). ‘Introductions

to First and Second Editions’, (pp 11 – 21). New York: Allworth Press. Lupton, E. & Lipps, A (2018) The Senses: Design Beyond Vision. ‘Why Sensory Design?’, (pp 9 – 19). Princeton

Architectural Press. Marshall, T. (2014). Afterward: The Designer and the Designed. In S. Yelavich & B. Adams (eds) (2014) Design

as Future-Making. (pp 242 – 245) London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. St. Pierre, L. & Tham, M. (2019) Design and Nature: A Partnership. ‘Part Four: Hindrances and Inspirations for

Design and Nature’, (pp 102 – 105), (Pierre referencing Snyder, 2002; Worthy, 2013). Routledge.

Noemi Sadowska London College of Communication, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom n.sadowska@lcc.arts.ac.uk Noemi has extensive experience in higher education curriculum design and degree launch. She teaches strategic design and approaches to responsible design practice. Her work has been published as part of 01.AKAD, Sweden; the Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology, USA; Visual Tools for Developing Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Capacity, Australia; and The Design Journal, UK. Her current research investigates how to facilitate design students’ sustainable decision-making, leading them to become responsible design practitioners. Tara Hanrahan London College of Communication, University of the Arts London, United Kingdom t.j.hanrahan@lcc.arts.ac.uk Tara is a creative and an educator. She combines her studio practice in responsible design and strategy with her academic role as a multidisciplinary lecturer. She was Validation Lead for LCC’s MA Design for Social Innovation and Sustainable Futures and is co-creator of the School’s Responsible Design Framework. Her research explores pedagogical strategies for nurturing citizen designers and has been shared via exhibition, film, workshop, symposia and paper.

Beyond Problem-Solving Re-Imagining Workshop Materials

Allison Edwards and Hannah Korsmeyer https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.05.272w

Design has a rich history of being framed as a problem-solving activity (Simon, 1995). However, this does not fully capture the plurality of diverse practices designers use to engage with complex challenges in creative ways. As we seek to design more joyful and affirming workshops for diverse audiences, we can also re-imagine the roles played by the co-design materials we select or create, beyond functioning as tools for problem-solving. This workshop introduces a framework that leverages the potentially playful and pedagogically rich co-facilitation performed by these materials, and encourages participants to re-image the role materials play in their own participatory practices.

Keywords: co-design tools; material mediation; feminisms; workshops; play

Specific workshop aims This workshop provides a playful and generative space to re-imagine the role of workshop materials beyond tools for problem solving. We will:

1. introduce a conceptual framework for extending the possibilities of the materials used in co-design workshops - Tools, Toys, and Technologies.

2. Share examples of co-design materials from our previous participatory practices to learn from and with each other.

3. Use this framework to generate new “roles” for co-design materials, towards an open-source resource for co-design practice and teaching that decentres problem-solving.

Workshop outline This 90-minute workshop will take place online virtually via video conference call and Miro.

Table 1. Workshop Outline.

Activity Time

Framework Introduction & Warm-Up Activity 20 minutes

Sharing examples of previous co-design materials & Using the framework to re-frame the possibilities beyond problem-solving

20 minutes in small groups & 10 minutes in large group discussion

Generating open-source resource: speculative roles of workshop materials

20 minutes in small groups & 10 minutes in large group discussion

Wrap-up & Next steps for the open-source resource 10 minutes

Expected outcomes of the workshop We will be co-creating a set of generative cards that can be used by practitioners or with students to inspire different nuances and possibilities of workshop materials. We will also explore answers to the questions: How else can we use materials to come together differently? What do workshop materials make possible or foreclose? How are materials assisting in framing these engagements? Beyond collecting data or working together to solve problems, what are the transformative and/or divergent potentials of workshops, as experiences for participants?

319

Minimum and maximum numbers of participants 20-30 participants

How the workshop will benefit the participants This workshop introduces a framework through which to reflect and re-imagine the role of collaborative materials used in creative and participatory practices. Participants will have the opportunity to share and discuss materials from their own practices and re-frame their perception of what is being made possible in materially-mediated workshops. Additionally, they will be creating a co-produced, open-source resource for considering the role of materials. This can be used after the workshop with design students/other practitioners to inspire different kinds of workshop engagements (and all participants will be credited for their contributions).

How the workshop is relevant to the selected track’s aims The workshop explores how we might come together in more joyful, plural and liberatory ways by focusing on the micro-process of designing the collaborative materials for use in workshops. We invite participants to shift attention from the design outcomes so we can interrogate the roles played by the materials that are designed or selected for use in these collaborative engagements (e.g. model-making components, worksheets, craft materials, maps, probes, etc.). Participants will be introduced to a framework developed by the presenters that builds upon existing literature concerning co-design tools (e.g. Sanders & Stappers, 2012). This framework seeks to look beyond the role of co-design materials as ‘tools’ for surfacing tacit knowledge or as impartial mediators. Instead, we will explore the possibilities for co-design materials as ‘toys’ and ‘technologies.’ Together, we will question the ways we are framing “problems” through the co-design materials we prepare, and discuss how we can attend to the emotional and social aspects of making together, beyond problem-solving. Building upon theories about design games (Vaajakallio & Mattelmäki, 2014) and playful triggers (Loi, 2007), we ask, if workshop materials become “toys,” are we better able to attend to ways of playfully relating? If we consider even low fidelity materials as “technologies” how does this change our focus to what is being made possible and enacted through the process of co-design itself? We will use this framework to generate speculative roles of co-design materials, with a focus on the varied kinds of engagements they could support for participants. The workshop explores co-design as affective and processual experiences that occur across a plurality of participatory practices. It asks us to go beyond deficit-based problem-solving to imagine more affirmative ways of being together. This decentring of the “problem” allows for a participant-centred approach and explores how we might move beyond empathy in recognising that we are “all in this together but not one and the same” (Braidotti, 2019, p. 54).

References Braidotti, R. (2019). Posthuman Knowledge. Cambridge: Polity Press Loi, D. (2007). Reflective probes, primitive probes and playful triggers. In Ethnographic praxis in industry

conference proceedings (Vol. 2007, No. 1, pp. 232-245). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial Toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. Simon, H. A. (1995). Problem forming, problem finding and problem solving in design. Design & systems, 245-

257 Vaajakallio, K., & Mattelmäki, T. (2014). Design games in codesign: as a tool, a mindset and a structure.

CoDesign, 10(1), 63-77.

320

Edwards, Allison Monash University, Australia Allison.Edwards@monash.edu Delighting in blurring the lines between work and play, Alli’s practice explores what it takes to imagine otherwise and create experiences that encourage affirmative ethics and social horizons of hope. Her research interrogates how designers both underestimate and over rely upon the co-facilitation of workshop materials in these engaging and transformative encounters. Korsmeyer, Hannah Monash University, Australia Hannah.Korsmeyer@monash.edu Hannah is a design researcher in the Monash University Emerging Technologies research lab, as part of the WonderLab (Design and Learning) cohort. Her research explores feminisms and co-design.

321

Section 04 Collaboration in Design Education: Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks for Learning

Through and From Partnerships

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Track 04: Collaboration in Design Education Theoretical and Methodological Frameworks for Learning Through and From Partnerships

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi, Fatma Korkut and Gülay Hasdoğan https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.319

We made the call for this track with the hope of exploring the benefits and challenges of collaboration in design education, through theoretical and methodological frameworks displaying how various stages of the collaboration are managed, communication between partners is maintained and commitment of parties to design education is sustained. Collaboration carried out in design education, brings with it opportunities and challenges for all parties involved, namely, the university, the students and the partners. Partnerships and collaboration in projects is a significant part of design education, feeding the academy with experiences incorporating different approaches, knowledge and tools, and enriching the overall outcomes. Such collaboration provides insights to the academy on the expectations of various partners from the professionals of design, affecting in return how the professionals-to-be are equipped in design education with the knowledge and skills related to their field. Ideally, all parties benefit and learn from a collaboration project. For the university, the benefits may be related to access to and acquisition of resources, future collaboration possibilities, obtaining new points of view, experimenting with new methods, gaining new knowledge, developing know-how, and finding support for new research in the area. For the students, the benefits may be related to access to practical and theoretical knowledge in the area, raising the quality of educational deliverables, learning to collaborate across disciplines, and the possibility of future professional experiences through this collaboration. For the partners, the benefits may be related to access to educational know-how, tools and methods, being updated on latest research in the field, acquiring academic expertise and consultancy, obtaining insights from a young population, gaining insights into local users and practices, and getting to know the oncoming pool of human resources. There also are many challenges related to such projects, influencing how the various stages of collaboration are managed, such as forming of partnerships, initiation of collaboration, building the right channels of communication and sustaining them through the right means, conducting and completing the process, assessing the overall outcomes in terms of all parties involved, and making projections for future collaborations. We recently observe changes in the patterns, types and means of collaboration in design education, which have speeded up following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. With these new patterns, the exceptional has become the regular; collaboration has become global while shrinking distances and adjusting paces, raising an interest in “what others are doing”. The physical barriers have collapsed, with new barriers arising, such as language, and access to software. With all difficulties aside, in some aspects it has become easier to reach out, invite, access and contribute: We exchange academics, researchers, experts, consultants, students, communities, and individuals of interest; we exchange experiences, knowledge, ideas and methodologies; we document, record and share these collaborations. We have deeply explored alternative communication channels, developed new intervention measures, embraced new mindsets, and acquired new skill sets for these evolving patterns of collaboration. In the light of the above-mentioned issues, with this theme, we made our call for papers, case studies and workshops sharing collaboration approaches and experiences within the context of semester projects, graduation projects, live projects, research projects and other types of collaboration carried out in academia, including the spectrum of connected working, with the common purpose of serving design education and research. The questions we addressed included, but were not limited to, the following ones:

323

• Why do we collaborate in design education? How do we set our educational objectives and pursue these in collaboration projects?

• How do we select our partners? How do we maintain communication and commitment?

• What are the frameworks for a successful design education collaboration experience?

• How have our collaboration models evolved, and what are the projections for future collaboration models?

• What are the students’ perceptions of the collaboration experience? What is the impact of collaboration on student learning, engagement and satisfaction?

• What have we learnt from collaborating in design education in the Covid-19 pandemic, and how has this reflected on our know-how, collaboration approaches, educational objectives, practices, and coping strategies?

• What are the research opportunities that arise from collaboration projects and how can design education benefit from this?

Responses to the Call and Their Scope Twenty-one submissions were made for this track, with 13 of them being accepted. Among the accepted submissions we have eight research papers, four case study papers, and one visual paper. Thirty-four colleagues were involved in the two rounds of review process and we would like to thank them all for their contribution. Collaboration with non-profit organizations (NPOs) has been increasingly on the agenda of design education. We have been witnessing an ever-growing interest in developing more inclusive, generative, and thus more sustainable responses to diverse societal and environmental challenges, preparing a fertile ground for win-win collaboration projects with NPOs in the educational context. In their paper titled “Tutors’ Perspectives on NPO Collaboration in Industrial Design Education,” Yalman-Yıldırım and Hasdoğan explore the NPO collaboration experiences of industrial design programs in Turkey in the last decade. The interviews conducted with 20 tutors across ten industrial design programs revealed a shared focus on design for sustainability: The project topics concentrated on special groups, local development, and environmental issues; the pedagogic approaches highlighted participatory and co-design, inclusive design, and new instructional practices. The study also developed an extended classification for NPO collaboration based on collaboration initiation: tutor-driven, NPO-driven, and student-driven. The visual paper titled “Towards Radical Synergy for More Just and Equitable Futures” by Bennett, Eglash, Graf, Butoyila, Johnson, Low and Rocha takes a critical stance towards the mainstream understanding of innovation and design depicted as regenerating our global social, technological, economic and environmental problems. Inspired by the Tuareg triangle from North Africa, the nested triangles visualize the interplay of the four components of radical synergy: deep collaboration informed by anti-racism and decolonization, integrative critical analysis, and integrative design thinking and making. The paper reflects on the pedagogical concept of radical synergy, its impact on the MDes program in Integrative Design at the Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design at the University of Michigan, and how this approach has been practiced in community-based collaboration projects. The authors declare that the possibility of radical synergy lies in adopting “design curricula that integrate critical perspectives (anti-racism, decolonization, feminist theory, etc.); material analysis (sustainability, political economy, labor emancipation, etc.); and democratization (participatory design, community-led design, emancipatory design, etc.)”. In their paper titled “A Format to Bridge the Transition From University to Work: Insights From the Product-Service System Design Tour Development”, Taverna and De Sainz Molestina report a digital extracurricular activity developed for the MSc program in Product-Service System Design (PSSD) at Politecnico di Milano in collaboration with an advisory board, the program students and the alumni. The activity “PSSD tour” aims to enable the graduate students to explore the diverse areas and practices the service design sector has been involved in through the conduct of remote interactive sessions bringing student groups together with collaborating partners. The paper also identifies the factors that impact the success of the tour format as well as the challenges, good practices, and opportunities. The latest developments in production technologies have reflected upon the skill sets of craftspeople, highlighting the value of craftsmanship, and building on the know-how of SMEs involved in design development. Production models have digitally evolved, requiring that establishments acquire new skills in management and logistics. These developments have also been an influence on the qualifications that the graduates of design programs possess. In their paper titled “Educational Programs in Between Design and Supply Chain: Significant Examples of Academia-SMEs Joint Labs in Italy”, Goretti and Denaro give examples of

324

collaboration between academia and SMEs in the form of joint labs. The programs supporting these joint labs bring together design students and SMEs in the furniture industry, providing educational and career opportunities for design students, and skills acquisition for the SMEs on digitizing their management processes. As a well-established instrument in design studio pedagogy, especially at the undergraduate level, collaboration with external partners deserves explorations from alternative perspectives including geographical and historical ones. “Collaboration Practices in Industrial Design Education: The Case of METU From a Historical Perspective, 1981-2021” presents a retrospective study spanning four decades - the entire collaboration history of the department established in 1979 in the Turkish republican capital Ankara. Börekçi, Hasdoğan and Korkut identify five periods of collaboration and narrate the challenges and dynamics of a relatively disadvantaged campus location in terms of proximity to established industrial regions. The study attracts our attention to hard-learned lessons and effective internal strategies in the face of a multitude of external factors: Developing pedagogically specialized project schemes for collaborative “semester projects” and senior year “graduation projects”; developing separate project topic pools and project process templates matching the pedagogic needs and goals of each studio year; building and diffusing the collaboration culture from upper-year to lower-year design studios; and coupling graduate research with undergraduate design studio practices for developing generative methods and tools to gain a first-hand understanding of local users and support various stages of the design process in educational projects. One of the major consequences of Covid 19 Pandemic is emergency remote teaching and distance education. In their paper titled “Socially-Engaged Distance Design Collaboration: A Study on the Effects of Digital Collaboration Over Design-Based Creativity” Aysel and Güvenir discuss the affective learning outcomes, creative and design self-efficacy and visual literacy levels of design students, through the results of a survey they conducted with first year industrial design students in a university in İzmir, Turkey. They conclude that digital collaboration tools provide a ground for socialization and group work. The resulting interaction serves as a motivational support for students, and leads to an increased level of self-awareness. Based on the data collected from team design sessions in a craft design course of a Finnish university, Omwami, Lahti and Seitamaa-Hakkarainen examine the meanings that craft-education students give to collaboratively created mood boards in their paper titled “Reflections on Shared Mood Boards: Examining Craft-Education Students’ Conceptual Design”. Their analysis has shown that moodboards played a major role in the idea development processes of students. The meaning came from the active role that the mood board played in the collaborative idea development process and in expanding students’ idea space. In the individual processes however, the mood boards were found to have a limiting and superficial meaning. University educators can convey their knowledge about the design process to prior levels of education through collaboration. Through a case study, in their paper titled “Preparing to Introduce Design Thinking in Middle Schools: Critically Examining Planning Processes Involving School Officials and Design Educators” Gibson, Owens, Hyland and Donaldson critically analyse and describe knowledge gained by a team of university-based design educators and researchers who worked on introducing specific aspects of design thinking in middle school classrooms in Denton, Texas, USA. Based on quantitative and qualitative data gathered over a span of eight years, Murdoch-Kitt and Emans explore in their paper titled “Improving Intercultural Collaboration With Visual Thinking”, the productive and creative potentials of visual thinking in promoting a sense of inclusion in multicultural and diverse remote teams. Besides bringing an inclusive approach to design in the learning environment, process-based and hands-on visual thinking activities will support collaboration that is broken free from unconscious biases, and open up opportunities for dialogue and constructive discussion. The authors suggest a framework and provide examples of activities, methods and strategies for intercultural collaboration. Hilton, Gao and Wei introduce to us their experiences of collaboration with international partners with multidisciplinary and transcultural groups of undergraduate and graduate students. In their paper titled “It’s the Cultural Difference That Makes the Difference”, they provide an overview of the collaborative online international learning projects coordinated between two universities from China and the UK, carried out in the past three years. Presenting the collaboration framework and the project conduct they offer insights from student experiences regarding transcultural collaboration, teamwork, project success, impact on employment prospects following graduation, communication, and pedagogic significance. Intercultural engagement in design education has also been explored in the paper by Li, Gray, Toombs, McDonald, Marinovic and Liu, in their paper titled “Cross-Cultural UX Pedagogy: A China-US Partnership”, this time also from the perspectives of instructors, besides the students. The paper reports on the creation, execution and iteration of two UX-focused programs, one in China and one in the United States. Besides offering insights of all parties involved in terms of impact of culture on experience, interaction with industry

325

partners, program and course expectations, and potential job roles, the paper also provides directions for action-oriented design education research. The Covid-19 pandemic has been detrimental in the collaborative and creative traditional design education practices; students are in need of opportunities to engage in person, with each other and with the faculty. Radtke, Dewhirst, Brewer and Schmidt address this issue in their paper titled “Process Based Collaborations: Spanning Boundaries for Future Provocations”, from an interior design education perspective. A multidisciplinary platform for making and creating has been developed for a series of multimodal, maker-based experimental workshops. The collaborative nature of these workshops lies in the merging of interior design courses and design communication courses, with the contribution of external design experts from the field, and the participation of graduate students and undergraduate students from different years. The process of identifying educational priorities requires consultancy from academic committees and councils that play a role in the determination of policies for design education and strategies for its improvement. In their paper titled “Advisory Committee Structures of Chinese Design Schools: Research From the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Perspective”, Chen, Li and Yang explore this issue in reference to the SDGs that have come forth particularly since 2019. Analysing the advisory committees in Chinese design schools, they identify the expertise of the committee members and their role in the determination of institutional strategies regarding educational priorities. They establish that for an integrated approach in the attainment of the SDGs, expertise from various other fields is required besides traditional design subjects, sought both within the universities and also through collaboration with external enterprises.

Insights and Projections for the Future As design educators, researchers and students, we are learning from institutional partnership collaborations, international collaborations, collaborations with experts, and collaborations for teamwork among students, all reflecting on the qualities of the design education we provide, and shifting the priorities given. These collaborations enrich the educational experiences, allowing partners to learn from one another. We see a body of work involving remote and on-site, national and international, multicultural and multidisciplinary collaboration, with a focus on cooperation in curricula development, course conduct and methodological framework development for studio projects. The future directions for design education research on collaboration in design education seems to point towards the learning experiences provided for students, cognitive processes involved, and how expertise and know-how of collaborating parties contribute to design education and the development of skill sets and mindsets for the future design professionals. We thank all the authors for their contribution to this track.

Indicative References Bohemia, E., & Harman, K. (2006). Boundary Crossing: Negotiating Learning Outcomes in Industry Based

Student Projects. In W. Aung & C. Crosthwaite & R.V. Espinosa & J. Moscinski & S.-H. Ou & L.M. Sánchez Ruiz (Eds.), Innovations 2006: World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research (pp. 179–192). Begell House Publishing.

Börekçi, N.A.G.Z., Kaygan, P. & Hasdoğan, G. (2016). Concept Development for Vehicle Design Education Projects Carried Out in Collaboration with Industry. Procedia CIRP, 50(2016), 751–758. DOI: 10.1016/j.procir.2016.04.109

Börekçi, N.A.G.Z. & Korkut, F. (2017). Collaborating with External Partners in Industrial Design Education: A Review of Success Factors. In G. Pritchard & N. Lambert (Eds.), Proceedings of the Learn X Design London 2017 Conference: The Allure of the Digital (pp. 184–191). Ravensbourne Publications.

Kaygan, H., Demir, Ö., Korkut, F., & Güngör Boncukçu, I. (2017). Encounters and Shifting Identities: Students’ Experiences of Multi-stakeholder Participatory Design. In E. Bohemia, C. de Bont, & L. Svengren Holm (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of the Design Management Academy 2017: Research Perspectives on Creative Intersections (Vol. 5, pp. 1685-1702). The Design Research Society.

Maxwell Lane, M. & Tegtmeyer, R. (Eds.) (2020). Collaboration in Design Education: Case Studies and Teaching Methodologies. Bloomsbury Visual Arts.Tucker, R. (Ed.) (2016). Collaboration and Student Engagement in Design Education. IGI Global.

326

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey nborekci@metu.edu.tr Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi received her BID from METU Department of Industrial Design (1995), MFA from Bilkent University Interior Architecture and Environmental Design (1997) and PhD from University of Kent at Canterbury / KIAD (2003). She is currently associate professor at METU Department of Industrial Design. Her research interests include design education, design methodology, and university-industry collaboration.

Fatma Korkut Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey korkut@metu.edu.tr Fatma Korkut is an associate professor at METU Department of Industrial Design. She holds a bachelor’s degree in industrial design from METU (Ankara), an MSc from IIT Institute of Design (Chicago), and a PhD from Mimar Sinan University (İstanbul). Her research has ranged over design history, design education, and design protection. Her recent research supervision has focused on design pedagogy, design thinking, and value transfer through generative practices.

Gülay Hasdoğan Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey hasdogan@metu.edu.tr Gülay Hasdoğan is head of the Department of Industrial Design at Middle East Technical University. She holds a BID in Industrial Design, an MSc in Building Science from METU, and a PhD from Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design. She teaches graduate research methods and the second-year industrial design studio. She has publications on institutionalisation of industrial design, design education, and user models in the design process.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Collaboration with NPOs in Industrial Design Education: A Study on Tutors’ Perspectives

Zeynep Yalman-Yıldırım and Gülay Hasdoğan https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.01.217

Non-profit organisation (NPO) collaboration in industrial design education enables tutors to bring real-life problems to the design education context. Only in recent years, good practices of NPO collaboration implemented in the studio and elective courses are seen in industrial design education. Within the scope of this paper, 20 tutors from 10 industrial design departments in Turkey who have carried out educational projects in collaboration with over 30 diverse non-profit partners in their undergraduate courses were interviewed. Based on the thematic analysis, this paper explores design problems studied in collaboration with NPOs in the context of industrial design education together with tutors’ perspectives on the motivations of actors for collaboration, and the benefits and challenges of collaboration. This paper offers three collaboration models on NPO collaborations in education and aims to achieve an extensive and outsider point of view rather than a restrictive, case-specific, insider viewpoint towards these collaborations.

Keywords: collaboration in design education; university-NPO collaboration; industrial design education; design for non-profit organizations, collaboration models

Introduction Design practice is currently improving itself through new areas, skills, approaches, and methods. Considering the expectations from 21st-century designers and industrial design definition of World Design Organization (WDO), there is a shift in the direction of interdisciplinary collaboration, innovative and sustainable product, system and service development, strategic planning, and human-centred design (Beucker, 2004; Kolko, 2005). To respond to this shift, design departments and tutors should take a different role to raise better students equipped with the necessary skills (Augsten & Gekeler, 2017). WDO’s definition revealed that industrial design has integrated product design with many design-related fields, such as system, service, and user experience design. New design-related areas of study have been emerging and the roles of industrial designers have expanded while pure product design role has declined. Design is evolving from building objects to involving design experience, services, and processes (Sanders, 2006; Suri, 2003). The fastest-growing areas of design include interaction design, user experience design, service design, and transformation design (service design of social systems) and the new roles and responsibilities of designers arose accordingly (Kiernan & Ledwith, 2011). Therefore, designing processes are penetrating through the community, and resulting in an increased rate of new approaches and methods used in these areas (Broadbent & Cross, 2003). The approaches and methods as user-centred design, participatory/co-design, inclusive design, design for sustainability, and multidisciplinary teams are used in these newly emerged areas (Kiernan & Ledwith, 2011). The scope of design practice has advanced, broadened, and blurred its borders; hence design education should be reformed according to this transformation. The definition of WDO (2015) also emphasizes the trans-disciplinary nature of the design profession that supports and encourages co-creation. During the collaboration, designers are fed by other’s abilities and know-how while bringing them a designerly way of thinking. Currently, design problems are solved faster by the collaboration of multidisciplinary specialists and users through the processes (Seidel & Godfrey, 2005). Since the globe turns into an interdisciplinary habitat, to make students qualified in interdisciplinary collaboration

328

and peer learning, industrial design curriculum should train undergraduates to inquire, understand, make a judgement, debate, and reach an agreement while collaborating (Niederhelman, 2001; Kaygan & Demir, 2017). Hence communication and discussion among peers, and collaboration skills of individuals could only be enhanced through practice within design education. Industrial designers are hoped to serve non-profit goals and to touch social matters by reducing the difficulties that people face who are physically disabled, elderly, homeless, unemployed, or the societies living in third world countries (Davey et al., 2005; Diehl, 2009; Ramirez, 2011). For years there has been a discussion among educators that designers should not only focus on increasing the profits of companies they work in but also being socially responsible (Yang, 2015). A “social model” instead of a “market model” for design education and design research is suggested. The skills that social designers should carry and how students should be taught so that their product designer skills can fulfil human needs while being productive on societal values are discussed (Margolin & Margolin, 2002). A suggestion to boost the social aspects of design students might be collaborating with non-profit organizations (Yang, 2015). Project-based learning (PBL), called “experiential learning” by (Kaur Majithia, 2017), is one of the most preferred approaches in higher education. Accordingly, PBL has been advancing and spreading amongst universities (Augsten & Gekeler, 2017). This student-oriented teaching and learning pattern in design education prepares students through problem-focused, active and experiential processes of complex real-world issues from either industry or civil society in inter-disciplinary contexts and helps them to obtain information and to create purposeful solutions (De Graaf & Kolmos, 2003; Jonassen et al., 2006; Hansen & Lehmann, 2006). Due to the project-based learning nature of undergraduate industrial design education, collaborating with external partners is a common approach. Many reasons make the implication of collaboration between university and NPO in industrial design education so essential. University-NPO collaboration offers potentials and strategies for design collaboration in the educational context and provides numerous subjects and content for the projects that will be conducted, covering product, service, and experience design areas. It also provides opportunities to teach and apply many methods and approaches in these fields. Thereby, this collaboration could enhance the link between design education and design practice. Concepts of collaboration, social responsibility, and design thinking have been gaining even more importance worldwide. The 21st century’s desired industrial designers need to be raised to become both socially conscious for real-life problems and open to collaborative work. Therefore, it is inevitable for design education to engage students in collaborative projects and processes with non-profit partners. Recently, the collaborations between industrial design departments and NPOs have been rising. Due to the increase in university-NPO collaboration projects in undergraduate industrial design education, the topic is matured enough and worth researching. Nowadays, forming teams made up of collaboratively working professionals and specialists from different disciplines and institutions, is a common strategy to solve complex real-world problems. In the related literature, there are two main classifications on terms related to collaboration depending on disciplinary (Dykes et al., 2009) and organizational (Wang & Oygur, 2010) frameworks. From an institutional point of view, as individuals’ departments and organizations differ; four types of design collaboration were identified: mono-departmental, intra-organizational, inter-organizational, and extra-organizational (Wang & Oygur, 2010). Inter-organizational collaboration is a collaboration that exchanges skills and proficiency between multiple institutions on a certain design and it brings not only improved performance but also brand-new applications (Li & Williams, 1999; Pisano & Verganti, 2008). Inter-organizational collaborations provide meaningful outcomes for collaborating organizations (Hardy et al., 2003). University-NPO collaboration is an example of inter-organizational collaboration. It is lately demonstrated that consultation from final users of the products or services has become an important asset for design practices; that is extra-organizational design (Redström, 2006). Architecture, interior, and environmental design also benefit from the participation and inputs of end-users which proves the emphasis on end-users on designed products and services. Co-creation and design ethnography could also be counted under the roof of extra-organizational design because both are aided by end-user’s direct requirements, experiences (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Designer, NGO, and local people collaboration in participatory design projects can also be defined as extra-organizational (extra-institutional) partnership because they involve in a project with the same expectations and intentions (del Gaudio et al., 2016). University (design department)-NPO collaboration in education could be considered as interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and inter-organizational collaboration. On the other hand, it can also be defined as individual students or a group of industrial design students who work on a design-related task to achieve, and professionals from diverse disciplines and organizations (institutions) who help them to achieve their educational goals through collaborative processes. These collaborations might offer mutual benefits for actors

329

engaged in. However, rather than a shared goal, there are educational objectives that are mainly students’ duty. So, the reasons for collaboration in the context of education might include preparing industrial design students for future professional environments.

Methodology This study aims to identify topics, motivations, and challenges of collaborative design projects with NPOs, from the tutors’ perspectives in the industrial design departments of universities in Turkey. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as associations and foundations, civil initiatives, educational institutions, and local governments (e.g. municipalities) are the non-profit actors of this study. In the first phase of the research, to access the universities and NPO stakeholders involved in collaboration processes in an educational context, an online questionnaire was prepared and sent through an email to the heads of industrial design departments of 30 universities in Turkey listed on the website of Council of Higher Education. The emails briefly explain the area of interest and the aim of the study, and kindly request either filling in the form or sharing it with the related tutors. In the second phase of the research, 20 tutors from 10 universities were interviewed. The interviews took one hour to three hours. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed into textual format. Descriptive coding (Saldaña, 2009) and template analysis (King et al., 2012) methods were applied for analysis. Descriptive coding (i.e. topic coding) method can be used to summarize the content for a detailed inventory of qualitative data forms like interview transcripts.

Topics Studied in Collaborations The study covers student projects conducted in Turkey between 2009 and 2019 which were reached within the scope of a Ph.D. Study. To reveal the subjects of collaborative projects between industrial design departments and various NPO partners, collected data is categorized according to the design problem areas and the aims they focus on. The topics of NPO collaboration projects in an educational context are classified in accordance with the key issues they address as (i) projects related to special groups, (ii) local development, and (iii) environmental projects. The boundaries between categories are not so clear since some projects address multiple issues.

Projects for Special Groups This category includes a variety of projects developed for special groups to provide specialized design solutions for every individual in society. The disadvantaged groups are disabled people, refugees, women, or people at different age groups like children and elderlies. One of the earliest examples of this category is developing product ideas that ease the daily lives of the elderly who live in a neighbourhood nursing home. Most projects in this category concentrate on children as a user group. One of the product examples is an educational board game that intends to make children think, discuss, and learn about their rights. Another is a system that turns a mobile phone camera into a microscope. Some of the collaborative projects specialised for children are sustainable hygiene washbasins, school door handles and accessories, playful and engaging sustainability scenarios for fostering children’s saving habits, and encouraging children’s sharing behaviour. Other topics for disadvantaged children include designing and producing prosthetic hands for children with limb deformity which are customized for holding a pen to draw and paint, playing the drum, and suggesting activities for children of migrant families who live in a removal centre. To ease the lives of disadvantaged people, some examples focus on designing objects that people with rheumatoid arthritis can use in their daily lives, furniture for disabled people to provide a better quality of life, and empowering disabled persons and carers in a neighbourhood. Another project for disadvantaged groups aims to reduce food waste by rescuing surplus food and making it available for the people in need via a design solution that aids the process of daily food distribution and sharing. An experience design topic studied in this category tries to reflect a physical or mental disability to a person without disabilities so that they can emphasize with disabled individuals.

Projects for Local Development This category includes collaborations with local governments (i.e. municipalities) and other local partners to provide and sustain local development. The earliest example of this category was designing concept products for a cittaslow in line with the Movement of Cittaslow. Other collaborations with municipalities like designing urban furniture, safe playgrounds and equipment, and sales units for marketplaces that can be used in village festivals aim to improve the services of local governments. Some projects focus on the needs of particular local

330

areas and people living there such as creating a dream neighbourhood and a neighbourhood identity, selecting a rural site as a field, and developing sustainable design solutions to improve that region in collaboration with multiple partners.

Environmental Projects This category includes diverse environmentally responsible projects emphasizing the significance of post-use, reuse, recycle and waste management. One of the earliest examples of this category focuses on the reuse of worn-out tires with the technical and logistics support of the collaborating association. This example also deals with designing urban-scale public socialization spaces and outdoor products in these areas such as furniture, playground, and equipment to raise public awareness and inform the society about re-use of these worn-out tires. Another environmentally concerned project to encourage post-use, recycle and waste management is a mobile kiosk that aims to promote the reuse and donation service of a municipality. Another is a system design that involves the collection and distribution of reusable and second-hand shoes, clothes, home textiles, toys, and books to raise awareness of sharing. As the latest instance, a recycle bin for several recyclable materials is designed as a part of the zero-waste management policy.

Motivations of Actors and Models of Collaboration When the related literature was searched, the theoretical frameworks of academic-NGO collaboration are classified according to collaboration initiation (Roper, 2002), collaboration intensity (Ross et al., 2003), collaboration perspective (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2003), and organizational relationship (Sullivan & Skelcher, 2003). This paper accepts Roper’s (2002) typologies of initiating academic-practitioner research collaboration. In this study, this typology is extended as driver-based models of educational collaborations between universities and non-profit organisations which are tutor-driven, NPO-driven, and student-driven. The rationale behind the word ‘driven’ is to express the motivations and expectations brought by the initiator or the driver into the collaboration.

Tutor-driven Collaborations Tutors form a collaboration based on educational and personal motivations. When tutors initiate a collaboration with NPOs, they pursue educational goals, which are the knowledge and skillset they want to provide to students. These collaborations enable future industrial designers to be trained with certain qualifications. Eight of the participants interviewed were involved in tutor-driven collaborations and shared their experiences about this model. Through these collaborations, the aims of tutors can be listed as follows (i) introducing, teaching, and applying new concepts, approaches, and methods in design, (ii) guiding students’ design for a special user group, (iii) expanding projects’ scopes from product scale to system, service, and experience (iv) developing students’ collaboration skills in team working, in inter-disciplinary and inter-organisational contexts, and (v) emphasizing on the social aspect of design in undergraduate industrial design education. Along with these learning objectives, tutors' personal interests and motivations towards social, environmental, and economic issues also trigger the reasons for collaborating with NPOs. When tutors establish collaborations, the subject that they could work on is determined by them as well, at the beginning of collaborations. They share their opinions with collaborating partners and discuss them, while NPO partners help to further elaborate through recommendations. Being alone while doing projects within a studio environment, or at a university campus without any real context is criticized by tutors, as they feel that they justify themselves. They call this self-criticism of being in an ivory tower. When they leave their comfort zone and question what can be done, they realise that they need an external reality that NPOs can provide especially when studying subjects like sustainability. Collaborating with external stakeholders also brings an opportunity to carry out participatory, and co-design studies. As well as contacting on purpose, meeting with someone in design competition juries by coincidence can start interpersonal relationships and lead to collaboration. Tutors want students to develop design projects that have a strong connection with real-life for an existing need. NPOs bring real context that helps tutors and students to better implement and achieve their educational purposes. Some of the tutors do not follow a conventional design process within the scope of these collaborative projects, as they aim to apply new approaches and methods. Among the tutor-driven collaborative projects, new concepts and approaches introduced at the undergraduate level are sustainability, participatory design, co-design, accessibility, universal design, inclusive design, design for all, role-playing, reuse, and recycle. Examples of approaches are as follows.

331

Sustainability One of the main approaches tutors set via these collaborative projects was sustainability as it is closely related to a real-life context. In one example, tutors aimed to focus on local sustainability. They similarly conducted two projects with different stakeholders at different locations, in two consecutive years. As each local area has its context under a sustainable design approach, they selected a local area, one of the sites of UNESCO’s World Heritage, which was outside the city. They aimed for students to study a real-life context and develop design solutions within that context. They started with theoretical knowledge about the approach such as what sustainability stands for through seminars they held at the beginning of the course. The tutor determined the main topics related to sustainability such as food supply, waste management, energy consumption, natural resources, climate change, good agriculture, wildlife, and the built environment. Tutors and students visited the site twice as a group, at the end of the first and the second month of project duration. The first visit was to familiarise themselves with the environment, meet collaborating partners, and conduct research. The students were expected to inquire about the needs and the problems of that local site. They collected data for their projects via observations and communicating with partners. After developing design solutions based on their research, they made the second visit. In this visit, students conducted experiments with the stakeholders to develop their projects in the right direction. The stakeholders were invited to the final jury presentation to evaluate students’ projects. Students developed design solutions regarding local sustainability based on the characteristics of a specific context collaborating with multiple local NPOs. According to tutors, contributions of NPOs and the local community carried the design ideas of the students to an upper level.

Participatory Design & Co-design To better adapt and teach sustainability approach, tutors in one of the universities applied participatory and co-design methods through the involvement of stakeholders in the design process. In six different projects, they collaborated with diverse non-profit organisations such as a neighbourhood association and primary schools. Four projects were conducted with the neighbourhood association with diverse aims such as empowering the neighbourhood and disabled residents. In two of these projects, primary schools were also involved. One of the important roles and contributions of the neighbourhood association was providing user involvement for participatory processes through sharing contact information of residents who wanted to attend. Both sides visited each other. During these visits, students were matched with neighbourhood residents. The first visit, in which participants came to the studio, the aim was to understand and define the need and problem area together with the participants. The students interviewed them to receive more direct feedback on the validity of problems and their impacts. After the analysis phase of the interviews, they further developed their ideas before the second visit. In the early years, the tutors in this university implemented collective creativity practices based on receiving feedback and comments from the participants, as it was not clear how they would adapt the participatory approach. The students were asked to create scenarios and they explained the scenarios they developed. Then, the participants from the association and neighbourhood residents commented and gave feedback on these scenarios. In their recent projects, the way they approached co-design sessions was by co-creating rather than user testing of the pre-developed ideas of the students. In four of the projects, the participants were primary school students. Industrial design students and children met twice. The aim was to gather the views of children about diverse subjects such as washbasin and accessories, school door handles and accessories, saving and sharing habits. Two co-design workshops were conducted where the children took part by joining the student teams. One of them was carried out by visiting the stakeholders and the other one, by inviting participants to the studio environment. Collaboration with NPOs enables students to not only learn these new concepts, approaches, and methods but also be able to apply them in industrial design education.

Accessibility, Design for All, Role-playing For instance, one of the projects carried out aimed to create awareness on certain concepts and approaches related to human factors and physical accessibility such as human-centred design, universal design, inclusive design, and design for all. The students were expected to design furniture considering the special need of disabled people in collaboration with a disability association. The association made a presentation about disability, the lives of disabled people, and the problems caused by products. The association brought two wheelchairs. The students tried to reach the tables, go around using wheelchairs. By role-playing students had a chance to empathise with the people they were designing for. The role-playing approach helped them to explore the user experience of people with disabilities. They realised that disabled people have difficulty in doing many things, which the students normally ignore as they seem insignificant. At another phase of the project, each student group spent a day with a disabled person. Students observed the participant for one day.

332

This observation also helped students to build empathy with a special user group and to understand their reality, needs, and problems. The students accessed the right information by communicating with the real users and transforming their needs and problems into design solutions. Students learned that they need to consider the relationship between the product and the user, the expertise of the partners, and the involvement of real users in the design process especially while designing for a special user group. As a result, they understood that a product design can positively affect human life.

Enabling the Future In a tutor-driven collaboration at another university, the tutor aimed to integrate Enabling the Future Movement into undergraduate industrial design education. He offered to the collaborating partner to develop a project for them. The association was invited and expected to share information about their existing process for the research phase of the project. They gave two seminars informing students about how the existing process works, how they find a child who will use a robot hand, how they take measurements, how they make revisions according to users, and how they implant one or two widely used hand designs. After getting fundamental knowledge, students developed their designs. The role of the association was sharing know-how and the state of the art as they were experts on the topic. Through this collaboration, design students learned about the global e-NABLE Community and the concept of open-source. They also experienced designing for a special user group which was children with limb deformity, using 3D printing technologies.

NPO-driven Collaborations In the NPO-driven model, NPO brings its intention to collaborate and initiates the collaboration by directly reaching the tutor or the department. Tutors welcome the opportunity and match it with the learning objectives and students’ level. Then, they integrate this collaboration within a scope of a studio or an elective course. Six of the tutors interviewed were involved in NPO-driven collaborations and shared their experiences on this model. Yet, the motivations of NPOs for initiating and driving collaborations need to be further investigated. In one example of NPO-driven cases, the tutor met with the mayor of a municipality, in a design competition jury organised by that municipality. During their conversation, the mayor proposed a collaboration associating design with the Movement of Cittaslow. The mayor wanted to make the district visible and liveable as it was the first Cittaslow in Turkey. The tutor turned this proposal into an educational project. A unit of the municipality made a presentation on the municipality and the slow cities. Then the third-year industrial design students developed concept products in line with the Movement of Cittaslow. The project followed a conventional design process and the representatives from the municipality did not participate in that process. Initiating the collaboration within a real context and introducing concrete design problems were valuable contributions of the municipality. A manufacturers association wanted to run a social responsibility project on the reuse of end-of-life tyres. The aim was to extend the life cycle of obsolete tyres that had completed their lives and could no longer be used. They conveyed their intention to a public relations company where the manager was a graduate of industrial design and reached the industrial design department via this company. The tutor accepted the request and adapted the term project to the second and third-year studio course. After a presentation from the association on the importance of the issue, and the manufacturing process of the tyre, a field trip to the factory was organised. Later, the students decided on product categories themselves and developed playground equipment and public space furniture for the outdoor environment. The representatives from the NPO also attended the final jury to give feedback on projects. Tutors' motivation while adapting this collaborative project was to raise students’ awareness and responsibility on the concepts of upcycle, waste management, and environmental sustainability. Students had the opportunity to work with the constraint of waste material. In another NPO-driven case, a public institution, sent an email to the department, stating they wanted to organise a design competition of waste bins to create awareness about zero waste management. One of the tutors from the department was interested in the subject and conducted it with the second-year students in a studio course. As the subject was suitable for the level of second-graders in terms of technical details, material selection, and ergonomics. The one-month project followed a conventional product development process. Two of the representatives from the institution participated only in the final jury to make comments and evaluations. It was a professional experience for students to receive feedback from someone from the government on their projects. The process helped students to improve their communication and presentation skills and to understand the scope of their profession. Through this collaborative project, students had a brief knowledge of the zero-waste concept and they questioned waste sorting. In another NPO-driven example, an institute of physics contacted an industrial design department with the

333

request for the realisation and commercialisation of science kits for children. The tutor suggested carrying the project out in an educational context. After the term started, she added to the brief as an alternative and associated the topic with an ongoing project related to open-source Maker Culture based on Do-It-Yourself Movement. The tutor invited the representatives from the institute to the studio environment to present who they are and what they do. They also mentioned the mechanisms that they wanted to develop. Then the tutor asked for the students who wanted to study the subject that the institute brought. A group of students who chose to work on this topic pursued a similar process with the other students. NPO brought the topic for the project and made a presentation on the subject, then they did not have much guidance in the process. They attended the final jury. In line with the demand of the NPO, manufacturability became one of the main criteria of the project.

Student-driven Collaborations Student-driven type of collaboration is a common model in graduation projects. Seven of the participants interviewed were involved in student-driven collaborations and shared their experiences on this model. As this study only covers tutors’ points of view, the reasons behind students’ working with municipalities and other non-profit organisations need to be further explored by including the perspectives of students. When a graduation project is the case, NPO collaborations are established either by the student or the tutor. When the students establish collaborations with NPOs for their graduation projects in the final year studio course. They individually look for and find the institution they will collaborate with during their graduation term if there is not a pool system or a list recommended by tutors that they can choose from. Students make the necessary arrangements by themselves such as finding contact persons, getting in touch with them, and agreeing on the topic they want to work on in advance. As students apply to non-profit institutions in line with their wishes, they are also expected to bring their ideas and define design briefs for their graduation projects before the semester starts. In one of the universities which have recently founded their industrial design department with fewer students, the tutors took the responsibility of initiating collaborations with partners. The tutors who conducted the graduation project course set up the connections and decided on project topics beforehand. At the beginning of the semester, tutors asked students’ topic and stakeholder preferences. Then tutors distributed the topics and matched students with collaborating partners according to students’ desires. Although the project was tutor-initiated, it was the students’ decision to work with non-profit organisations. Once the collaboration is formed, it continues with interpersonal relationships between the student and the external advisor. Tutors are involved in these collaborations through written reports provided by the students. Tutors do not meet with the representatives from NPO unless there is an essential situation like a communication problem. Communication and collaboration proceed between the student and the NPO representative. One of the departments has pre-defined criteria for graduation partners for many years such as having a facility with manufacturing capability. As the collaborator was expected to present know-how on market research and manufacturing techniques of the product to be designed, NPOs were insufficient to satisfy this technical expectation. Thus, students were not allowed to carry out graduation projects with NPOs. However, as the number of students increased, students started to have difficulty in finding institutions that meet this criterion. Moreover, according to the tutors in that university, some repeating students or students who have difficulties in going out of town, prefer to work with local governments. Since NPOs are open to accepting collaboration requests and help, students reach and arrange collaborations easily and quickly. Especially the students who want to design public space furniture work with NPOs like local governments. On the other hand, a tutor from another university appreciated the expertise and contributions of the mentor regardless of the institution and its capabilities. The mentor provided knowledge via information and experience sharing so that the student had direct access to the knowledge in a certain field that she needed throughout the project. The expertise made a great contribution to the project and the theoretical contribution provided a very productive and instructive process for the student.

Challenges in Collaboration for Tutors NPO collaboration in an educational context brings organizational, educational, and realisation challenges from the perspectives of tutors. Collaboration requires some organizational arrangements such as time planning, logistics, and connections with contacts. Time management is an issue due to the intense and tiring process in terms of scheduling, conducting, and coordinating the events as well as flexibility in time plan and adjustments for last-minute changes in the program. Logistics like transportation, accommodation, food arrangements for

334

field trips, and other financial issues should be resolved in advance. Safety is also one of the important concerns for tutors as they are responsible for ensuring the safety of students and outside of university campus is risky. Such organizational processes require a lot of personal interest, energy, and social effort in terms of communication and networking. Due to the responsibility and intense workload, these collaborations might not be preferable in education. Tutors should be very dedicated to handling these challenges. Establishing connections with contacts from CSOs is also a necessity for collaborative projects. Communication is a major challenge that can occur at any time during a collaboration which also needs instant problem-solving abilities of stakeholders. As one of the tutors stated, collaboration requests from NPOs might have some barriers. What they want might not be achieved, the request might be ill-defined. Hence it should be well formulated at the beginning. Educational challenges include (i) introducing and integrating new approaches and methods into design education, (ii) changing project scale from product to system, service, and experience and teaching these scales, as well as (iii) matching project scope with students’ level. Since each project requires a different plan, the determination of methods and processes takes time in terms of introducing the concept and adapting it to different scales. When the projects remain on a macro scale, the students cannot associate it with design much, the projects remain more general. Students struggle with the transition from tangible product scale to more intangible system and service scale. Nevertheless, in one of the examples tutors coped with this struggle as they repeated the collaborations and project schemes and improved the plan and guidance of the design process year by year. Repeating the collaboration with the same stakeholders helps to overcome educational challenges. In repeating collaborations, the scale and scope of the next projects are changed and adapted to ease the design process for students. Positive past experiences resulted from the first collaboration and the workload (i.e. time and effort) of establishing new relationships and collaborations with partners are the main reasons for tutors to prefer sustainability of collaboration with the same partner, which is not always possible. The last but not the least challenge is the realisability of project results which is a difficulty for every actor in a collaboration. The realisability of projects faces four obstacles; necessary budget, intellectual property rights, lack of applicability of students’ projects, and time and effort required for post-production. Since these collaborative projects have benefits for society, their realisation and implementation of results are desired by all actors. However, their implementation is harder to attain. Financial issues can be covered by sponsors and writing funded projects. As these collaborations are built with interpersonal relations based on sincerity and trust, usually there is not a written agreement between the stakeholders. A clause regarding the intellectual property rights of the project should be prescribed in an agreement. It is valuable for students to work on real-life problems, but often these problems do not have simple solutions and they are much more complex than students can solve. Therefore, the results expected from a university student might not be viable. The number of stakeholders can be increased and diversified, project durations can be extended, and topics can carefully be chosen to cope with this challenge. Even though student projects are feasible, the commitment of actors is another struggle. Many of these collaborative projects do not end within the pre-specified period as they need post-production for realisation. Completing them are not so easy because of the time and effort expected from the partners, although they are willing to continue.

Discussion and Conclusions In line with the World Design Organization’s definition of industrial design, collaborating with NPOs in undergraduate industrial design education has many opportunities: (i) providing a better quality of life through expanding the boundaries of industrial design from products to systems and services, thus encouraging students to think on macro-level to cover widest solution areas, (ii) co-creating design solutions with trans-disciplinary nature of the profession, (iii) valuing the social and environmental spheres. NPO collaborations help to implement concepts in undergraduate industrial design education such as design for sustainability and inclusive design with the expertise of an NPO representing a community. Particularly for addressing sustainability approaches, tutors expanded the scopes and scales of projects from individual use products to systems on larger scales. Students suggested system-oriented scenarios, composed of a product family, instead of products. It is important for students to experience the design process for different scales such as developing both product and system-oriented design solutions together. Dealing with complex real-world issues requires more than one area of expertise. Working in teams and collaborating with diverse stakeholders and other experts help students to improve their team working and collaboration skills while developing more detailed and comprehensive design solutions. Involving real users especially special groups in these collaborations provides an opportunity to apply design methods such as participatory design and co-design which is difficult for the educational institution on its own. Having accessed

335

to special user groups such as disabled people, children, and the elderly, students understand their experiences with direct contact and exchanging ideas. Through the involvement of different partners, students learn to work for and with them and develop together with them and gain strong communication and presentation skills. Focusing on the real needs of real users allows all stakeholders to leave aside the concerns of making a profit and concentrate on social and environmental aspects of design. As universities are not disconnected from society, they can have a strong influence on society. As design is a practice that has a huge impact on the society and environment, tutors' personal interest in social and environmental issues also triggers their motivation to collaborate with NPOs. For this reason, through these collaborative projects, tutors want students to be aware of the social and environmental responsibilities, and to think and question the social and environmental impacts of their designs and learn to take this responsibility. The parties need to agree on more structured and systematic processes for collaboration by negotiating on terms and conditions, in which roles, responsibilities, and expectations of each actor are discussed and defined. An extensive and well-prepared protocol could help to overcome the challenges in these collaborations. Yet, the frame of this protocol should be further studied. The sustainability of collaboration, which is a result of win-win situations, depends on personal motivations, willingness, and skills of actors such as time management, communication, social relations, and effort. Achieving sustainability of collaboration results in structured and improved collaboration schemes and processes. The realisation of solutions makes not only the collaboration process effective but also the results. For the realisation of projects which provide solutions for addressing real-world problems, the motivations of the actors will not be sufficient alone. Intellectual property issues and lack of applicability of student projects need to be solved in the planning phase of collaboration. As publishing the results will increase the visibility, it may also raise awareness for fundraising and encourage other parties such as manufacturers to get involved and invest. Along with the tutors’ perspective towards collaborations, motivations of other actors, NPOs and students, for initiating and driving collaborations need to be further investigated.

Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Dr Pınar Kaygan for her support during this study. The authors would also thank the tutors for their participation in the interviews.

References Augsten, A., & Gekeler, M. (2017). From a master of crafts to a facilitator of innovation. How the increasing

importance of creative collaboration requires new ways of teaching design. Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1058–S1071. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1353049

Beucker, N. (2004). Research skills as basis for industrial collaboration in design education. Proceedings of International Engineering and Product Design Education Conference. Delft, The Netherlands. September, 2-3.

Broadbent, J. A., & Cross, N. (2003). Design education in the information age. Journal of Engineering Design, 14(4), 439–446.

Davey, C. L., Wootton, A. B., Thomas, A., Cooper, R., & Press, M. (2005). Design for the Surreal World? A New Model of Socially Responsible Design. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design, EAD06. The University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany. March, 29-31.

De Graaf, E., & Kolmos, A. (2003). Characteristics of problem-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(5), 657–662.

del Gaudio, C., Franzato, C., & de Oliveira, A. J. (2016). Sharing design agency with local partners in participatory design. International Journal of Design, 10(1), 53–64.

Diehl, J. C. (2009). Designing sustainable solutions for the “Base-of-the Pyramhttps://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.” Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Design, Rocchi 2006, 31–41. http://portal.anhembi.br/sbds/anais/ISSD2009-P-31.pdf

Dykes, T. H., Rodgers, P. A., & Smyth, M. (2009). Towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary design practice. DS 59: Proceedings of E and PDE 2009, the 11th Engineering and Product Design Education Conference - Creating a Better World, 5(2), 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880902910417

Hansen, J. A., & Lehmann, M. (2006). Agents of change: universities as development hubs. Journal of Cleaner Production, 14(9–11), 820–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2005.11.048

Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational effects

336

of inter Organizational collaboration. Journal of Management Studies, 40(2), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00342

Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x

Kaur Majithia, R. (2017). What’s Next in Design Education? Transforming role of a designer and its implications in preparing youth for an ambiguous and volatile future. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1521–S1529.

Kaygan, P. & Demir, Ö. (2017). Learning about others: Developing an interdisciplinary approach in design education. Proceedings of the Design Management Academy (vol. 5, pp. 1595-1611), E. Bohemia, C. de Bont, and L. S. Holm (Eds.). Design Management Academy, London, UK. http://doi.org/10.21606/dma.2017.51

Kiernan, L., & Ledwith, A. (2011). The effect of the merging of design disciplines and its implication for product design education. Design Principles and Practices, 5(4), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.18848/1833-1874/cgp/v05i04/38117

King, N., Symon, G., & Cassell, C. (2012). Doing template analysis. Qualitative Organizational Research: Core Methods and Current Challenges, 426, 77–101.

Kolko, J. (2005). New techniques in industrial design education. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of The European Academy of Design EAD06. The University of the Arts, Bremen, Germany. March, 29-31.

Li, F., & Williams, H. (1999). New collaboration between firms: The role of interorganizational systems. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/hicss.1999.6474330

Margolin, V., & Margolin, S. (2002). A “Social Model” of Design: Issues of Practice and Research. Design Issues, 18(4), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793602320827406

Niederhelman, M. (2001). Education Through Design. Design Issues, 17(3), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357222

Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/sd.2009.05625dad.001

Ramirez, M. (2011). Designing with a social conscience: An emerging area in industrial design education and practice. DS 68-5: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacting Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 5: Design for X / Design to X (pp. 39-48). Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, August, 15-19.

Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? on the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.001

Roper, L. (2002). Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaborations. Development in Practice, 12(3–4), 338–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961450220149717

Ross, S., Lavis, J., Rodriguez, C., Woodside, J., & Denis, J.-L. (2003). Partnership experiences: involving decision-makers in the research process. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 8(2_suppl), 26–34.

Saldaña, J. (2009). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE Publications, Incorporated. https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=6WHsPAAACAAJ

Sanders, E. B.-N. (2006). Design research in 2006. Design Research Quarterly, 1(1), 1, 4-8. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Seidel, R., & Godfrey, E. (2005). Project and team based learning: An integrated approach to engineering

education. Proceedings of 4th ASEE/AaeE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, D. Radcliffe & J. Humphries (Eds.). Star City, Sydney, Australia, September 26-29.

Sullivan, H., & Skelcher, C. (2003). Working Across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. In Health & Social Care in the Community (Vol. 11, Issue 2). Macmillan International Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2003.04183.x

Suri, J. F. (2003). The Experience of Evolution: Developments in Design Practice. The Design Journal, 6(2), 39–48. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069203789355471

Wang, D., & Oygur, I. (2010). A heuristic structure for collaborative design. The Design Journal, 13(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069210X12766130825019

World Design Organization. (2015). Definition of Industrial Design. World Design Organization. http://wdo.org/about/definition/

Yang, M.-Y. (2015). Industrial design students design for social innovation: Case study in a Taiwanese Village. Design and Culture, 7(3), 451–464.

337

Zeynep Yalman-Yıldırım Middle East Technical University, Turkey zeynep.yalman@gmail.com Zeynep Yalman-Yıldırım is a PhD candidate and a research and teaching assistant at Middle East Technical University (METU). She holds a bachelor’s degree in Industrial Design, a minor degree in Logic and Philosophy of Science from METU, and an MSc degree in Industrial Design from Gazi University. She teaches third year industrial design studio course. Her research interests are co-design, design collaboration, and user experience. Gülay Hasdoğan Middle East Technical University, Turkey hasdogan@metu.edu.tr Gülay Hasdoğan is head of the Department of Industrial Design at Middle East Technical University. She holds a BID in Industrial Design, an MSc in Building Science from METU, and a PhD from Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design. She teaches graduate research methods and the second-year industrial design studio. She has publications on institutionalisation of industrial design, design education and user models in the design process.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Towards Radical Synergy for More Just & Equitable Futures

Audrey G. Bennett, Ron B. Eglash, Roland Graf, Deepa Butoliya , Keesa V. Johnson, Jenn Low and Andréia Rocha https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.02.188

Inequity and social injustice are omnipresent wicked problems, complex challenges for which there are no single solutions due to their cross-cultural, cross-disciplinary, and systemic nature. For example, the ‘green revolution’ of the 1970s was supposed to solve world hunger. However, we saw a rise in corporate control over agriculture (Pielke and Linner, 2019) instead. The design of social media, widely touted as creating a harmonious global village in the 1980s, has instead partly turned into hatching grounds for a global white supremacist movement and other forms of extremism. We cannot afford to allow accidental synergies to create global disasters passively. Instead, we need to bring social, technological, economic, and environmental concerns, among other considerations, into a deliberate and reflective emergent process. We refer to this decolonial, emancipatory form of design emergence as ‘radical synergy.’ In this paper, we begin by visualizing how radical synergy provides scaffolding for the program. Then, we show snapshots of how it took pedagogical form over the past two years, enabling graduate students and their partners to take steps toward attaining it by facilitating community-based, deep collaboration informed by anti-racism, decolonization, and integrative critical analysis, and facilitated by an integrative design thinking and making approach.

Keywords: decolonization; integrative design; generative justice; radical synergy; design emergence

Introduction Synergy came into widespread use in the late 19th century when Henri Mazel argued that Darwinian theory failed to account for "social synergy" (1896), a collective evolutionary drive by which the masses, not the elites, created civilization. Its subsequent adoption in corporate rhetoric led to mostly colonized models: One could speak of holistic perspectives while maintaining the same exploitative and unsustainable practices. Therefore, we qualify what we mean with the phrase radical synergy. When someone describes design service-learning as if they are tossing a bone to the peasants, it is a colonized model of synergy. When we have design curricula that integrate critical perspectives (anti-racism, decolonization, feminist theory, etc.); material analysis (sustainability, political economy, labor emancipation, etc.); and democratization (participatory design, community-led design, emancipatory design, etc.), we create the possibility—though not the guarantee—for radical synergy. Radical synergy is aspirational and evolutionary, a decolonial design approach that aims to bring more voices into labs, studies, and public spaces—including voices from lay and experts, past and future, human and nonhuman participants alike. If we take our educational mission seriously, then some aspects of our design pedagogy must emerge bottom-up to include contributions from community stakeholders and the assets they bring to the collaborative design process. In this paper, we aim to tell a visual story of the pedagogical concept of radical synergy, how it scaffolds the MDes program in Integrative Design at the Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design at the University of Michigan, and how it has manifested thus far in select student work.

339

Visualizing Radical Synergy Using the Tuareg Triangle

Figure 1: The Tuareg Triangle in a. cloth, b. metal, c. stone, and d. fiber. Images a and c from African Fractals; b courtesy Africa and Beyond Ethnic Art Gallery, San Diego, California; d courtesy Liuba Berti.

Our radical synergy approach counters typical formulations of innovation such as in Donald Norman’s famous formulation of innovation, practices such as Human-Centered Design (HCD) are acceptable as an adjustment after the fact. However, since laypeople will only refer to what they know, significant innovation requires a technology-first approach (Norman and Verganti 2014). He uses the analogy of hill-climbing algorithms in nonlinear optimization: HCD will trap one on local minima. Norman’s co-author Verganti accepts this critique but holds out the possibility that designers might use research to “create new hills” that would presumably help to incorporate lay voices. Our radical synergy approach contests the premise that laypeople can only contribute uninformed reactions or user feedback. Instead, we invert it. We note that elite forms of knowledge-making that Norman idolizes as “true innovation” include pesticides, nuclear power plants, the fossil fuel industry, deskilling of labor from automation, media infrastructures that have facilitated white supremacist groups, and a host of other technologies inflicting wealth inequality, ecological devastation and other pains. In contrast, lay practices of Indigenous people maintained egalitarian, collaborative relationships with nonhumans and each other in ways that fostered greater biodiversity and social justice (Gowdy, 1999; Patel et al., 2012; Ignatov, 2016; Eglash, 2016). That they can be described as primitive only serves to underscore the problem of the colonial gaze. How, then, does one recover these lost principles of just and sustainable design? Even if we can, how do we translate them without appropriation? How should those translations, assuming they are done with proper collaborative networks, enter into the innovation process, keeping in mind that we want to empower the ability to envision the new and maintain the precautionary wisdom of the past? Patricia Hill Collins, a founding figure in Black feminism, described what she called “the outsider within”: the fact that as we move across lay/elite boundaries, we always carry some part of our former identity. By extension, that former identity will have other identities nested within. The nested or ‘fractal’ model applies to technologies as well. Recycling a plastic bottle might add sustainability in some ways, but it can carry a molecular trace of fossil fuel origins that reemerges to sabotage the actual circular economy. Conversely, one can design for positive traces that can carry through and create synergistic benefits. One part of our formulation of radical synergy has been to develop ways of comprehending this fractal nesting as a kind of meta-design. Recognizing that there will be, for example, labor issues within sustainability issues and vice-versa requires a fractal perspective. Thus, radical synergy functions as a nonlinear interplay of actors and activities within a multi-layered system, guided by historical consciousness of past wrongs and future visions for just and sustainable ways of life. In this paper, we experiment with its visual expression using the first three steps of what is known in the West as Sierpiński’s Gasket (Mandelbrot 1983), a fractal evolution of equilateral triangles. However, if we are to decolonize our design history, this might be an excellent place to start. Sierpiński was not the first to create this fractal design. Recursive composition, in general, is an ancient tradition in many African societies, where it is often related to an egalitarian distribution of power. The triangle in the Tuareg context, shown in Figure 1 above, is often recursively composed; and has symbolic associations with female power and spirituality. We will refer to this fractal as the ‘Tuareg triangle’ henceforth in honor of that origin. Figure 2 below shows the first three iterations of the Tuareg triangle at the top. Below that image, we use the third iteration to visualize the interplay of the four components of radical synergy: Deep collaboration informed by anti-racism and decolonization, integrative critical analysis, and integrative design thinking and making. We pause at the second iteration to help make this clear, but the unfolding of this as an evolutionary process, in which each component is embedded in the other, expresses the nonlinear and adaptive nature of the collaborative design approach we are describing.

340

Figure 2. Top: The first three steps of the Tuareg triangle; Bottom: The third step of the Tuareg Triangle is adopted to represent the four components of radical synergy: deep collaboration informed by anti-racism and decolonization, integrative critical analysis, and integrative design thinking and making.

Tuck and Yang’s famous manifesto titled “Decolonization is Not a Metaphor” points out that an all-white classroom that faithfully reads the right books is not sufficient; decolonization must first and foremost address actual Indigenous peoples, their land rights, and dispossessions. Where we draw lines and definitions in the settler-colonized-enslaved triad is complex, but facilitating interaction between student, staff, faculty, and community stakeholders to maximize Black, Indigenous, and People of Color’s presence in the learning process is fundamental. For example, one of our recent publications (Eglash et al., 2020) is co-authored by Native American, African, Caribbean, and White US scholars. It describes a collaborative design process in which Indigenous knowledge is “translated” into models such as computational tools, such that there can be two-way feedback between Indigenous communities and designers. New actors come into play out of that interactive process: some of them nonhumans such as ecological elements, some hybrids of human, technological, and natural elements. The histories of colonization written into forest destruction shifted diets and tastes that accommodate fast food empires, and the replacement of communal ways of thinking and being with an ethos of competition and domination come into focus. Thus, providing students with models of design as an emergent process—one which includes the voices of colonized and dominated agents as living participants, and tools of design that can enhance collaborative envisioning, testing, error-making, forgiving, and other aspects of an emancipatory process—gets at the definition of radical synergy.

341

Components of Radical Synergy: Deep Collaboration

342

343

Figure 3. After a rigorous, holistic admissions evaluation, a student cohort forms as a collaborative unit charged with addressing equity, access, and justice in relation to a wicked problem in society (e.g., poverty). Over two years, students in the cohort converge the first year to work together on class projects. In the first year, the student’s knowledge evolves informed by required courses within the program and external elective sources in the broader academic community. Graduate students receive advising from two faculty members and the program director who serve as co-primary and secondary advisors, respectively. In the second year, students diverge towards an individual thesis though still consulting with each other in the process of carrying out a peer-, faculty-, and community-engaged inquiry. In the second year, the student’s knowledge evolves further informed by required and elective courses and consulting with a thesis committee composed of a faculty member, a cognate faculty member from another discipline, a community partner, and the environment itself (depicted as a green triangle). Source: ©2021 Audrey G. Bennett

Components of Radical Synergy: Anti-Racism and Decolonization In design education on the graduate level, students must be cognizant that they are entering a design conversation situated within a long history entrenched in primarily Western, patriarchal, racist, colonizing, and heteronormative ideologies. The canon of design is broad and crosses disciplines with a particular emphasis on Western perspectives; whereas non-Western perspectives lie mostly marginalized in the periphery of the discipline. There are two essential processes of decolonization. One is to add new materials from the outside. Some authors were excluded because, when the canon was formed, their people were not free. The other is to rethink the “west-ness” of the canon (e.g., see Bennett, 2012 and Bennett, 2021): what elements have we assumed to have origins from the West but are later shown to have hidden content or origins from the periphery? Students must be cognizant that both strategies are simultaneously available; that one can be rediscovering the old and reinventing the new simultaneously. Each student’s path through the discipline’s canon is driven by their research interests nurtured and honed through their curricular experiences in the program. In a learning environment that reflects radical synergy, texts that undergird learning emerge top-down from required courses and weekly advising sessions and bottom-up from interactions with community stakeholders—emerging from the student’s evolving intellectual identity as a professional integrative designer with a culturally informed perspective. The texts that cross the student’s path top-down are essential to providing entry into a part of the broader design conversation most relevant to the MDes program’s pedagogical mission. Each text is like a node in a vast system that connects the student to a wealth of other pertinent readings in the field, even some in the periphery.

344

Components of Radical Synergy: Integrative Design Thinking and Making

Figure 4. Tuareg triangle is used to visualize each student’s integrative design thinking and making in the learning process. Students combine design methods with cross-disciplinary research methodology, transdisciplinary methods, and community interaction to address a wicked problem in society that causes inequity and injustice. The top image’s reflection across the horizontal axis shows in the image below a sampling of the design methods, community partners, and transdisciplinary methods used by former students in the program. Source: ©2021 Audrey G. Bennett

345

Components of Radical Synergy: Integrative Critical Analysis

Figure 5. Tuareg triangle is used to visualize the integrative critical analysis undertaken by students in the program. This approach is undergirded by the well-known STEEPV analytical framework extended in this paper to include aesthetic and ethical analyses but pronounced the same. Source: ©2021 Audrey G. Bennett & Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design

In the next section of this visual paper, we provide abstracts accompanied by photographic snapshots of three faculty-led integrative design projects that take steps toward radical synergy through facilitating community-based, designerly activities that exemplify the different components of radical synergy that inform its deep collaboration.

Towards Radical Synergy Through Integrative Critical Analyses In the initial stages of deep collaboration, the emergent interactions that embody radical synergy have yet to occur. What is taking place is problem definition and understanding. Students use the STEEPVAE analytical framework as an entry point into the early stages of collaboration in the students’ theses. This framework, as STEEPV, is often used in the foresight community, sometimes with an added legal aspect known as PESTLE (Loverridge, 2002; Morrison, 2007). Program director Audrey Bennett has added the aspects of A-aesthetics and E-ethics. STEEPVAE is an analytical framework used by the students to understand the impact of the social, technological, economic, ecological, values-based, aesthetic, and ethical aspects on the wicked problem and their research topics. Indeed, no matter how many letters we add to it, there is no guarantee that will happen. STEEPV has most notably been developed to serve major corporations, including Shell. It is not as though after STEEPV, Shell oil became a solar energy company owned by local communities. However, it is critical to start with a clear basis by which students can begin their analysis. The STEEPVAE framework in Figure 5 provides a much-needed structure in this earlier stage of deep collaboration to organize nodes of information and stakeholders and connect the dots by visualizing the importance and role of each stakeholder and, as a result, identifying community partners and other stakeholders with whom to collaborate. This step activates and enhances the radical synergy in the graduate student’s research topic by nurturing a contextually situated inquiry, an iterative process that allows networked collaborations with partners, designers, nonhuman agency, and other parts of the socio-technical ecosystem. This step also allows the formation of analytic themes, awareness of nascent resources, delineation of colonial and dominant culture

346

impacts, and design ideation to become an emergent property of the network. In the current context of the pandemic, we have used the opportunities afforded by the virtual learning environment to collaborate amongst ourselves as an MDes thesis studio to explore the STEEPVAE framework where students work collaboratively to explore their topics on a mural board. This step is an early stage of collaboration amongst the students where they can contribute to each other’s topics as well. One of the graduate students in that cohort (Larrea Young) worked on establishing a just and equitable system for making food choices in the cafeteria for high school students. The STEEPVAE analysis helped the student identify the ecological and ethical impact of these choices made by high school students as the most crucial elements within her research, which led her to seek community partners such as FoodCorp (https://foodcorps.org/) as potential collaborators for her project. FoodCorp is an organization that emphasizes social equity and the right to healthy food for every child regardless of race, place, or class. For another student in the same cohort (Najwat Rehman), realizing the political sphere of action in his research topic was the most significant parameter. This analysis resulted in the student focusing on policymaking in food futures and collaborated with policymakers in Pakistan’s food system.

Figure 6. Documentation of a Mural board showing STEEPVAE analysis being conducted with graduate students who are remotely located due to social distancing requirements as a result of the COVID pandemic. Source: ©2021 Deepa Butoliya

347

Figure 7. Documentation of a process where students were reflecting on their thesis topics and its correlation to the wicked problems within a generative justice model. Source: ©2021 Deepa Butoliya

Figure 8. Modified futures cone. Futures cone used in this analysis is a simplified version of futures cone from future studies (Voros, 2017) to enable the students in analyzing the present state, possibilities and the preferred state of the STEEPVAE factors of their topics. The overlap of STEEPVAE and futures cone attempts to create a radical synergy in the context of temporality of the project. Source: ©2021 Deepa Butoliya

348

Figure 9. Documentation of a Mural board showing Present STEEPVAE analysis being conducted with graduate students who are remotely located due to social distancing requirements as a result of the COVID pandemic. Source: ©2021 Deepa Butoliya

Figure 10. Documentation of a Mural board showing possible STEEPVAE analysis being conducted with graduate students who are remotely located due to social distancing requirements as a result of the COVID pandemic. Source: ©2021 Deepa Butoliya

349

Figure 11. Documentation of a Mural board showing Preferable STEEPVAE analysis being conducted with graduate students who are remotely located due to social distancing requirements as a result of the COVID pandemic. Source: ©2021 Deepa Butoliya

Towards Radical Synergy Informed by Anti-racism and Decolonization In a recent design charrette with the “African Bead Museum” in Detroit, our students ran into a bit of a challenge. Our simulation software for the AfroFuturist Greenhouse was pretty sophisticated; it was not clear that the director of the museum, Olyami Dabls, would be able to participate by directly manipulating the virtual design. So our students created a “space of possibilities” in which he could select his preference. However, we stumbled on an accidental synergy in doing so: one of the shapes was an almost exact match to his brass “elbow” beads from Ghana.

Figure 12. Generative Justice Cycle. Source: ©2020 Ron Eglash and Audrey G. Bennett

350

Dabls’ connection opened up an entirely new path of investigation in the relations between the simulations and African designs, which resulted in the students developing a workshop delivered to 110 Black high school students in Detroit. In other words, like an ecosystem in nature, an academic ecosystem needs to work as a circle, not a one-way path. Community participation should not be a shallow end-point, a gesture of noblesse-oblige. It should be a cycle of anti-racist transformation, both from and to the academy. That means an ongoing evolution of mutations, emergent forms, new off-shoots, etc. Such unpredictability is inherent to synergistic emergence, but it is also a hallmark of any democratic process. There is nothing incredibly unique about our projects; anyone can take the leap of faith to bring in communities of color as colleagues in a synthesis of research and anti-racist activism. In a little over two decades, we have carried out this three-part cycle—community-based research, academic analysis/synthesis, and returns of value to the community—in many parts of the world. That includes Native American communities in the Southwest, Alaska, and upper peninsula Michigan; African communities in east, west, and southern Africa; Spanish-speaking communities in both the US and abroad, and so on. Those interested in this approach can tour these tools and materials on our website, generativejustice.org.

A Graduate Student’s Inquiry on Generative Justice How can one design culturally situated technologies that move us towards economic justice? Economies in plant production? The focus of this Graduate Research Assistant project was to examine Indigenous knowledge and production systems and merge those traditions with contemporary technology. Our current economic systems use value extraction, creating pollution and wealth inequality. Indigenous approaches did not alienate value; instead, it was circulated (Eglash et al., 2020). We examined several Indigenous models. One is from Ghana, where adinkra artisans have been using bark to make ink and cycling the used bark back into nature via composting.

Figure 13. African technologies interlocking cycles in the African context. Source: ©2020 Ron Eglash

However, we found that some of these traditions made it through the middle passage to African American traditions. Research has emerged within the Wye plantation where Frederick Douglass was enslaved, where he built, engineered, and operated an impressive greenhouse in 1775 that still stands. This greenhouse structure is celebrated for its architectural beauty, but evidence suggests that through decades of toil within the greenhouse, enslaved African Americans were conducting a series of agriculture trials on medicinal and food plants.

351

Figure 14. Infusing African Adinkra values and principles within an African Indigenous design process. Source: © Keesa V. Johnson 2021

Figure 15. Generative flow for expanding community involvement through the loop of growing, making, selling, and sharing. Source: © Keesa V. Johnson and Ron Eglash 2021

Building on those traditions—both the original and the more recent hybrid forms—led us to develop plans for an “African Futurist Greenhouse” for the Detroit African bead museum. The GSRA’s duties included designing grow lab equipment and learning research methods for controlled experiments. We concluded that our best bet would be Job’s tears (Coix lacryma-jobi). The Jobs tears seeds, which grow around a central stem, leave a hole in the center naturally, and for this reason, they are cultivated as beads in Africa. By growing the beads on the museum grounds, we can allow visitors to see the African production system at work. The greenhouse space will also be used as a community garden to draw in more local participation. As we began to conduct these experiments, we realized we would need a professional “grow bench” that could track humidity, temperature, etc. Building the grow bench opened up access for us to pay homage to our African ancestors for the generative technologies of a circular system, more recent innovation in greenhouse technologies, and a glimpse of the future as digital sensors and robotics are designed for the greenhouse. Before we started building the grow bench, we had no idea of the history behind these plants or how they might become a model for African Futurism. So, it is imperative to allow design students to practice making in ways that tap their cultural heritage, historical research, and forward-looking hybrids to create a synergy between knowing, seeing, and doing. It empowers them.

352

Figure 16. My drawing process and the wood being used for the grow bench. Source: © Keesa V. Johnson 2020

Figure 17. The creation of the grow bench with embedded cultural artefacts inspired by the graduate student’s learning journey or something she created. Source: ©Keesa V. Johnson 2021

353

Towards Radical Synergy Through Integrative Design Thinking and Making For an international service-learning course, MDes partnered with Ateliescola Acaia, an arts-based kindergarten through 6th-grade school in São Paulo, Brazil, to develop and implement a two-week long workshop with their fifth and 6th-grade students and teachers. The partnership was an opportunity to learn from innovative educational models that address issues of equity and access in education outside the U.S. context. To facilitate co-learning and discovery across cultures in this context, we centered our workshop activities on joint observation and playful exploration of everyday environments in and around the school through different perspectives. To achieve this, we built traditional Brazilian kites and captured top-down views through drone cameras attached to the kites (Pipa Vista) and ground-up views by placing the same cameras on our feet (Pé da Vista) and then documented these activities through a series of videos we produced with the students and teachers. These workshop activities became a way to get to know one another and share different methods, and tools designers may use to observe and make sense of the world around them. The driving question that we used to collaboratively reflect on the workshop activities in both Portuguese and English was: what can you see?

Figure 18. Acaia students and their art teacher placing markers to indicate where students live in the surrounding neighborhood. Source: ©MDes C4/Assocreation

Figure 19. Acaia and MDes on a field trip to the park to fly kites with drone cameras attached. Source: ©MDes

354

C4/Assocreation

Figure 20. Acaia students explore their school grounds and surrounding neighborhood with camera “eyes” attached to their shoe or sandal. Source: ©MDes C4/Assocreation

What did we see? We determined that this integrative design thinking and making experience made us keenly aware of our own designerly biases. For example, communicating our understanding of top-down views such as maps required more contextualization than anticipated. We did not fully consider the meaning of such symbolic representations (e.g., bird’s eye view of streets or building footprints) in a culture and community in which individuals typically get around by asking for directions or referencing real-life, physical cues, or landmarks. Likewise, our initial concern that the low-angle shots of the feet cameras may be too abstract or uneventful for Acaia’s young students turned out to be unjustified; what we assumed was uneventful to us was curiously observed and playfully explored by the students. Although our intention was not to make substantive contributions to Acaia’s curriculum (if at all), our design aspirations to radically change perspectives facilitated another critical aspect of service-learning that our partners repeatedly emphasized: cultural exchange. We did not fully recognize this value of cultural exchange as a potential catalyst for changes in perspectives of individuals and the related insights into different realities and symbolic representations until the end of the workshop experience. In that sense, simply showing up as integrative designers and participating is undoubtedly not enough. However, facilitating community-based designerly activities that promote playful changes of perspectives and make enough space for the reflection thereof at both ends promises to be a critical step towards radical synergy.

Conclusion When realized to its fullest potential, radical synergy and the deep collaboration it involves can effect more just and equitable futures. As depicted in Figure 21, we imagine radical synergy functioning iteratively and recursively to beget equity, access, and justice in many futures to come.

355

Figure 21 Radical synergy realized to its fullest potential begets equity, access, and justice in an iterative and recursive manner for many futures to come.

Acknowledgments Gowri Balasubramaniam, Colleen Clark, Megan Freund, Ashley Moon, Larrea Young, Najwat Rehman, Assocreation and Instituto Acaia, and Penny W. Stamps School of Art and Design.

References Bennett, A. (2012). Follow the golden ratio from Africa to the Bauhaus for a cross-cultural aesthetic for images.

Critical Interventions, 6(1), 11-23. Bennett, A. G. (2021, March 22). The African roots of Swiss design. The Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/the-african-roots-of-swiss-design-154892. Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5-21. Eglash, R., Bennett, A., Babbitt, W., Lachney, M., Reinhardt, M., & Hammond‐Sowah, D. (2020). Decolonizing

posthumanism: Indigenous material agency in generative STEM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4): 1334-1353.

Eglash, R., Robert, L., Bennett, A., Robinson, K. P., Lachney, M., & Babbitt, W. (2020). Automation for the artisanal economy: Enhancing the economic and environmental sustainability of crafting professions with human–machine collaboration. AI & SOCIETY, 35(3), 595-609.

Eglash, R. (2016). An introduction to generative justice. Teknokultura, 13(2), 369-404. Gowdy, J. (1999). Hunter-gatherers and the mythology of the market. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters

and Gatherers, 391-398. Ignatov, A. (2016). African Orature as Ecophilosophy: Tuning in to the Voices of the Land. GeoHumanities, 2(1),

76-91. Loveridge, D. (2002). The STEEPV acronym and process – a clarification, PREST, Paper no. 29,.

356

Mandelbrot, B. (1983). The Fractal Geometry of Nature. W. H. Freeman and co., San Francisco. Morrison, M. (2007). Pestle analysis tool. Retrieved from https://rapidbi.com/the-pestle-analysis-tool/ Mazel, H. (1896). La synergie sociale. A. Colin. Patel, L., Kaseke, E., & Midgley, J. (2012). Indigenous welfare and community-based social development:

Lessons from African innovations. Journal of Community Practice, 20(1-2), 12-31. Pielke, R., & Linnér, B. O. (2019). From Green Revolution to Green Evolution: A Critique of the Political Myth of

Averted Famine. Minerva, 57(3), 265-291. Voros, J. (2017). The Futures Cone, use and history. Foresight, Futures Studies, Method/Framework. Retrieved

from https://thevoroscope.com/2017/02/24/the-futures-cone-use-and-history/.

Audrey G. Bennett Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, University of Michigan, USA agbennet@umich.edu Audrey is a 2015 Andrew W. Mellon Distinguished Scholar of the University of Pretoria, South Africa. She joined the University of Michigan as a tenured professor in 2018, was appointed an inaugural University Diversity and Social Transformation Professor in 2019, and Director of the graduate program in Integrative Design in 2020. Her research concerns race and aesthetics, technology and inequality, the analysis of images and graphics, and interactivity. Ron Eglash School of Information, University of Michigan, USA eglash@umich.edu Dr. Ron Eglash is a Professor in the School of Information at University of Michigan. He received his B.S. in Cybernetics, his M.S. in Systems Engineering, and his PhD in History of Consciousness, all from the University of California. His work as Fulbright scholar was published as African Fractals: modern computing and indigenous design. His NSF-sponsored “Culturally Situated Design Tools” software, offering math and computing education from indigenous and vernacular arts, is available for free at csdt.org. Roland Graf Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, University of Michigan, USA rolgraf@umich.edu Dr. Roland Graf is a media artist, design researcher, and co-founder of the artist collective Assocreation. Graf’s doctoral research focused on tracing a convergence of artistic and ludic engineering approaches at the intersection of interactive art and human-computer interaction. His current research explores the roles of play and playful exploration of emerging technologies in prototyping and building more accessible and inclusive futures. Deepa Butoliya Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, University of Michigan, USA butoliya@umich.edu Dr. Deepa Butoliya is a designer, design researcher and educator. She received her PhD in Transition Design from Carnegie Mellon University. Deepa’s research is located at the intersection of models of knowledge and critical thinking emerging from multiple and global perspectives. Deepa’s doctoral research explored the phenomena behind the term Jugaad with the mission to bring ingenuity to the ever-evolving landscape of design, technology, and culture. She wants to help create a sustainable, equitable and inclusive environment for the societies with local awareness and global perspective.

357

Keesa V. Johnson Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, University of Michigan, USA keesav@umich.edu Keesa is an award-winning integrative designer, systems thinker, and DEI Professional. Her design practice is focused on creating socially just and equitable processes within community driven design. She uses Black, African, and Indigenous design research methods as tools for change and transformation (while working within generative contexts). Keesa is currently co-founder of the hyperlocal design firm, Equity and Access Group, which works on various food systems projects throughout the state of Michigan Jenn Low The Urban Studio, Washington, D.C., USA hello@jennwlow.com Jenn is an integrative designer, educator and landscape architect. She works at the intersection of participatory design and public history, and her work seeks to redistribute power in our design processes to advance our work toward spatial justice. Jenn is also a core organizer with Dark Matter University, a collective of design educators working toward an anti-racist model of design education and practice. Andréia Rocha School of Art & Design, Eastern Michigan University, USA arochaes@emich.edu Andréia is an early childhood art educator. She works at the intersection of early childhood and art education to support young children’s meaning-making ability and understanding of themselves within their cultural worlds. Her work focuses on children’s personal connections in the meaning-making process through the lens of multicultural education.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Transitioning From University to Work in Service Design Insights From the Product-Service System Design Tour Format Development

Daniela de Sainz-Molestina and Andrea Taverna https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.03.225

The last decades have been of significant growth for the Service Design discipline. For supporting students in understanding the multifaceted profile of the Service Designer, academia needs to reflect on how this evolution affects the educational setting as Service Design methods are now applied in different contexts to face complex societal and business challenges. This paper explores how university-industry collaboration in extracurricular activities might support students in understanding the role of the Service Designer in practice. An extracurricular activity in the format of a digital event—the PSSD Tour—addresses this inquiry by involving companies and students in conversations to explore the different applications of Service Design methods in industry projects. After three co-design sessions with stakeholders trigger the development of the PSSD Tour format, three iterative tour tests with companies help experiment and evolve the format.

Keywords: service design; product-service system design; design education; university-industry collaboration; didactic innovation

Design Changes Affect the (Service) Designer’s Role The past 50 years have seen a change in how the role of design is perceived by business and society, recognizing it as an effective way of thinking, working, and solving problems (Voûte, Stappers, Giaccardi, Mooij, & Boeijen, 2020). This approach to design has enlarged the complexity of the challenges designers face (Sangiorgi, 2009), as the object of design transforms into a process aimed at achieving results, where “design no longer ‘designs something’ but rather ‘designs for something’ or to get something to happen” (Manzini, 2016, p. 3). In this context, it is inevitable that the people who design change as well, moving from product-centered thinking and doing towards centering in the interactions of people, things, and places (Manzini, 2016). However, when designers start to shape these interactions, determining their identity is difficult (Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2016), since they adopt roles that go far beyond offering their creativity to perform a given task or designing a pleasant experience for an individual (Voûte et al., 2020), but to work to solve performance, systemic, contextual, and global challenges (Meyer & Norman, 2020). To effectively tackle these challenges, Service Designers use a wide range of competencies and skills in their work, from the capabilities to empathise with others and initiate and facilitate participatory co-creation processes to the ability to envision possibilities for the future (Morelli, De Götzen & Simeone, 2021). Moreover, Service Designers apply these skills to developing numerous projects through different methods, working at different levels, from the operational to the strategic, and with different aims, like improving a service or starting organizational transformations (Morelli, De Götzen & Simeone, 2021; Meroni & Sangiorgi, 2016). Finally, as design continues to expand its requirements and opportunities, new ways of working arise: designers’ work patterns now vary, as jobs have evolved from lifelong employment in a company to a succession of jobs (Voûte et al., 2020) and from working in a physical studio in one location to working with geographically dispersed teams, employed by different firms or hired temporarily (Meyer & Norman, 2020). In this setting, scholars highlight the importance of preparing students for life-long learning to respond to rapid

359

developments in the field and draw a scenario in which design education reformulates to integrate other disciplines (Broadbent & Cross, 2003; Meyer & Norman, 2020; Frascara, 2020) while preparing students to be proactive, socially responsible, and culturally aware (Broadbent & Cross, 2003; Frascara, 2020). In this future scenario, Broadbent and Cross (2003) argue, technological developments will play a key role in shaping design education. This transformation, however, might be hard to implement, as it not only confronts universities with the challenge of changing their processes but their mindsets (Norman, 2011; Calabretta, De Lille & Beck, 2016). Moreover, these institutions might lack the competencies to see these changes through (Oliva & Kallenberg, 2003), while organizational culture and employee behavior can undermine the effort to launch and develop these transformational processes (Calabretta et al., 2016). While these and other issues might hinder curriculum changes, how can universities create efforts to prepare students to understand how Service Design is realized in different circumstances while bringing them closer to the industry where they will develop? Within this context, this paper aims to understand if universities can enhance the exchange of Service Design knowledge between companies and students. Would this interaction help clarify the role of a Service Designer in a specific setting? This paper comprises four chapters. The first problematizes the research area by providing the theoretical background that drives the development of the Product Service System Design Tour format (later defined as PSSD tour): a digital extracurricular activity that involves companies and students in conversations to explore the different applications of Service Design methods in industry projects. The second chapter briefly illustrates how and why universities and industries collaborate, focusing on the context where the activity was tested and iterated. The third chapter details the development and testing of the format while presenting and discussing results. Finally, the last chapter concludes and addresses opportunities and limitations.

The Necessary Bridge Between Academy and Practice

Collaborating with industry As academia and industry face new pressures and respond to environmental uncertainty, their efforts to enhance innovation through mutual collaboration have increased (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015). This exchange aims to create mutual value over time by enabling the diffusion of knowledge, technology, and people (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) and has provided mechanisms that can change how educational institutions approach problems (Slater & Ravid, 2013). For academia, this collaboration helps fulfil the need to graduate immediately employable students, serves as a source to foster new knowledge, and a means to confront rising costs and decreased funding (Meyer & Norman, 2020). Finally, it serves as training by exposing students to practical problems, new ideas, and technology, while it can also provide them with employment opportunities (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015). For companies, this exchange is an approach to keep up with market changes, to differentiate themselves from their competitors, and to increase their revenues. Organizations are also motivated to enter these relationships as a means of professional training and development, for facilitating internship and hiring processes, and to carry on parallel research and development processes to complement their traditional internal ones (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015). These collaborations are shaped by organizational realities, meaning that the issues that might hinder curricula development in universities might also inhibit these types of operations. They also change depending on the involvement of both parties and the type of agreement (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015). Finally, before collaborating, both partners should understand that working together will be more advantageous than working apart and should articulate an exchange that furthers each other's goals (Slater & Ravid, 2013).

The case of Product Service System Design (PSSD) The Master of Science course of Product-Service System Design (M.Sc. of PSSD) is a two-year post-graduate program at Politecnico di Milano. The program relies on industry collaboration to refine and adjust its educational offer by collecting inputs, opportunities, and feedback from the job context. The M.Sc. in PSSD course has launched several industry collaborations to improve the training program, such as joint and individual lectures and joint supervision of the Master thesis and by creating the PSSD Advisory Board, a group composed of a community of professionals, civil servants, and adjunct and structured professors connected to the course. In 2016, the Directions of the course and the School of Design launched this last initiative with two goals. First, to create a community of interest around the course that would support the teaching staff in defining the

360

profile of the graduate student and the training the program provides by obtaining inputs and feedback from the job context. Second, to open a space to jointly develop and promote new academic and professional opportunities for students. During the second Advisory Board meeting (ABM), held in 2018, the stakeholders explored the strengths and weaknesses of the course while defining the most important skills PSSD alumni must have. Here, the need for integrating life-long learning into the curriculum was also highlighted, as students need to be prepared to continue learning while on the job. Finally, this meeting helped open conversations about how to develop new collaborations between the course and the design sector, with the suggestion to implement moments outside of the curriculum for students to share with industry members, and that would inspire them to reflect on their future career. The third ABM, held in 2019, focused on facilitating the entrance of alumni to the workplace. Here, the idea of enlarging and strengthening the course’s alumni network to create new collaborations and opportunities was introduced as an issue, since many studios hire new employees through referrals. When discussing how to achieve this goal, the board proposed the cultivation of contacts as part of a possible solution. The links the M.Sc. in PSSD course has developed with industry have shaped the program, as industry members are currently involved in student training and mentoring. However, the development of the Advisory Board and its yearly meetings have also shed light on how the course can provide new learning moments and links with industry for students without having to intervene with the curriculum, providing a more flexible space for experimentation and iteration.

Designing a Format to Foster Collaboration Research through design The literature of Design Research (Dorst, 2008) in education (Bakker, 2018) informed the theoretical background for the methodology of this paper. Research through Design (Zimmerman et al., 2010) and Educational Design Research (McKenney & Reeves, 2014) are both approaches centering on developing a theoretical understanding through the design and implementation of practical interventions. The Research through Design process followed by this paper shapes the PSSD tour. This digital extracurricular activity serves as both an informative and formative action by aiming to understand how Service Design practices are put in place by companies while helping the participating students understand the nuances of the Service Designer role in different contexts. The format development started with a co-design session involving companies during the 2020 ABM, followed by a series of co-design sessions, surveys, and interviews with M.Sc. in PSSD students and alumni held virtually with a digital whiteboard. These and other research activities resulted in the design principles for building and refining the initiative. The initiative was then tested by carrying tours with three different companies. Here, direct observation of participant interactions during the experiences and feedback collection resulted in further insights. The Covid-19 pandemic pushed the PSSD Tour format into the digital world, which brought opportunities and limitations discussed in the conclusion of this document. However, the name of "tour" was kept since the concept behind the activity continues to be, metaphorically, exploring a company.

Co-designing with stakeholders To kick-start a dialogue about how Politecnico di Milano and companies could work together to create extracurricular experiences for knowledge diffusion that bring together students and industry, three co-design sessions were developed. The PSSD Advisory Board was involved in the first session, while M.Sc. in PSSD students and alumni participated in the following two. During these activities, the stakeholders would expand and assess the Design Tour, an idea based on previous learnings devised to drive forward concept creation. The co-design session with the Advisory Board members took place during the yearly ABM in February 2020, intending to inspire the stakeholders to challenge the conventions of their current relationship with the course and envision new collaborations while generating concrete ideas considering feasibility. Guided by five facilitators and with the help of a board and a set of cards (Figure 1), 26 faculty and industry members participated in the activity, where they tackled the challenge of creating their Design Tour. The student sessions, on the other hand, centered on the value the tours could provide. Guided by a facilitator and through Google Hangouts and Miro—an online collaborative whiteboard platform for distributed teams, the students created their Design Tour by playing a game that required them to answer five questions as a group. In real-time, the participants could view and edit the game board with colored post-its in Miro (Figure 2) while discussing the process and results through a conference call in Hangouts.

361

Regarding value, the discussion led towards the experience becoming a learning opportunity for all participants. Students viewed the Tour as an opportunity to widen their understanding of the Service Designer role and learn how company culture molds project development while recognizing the capabilities they need to reinforce to work in a specific context. In the case of the companies, to receive feedback, to easily connect with future collaborators, and as an approach to understanding how Service Design profiles evolve in terms of methodologies, tools, and interests. These considerations resulted in stakeholders suggesting a student pre-selection process to enrich the experience.

Figure 1. Materials used in the ABM co-design activity

For industry, feasibility related to Tour structure and participant numbers. All groups expressed their desire to interact with students based on a less is more approach to generate valuable connections and ease activity management while highlighting that Tour structure should allow topic exploration without consuming many resources.

362

Figure 2. Detail of the filled game board from the second student co-design activity in the Miro platform

When addressing activity formats, participants drew attention to digital interactions and how they could cater to more students and help expose them to diverse environments and design approaches while easing management and preparation. Students also highlighted the need for an active environment where social interaction is part of the dynamic. Finally, all participants saw facilitating internship processes as a desirable outcome of the Tour and not the driving force. Moreover, students envisioned it as a space for learning and inspiration, prioritizing Tour content over format.

The evolution of the PSSD tour format As a result of the co-creation process and following synthesis and concept validation, we proposed a new extracurricular activity involving companies to validate and test the assumption introduced in Chapter 1 of this paper. We named it the Product-Service System Design Tour (PSSD tour). This extracurricular university-industry collaboration aims to spotlight different approaches to doing Service Design, helping students understand how their role evolves depending on context and the competencies they require to work in specific environments. After defining the concept to develop, a logic model detailed how the project would achieve these goals starting from its activities and helped define the people, materials, and resources needed to create the Tour’s components (Figure 3). We then built the activity around three main stages and the tour event around five moments cemented by the co-design sessions (Figure 4). The phases regard the activities developed before, during, and after each event. Before the tour, the facilitators would select the company partners and hold individual meetings to share the tour creation guidelines. With the guidelines, the companies would create the events while the facilitators populated the tour’s informational website for students, which they would use to apply to the program. After the submission period, the facilitators would select the students. And finally, the tours would be held and evaluated by all participants. While on tour (see Second Phase in Figure 4), and after the event introduction, the students would take over with an ice-breaking activity. The company team would then share the processes they follow to develop and deliver projects and finally open the floor to engage in conversations before the tour closing. These moments aimed to alternate the direction of the interactions, first by contextualizing the experience into the course path with the introduction and the conclusion and then developing two interactions that place students at the center, likewise with company partners. We created the five moments comprising the tour events to minimize the passivity of low engagement by nudging attendees into taking participatory action in the experience while providing quality contact to spark as many moments of interactions between participants. The communication and format’s goal was to create an informal atmosphere that would support the organic growth of participant interactions.

363

Figure 3. The PSSD Tour’s logic model

Three tour tests with companies linked to the Advisory Board (Experientia, Tangity, and H-Farm) helped assess the program components to understand if the tour could achieve the final impact (Figure 3). Two tour facilitators managed each test, which involved around 20 students and 3-4 company members. The learnings from the first two tests informed the final concept and helped create a second tour structure centered on cyclical sharing of information (Figure 5), tested with H-Farm. The first two tests confirmed interest from all stakeholders, highlighted the value of developing the tours in the digital format, and confirmed participant numbers. They also determined the effectiveness of the touchpoints while underlining the best-suited conferencing tool to deliver the activity. Finally, these two experiences proved temporary staff can handle facilitation and management if they access clear guides. As a result, the materials we created for these two pilots served as the base for a facilitator toolkit for future development. The issues that arose from these first experiences stemmed from tour structure (see Second Phase in Figure 4) and communications. The experiences were pleasant for students but failed to deliver on all of the objectives set. Due to resource-related constraints, companies leaned towards sharing the content they already had, leaving out topics. Discussions at the end of the tour left students saturated with information and created a conference-type atmosphere that did not push for integration. Finally, since communications promoted the experience as an opportunity to build the students’ networks but never expanded how this would happen, there was a generalized understanding that these networking opportunities would happen regardless of student engagement and participation. These last two elements combined pushed students to become passive participants instead of viewing the tour as an experience to make opportunities and learning happen.

364

Figure 4. The PSSD Tour’s service journey and format for tour testing 1-2

The changes for the third test started with communications, which we modified to be more impactful in engaging students to become active participants. We used the application questions to help students understand what they wanted to get out of their tour experience while thinking about the value they would bring. Before the activity, the company partner received a document that comprised information about the students and their aims in joining the tour. As for the format, the third test had company teams share a topic and then discuss it with the students. The topics pointed to the company partners the specific issues they needed to address to bring value while creating a more dynamic atmosphere without overloading students with information (Figure 5). Moreover, the company team would have the freedom to share the information in whichever way they wanted, reflecting company culture. The cyclical tour structure and communications to the students and company team helped address all six key shifts detailed in the logic model (see Figure 6), resulting in the highest attendee engagement rate of all testing processes and generating unique conversations amongst participants. The three-topic strategy helped students glimpse into the culture, learn about the behind-the-scenes of how the teams carry out some projects and understand what the company expects from a collaborator. Finally, this approach can create a space of privilege that simplifies later contact with the company. However, the initiative will fulfill the key shifts only if students interact with several companies during the academic year. Two new tour experiences with agencies connected to the course (Strategic Design Scenarios and Nesta Italia) applied the resulting format (Figure 5).

Figure 5. The PSSD Tour’s format for the third test

365

Figure 6. The PSSD Tour’s logic model and the third test’s components

Discussion of findings resulting from format experimentation Evaluating the feedback of the tour activities, performing student interviews, and observing each tour during its development allowed us to reflect on the use of the PSSD Tour format. This section identifies the factors that impact the format's success, challenges, good practices, and opportunities.

From passive to active learners When students become active participants, they create interactions that drive knowledge transfer while building bridges for themselves and other participants to later approach company partners for inputs. The format should create opportunities for students and company partners alike to take center stage and mold the tour, as new collaborations are fortified when embraced by all participants (Slater & Ravid, 2013). Therefore, the university should promote the tour as an empowering and exclusive experience that is most valuable when students take the lead.

Shift relevance from outcomes to contributions In this activity, an exchange between active participants is the key to successful interactions. Ensure that rather than just using the tour to further personal goals, participants look to becoming contributors to the group, offering something of value and focusing on the experience.

Every tour has a different atmosphere Human interactions drive the success of this type of collaboration. However, even though the tour follows the same format, replication is hard to accomplish as each activity has different company partners with their own organizational culture permeating all interactions (Slater & Ravid, 2013). The tests unveiled company culture plays a major role in tour development, as the willingness to experiment, integrate company members, and generate diverse interaction opportunities for students depends on how the companies envision themselves and the objectives they set up for their own tour experience.

Fruitful interactions The tour’s unique value proposition for students is the opportunity to engage in conversations with professionals who work in companies applying Service Design. In this context, creating an informal atmosphere can support the organic growth of interactions. When Creative Directors or managers participated in the tours,

366

other employees tended to limit their inputs and became cautious when sharing. Based on these experiences, the participating company teams should be made up of 3 to 5 professionals, from junior to senior members, to create a safe and nonthreatening environment that pushes for integration instead of highlighting a hierarchy, making students and industry members feel confident and comfortable in participating. Furthermore, having all professionals be from the same academic background (all service designers, for example) seemed to limit the conversations, so the company staff should display expertise in different areas to give a complementary view and diverse opinions on the topics discussed.

Limiting factors These elements pertain to the capacity and resources of both the course and the companies involved. Lack of university funding and human resources can hinder the development of this extracurricular collaboration. Meaning the format should function with little, or none, capital and maintenance and no in-person training of the activity staff. On the other hand, company partners prioritize other endeavors and limit their time working for these collaborations (Slater & Ravid, 2013), leaving little time for co-creating and co-managing the activity. Other issues that may affect the outcomes can relate to the degree of trust established between the university and the company partners (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015) and the communication between the activity organizers and company staff. Because of these last two points, universities should launch this type of collaboration in conjunction with firms they have collaborated with previously. In our case, we tested the format with companies linked to the Advisory Board of the course.

Metrics for success A successful tour collaboration refers to quality interactions among industry partners and students during tour execution; it results in achieving student and company expectations to a satisfactory degree and a willingness to repeat collaboration from both parties. Finally, since what surrounds the job service designers perform are transversal skills, students need to attend several tours in one academic year for the project to accomplish its intern and primary outcomes (see Figure 3).

Conclusion and Recommendations Limitations of the experiment Understanding the limits of the design experiment is necessary for concluding. The limited number of events the course has carried out (five) might be considered a small sample to evaluate success. Further events using this format might generate new insights and strengthen current observations while providing a larger spectrum of context in which the Service Designer plays a role. Moreover, we organized the experiment with companies that have collaborated with the course or/and the Advisory Board. Finally, measuring long-term positive impacts is difficult. Setting a longitudinal measurement strategy might provide further data to analyse success in the future.

Recommendations for further experimentation This section addresses course staff and researchers interested in the topic by suggesting strategies that would help overcome the limitations and improve the format. Regarding course staff, the suggestions aim to enable student participation and provide a rich experience through the format. Students need to attend several tours during the program’s academic year to successfully transfer knowledge from the different contexts they might operate in once they graduate. The results from the tour tests are the basis for this assumption. Future facilitators should understand the average number of tours a student needs to attend for fulfilling the outcomes detailed in the logic model (Figure 3). Building on this reflection, it is relevant to highlight that the tours collaborate with companies representing different Service Design approaches to enlarge the perspective on how these contexts reflect in the discipline. By tracking quantitative and qualitative data points, the tour’s team can understand its effectiveness in achieving its goals and create future improvements to the initiative. Here, we outline a few possible quantitative indicators for monitoring its implementation:

• Number of tours that have been delivered per season.

• Number of seasons that have been delivered per year.

• Number of students who attend one season per year.

• Number of students who attend two seasons during the entirety of their studies.

• Number of new companies integrated into the program per year.

• Number of companies who are willing to attend one season per year. Regarding the researchers, the suggestion aims to understand and obtain actionable knowledge from empirical evidence. Measurement of the program’s outcomes is the key to achieving impact faster and more

367

efficiently. Here, feedback from participants can offer insights into why the program is or not working. The following indicators can help evaluate format outcomes, provide data for future longitudinal studies, and measure format success:

• Percentage of students who have attended the program who demonstrate improved knowledge of the working context.

• Percentage of students who have attended the program who demonstrate improved knowledge of the capabilities needed to work in the context of the toured companies or similar contexts.

• Percentage of students who have attended the program who demonstrate improved knowledge of the capabilities they need to reinforce to work in the contexts shared on the tours.

• Percentage of students who have attended the program who contacted company members after the tours are over.

In this case, students demonstrate ‘improved knowledge’ when they understand the general competencies required for Service Design practice in each of the professional environments they visited and can grasp how their role changes depending on the working context. Qualitative methods, like questionnaires and surveys, can assess this indicator. However, a qualitative analysis through follow-up interviews might be a better procedure for measurement. These would be most valuable if repeated once students become professional practitioners. Finally, other activities such as mentoring programs might support students to find the professional context of their interest while guiding them in understanding how they see themselves as practitioners.

Concluding remarks The discussion of the findings helps us conclude that the PSSD Tour format can help students understand Service Design as it creates meaningful conversations regarding the practice while highlighting the figure of the Service Designer concerning all collaborators in the workplace. The tour format provides the course insights into how professionals use Service Design methods and tools in different environments while creating links with new industry collaborators, crucial activities for evolving its offer. Therefore, in a dynamic discipline strongly linked with modern transformation as Service Design, this collaborative activity is valuable since it helps prepare future Service Design professionals by connecting practitioners with the students who are learning the method. The Covid Pandemic accelerated and temporarily cemented the role virtual worlds could have in education (Broadbent & Cross, 2003), as institutions performed virtually all the educational tasks they considered needed face-to-face contact for success. Before the pandemic, knowledge transfer and valuable interactions in the course tended to happen in the physical space, relegating digital formats as touchpoints for enhancing educational experiences. This experiment pushed these boundaries, forcing us to understand how to translate the value of in-person interactions to a digital experience while offering the possibility of connecting with partners locally and globally. As stated in Chapter 1, this paper aimed to propose a format that could enhance the exchange of knowledge from Service Design practice with students aspiring to become Service Design practitioners while understanding the benefits of this exchange for all stakeholders involved, namely students, companies, and researchers. The format has the potential to benefit students by involving them in guiding how each event develops, first by framing what they want to learn from each visit and then structuring it through their active participation. On the other hand, companies can interact with the future workforce by sharing knowledge that will support their development as professionals. Lastly, the format provides researchers working in an educational context, a privileged view for observing the discipline's trends and emerging needs. Finally, for students to prepare for the plurality of Service Design practice, they need to foster the competencies for finding a job while evolving alongside it and rising to future challenges by engaging in constant learning. It's in this last matter that university-industry collaboration has an opportunity to enhance the learning experience without overly demanding from course staff or disrupting the course curriculum. To become successful, extracurricular interactions like the one explored by this paper, require students to be proactive and take participatory action in getting answers and in molding the experience to fulfill their expectations. These conclusions highlight the potential for a paradigm shift in how students approach the learning experience. Envisioning the switch from reactiveness to proactiveness helps visualize more flexible learning scenarios. Spaces that allow for the course and students to experiment, iterate, and co-create the learning enhancements they require.

368

References Ankrah, S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities–industry collaboration: A systematic review. Scandinavian

Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408. doi:10.1016/j.scaman.2015.02.003 Bakker, A. (2018). Design Research in Education. A Practical Guide for Early Career Researchers. Taylor &

Francis. Broadbent, J. A., & Cross, N. (2003). Design education in the information age. Journal of Engineering Design,

14(4), 439-446. doi:10.1080/09544820310001606867 Calabretta, G., De Lille, C., Beck, C. (2016). Service Design for Effective Servitization and New Service

Implementation. In Service Design Geographies. Proceedings of the ServDes2016 Conference (No. 125, pp. 91-104). Linköping University Electronic Press.

Dorst, K. (2008). Design research: A revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29(1), 4-11. Frascara, J. (2020). Design Education, Training, and the Broad Picture: Eight Experts Respond to a Few

Questions. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 106-117. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.003

McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2014). Educational design research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 131-140). Springer.

Manzini, E. (2016). Introduction. In A. Meroni & D. Sangiorgi, Design for Services (pp. 1-6). Taylor & Francis. Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2016). Design for Services. Taylor & Francis. Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing Design Education for the 21st Century. She Ji: The Journal of

Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13-49. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002 Morelli, N., De Götzen, A., & Simeone, L. (2021). Service Design Capabilities. Springer Nature. Norman, D. (2011, October 04). Design Education: Brilliance Without Substance. Retrieved February 10, 2020,

from https://www.core77.com/posts/20364/Design-Education-Brilliance-Without-Substance Oliva, R., & Kallenberg, R. (2003). Managing the transition from products to services. International Journal of

Service Industry Management, 14(2), 160-72. Sanders, E. & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design. CoDesign, 4, 5-18.

doi:10.1080/15710880701875068. Sangiorgi, D. (2009). Building up a framework for Service Design research. In J. Malins (Ed.), Proceedings of the

8th International Conference of the European Academy of Design (pp. 415-420). The Robert Gordon University, Scotland, 1-3 April 2009.

Slater, J. J., & Ravid, R. (2013). Collaboration in Education. Routledge. Voûte, E., Stappers, P. J., Giaccardi, E., Mooij, S., & Boeijen, A. V. (2020). Innovating a Large Design Education

Program at a University of Technology. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 50-66. doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.001

Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of Research through Design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. In DIS ’10: Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (pp. 310–319). Aarhus, Denmark, 16-20 August 2010.

Daniela de Sainz-Molestina Politecnico di Milano, School of Design, Italy dani.desainz@gmail.com Daniela de Sainz is a recent M.Sc. in Product-Service System Design graduate from the Politecnico di Milano. After graduation, she has collaborated with the School of Design to support the organization of the PSSD Tour. Andrea Taverna Politecnico di Milano, Design Department, Italy andrea.taverna@polimi.it PhD candidate in the Design Department of Politecnico di Milano in the PoliMi DESIS research lab. The focus of his research is on Service Design Education. Previously Research Fellow in the European project DigiMooD project on developing innovative and interdisciplinary educational modules in “Digital Entrepreneurship for the Creative Industries”.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Educational Programs in Between Design and Supply Chain Significant Examples of Academia-SMEs Joint Labs in Italy

Gabriele Goretti and Gianni Denaro https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.04.215

Locate: Furniture manufacturing in Italy is based on interconnected small and medium-sized enterprises based on craftsmanship know-how. Focus: These companies have undertaken profound transformations within the production chain in a logic of advanced craftsmanship, integrating enabling technologies into high-quality craftsmanship processes. This transformation is aiming at shaping intelligent enterprises and it requires new design professionals able to work with systemic view, connecting design competencies to an overview on the supply chain issues. Report: In this context, academia-industry joint programs could train design managers able to understand, acquire and integrate the tangible and intangible values of manufacturing culture and technological innovations. The research reports on joint labs cases studies in between Academia and SMEs that aimed at defining innovative design paths based on digitalization of production and production management. Argue: The presented experiences highlight on how the overall training systems provided by the university could represent a significant booster within the entire digitization process and innovation management. In fact, the laboratories have been involved within specific production steps of the companies.

Keywords: advanced craftsmanship; supply chain; design education; joint lab programs; digitalization

Italian Manufacturing Districts of Furniture and Home Details. Socio-Economic Transformations Underway The organization of furniture manufacturing districts in Italy is based on an articulated differentiation of productions that involves highly specialized independent small and medium-sized enterprises. Each of them focuses on a single activity or on a series of small and consequential tasks that define a specific phase of the process. This collaborative structure is known as Industrial District, a cluster of manufacturers that allows to cover the entire manufacturing process of the artifact thanks to the territorial proximity between the companies. Proximity among these players facilitates a direct interaction in between them, setting a production model able to transfer the cultural aspects of the territory and “Made in Italy” intangible values into a product with strong and significant aesthetics (Morace & Lanzone, 2010). This relational attitude in between companies is widespread in many Italian regions, in particular in production areas characterized by manufacturing contracting and sub-contracting models. This “relational” link among SMEs is also allowing to virtuously manage the financial aspects to start the production and acquisition of raw materials, as well as time and operational phases. The complex management of districts issues and the effects of the COVID-19 health crisis have partly affected this organizational model which, although still valid for its relational aspects, today can only be effective by widening the boundaries of innovation as much as possible. By involving new experts and technological aspects apparently far from the specific production process (Di Lucchio, 2005) it is possible to boost a regeneration of this company cluster and to develop new competitive advantages. In fact, advanced digital equipment could help SMEs that present management skills in facing emerging market

370

challenges. Moreover, through a design-driven digital innovation it is possible to strengthen the link in between product and territory. In fact, digitalization allows to design “the traceability of products within trans-territorial supply chains, making the manufacturing framework transparent about the different production steps and processes up to the final marketing stage” (Rullani, 2016). This new scenario forces Design Research to rethink a brand-new system that preserves the positive relational aspects of the district - emphasizing them through the digitization of the supply chain and optimizing times and phases - and that develops a g-local approach, on one hand promoting the intrinsic social, cultural and territorial aspects of the product system and on the other hand opening up localized manufacturing clusters to new global opportunities and connections.

Advanced Craftsmanship: Ongoing Trends in Made in Italy Supply Chain Bridging Manufacturing Traditions and Innovation Processes This industrial district models often refer to values and production techniques proper of traditional craftsmanship. The strategic communication in between visionary designers and open-minded craftsmen stands as a pillar within history of Italian Design, in fact many Italian design masterpieces have been developed within this strategic synergy (De Fusco, 2009). Craftsmanship implies knowing how to do things and includes the arts of making, the ability to produce, the knowledge of materials and transformation processes. When the craftsman know-how meets rising contemporary innovation, incorporating brand new technics and processes into tangible and intangible values of artisanship, in this case we talk about advanced craftsmanship. This new perspective on craft bridges the concept of quality driven know-how to contemporary innovation, making technologies facilitating the processes and supporting the values of a good productions. Then, digital equipment could strengthen the production intrinsic values without reducing or damaging the exquisite craft mastery (Goretti, 2017). This scenario presents rising trends and case studies underway. Within these transformations, it is possible to highlight significant implementations and new supply chain practices (Fry et al., 2016) that could be categorised as follows:

- Technological transfers and cross fertilization: The transfer of technology from a manufacturing area to other one, by saving the previously experienced expertise and reinterpreting this innovation know-how within the new production sector. Technology transfers have represented a strategic factor in market repositioning for many production chains in recent decades - an emblematic case is the transfer of laser cutting from the automotive system to fashion (Fry et al., 2016). In addition, some exchanges and transfers of knowledge between different production areas could establishing totally new supply chain networks that go beyond the traditional manufacturing categories.

- New technologies and supply chain logistics:

Consistent advancements in innovation of supply chain logistics aims at improving production planning, time-to-market. In addition, research on logistics could develop new strategies in raw materials procurements and suppliers’ management, artefact certification systems and traceability methods. Furthermore, Industry 4.0 program -as part of Horizon EU framework- offers innovation paths that represent a strategic tool to furtherly systematize the ongoing updating processes.

Developments of Advanced Product Design and Design Management Competencies for SMEs Supply Chain Digitalization process of production companies doesn’t stand as a new subject and some significant transformations became more than fifteen years ago. Anyway, limitations and measures today imposed to deal with COVID-19 prompted the companies to introduce new technological supports and improving the digital transitions already started in the past years. The transition from the Third to the Fourth Industrial Revolution was in fact characterized by an even greater interaction in between man and machine within the SMEs production and in between the different players involved in the design process connected to the companies. During the second half of twentieth century, the state-of-the-art of technologies highlighted on the emerging need to create and manage production processes able to generate knowledge (Di Lucchio, 2005); however, recent emerging issues within the SMEs supply chain in different market areas require new business models aiming at redesign the traditional systems of production, consumption, transport and shipment (Schwab, 2016). Then, the new scenario of Italian manufacturing districts requires the creation of a widespread management

371

system that makes emerging enabling technologies -part of Industry 4.0 model, promoted and supported by national Government and European Commission- as a tool for enhancing and evolve the best practices and values of “Made in Italy” supply chains. These strategic implementations generate updated business model based on optimization of resources, integrated management and communication of tangible and intangible values of advanced craftsmanship to the final customer. In practice, the new achievements of SMEs clusters aim at accomplishing the intelligent enterprise as defined by Acts: “Integrated Digital management of technical processes, as production and management of the traditional company through the implementation of enabling technologies of Industry 4.0” (Atti, 2018). Therefore, the new districts of “Made in Italy” don’t focus only on good design, artefact quality and control of traditional processes, but also on the integrated logistics management of different manufacturing paths of the cluster. Then, the traditional role of the design and product manager is not enough anymore. We highlight on an emerging request of new design managers able to face the Industry 4.0 technologies and to become the centric point of reference of the intelligent enterprise. Anyway, considering the national Italian overview, only few districts and production processes have completely developed a digital integrate transition and Italian scenario looks quite fragmented. Even if these limited case studies could represent a significant strength, the weight of these companies is not suck as to lead a real transformation at national level. The main reason why of this structural weakness is due to the lack of access for SMEs to the up-to-date research outcomes on advanced implementation of enabling technologies and supply-chain management – as product lifecycle management (PLM)- or lack of competencies in setting feasible planning for the implementation. This gap occurs despite the fact that we can detect an already existing knowledge in the companies about some digital technologies, although they are used in a limited way to specific processes and not in an interconnected framework. Examples are the use of cloud systems, CNC machines, laser cutting and 3D printing for the development of specific production and finishing techniques (Italian Ministry of Economic Development, 2018). Thus, we can highlight on a rising need of new training programs of design managers that would focus on proposing a supply chain model that is able to integrate different methods of technological development. Some new interests of the intelligent SME could be the digitization of the historical products’ archive, the optimization of manufacturing and integration to suppliers’ management, the introduction of 3D modelling software in different steps of internal and outsourcing phases and the digital dialogue between design, production, distribution and sales logistics.

Design Education Programs with Joint Labs Academia-Industry In 2012, the DIDA Department of University of Florence (Italy) developed a program of Joint Laboratories for the training of bachelor students and master students in design about advanced craftsmanship, through study and research paths that combine knowledge of the artisan tradition and innovation processes in manufacturing. Connections were therefore developed between artisanal SMEs in Tuscany and teams of students interact directly with the artisans and working on digital innovation issues of SMEs supply chain. Through these programs, companies have been able to develop, with the help of academic tutors and digital native students (Ferri, 2011), significant improvements in digitization and R&D. On the other hand, university had the chance to provide a higher education program in direct contact with “Made in Italy” production sectors.

Joint Labs Academia-Industry: Planning and Program Development Following the Italian Ministry of Education framework, the Joint Labs programs have been developed according to following phases: a) Setting the Partnership University of Florence DIDA Design Department is used to organize vocational students’ visits guided by faculties to international Design Events as Salone del Mobile of Milan, Pitti Uomo fashion fair in Florence or Maison Objet Paris. Within these happenings, the students have the chance to face directly significant design products and services, understanding the market trends and meeting significant companies. This kind of experiences become particularly relevant in case of meeting with enterprises including both design departments and manufacturing processes. In this case the students can directly investigate on how the entire supply chain can implement a design concept. This kind of visits could represent also significant chances to connect companies needs and research expectations to education and research programs. Then, after these immersive experiences and after setting common interest on design exploration fields, University of Florence and SMEs company set a proper Joint Lab agreement, involving a team of faculties and

372

the enterprise referents. Joint Labs framework presents a win-win solution: University can be introduced into the company by setting specific workstations and spaces for the faculties and the students, the company can share technologies and research equipment together with the academic staff. b) Selection of Students and Placement Programs in the Company Through Curricular and Post-Graduate Internships - duration: one month The pilot research team of the DIDA Department selected a group of six students within bachelor program in Design and Master program in Design of University of Florence. For each laboratory path, students received theoretical training on traditional production techniques and digital systems as is or being tested in the partner company. Subsequently, the students team started the internship experience in the company. Each laboratory involved more than one internship cycle, thus involving several groups of students. The company, in agreement with the pilot team, prepared the necessary computer hardware and software equipment for each student: all costs were shared between the partner company and the University, with the support of regional public funding as part of European Commission’s Horizon Program. c) Training in the Company of the Students’ Team and University Tutors - duration: two weeks Following a theoretical preparation at DIDA Department, the selected students and the designated tutors started a training course in the partner company, under the supervision of the technical departments. This phase represents a strategic stap to introduce and involve the students into the company as a new resource. Different Joint Lab experiences presented many frictions in this phase. SMEs companies are often characterized by a traditional mindset, typical of workers part of the company family and not open to new fresh collaborators. It is the duty of the faculties, as tutors, to supervise the students’ introduction process and to allow them to set an appropriated work relation with the company staff. d) Joint Lab Kick-off. Activities Developed in Semestral Cycles Following the training phases, the technical departments of the company assigned specific tasks to the work team of the students supported by the tutors who developed a calendar of activities and reviews of the work done. The tutors follow the work of the students, setting monthly a tutorial including the proper procedures and the best practices developed by the team in this timespan. In addition, according to the company needs, the tutors set a delivery calendar about the works and commitments that have to be provided be the academic team. The students are involved in the Joint Lab through curricular or post-degree internship programs supported by Tuscany Region as part of Horizon Research Framework of the European Commission.

Joint Lab Programs Bridging Furniture and Home Details Production Processes and Academic Education: RED Design Lab and “From Design To Product” Project RED Design Lab (Reverse Engineering Design) -active from 2012 to 2016- has been established through the agreement in between DIDA Department and the company Baldi srl, an artisan company specialized in high-end home details and furniture, crystal and bronze products (Cianfanelli et al., 2015). The laboratory, together with the company staff, planned and started developing a digital archive of "historical productions” of the company. The work, organized in different steps and developed by different students’ teams and tutors, created digital models aiming at supporting the innovation in product shapes and the optimization the production chain. The archive has been developed though digital scanning rotating workstations, that have been used to digitalize very complex artworks and technical elements of the products. Each component has been properly transformed through advanced parametric design software as a digital form that could be transformed and redesigned to optimize the product shapes and to create new product variants. Then, digital archive doesn’t stand just as a memory of company history but furthermore as a creative platform for new design challenges and new market strategies.

373

Figure 1. RED Joint Lab 3D Scanning

Figure 2. RED Joint Lab Parametric Design 3D Modelling

In addition, the students were involved in seminars held in the SME in collaboration with start-ups consulting companies about supply-chain management area. The program of meetings aimed at developing a PLM Product Lifecycle Management platform (Balocco et al., 2006) for the management of the manufacture and external suppliers. The operational model defined within the seminars provided a strategic methodology to include 2D and 3D digital models of the digital archive in a PLM platform, specifically customized for the company. Therefore, we can define the RED Joint Lab goals as follows:

- Development of a digital archive of the artisanal knowledge. Kick-off of the use of the implementation of parametric modelling software (Feng & al., 2002) including technical and formal aspects of the product, the supply chain logistics and artefact storytelling, about the relation in between tangible and intangible values of the item;

- Training students about design strategies in optimization of time-to-market, providing effective response to the market by combining technical and formal strengths of the product and effective customization systems;

- Training of students about research paths on shapes and design-driven innovation in furniture product, through parametric modelling processes integrating traditional craft practices and up-to-date enabling equipment.

The rise of these new kinds of academic experiences allows some local institutions to support the agreements in between university training processes and furniture production chains. Local Institutions aimed at involving bachelor and master students into the advanced craftsmanship, boosting design research guidelines within the supply chain and setting new systemic innovation clusters within the manufacturing districts. Economic Development Department of the Tuscany Region in 2017 presented a strategic design project for the furniture production district of Quarrata (Pistoia, Italy); linking companies and to different design education programs of the Tuscany area. The project organized a series of visits to the company for selected students. After these introductive vocational experiences each team of students has been connected to specific

374

production chains guided by a leading company. For each combination, the program aimed at designing a collection of products that would develop new shapes and collections for reference international markets, and that would highlight the tangible and intangible values of the supply chain. The project "From Design to Product - Strategic Product Development Project for the Home Furnishing System" aimed at enhancing the high craftsmanship value integrated with the innovation processes related to "Time Compression Technologies" and new management organization of the supply chain. In this perspective, supply chain management systems can develop new services or new product systems, such as personalization or storytelling processes, to develop new qualities and artefact performances for the customer engagement. The research aimed at enhancing the synergy between the contractor – or the brand that commissions the work - and sub-contractors of the supply chain already including in their work some enabling Industry 4.0 (Morace, 2010) to build an archive and a reorganization of production. The project results have differentiated primary management systems develop synergically in between the leading company and to suppliers - properly structured and based on advanced modelling and assembling systems - from secondary management systems that focus just on innovative technologies of the contractor and then manage on timing and manufacturing phases of sub-contractors of the same supply chain as a top-down flow depending on the leading company.

Figure 3. Digital innovation in Quarrata’s Furniture District (Pistoia, Italy). The relation in between “primary” and “secondary” management systems within the SMEs supply chain.

Ecraft Joint Lab: Focus on Supply Chain Management, Product Storytelling and Up-To-Date Logistics for Ecommerce Services Ecraft Joint Lab has been established from 2014 to 2016 in between the DIDA Department and Luisaviaroma.com, leading ecommerce company specialized in fashion and developing a new online portal about furniture design products. The training and research path aimed at defining an innovative sales and communication channel able to highlight on high craftsmanship values on luisaviaroma.com: ecommerce website leader within the European online fashion market in terms of number of online viewers per month (Cianfanelli et al., 2015). Ecraft Lab was structured by teams of students and research fellows with interdisciplinary skills. The Laboratory staff selected products proposed by independent brands in Central-Northern Italy, as best practices in advanced craftsmanship in furniture design and manufacturing. The lab supported the company work through digital modelling and design research that could support the SMEs production. Product placements were therefore studied and performed on the website, as well as multi-channel and trans-disciplinary models of interaction design and narrative strategies (Bettiol, 2015). In particular, the lab team worked on establishing an effective link in between fashion styling and furniture design values. In addition, Ecraft project aimed at developing a new dialogue in between the global market and the intrinsic values of the local supply chains –following a “G-Local” perspective- through the pervasive power of internet and the emotional strategies that can designed through the research on user interface design. The Laboratory dedicated a special attention on logistics of product procurement processes coming from the participating SMEs to Luisaviaroma.com storage. This focus of the research aimed at developing a feasible time-to-market in order to make an effective response to the orders placed on Luisaviaroma.com, as well as an efficient storage management and related shipments. Then, we could summarize on Ecraft objectives as follows:

375

- Product scouting area, support to the production chain, procurement and shipment logistics; - Photography and video production for editorials development and product storytelling; - Web graphics and strategic design.

Figure 4. Ecraft editorial including home details and fashion items

Evolution of the Joint-Lab Model. From Kick-off Joint Programs to Structured Design Departments RED Design Lab and Ecraft lab represented a first example of Joint Lab experiences in Tuscany. Since the presentation of the achievements of these research paths within Abitare il tempo Exhibiton in Verona (Italy) in 2014 and Milan Design Week in 2015, University of Florence have been able to develop other similar experiences among Tuscany territory. In addition, several students that participated RED Design lab have been hired by the company and developed high-profile career in design and design engineering (Cianfanelli et al., 2015). Other significant examples from Tuscany area followed in recent years similar research processes. Savio Firmino srl, company specialized in high-end furniture characterized by craftsmanship decorations, followed the Baldi methodology in developing joint research experiences in partnership with academia from 2013 to 2017. In this case either, the research REM (Reverse Engineering for Manufacturing) focused on manufacturing digitalization through digital archive and 3D modelling technologies. Savio Firmino represented an additional success in introducing digital processes into artisanal processes. The company has reorganized since 2015 the whole production and design processes. This significant innovation program made the company able to expand its market influence by improving the time-to-market and its flexibility in responding to the emerging market trends. The joint lab best pictures and design achievements are still implemented and tested in the company design and production processes. The REM joint lab DIDA-Savio Firmino trained several junior professional profiles that created the new design Innovation department of the company. Thanks to the advancements achieved by the REM research the company was able to develop its design references and skills, developing new shapes and involving new suppliers. The collection “Welcome to The Jungle” presented at Milan Design Week 2018 and 2019, aimed at highlighting on this new creative path of the company. Manufacturing digitalization and training new professionals able to manage the innovation within the supply chain represent a strategic asset to structure and strengthen the companies’ competitiveness in the global markets. Moreover, these strategic investments of the SMEs could represent a significant booster the improve their resilience within unexpected events, as Covid-19 pandemic has shown off. Craftsmanship-based SMEs companies that present digitalization process, innovation knowledge and awareness about the potentials of technologies could face tricky times and changes with a stronger structure. Then, Joint lab models could represent a strategic research input to structure an innovation mindset, overpassing short-term production strategies and setting new perspective for medium and long-time plan for the company.

376

Figure 5. Savio Firmino – Welcome to The Jungle Collection 2018

Figure 6. Savio Firmino – Digital Archive

377

Conclusions The research background and experiences described the general contemporary trend of SMEs production systems that require a complex and many-sided approach on digital innovation and enabling technology issues. In this sense, some ongoing and future design educational programs could be established in partnership to strategic companies. This synergic agreement could provide students a big-picture overview on design and production flow and complexity of the supply chain, not just through partial focuses on specific manufacturing steps. In addition, small companies represent a strategic chance for the students to be in touch with the workers, technical departments and real production chain, a significant experience for their education that could be rarely developed within big corporations. The skills acquired from the students can be directly applied to the real company context, supporting the entire digitization management process to implement innovation programs on three different levels: - the process: the application of digital enabling technologies both in the phases with low added value and in the most characteristic phases of manufacturing process -as a tool for the enhancement of craftsmanship quality and values (Micelli, 2011); - logistics: the management of transport that implements the traceability of the product, promoting knowledge about “where” and “how” the products is made. Thus, highlighting the qualities related to the territory and socio-cultural aspects that strongly characterize “Made in Italy” productions; - the story: using digital platforms virtuously to tell and make the peculiarities of Italian production highly recognizable not just for the local customer but also for the global market audience (Bettiol, 2015). Regarding the process, the reconstitution of craftsmanship qualities and its values can be achieved through the use of new technologies. In fact, their use can guarantee a reconstruction of those aspects connected to skills and traditional techniques (Micelli 2011). Their support is realizing a process based on the interconnection between different production components and an approach oriented towards process and product innovation (Bettarini & Targliatore, 2018). This is a general way a flexible business model is configuring for SMEs that implement Industry 4.0 as a technological and organizational approach to re-evaluate existing production resources in a more intelligent way (Magone & Mazali, 2016). Logistics is also rethought in this sense, configuring three levels of application: Smart Lifecycle, Smart Supply Chain and Smart Factory, which can be defined as follows:

- Smart Lifecycle, which includes the development process of a new product, the management of its life cycle and the management of the suppliers involved in these phases;

- Smart Supply Chain, which includes the planning of physical and financial flows in the expanded logistic-production system;

- Smart Factory as the process that represents the heart of manufacturing: production, internal and external logistics, maintenance, quality, safety and compliance with regulations.

According to these three levels, Industrial IoT, Analytics and Cloud stand as relevant factors. According to Marco Taisch, scientific director of the Osservatorio Industria 4.0, in 2019 these technologies favored a growth of 22%, almost tripled in four years for a total of 3.9 billion euros (Fiertler, 2020). It is possible to frame the development of these operative systems between 2019 and 2020 by looking at the three areas of application in the entire production process. In the lifecycle, Cloud Manufacturing has increased up to 45%, Additive Manufacturing has an application rate of 23%; at the supply chain level, Industrial Analytics grew by 30%, against a growth of 85% for Cloud Manufacturing; the level of the smart factory is the one that mostly highlights on a development through the application of three different technologies. In fact, The IoT has undergone an increase of 20%, Cloud manufacturing by 35% and Advanced Human-Machine Interaction by 30% (Osservatorio Industria 4.0, 2020). Finally, companies will have to learn to communicate all these characteristic aspects of their identity through new media, because these factories are the hallmarks of Italian manufacturing production that has been able to constantly reinterpret the know-how of tradition, ensuring that manufacturing production became a “cultural manufacturing”, able to produce artifacts with a great technical quality that have ended up feeding and elaborating cultural contents (Bettiol, 2015). Furthermore, Bettiol declares that advanced craftsmanship, design innovation, personalization and authenticity are the elements that characterize this cultural manufacturing values and that contribute to increasing its attractiveness towards the national and international consumer (op. 2015), as demonstrated by Savio Firmino srl case history.

378

References Atti, G. (2018). L’impresa intelligente e la rivoluzione digitale, In G. Atti (Ed.), La quarta rivoluzione industriale:

verso la supply chain digitale (pp. 57-160). Milano: FrancoAngeli. Balocco, R., Mainetti, S., Rangone, A. (2006). Innovare e Competere con le ICT. Milano: Il Sole 24 Ore. Bettiol, M. (2015). Raccontare il Made in Italy: un nuovo legame tra cultura e manifattura. Venezia: Marsilio. Bettarini, U. e Tartaglione, C. (2018). Le nuove professioni 4.0 nel si- stema moda. Un approfondimento

sull’impatto dell’innovazione e del cambiamento sulle professioni nel tessile abbigliamento, pelletteria-conia e calzature. Roma: Ares 2.0.

Cianfanelli, E., Goretti, G., Baccolini, R. (2015). RED4MART. Reverse engineering for manufacturing digital archive to enhance advanced craftsmanship know-how and high-end manufacturing values, In Collina L. Galluzzo L., Meroni A., The Virtuous Circle Design Culture and Experimentation. Milano: McGraw-Hill Education.

Cianfanelli E., Goretti., G., Aiello R., Baccolini R. (2015). UX designers education and practice: Making designer as topic connectors to enhance intrinsic complex values of made in Italy craftsmanship. e.craft joint lab case history at Luisaviaroma.com. In Collina L., Galluzzo L., Meroni A., The Virtuous Circle Design Culture and Experimentation. McGraw-Hill Education Italy.

De Fusco, R. (2009). Storia del Design. Bari: Laterza. Di Lucchio, L. (2005). Il design delle strategie: un modello interpretativo della relazione tra design e impresa.

Roma: Gangemi Editore. Feng, P., Chen, Y., Zhang, S., Pan, S. X. (2002). Product Gene Based Conceptual Design. Chinese Journal of

Mechanical Engineering, 38(10), 1-6. Ferri, P. (2011). Nativi Digitali. Milano: Mondadori. Fry A., Goretti, G., Ladhib, S., Cianfanelli, E., Overby, C. (2016). Advanced Craft, integrated with the Saper Fare;

the role of Intangible value, and the centrality of the artisan in high-quality 21st Century Artisanship, In Cuaderno Journal, Emerging Processes in Design Practice and Design Education, University of Palermo Buenos Aires (Argentina).

Goretti, G. (2017). Advanced Craftsmanship - Maestria Avanzata. Percorsi di progetto tra innovazione e tradizione artigianale nei sistemi manifatturieri Toscani. Roma: Aracne.

Fiertler, G. (2020, June 23). Industria 4.0: IoT, Analytics e Cloud continuano la corsa. In Industriequattropuntozero. Retrieved from https://www.industriequattropuntozero. it/2020/06/23/industria-4-0-iot-analytics-e-cloud-continuano-la- corsa/

Lanzone, G., Morace, F. (2010). Verità e bellezza. Busto Arsizio: Nomos Edizioni. Magone, A. e Mazali, T. (2016). Industria 4.0: Uomini e macchine nella fabbrica digitale. Milano: Guerini e

Associati Edizioni. Micelli, S. (2011). Futuro artigiano: l’innovazione nelle mani degli Italiani. Venezia: Marsilio. Minetto, R. (1999). Milan Design System - Sistema Design Milano. Milano: Abitari Segesta. Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico. (2018). Piano Nazionale Industria 4.0. Roma: Ministero dello Sviluppo

Economico. Retrieved from http://www.sviluppoeconomico.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/impresa_ 40_risultati_2017_azion i_2018.pdf

Morace, F. (2010). Il Talento dell’Impresa. Milano: Nomos. Osservatorio Industria 4.0. (2020). Tutto su industria 4.0. Milano: Osservatorio Industria 4.0. Retrieved from

https://www.osservatori. net/it/ricerca-per/transizione-industria-40 Rullani, E. (2016). Il futuro del Made in Italy: una sfida da condividere, In G. L. Gregori (Ed.), Made in Italy: una

lettura critica fra eredi virtuosi e dissapori (pp. 9-22). Bologna: il Mulino. Schwab, K. (2016). La quarta rivoluzione industriale. Milano: Franco Angeli.

379

Gabriele Goretti Jiangnan University, School of Design, China 8202001218@jiangnan.edu.cn Associate Professor at Jiangnan University, Wuxi, co-director of Future Brand Experience Design. His professional profile is focusing on relationships between design strategies, high-end manufacturing and communication processes in interiors and fashion areas. Previously Associate Researcher at School of Arts of Nanjing University. From 2008 to 2017 lecturer and senior researcher in product and fashion design strategy and luxury goods at DIDA department of University of Florence (Italy). Gianni Denaro Sapienza University Rome, Department of Planning, Design and Technology of Architecture, Italy gianni.denaro@uniroma1.it Gianni Denaro is a Product Designer and Ph.D. Candidate at the Department of Planning, Design and Technology of Architecture in Sapienza University of Rome. His research themes are related to Digital Technologies in the field of Fashion Design, investigating their effects at the level of process, strategy and product, as well as the relationships between industrial and digital production.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Collaboration Practices in Industrial Design Education The Case of METU From a Historical Perspective, 1981-2021

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi, Gülay Hasdoğan and Fatma Korkut https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.05.251

METU Department of Industrial Design, as one of the leading educational institutions in Turkey, has more than 20 years of experience in collaboration projects systematically conducted with external partners. Collaboration with external partners has been a well-established instrument in design studio pedagogy at the undergraduate level in particular. Whether and in which ways the collaboration schemes, the collaborators, their goals and roles have evolved in time received relatively little attention in literature. This paper reviews the collaboration practices of the Department from a historical perspective with cross-references to the local context, identifying the internal and external factors that shaped the design education and research agenda of the Department, as well as the collaboration schemes followed. Revealing five periods of collaboration with external partners in the Department’s history, the study puts forth that established schemes followed for collaboration projects in industrial design education contribute to the building and sustainment of collaboration with the right partners, grounded and contextualised project briefs, and an approach that puts education first.

Keywords: university-industry collaboration; industrial design education; semester projects; graduation projects; collaboration schemes

Introduction University and industry collaboration is one of the crucial drivers of economic development of a country. Private and public sector organisations need to innovate products, services and processes in order to gain competitive advantage. University collaboration enables them to have access to new knowledge. On the other hand, universities need to collect data from industry to address real-world problems and to test their theories and methods for which industry collaboration paves the way (Mgonja, 2017). Governments are encouraging university and industry collaboration for economic growth and wealth generation by establishing incubation centres and science parks with university links, entrepreneurship schemes, R&D grants, tax incentives, performance-based funding for universities, intellectual property rights regime, technology transfer offices, and so on (Ankrah & Al-Tabbaa, 2015; Guimon, 2013). In the countries which lack an established relation between the industry and university, a mismatch occurs between the research missions of university and industry. Another mismatch that occurs is between what students learn at university and what skills they need to work in industry. Educational projects are regarded as a good solution to overcome these mismatches (Nsanzumuhire & Groot, 2020). Studio projects in design education are often formulated in hypothetical contexts (Camacho & Alexandre, 2019) in order to envision future needs of people and anticipate new solutions. Academy based projects generally remain at concept stage whereas industry-based projects may advance through production stages (Bohemia & Harman, 2014). In the case of having experienced mainly academy-based projects, new graduates usually feel unprepared to deal with real-world problems in industry and the employers complain that they lack essential professional skills (Roberts, 2007; Leblanc & Gagnon, 2016). Collaborating with external stakeholders through design studio projects helps contextualising real-world problems and is beneficial not only for the university and the collaborating institution, but also for the student.

381

Middle East Technical University (METU) Department of Industrial Design offers a four-year undergraduate programme. An academic year in the University is two semesters, with 14 weeks each in fall and spring semesters. Studio courses given in all four years are 12 hours per week. We consider the studio courses as the pillar of our undergraduate education, providing a medium in which designerly activities are taught and practiced, and theoretical and knowledge-based courses in the curriculum are synthesized through project-based education. Each year’s studio courses have defined sets of pedagogical goals, course objectives and learning outcomes that lay the foundation for the design projects to be carried out. Design projects are determined with relevance to the research agenda of the Department, as well as the design agenda of both the Turkish and the global contexts. This requires to act in line with the latest developments in practice and research, and a major way of doing this is through ties with different sectors in the industry. We strive for carrying out collaboration projects throughout the undergraduate programme (excluding the first year). The collaboration projects in the Department are typically carried out in two forms: (1) as semester projects conducted in the regular semesters of the undergraduate programme, and (2) as graduation projects conducted in the final semester of the undergraduate programme (4th year, spring semester). We describe our Department’s history of collaboration with external partners as beginning in 2002, when we first initiated systematic collaboration with firms following a scheme developed particularly for final (4th) year graduation projects. We come across various examples of collaboration projects in the history of our Department dating earlier than 2002. In retrospect, these earlier examples prove to be influential on our design education, and the professional prospects of our graduates, effective in developing collaboration goals, and determinant in the course of collaborations to follow. This has raised our interest for a study on the Department’s collaboration history, through which we could

• review the development of our collaboration schemes,

• pinpoint the milestones affecting our approach to collaboration in industrial design education, and

• identify the influences of these collaborations on the Department’s industrial design education and research.

We documented our collaborations in terms of sector, location of firm, date, year of education, design champion from collaborating party, design champion from department, project topic, project duration, type of contribution, and other partners involved in the project, in order to trace how the collaborations were initiated, what the educational objectives were, what the mutual goals were, what benefits were gained, what contributions were made, how the outcomes were revaluated, and whether and for what reasons the collaborations were repeated. This was the follow-up of a study that started in 2016 and the findings of which presented at the 2017 LearnXDesign conference (Börekçi & Korkut, 2017). Our documentation made on Excel sheets displayed regular collaboration projects between the years 2002-2021. We identified 71 semester projects carried out with 69 external partners, with 33 fourth year collaborations, 34 third year collaborations, 3 second year collaborations, and one graduate studio collaboration within these 20 years. Graduation projects have involved a much higher number of collaborations since 2002, accounting for over 400 projects with over 300 external partners. In addition, we also reviewed semester and graduation projects dating earlier, between the years 1981 and 2001. To supplement our study, we collected and reviewed those project briefs that we could access from our records. We reviewed the syllabi of studio courses and graduation project courses for the changes of content that took place over the years. We also reviewed the external (contextual) and internal (Departmental) factors that affected the purpose and conduct of collaboration. We cross-checked our findings through discussions on these collaborations, as authors with between 21 to 35 years of industrial design education experience in the same Department, and with collaboration projects experience in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th year studio courses among the three authors. Our study concluded with the identification of two major outcomes with an impact on the design education and research agenda of the Department:

• five periods of collaboration within the Department history, and

• the evolution of early tutor-initiated collaborations into institutional collaboration schemes (for semester and graduation projects separately).

METU Collaboration Development History As a result of our review on the collaboration projects conducted in the Department, we have identified five periods of collaboration between the years 1981 and 2021.

382

Early Years in Collaboration (1981-1995) Industrial design education at METU began when David K. Munro, an American industrial designer, started to work at METU, Faculty of Architecture in 1969 with the support of the US Agency for International Development (AID). Within his years of employment at METU between 1969-1972, Munro developed the curriculum for a graduate programme in industrial design for the Faculty, gave project-based courses on industrial design (first in Turkey), and supervised master’s theses related to product design in the graduate programme of Architecture. Munro also contacted major firms in Turkey through letters, to build relations with the local industry, introduce the field and initiate collaboration. He also organized the first exhibition1 open to the public in the field of industrial design in Turkey, titled “Endüstri Tasarımı Dünyası” (The World of Industrial Design). The exhibition presented milestones and examples from the history of industrial design in the West; it also included “modern” design from Turkey, as well as examples from student projects developed in the industrial design elective courses that he taught in the Faculty. The elective courses on industrial design continued after Munro’s departure. METU Department of Industrial Design was established in 1979 as a separate unit with a four-year undergraduate programme. The initiative and preparations were undertaken primarily by two instructors, Mehmet Asatekin and Güner Mutaf, with architecture and city planning backgrounds, who also were master’s degree students of Munro. The reports prepared for the establishment of the Department directly referred to the economical context and 5-year development plans of Turkey, as well as projections made for the need for industrial design professionals in the industry. The early curricula reflected the Faculty of Architecture’s studio tradition, and besides design studio, drawing and modelling courses, included ergonomics, physics, statics, dynamics, psychology, perception, marketing, anthropology, sociology, economics, mathematics, and statistics, with an emphasis on the interdisciplinary nature of the field. The curricula also included compulsory summer practices in industry for the 2nd and 3rd year students. As an important milestone in building international relations, the Department became an associate member of ICSID (International Council of Societies of Industrial Design, currently World Design Organization, WDO) in 1981, remaining the only member from Turkey until the year 2000 (METU’s membership is still ongoing) (METU ID, 2018). An early example of collaboration with industry was initiated through the acquaintance of a studio course instructor with an engineer, Tamer Atauz, working in Alarko (est. 1954), an İstanbul-based engineering company originally founded for producing heating and cooling systems. In 1981, Alarko held a design competition open to METU Industrial Design students, for an electric tea maker; three students were awarded by the company for their design outcomes. The following year, in 1982, collaboration was repeated with Alarko, for a 2nd year studio project on servo motors, again resulting with the awarding of three students. In 1983, a 2nd year studio project was carried out with ties to Aselsan (est. 1975), Turkey’s leading defence industry company, on a vehicle walkie talkie. This project was initiated with the efforts of the studio instructor who had professional connections with the company; the project involved a visit to the company’s production facilities in Ankara. In 1984, a project on welding pliers and welding machine design was given as a 4th year semester project in relation to Nuriş (est. 1953), an Ankara-based company and the first welding machine producer in Turkey. In 1988, the department invited well known academics and designers from the UK through British Council grant. John Heskett, David Carter and Frank Height separately visited the Department and gave seminars open to all students and faculty members. In 1988, a group of young professionals graduated from METU established the Industrial Designers’ Society of Turkey (ETMK) as an association aiming to promote the profession and defend the professional rights of industrial designers. In 1989, the Department held an exhibition of the graduates’ professional works, as part of its 10th anniversary. In 1990, in relation to a 4th year studio project on sanitary ware, a factory visit was held to Toprak Seramik (est. 1981), an Eskişehir-based sanitary ware manufacturer. An in-house ceramics designer, Mehmet Yavaş, acquainted during this visit was invited to the final jury. The company participated in the final jury. In 1994, the Department organized a symposium2 titled “Design, Industry and Turkey”, the first international academic activity in this field in Turkey. Prof. Bruce Archer, a pioneer in the field of design methods, and the PhD supervisor of one of the academic

1 METU Faculty of Architecture members Serim Denel, Mehmet Asatekin and Güner Mutaf were involved in the preparations for the exhibition. The United States Information Service (Ankara) provided technical support for the exhibition; it was opened in the Turkish American Association in Ankara in May 1972, and later repeated in the Or-An Yapı Merkezi Exhibition Hall and the Chamber of Architects of Turkey. 2 This symposium was sponsored by companies from industry, and the British Culture Committee.

383

members of staff, was an invited speaker in this symposium. Before the symposium, Prof. Archer organized a workshop3 with the academic staff for the development of a Master’s program. It was decided in this workshop that the program should include a research-oriented curriculum and thesis writing. The conference was also accompanied with the first national product design exhibition organised by ETMK, titled “Designers’ Odyssey ‘94”. This first period of early collaboration has been an exploration of how to build ties with the industry first, primarily based on efforts towards promoting the profession and introducing the future professionals. The Department had early connections with the industry through course instructors’ personal and professional connections; companies suggested project topics to be carried out in studios, but were not involved in the project processes; they welcomed factory visits, and mainly participated in the evaluation of project outcomes. The government did not yet have policies to encourage university-industry collaboration. The number of industrial designers practicing in the industry were very limited. The Department had motivations for collaborating with the industry, and raise awareness of and promote the profession in society. The first graduates of the Department were given in 1983. The mid-80s was a period that saw the transition from import-substitution industrialisation strategy to liberal economy in Turkey, leading to more interest in import and export trade, and investments made into the development of industry. We mark the end of this period with significant internal and external events that affected our course of collaboration. With 16 years of experience in undergraduate education, in 1995, the Department carried out an internal review for the development of the studio courses objectives. The resulting matrix displayed the distinctly defined course objectives and learning outcomes for each studio in a complementary way for an overall learning experience for students (Günöven, Hasdoğan, Korkut & Mutaf, 1997). The scheme suggested carrying out projects with industrial relations in the 3rd year and expanding these relations to an international level in the 4th year. In order to establish the customs union with the EU, Turkey revised its intellectual property regime, and for the first time, a decree law on the protection of industrial designs was issued in 1995. Two members of academic staff were actively involved in the preparations, as representatives of ETMK, the only NGO representing industrial designers at the time. This critical development with the EU resulted in rising interest from the industry in design professions for products with added value.

Pre-mid Years in Collaboration (1995-2002) Since its foundation the Department had gained experience in industrial design education, initiated relations with industry, and was in contact with its graduates working in industry. The Department now had a second generation of instructors who were, unlike the founding members, educated in industrial design. They also sought graduate degrees in design in Turkey and abroad. The young staff members who returned from abroad brought in new visions of education and research. There was stronger interest from the academic staff in strengthening ties with industry. Motivation and confidence were high, reflecting both on undergraduate education and on building a long-term research capacity for the Department. In 1996, the graduation projects course was held for the first time in collaboration with industry. Each student found firms with which to collaborate for their design projects, through their own initiatives. Learning from this experience, in 1999 the graduation projects course was carried out in collaboration with three large scale firms, with the contacts initiated by the Department through the in-house designers. One of these firms was Toprak Seramik (est. 1981) with whom the Department had earlier collaboration experience. The second was Vestel (est. 1984), a Manisa-based consumer electronics manufacturer, and currently one of the world’s largest OEMs and ODMs. The third was Tepe Mobilya (est. 1969), an Ankara-based contract furniture manufacturer. All three firms were representatives of the strongest industrial sectors at the time in Turkey, carrying out design development activities. In the meantime, the Department established its master of science in industrial design programme, setting a new perspective for industrial design education and research. In 1997-98 a research project was carried out involving a survey on the professional careers of Department graduates. The results showed that not many had found employment in industry, and there was still not much demand for industrial designers. A significant number of graduates established their businesses specialising in furniture and interior design (Korkut & Hasdoğan, 1998). In spring 2001, YKK, the largest zipper manufacturer in the world, a Japanese company with a Turkey branch,

3 The title of the workshop was “In-service Short Course on Design Research”.

384

held a competition for the innovative usage of clothes fasteners, open to industrial design students from two universities, METU and Istanbul Technical University (İTÜ) in Turkey. The idea for this competition and invitation to participate came from a graphic design company owned by two METU graduates, Eray Makal and Şölen Bazman. Both universities undertook this competition in their semester projects. The company provided fasteners to be used in the students’ prototypes. Three projects were awarded and selected ones were exhibited by the company in Turkish Exporters Assembly (TİM) in İstanbul. This second period of pre-mid years in collaboration is characterised by the efforts of new generation academics in establishing further relations with the industry for educational purposes, and the introduction of research into the Department agenda. In this stage, collaboration with industry continued with internships and extensive visits to manufacturers in various regions in Turkey within the “Manufacturing Materials” course, with the contacts initiated through the efforts of course instructors. Collaboration projects increased for both semester and graduation projects, and the industry also started showing interest in collaborations. Besides, international relations increased through research connections of graduates and staff members.

Figure 1. Left: 2002 Graduation Projects Exhibition invitation. Right: Graduation project exhibition and jury at METU Culture and Convention Center.

A major event in the Department marked the end of this period and the beginning of a new one for collaboration. In spring 2002, the graduation projects course was carried out in collaboration with industry. All students were matched with an external partner through departmental connections. In parallel to the graduation projects course, MAN Türkiye, supporting six graduation projects, also collaborated with the 3rd year studio and the master’s studio for semester projects. At the end of the spring semester the graduation projects were exhibited at METU Culture and Convention Center, open to the public. Posters were printed and invitations were sent out for the announcement of the exhibition and the accompanying final jury, together with an opening reception, all receiving great interest and attendance (Figure 1). The exhibition set-up and opening reception were sponsored by MAN Türkiye. Following this collaboration, the firm employed one of the students whose project it had supported; this student pursued his graduate studies in collaboration with this firm, as one of the first examples of industry supported theses in our Department. The graduation projects course of spring 2002 was the first of a regularly carried out graduation projects scheme that was thereon further developed throughout its 20 years of history.

Mid Years in Collaboration (2002-2009) The first graduation projects exhibition and jury in 2002 increased the visibility of the Department within industry, and the university. The graduation projects scheme set an example to industrial design departments in Turkey, some of which adopted the METU graduation project collaboration scheme. The graduation projects exhibitions and juries in the following years attracted academics and students from other departments and were visited on a few occasions as field trips. Our visibility within the university led to a collaboration proposal for a semester project in fall 2002, coming

385

from a colleague from the university’s Mechanical Engineering Department, Cahit Eralp. The colleague had been approached by Arçelik (est. 1955), an İstanbul-based major home appliances company and the first washing machine manufacturer in Turkey, to initiate graduate-level collaboration with the department for the plumbing solutions of a combination product of washing machine and wash basin, targeting the Russian market of small bathrooms. Based on a true need, and the end result of which eventually launched to the targeted market, this project required design solutions for ergonomics and aesthetics. Hence, the colleague suggested our Department as the design party in the collaboration. The project was taken on in the 4th year studio. The success of the collaboration led to another with the same company, immediately following this project with the students in the same semester, on interface solutions and usage scenarios for kitchen appliances. The following semester, Arçelik participated in the graduation projects course as a collaborating firm, and supported the graduation projects of six students. The firm also sponsored the 2003 Graduation Projects Exhibition and opening reception, patented one of the projects, and employed four graduates of that year, three of whom they had supported. Collaboration with Arçelik continued in other sporadic semester and graduation projects in years to come, and was also carried out at a research level with the Department. In 2003, the METU BILTIR-UTEST Product Usability Unit was founded by an academic member of the Department, Çiğdem Erbuğ, and many user research projects were conducted in collaboration with Arçelik. In fall 2003 and spring 2004, two instructors from the Department opened the “Collaborative Design” elective course in collaboration with four departments from the Faculty of Engineering with the initiative of the Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, Yıldırım Üçtuğ. The course was an opportunity for students and instructors to carry out a project with multidisciplinary collaboration. In 2003, Fiat company carried out a project called “One Step Ahead” (OSA) to envision the future of automotive products with international partners from their business regions, one being Turkey. Two universities from Turkey, METU and Mimar Sinan University, were invited to carry out student projects. We were approached by the CAD-CAM Robotics Center of METU who had connections with Tofaş (est. 1968), a Turkish automaker and partner of Fiat. Based on the Delphi method, the Italian strategy developer company Radar conducted an international survey with expert panels and identified dimensions and trends, effective on the future of the automotive industry. The company presented the background research, and suggested a future scenario, “forever children”, that described the future life-style of generation Y, actually the students themselves who would be the potential users of the cars they envisioned. The expectations from us were the generation of numerous concept ideas in relation to the scenario. With this project, the course instructors developed an idea generation method, “Matrix” (Korkut & Doğan, 2010), to explore four product categories in reference to the five project dimensions as presented by Fiat. The results of the project were exhibited in Torino headquarters together with those of other universities (Korkut, 2004). As a spin-off of the project, one student from the Department found an internship opportunity at Fiat, which evolved into a career path for him in the automotive industry. In the same semester, fall 2003, a collaboration project was carried out with Koleksiyon (est. 1972), an Ankara and İstanbul-based furniture company. The project involved a mixed design studio (3rd and 4th years) and was on furniture design. Our Department exhibited the outcomes at the Salone Satellite at the 2004 Milan Design Week. The full-scale prototyping, exhibition expenses, and the project catalogue were sponsored by the company. This was the Department’s first international exhibition. The Department’s international visibility was highlighted with the international Design and Emotion 2004 conference co-organised with Design and Emotion Society (Netherlands) that METU hosted the same year. Also, the Department’s PhD programme was established in 2004. Within this period, the Department started participating in many national events and fairs, international design fairs held in Turkey, and sectoral exhibitions (e.g., furniture, ceramic sanitary ware) with the outcomes of graduation projects. Participation in such events was an opportunity to showcase the outcomes of collaboration projects carried out in the Department, and found media coverage. Participation in these events were in some cases sponsored by collaborating partners. These platforms were an opportunity for us to acknowledge our collaboration and the support we received for design education from the companies, and also opened up new collaboration possibilities with other companies acquainted in these events4. Learning from our national and international exhibition experiences, we first published our graduation projects catalogue in 2007. The first semester project catalogue was published for a collaboration project carried out in fall 2007.

4 For example, we were approached by Koleksiyon in ADesign Fair 2003, and by Anadolu Cam, a major glass packaging manufacturer, in Galata İstanbul Design Week 2005, for collaboration projects.

386

Industrial design undergraduate programmes became highly popular in Turkey in this period; there was an increased demand for design education and the entry scores for industrial design programmes increased, with METU being at the top. In the meantime, new departments were being established in public and foundation universities, which increased competition among educational institutions. The Department set up an archive room in the Faculty, displaying the outcomes of past graduation projects, open to visitors and candidate students all year round. In this period, collaboration for semester projects took place regularly, with two projects carried out each fall semester mainly in the 4th year (Figure 2). Collaborating firms were mainly from large scale companies. Our collaboration portfolio for semester projects in this period includes 16 projects conducted with 14 partners (12 medium to large-size companies, one small-size company, and one association representing the promotional products industry).

Figure 2. Collaboration semester project with Anadolu Cam, fall 2005. Left: Design champions from Anadolu Cam in the 4th year studio. Right: Final presentations at firm headquarters in İstanbul.

During this period, the Department received visitors from the industry to discuss collaboration possibilities; instructors were also invited to visit the industrial premises of firms, some in other cities. Offers for collaboration also came from our graduates employed in the industry, who had also taken part in collaboration projects during their undergraduate education. A reason frequently expressed by these companies was the desire to introduce their companies to the graduates of the near future, and to get to know the interests, perspectives and skills of students, not only as prospective designers, but also as representatives of a generation or a market segment. Depending on their suitability to the course objectives, the instructors suggested collaborations to take place for either semester projects or for graduation projects. Not all proposals for collaboration were realised. Among several reasons, in terms of educational objectives, the Department and the studio instructors have had to be selective to ensure the collaboration experience benefited industrial design education first. In our collaborations in this period, we received interest from state funded agencies, such as the Turkish Exporters Assembly, who supported various meetings for the progress of the profession and also collaborated in a 4th year project. The Technology Development Zones Act had come into action in 2001, and universities including METU started establishing technolopolises. During this period, the METU Technopolis (ODTÜ Teknokent) emerged as the new arena for university-industry collaboration, including graduate research particularly for engineering disciplines. Some of our instructors established their own firms in METU Technopolis, and employed interns and graduates. Declaration for Design Support and Research & Development and Design Activities Support Law were finally issued in 2008, raising interest of companies of various sizes in employing industrial designers, and also conducting collaboration projects with industrial design departments. Design Turkey Industrial Design Awards was established in 2008 with the joint effort of Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade, TİM and ETMK, and has been continuing since. Instructors from our Department played major roles in the foundation of Design Turkey Awards. Many graduates employed by the industry have received awards. Again in this period, there was an increase in the number of national design competitions, and some among them have become regular. Students participated in national and international competitions and awards with the outcomes of their collaboration projects. The competitions endorsed by government agencies supporting design, awarded students with grants for graduate studies abroad, or

387

participation in international fairs. Course instructors also began publishing on the processes and outcomes of graduation projects, making presentations in international conferences. In 2008 METU and TUDelft initiated the International Joint Master of Science Programme in Design Research for Interaction, which started a decade-long international research collaboration in graduate education. Towards the end of this period, a number of graduate theses supported by public funds (The Ministry of Industry) were carried out. We consider this period of collaboration as characterised by the increasing range of sectors in our collaboration portfolio, increased collaboration with small size companies and consultancies particularly for graduation projects, regularity of collaboration in the 4th year studio, collaboration for research, and increased visibility of these collaborations particularly through exhibitions, design fairs, project catalogues and academic publications. Motivations of the industry for collaboration diversified, strengthened and evolved into an interest in the methods and approaches of industrial design education given in the Department, as well as in the outcomes of the projects. We see the end of this period as marked by the retirement of senior instructors and the arrival of a third generation of Department graduates as academics with international PhD degrees and postdoc experience abroad.

Late Years in Collaboration (2009-2019) The new generation academics contributed to industrial design studio education with their research perspective, introducing new pedagogical objectives into the curriculum, particularly design for sustainability in the 3rd year. In the 2009-2010 academic year, collaboration projects, which have been previously carried out in the 4th year studio, were introduced into the 3rd year studio, defining new types of partnerships (with NGOs, public sector such as schools, non-commercial and non-profit organisations), and design approaches (bottom-up participatory design process supported with scenario building). In this period, as a follow-up of an earlier collaboration in fall 2006, championed by our graduate Sedef Aksoy, a series of collaborations were carried out with BSH via Profilo (est. 1954), an Istanbul-based white goods producer which has joined BSH in 1995, which led the Department to develop formal agreements including non-disclosure agreement between the parties. In fall 2011, a project titled “Home Heroes” denoting domestic white goods was carried out in the 3rd and 4th years in collaboration with BSH with the participation of the design director Robert Gotchy from Munich Headquarters. The results were exhibited in Munich Creative Business Week. In fall 2016, another collaboration was made for developing resource efficient laundry solutions for the African market. BSH organised a visit of Nigerian engineers to METU to provide contextual and technical information as well as feedback to students’ projects. Starting in 2014, the Department initiated its national biannual design conference series on design research (UTAK, Ulusal Tasarım Araştırmaları Konferansı). Currently it is one of the regularly held national design research conferences, for well established and emerging scholars, contributing to the accumulation of design literature in Turkish. In 2015, World Design Organization announced a new definition for industrial design to its members and the professional community acknowledging the extended range of outputs of the design process from products to systems, services and experiences, and also touched upon the changing nature of the design profession, design process and parties of interest (WDO, 2015). This definition also reflected on the industrial design studio pedagogy in terms of the designerly thinking and practices to be gained as skill sets and mindsets. In this period, approaches, methods, tools and practices in studio-based teaching in the Department came forth. Besides employing commonly known design methodology in the studio, based on arising pedagogical needs, the studio instructors (in most cases involved in graduate research supervision) developed and employed a number of new methods and tools. Academic publications on design methods and tools employed in studio project processes have increased. The government interest in design and value through design and innovation projects became more evident with the support provided by various bodies to young start-ups as well as students in their graduation semesters. The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) started its support scheme and a national competition for graduation projects. In 2016, Research & Development and Design Activities Support Law issued its regulation defining the conditions for establishing design centres in industries. This was an initiative for some firms to contact our Department for collaboration. In 2017, the new Industrial Property Law came into action. This act clarified that the intellectual property rights of projects carried out in universities would belong to the university. METU established its Technology Transfer Office (TTO) managing its intellectual assets and intellectual property rights. TTO assisted the Department in making agreements with industry partners. This period has seen an increase in the number of industrial design departments established in both public and foundation universities. There was also an increase in collaborations of other industrial design departments

388

with industry. Such projects were regularly exhibited in annual fairs and events, such as Design Week Turkey, where universities came together in showrooms. We also saw that collaborations were not exclusive between a department and a firm, and firms chose to collaborate with different industrial design departments in rounds. This has set the stake higher in terms of the educational competitiveness and excellence of the collaboration process and project outcomes. In this decade, collaboration took place for 44 semester projects, with 26 firms/partners from a wider range of sectors, and was regular for both 3rd and 4th year design studios. The types of collaborating partners in both semester and graduation projects were no longer limited to large and medium sized manufacturing companies, but also included small enterprises, start-ups, technopolis firms, design consultancies, associations, institutions from the public sector, sectoral organisations and industrial clusters. The 4th year studio typically carried out two collaboration projects in the fall semesters, and had the graduation projects in collaboration with the industry in the spring semesters. In this period, there were 18 collaboration semester projects carried out with 16 firms. We saw an increased interest from the automotive industry, with five different firms conducting six semester projects. Automotive projects have become regular in the late years of this period, and they have been handled as student team projects with high-level complexity. The 3rd year studio also carried out collaboration projects in both the fall and spring semesters, ranging from 2 to 4 a year. In this period, 25 collaboration projects were carried out with 13 partners; 9 of these were from the industry and 4 were NGOs and non-industry partners (Kaygan et al., 2017) (Figure 3). Some of these collaborations involved multiple partners. Collaboration projects have been carried out with firms with an interest in the design for sustainability perspective. Strong ties were established with some of these partners, and they have been involved in repeated collaborations.

Figure 3. Collaboration semester project with Çiğdemim Neighbourhood Association, fall 2013. Left: Visit from association to 3rd year studio. Right: Project outcomes exhibited in the neighbourhood.

The collaboration schemes for semester projects included detailed briefing on a design problem brought by the collaborating partners, problematized as a project brief by the course instructors; a well-planned design process and timetable, activities defined for each stage, involvement of collaborating parties where applied, standardised formats for 2D and 3D submissions, planning of how the project outcomes will be disseminated, and a budget for project expenses5. The collaboration schemes for graduation projects included detailed briefing and timetable for the conduct of the project, code-of-conduct for students, information packs for collaborating partners, and a clear description of how the intellectual property rights of project outcomes are handled. The Department also initiated a project for the forming of a digital archive of past courses and events. We consider this period of collaboration as characterised by selective and repeated collaborations, well-established ties with particular sectors, and well-established collaboration schemes and project conduct templates according to the educational objectives and the industry sector. The collaborating parties were by

5 Project expenses include for students: travel and accommodation costs to outer city firm visits, model making expenses, printing costs for final presentation boards; for Department: project catalogue publishing expenses, exhibition participation and setup expenses.

389

now well-informed of the professional benefits of design and the importance of supporting industrial design education. Both the Department and the collaborating partners were experienced in collaboration and the management of project outcomes. We see the end of this period as marked with the increase of student numbers accepted to the undergraduate programme. The programmes in Turkey accept students through a national central examination, and the acceptance quotas for public universities are primarily determined by YÖK (the Council of Higher Education in Turkey). Since its establishment in 1979, the number of accepted students to our Department has increased from 30 to 72 in 2019. Despite the well-established collaboration schemes, the Department started experiencing difficulties in managing collaboration in graduation projects for a highly increased number of students. This increase of student numbers has required a change in the educational approach adopted in our studio courses.

New Generation Collaborations (2019- …) In the 2018-2019 academic year, the Department carried out internal meetings for revising studio teaching approaches and studio space usage, due to the increased number of undergraduate students. The studio courses were divided into sections at the beginning of the 2019-2020 academic year, with separate course instructors for each. Studio spaces that once were dedicated to each of the four years have had to be shared between years, in shifted days of the week. In the meanwhile, further young and published academics, and an increased number of research assistants joined the academic staff. Also, academic staff have been taking positions in international organisations, and editorial boards and scientific review boards of academic journals. One of the milestones of this period was the diffusion of collaboration projects into the 2nd year studio; this was as a result of the planning and revisions made to studio sections and the senior studio instructors with experience in collaboration projects, moving on to 2nd year studio. Four collaboration semester projects have been carried out so far, with four firms. Collaboration with industry in earlier years required its own approach, careful selection of the sector of collaborating firm, and planning for adapting the project goals to the second-year studio objectives. In fall 2019, six collaboration semester projects took place with six partners, making a peak in the number of collaboration projects carried out within a semester in the 3rd year studio. One of these projects involved two external partners; two successive projects were carried out with an external partner, as repeated collaboration. In this period new project topics, such as UX/UI, were introduced into collaboration projects by external partners. There was a rising interest from the financial sector for collaboration projects on digital transition in banking, as well as digital solutions for other finance-related activities. The new generation of collaborators, represented mostly by designers, were equipped with skills and expertise, introducing recent approaches, and methods in user experience design to the students. There was a rapid changing of jobs among these designers who moved on to other firms generally not from the same sector; this resulted in them introducing new firms to us for collaboration. The most significant event affecting the conduct of studio courses has been the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in spring 2020, resulting in the transition from the physical studio space to distance education. All studio courses, including those conducting collaboration projects, moved on to online teaching. Studio course instructors, students and collaborating partners had to adapt to the new medium, and find new online and digital tools appropriate for the conduct of the projects (Figure 4). The ongoing collaboration projects had to revise their strategies, such as changes in the submission requirements, project calendar, and meeting schedules with firms. Distance education has affected collaboration, and for the first time in the past 19 years, collaboration semester projects have not been conducted in the 3rd and 4th year studios in fall 2020. Nevertheless, the 2nd year studio conducted a project in collaboration with a ceramics manufacturer who sent plastic clay material to the students’ addresses. Using the advantages of distance education, frequent online meetings were organised with the experts in the company. Graduation projects in 2020 and 2021 have been carried out in collaboration as usual.

390

Figure 4. Collaboration semester project with Garanti BBVA, spring 2020; new tools and media employed in distance education.

Although this period of new generation collaboration has recently begun, we see it to be characterised by the introduction of new topics into the field, the involvement of expert designers from collaborating partners, transition to distance education, and online collaboration. Professionals from the collaborating firms are young, and have a past of short professional experiences in firms from different sectors, allowing them to offer us new approaches and methods. Among the difficulties in industrial design education due to not being in the same studio space are, loss of gesture and physical interactions at desk critiques, loss of a sense of scale, and difficulties in 3D prototyping. Among the difficulties due to the online medium are long hours in front of the screen, and being bound to technologies to be able to remain connected. Though, online collaboration has also provided new opportunities that were otherwise not possible for students: instant communication among parties, and accessibility of cloud data at any moment and from anywhere. In the graduation projects course, we observe a more rigorous involvement of collaborating partners demanding regular meetings and disciplined progress from students.

Discussion Many factors contribute to the success of collaboration with industry in education, which is highly dependent on the fulfilment of expectations of all parties, qualities of the output and their contribution to the visibility of the collaboration, as well as further unforeseen benefits that open up opportunities for all parties. The role of external factors is undeniable, as the political, economic and social contexts deeply affect the design education agenda as well as the motivation of collaborating partners. In this section we mainly refer to the internal factors that reflect our approaches to collaboration in industrial design education, in the face of external factors.

Development of Collaboration Schemes and Project Briefs The establishment and sustainment of collaboration schemes with industry that the Department has developed based on experiences, have contributed to the successful conduct of collaboration projects. In time, separate schemes have developed specialising for semester projects and for graduation projects (METU ID, 2018). Semester projects have in time specialised towards accommodating the educational objectives of 4th, 3rd and eventually 2nd year studio courses. Project processes have settled as templates, allowing the integration of different approaches, methods and tools depending on the project topic and pedagogical needs. Briefs started to incorporate project dimensions, keywords and goals allowing design exploration in a widened solution space. Briefs have also incorporated directives for in-depth design research. Even though most projects require individual submissions, studio activities carried out in student groups are highly made use of. The process planning and timetable set for the projects ensure the regular involvement of collaborating partners in the problem exploration, decision making and evaluation stages. The outcomes of projects are fully documented in the form of catalogues, published on the Department website, announced on Department bulletins and also collected in digital archives. All graduation projects are exhibited; selected outcomes of graduation projects and semester projects are exhibited in various annual exhibitions and events, for the visibility of collaborations.

Design Research in Collaboration Projects Collaboration schemes and the project processes followed, allow the incorporation of research activities in the studio. We have found throughout years that in-depth exploration of the problem area contributes to divergence in idea generation and the identification of concepts that respond to the design problem (Börekçi,

391

Kaygan & Hasdoğan, 2016). Design research incorporating both literature search and user or field research is given particular importance for students to be able to identify design opportunities rather than bringing immediate responses to design problems as identified by collaborating partners. Depending on the context of the project, such as country, region, and sector, the Department can provide collaborating parties with access to information through research on the user, use context, local culture, knowledge and skills. The collaborating parties can also supply various research output and media, such as marketing and sales strategies, technical and CAD data, product samples, technical expertise, access to users on site and product trials on field, and -in cases when it is not possible to access users directly- user research results from distant regions, and visits from users made to the university premises, for joint discussions and generative activities.

Collaboration Projects as a Research Lab for Developing New Approaches, Methods and Tools The studio setting (including online studios) has been a field for research also, incorporating research activities made on the course conduct, methods and tools applied, and project outcomes. Having a project process template for collaboration projects allows the incorporation of different tools and methods selected and applied according to the project goals (e.g., developing solutions for user experience), educational objectives (e.g., design divergence for idea generation, learning rapid-prototyping) and pedagogical needs (e.g., increasing sketching abilities of students). The studio has accommodated the research of graduate students, some not directly involved in the studio course but attending as researchers, implementing tools and methods that they have generated as a design intervention, or documenting the design processes for the investigation of studio-based learning (Doğan et al., 2016). The studio instructors also benefit from this setting as a research medium. Many article publications and conference paper presentations have been made on collaboration projects, as well as graduate theses on design education, increasing the research profile of the Department and also of the external partners.

Collaboration Project Types and Sectors The studio course objectives and learning outcomes of each year play a role in the selection of the sector of the collaboration partner, as well as the determination of the project type to be carried out. How the project topics will be reinterpreted for a problem statement to be given to students are negotiated beforehand with the collaborators, and otherwise collaborators are not directly involved with the process planning and conduct of the project. Certain topics work well in semester collaboration projects for covering the educational objectives and pedagogic goals of a specific year or semester. Firms to collaborate with are selected accordingly, and sometimes collaboration takes place with multiple partners for the same project. Successful collaborations have been repeated and some of the collaborating partners are now regular. These repeated collaborations also allow to change the project topic carried out in the same sector, trying out new themes, gaining expertise in new areas and widening the project spectrum of the Department. Graduation projects strive for covering a wide range of sectors for collaboration. From time to time, there have been inclinations towards certain sectors, due to popularity and rising interest, and projects have clustered around certain sectors6. As a strategy the graduation projects course has been determining for the past two years, a common main theme for the projects7, undertaken by a wide range of sectors.

Collaboration Patterns We observe that certain collaboration patterns have emerged, making it possible to recognise towards which direction a collaboration project is going, and intervene with necessary measures for a successful completion of the project, keeping the educational experience of students at the centre. Factors that form these collaboration patterns include preparedness of the Department to conduct projects on a certain topic with a partner from a certain sector, and the preparedness of the collaborating partner to allow the involvement of the course instructors in determining the project statement, planning the process and conducting the project on behalf of all parties. The motivations of the contact persons from all parties, their willingness to communicate, commit and cooperate, and their background and expertise in the field are also among factors. Motivations for collaboration may be related to (1) getting to know the Department, and its know-how,

6 Hot topics in graduation projects have included furniture design, design of medical devices, personal digital devices, and lately, user experience design. 7 Digital Transition in 2020; Design for Connection in 2021.

392

approaches and methods related to design education, (2) getting to know the young generation as prospective industrial design graduates and as future local users, (3) obtaining a design vision and inspirational design ideas, and (4) having access to design research. Motivations may also be related to the project outcomes, such as exhibiting in an international fair8 and developing prototypes9. All these motivations affect the project template used, and the collaboration pattern followed with the partners. These patterns may differ depending on whether the collaboration is made for the first time, whether it is the main collaboration or the supplementary collaboration if there are multiple partners, whether we have contacted the firm, whether the firm has contacted us, or whether it is a repeated collaboration.

• With some partners, the collaboration is carried out only once and not repeated; this may be due to many factors besides an unfruitful collaboration experience, such as closing of the firm, departure of the contact person, or new opportunities not arising.

• With some partners, the collaboration may be sporadic, from time to time, due to factors such as change of contact persons within the company, change of company structure and design development agenda, renewal of company’s interest in the ongoing issues and updates in design education, or Department's interest in the developments in a particular sector.

• With some partners, the collaboration is repeated until a saturation is reached; partnerships may begin, climax, slow down and end, very much depending on the design education agenda of the studio course, as well as the agenda of the collaborating partner.

• With some other partners, the collaboration is regularly repeated, due to the success achieved in the collaboration as a result of high motivation for passing on sectoral know-how, high interest in the topic for pedagogical purposes, commitment of all parties, satisfactory project involvement with interesting activities and rewarding results, and contributions to design education.

Conclusion This paper was an opportunity for us to review our Department’s history of collaboration with industry in industrial design education, and the studio courses in particular. This review helped us determine our periods of collaboration with industry, forming frames through which we were able to assess the collaboration experiences in terms of the effects they had on our design education agenda, strategies followed in the courses of collaboration, and the establishment of collaboration schemes. Industrial design education in Turkey began in a period when little was known about design in industry, and university-industry collaboration policies did not exist. The Department strived to build links with industry by creating its own collaboration schemes from scratch, which later constituted best practices for other departments and universities. The historical development of our collaboration practices shows how government policies and their related instruments reshaped our schemes. We see the importance of established collaboration schemes lying in the building and maintaining of strong ties with the “right” partners, and in keeping industrial design education as the main focus. Our collaboration schemes are fed upon evolving studio teaching practices and academic research as well as influenced by the local and global contexts and design agendas. Therefore, it is vital for us to continue national and international relations with other institutions, organisations and the industry, to determine our educational agenda, position ourselves within the design education community, and pursue real-world design problems through these collaborations. We see these collaboration schemes to be dynamic and evolving. As we move into a new period of collaboration, highly influenced by the circumstances that the pandemic has imposed, we foresee that collaboration in industrial design education will also be affected, requiring new approaches, skill sets and mindsets. The findings of our study may provide insights into the identification and establishment of new collaboration opportunities and schemes. Further studies may involve an exploration of the collaboration schemes in other institutions particularly in Turkey, and the degree to which our collaboration schemes are shared with others. It would also be of interest to investigate these collaboration experiences and their outcomes from the perspectives of the external partners and the students as subjects of industrial design education, to further improve the collaboration schemes for all parties involved.

8 Collaboration with Koleksiyon in Fall 2003-2004 to participate in the Salone Satellite at Milan Design Week 2004. 9 Collaboration with OMSIAD (Office Furniture Industry and Businesspersons Association) in Fall 2011-2012 for prototypes displaying the process approach and outcome quality to the industry.

393

References Ankrah S., & Al-Tabbaa, O. (2015). Universities-Industry Collaboration: A Systematic Review. Scandinavian

Journal of Management, 31(3), 387-408. Bohemia, E., & Harman, K. (2006). Boundary Crossing: Negotiating Learning Outcomes in Industry Based

Student Projects. In W. Aung, C. Crosthwaite, R.V. Espinosa, J. Moscinski, S.-H. Ou & L.M. Sánchez Ruiz (Eds.), Innovations 2006: World Innovations in Engineering Education and Research (pp. 179-191). Begell House Publishing.

Börekçi, N.A.G.Z., Kaygan, P. & Hasdoğan, G. (2016). Concept Development for Vehicle Design Education Projects Carried Out in Collaboration with Industry. Procedia CIRP, Vol. 50(2016), 751-758. 26th CIRP Design Conference, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden, 15-17 June 2016.

Börekçi, N.A.G.Z. & Korkut, F. (2017). Collaborating with External Partners in Industrial Design Education: A Review of Success Factors. In G. Pritchard & N. Lambert (Eds), Proceedings of Learn X Design 2017: The Allure of the Digital and Beyond (pp. 184-191). Ravensbourne University London, UK, 28-30 June 2017.

Doğan, Ç., Turhan, S. & Bakırlıoğlu, Y. (2016). Evolving Paths: Undergraduate Design Education through Graduate and Generative Research with a Particular Focus on Sustainability, The Design Journal, 19(4), 585-604, DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2016.1177318

Camacho, B. & Alexandre, R. (2019). Design Education. University Industry Collaboration, A Case Study. The Design Journal, 22(sup1), 1317-1332. DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2019.1594958

Guimon, J. (2013). Promoting University-Industry Collaboration in Developing Countries. Policy Brief. Innovation Policy Platform, World Bank.

Günöven, A., Hasdoğan, G., Korkut F. & Mutaf, G. (1997). Tasarım Eğitiminde Stüdyoların Hedeflerinin Yıllara Göre Değişimi (Studio Objectives in Bachelor of Industrial Design Education). In Fakültede Eğitim (Education in the Faculty), METU, Faculty of Architecture, Ankara.

Kaygan, H., Demir, Ö., Korkut, F., & Güngör Boncukçu, I. (2017). Encounters and Shifting Identities: Students’ Experiences of Multi-stakeholder Participatory Design. In E. Bohemia, C. de Bont, & L. Svengren Holm (Eds.), Conference Proceedings of the Design Management Academy 2017: Research Perspectives on Creative Intersections (Vol. 5, pp. 1685-1702) http://designmanagementacademy.com/dma2017/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/DMA2017_volume5.pdf

Korkut, F. (2004). Forever Children. Online project catalogue. METU, Department of Industrial Design. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14G7mVACfY74YLHZrl0iPFBObQr0OYCta/view

Korkut, F. & Doğan, Ç. (2010). My Dear Monster Friends: Matrix as an Emotionally Rich Generative Design Tool. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Design and Emotion (CD). IIT Institute of Design, Chicago, USA, 4-7 October 2010.

Korkut, F. & Hasdoğan, G. (1998). The Profession of Industrial Design in Turkey: The Correspondence Between Education and Practice. In J.S. Smith & E.W.L. Norman (Eds.), Proceedings of IDATER 98: International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development (pp. 125-131). Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK.

Leblanc, T. & Gagnon, M. (2016). Co-Talk? The Role of Collaboration Partners in Design Education. In Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. Aalborg University, Denmark, 8-9 September 2016.

Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design (METU ID) (2018). Industry Collaboration. Retrieved on 3 April 2021, from https://https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.metu.edu.tr/en/industry-collaboration/

Mgonja, C.T. (2017). Enhancing the University-Industry Collaboration in Developing Countries Through Best Practices. International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology (IJETT), 50(4), 216-225.

Nsanzumuhire, S.U., & Groot, W. (2020). Context Perspective on University-Industry Collaboration Processes: A Systematic Review of Literature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 258, Article 120861. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120861

Roberts, J. (2007). The Future of Academic-Industry Collaboration. IASDR-07 - International Association of Societies of Design Research. The Hong-Kong Polytechnic University, 12-15 November 2007.

World Design Organization (WDO) (2021). Definition of Industrial Design. Retrieved on 29 March 2021 from https://wdo.org/about/definition/

394

Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey nborekci@metu.edu.tr Naz A.G.Z. Börekçi received her BID from METU Department of Industrial Design (1995), MFA from Bilkent University Interior Architecture and Environmental Design (1997) and PhD from University of Kent at Canterbury / KIAD (2003). She is currently associate professor at METU Department of Industrial Design. Her research interests include design education, design methodology, and university-industry collaboration. Gülay Hasdoğan Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey hasdogan@metu.edu.tr Gülay Hasdoğan is head of the Department of Industrial Design at Middle East Technical University. She holds a BID in Industrial Design, an MSc in Building Science from METU, and a PhD from Central Saint Martin’s College of Art and Design. She teaches graduate research methods and the second-year industrial design studio. She has publications on institutionalisation of industrial design, design education and user models in the design process. Fatma Korkut Middle East Technical University, Department of Industrial Design, Turkey korkut@metu.edu.tr Fatma Korkut is an associate professor at METU Department of Industrial Design. She holds a bachelor’s degree in industrial design from METU (Ankara), an MSc from IIT Institute of Design (Chicago), and a PhD from Mimar Sinan University (İstanbul). Her research has ranged over design history, design education, and design protection. Her recent research supervision has focused on design pedagogy, design thinking and value transfer through generative practices.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Reflections on Shared Mood Boards: Examining Craft-Education Students’ Conceptual Design

Anniliina Omwami, Henna Lahti and Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.06.118

This study examines what kind of different meanings craft-education students give to collaboratively created mood boards. As part of their compulsory studies, 11 craft-education students from a Finnish university were assigned to develop shared mood boards in team design sessions. After creating the mood board, each student was instructed to design an outfit utilising the team’s mood board. The data (i.e., video-recorded interviews, photographs of the students’ written or drawn material, teams’ mood boards, and participants’ idea-books) was analysed qualitatively. The results indicated that the meaning came from the active role the mood board played in anchoring idea development and expanding and deepening students’ idea space. Conversely, the mood boards were also found to have a limiting and superficial meaning in the individual processes. Our findings could be beneficial for developing teacher education and design teaching; thus, information on students’ views of different phenomena are always valuable.

Keywords: collaborative design; mood board; conceptual design; idea development; teacher education

Introduction In this paper, we examine the different meanings provided by collectively created mood boards in the clothing design projects of students enrolled in craft-teacher training. Here meaning-making is connected with the students’ own reflections after conceptual design and idea development. Our study was carried out with students on their second year of training to be craft teachers at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Studies concerning students’ attitudes towards different phenomena within the discipline of design has only recently awoken scientific interest. Shreeve, Bailey, and Drew (2004; see also Drew, Bailey, & Shreeve, 2001) studied the qualitative differences in fashion design students’ experiences. They presented four different approaches to learning that fashion design students’ have on the ‘research component of the design project’, revealing also the hierarchical difference between how deep or surface students’ approaches were. Cassidy (2011) studied the process of creating mood boards and their role as research tool in the context of fashion design. According to her, mood boards are commonly used as design tools within the fashion industry—for example, to set the colour range for the ideas, style, and fabric design. Our study focuses on the early design phases among craft-education students. This stage of the design process (also called the ideation phase or conceptual design, see Howard et al., 2008) can be considered one of the most important phases for generating and transforming visual representations (Eckert and Stacey, 2000; Petre et al., 2006). Schön (1983) states that visual tools regularly operate and communicate the design process. Mood boards can be observed as one visual tool for designing. According to McDonagh and Denton (2005, see also McDonagh & Storer, 2004; Garner & McDonagh-Philip, 2001), mood boards, compared to a verbal-only approach, offer a visual and sensorial tool for communication and inspiration. Garner and McDonagh-Philip (2001, also Cassidy, 2011) have paid attention to how mood boards could be better exploited within the field of design education. In design education, for example, McDonagh and Denton (2005) and McDonagh and Storer (2004) analysed design students’ attitudes towards the use of mood boards and their perceptions of specific mood boards. As craft-teacher educators, we are interested in gaining deeper understanding of the productive combination of collaborative and individual work in the context of apparel design. According to earlier studies (e.g., Garner

396

& McDonagh-Philip, 2001; Lucero, 2012; McDonagh & Storer, 2004; Endrissat, Islam, & Noppeney, 2016), there are many positive factors that encourage the usage of mood boards in design. Deriving its origins from the studies of clothing and fashion design, and the relation between clothing design and mood boards, our study aims to analyse the connection between collaboratively created visual mood boards and individual idea development in students’ clothing design processes from the students’ perspective. We ask: what different meanings do the student give to the shared mood board in idea development?

Characteristics of Clothing Design and Mood Boards McKelvey and Munslow (2012) divide the clothing design process into five different stages or phases: 1) ‘design brief, 2) ‘design research’, 3) ‘design development’, 4) ‘prototype’, and 5) ‘solution’. From these stages, the design brief, design research, and design development can be related to the ‘idea development’ phase of designing. The ‘design brief’ constructs the base for the design process, and it should clarify the aim, objectives, and constraints of the process (McKelvey & Munslow, 2012). Lawson (2005) continues that the process of design is built around the dialogue between the design task and design solutions. In the design research stage, the designer, for example, collects a variety of reference material (e.g., inspirational material), experiments with ideas and generates concepts, observes, and draws (McKelvey & Munslow, 2012). The sources of inspiration are strongly related to the idea development phase. They have proven to have different roles in the design process: expanding the ‘idea space’ and helping to keep the design in its context (e.g., Eckert et. al., 2000; Laamanen & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2014). Despite being a useful factor in triggering ideation, the sources of inspiration can also have a contradictory role in limiting the generation of a variety of ideas (Eckert, Stacey & Clarkson, 2000). When engaging with a specific external stimulus (e.g. a visual source, previous designs) in the early stages of design process, the source of inspiration will suppress new insights (Ward, 1994; Ward et al. 2004). This phenomenon is also referred to as ‘design fixation’ (see Jansson & Smith, 1991). Laamanen and Seitamaa-Hakkarainen (2014) studied student textile teachers’ idea-generation process and how students interpreted sources of inspiration. According to them, students utilize inspirational sources by anchoring the experiment to the source (generating a specific line of idea for further development and variation) or with key ideas by generating non-observable different interpretations of the original source. A key idea can be interpreted as a generating idea that varies during the process, while an anchor idea is one that deepens and expands. The third stage of a clothing design process includes the actual development of the garment ideas. At this stage the designer considers the aesthetic features of the garment (e.g., silhouette, colors, details, textures, patterns) (McKelvey & Munslow, 2012). In the field of design, mood boards are commonly used (see Cassidy, 2011; McDonagh & Storer, 2004). Instead of offering a visual collection of real-life products, a mood board is an abstract way to root the design process. McDonagh and Storer (2004, p.18) assert that mood boards can include different media: e.g., images, textures, and forms, and be used to “express and communicate emotions” (see also Cassidy, 2011). Within the fashion industry, mood boards are an essential tool in the design process (Cassidy, 2011). Lucero (2012) describes that within fashion and textile design, the creation of a mood board helps the designer to set a starting point at the beginning of a collection’s development. Conversely, McDonagh and Storer (2004) state that mood boards can be created before the generation of an actual design brief. They continue, the selection of visual data for a mood board provides valuable information and encourages lateral thinking (also Garner & McDonagh-Philip, 2001). According to McDonagh and Storer (2004, see also McDonagh & Denton, 2005) a mood board is a method that can play a role in improving inspiration and communication within a design process. Other studies show similar evidence. For example, Lucero (2012) and Endrissat et al. (2016) have stated that mood boards have an aligning and communicative role in the design process. Mood boards give the designer a tool by which to transfer ideas in a concrete but also in an abstract way, helping individual members of a design team see eye-to-eye. Mood boards are also recognized as a vital element in organizing the design process and keeping ideas within a specific context (Lucero, 2012; Endrissat et al., 2016). Endrissat et al. (2016) studied the role of visual mood boards in organizing a product development process within the context of professional design. They (2016, p. 2536–2360) observed that mood boards coordinated the design process in three stages (1) ‘setting the scene’ by introducing a re-interpretative theme for the product. In this process a specific atmosphere and the quality of the mood board defines a ‘sub-process’ for the further development of the product, the product’s packaging design, and visual marketing. In the second process (2), the mood board also directs a designer’s activities (e.g., the selection of materials, grounding ideas, and keeping multiple agents on the same page) and the creation of sub-products. Thirdly (3), a mood board helps the designers communicate and re-organize their design by serving as a ‘point of reference’. Not only a process organizing tool, Endrissat et al. (2016) noticed that the power of mood boards lies within their

397

creative and abstract nature. According to them, because of its abstract and open nature, a mood board leaves room for interpretation. Even though the mood board ‘sets the scene’, it does not determine the final idea in advance. In addition, a mood board offers a channel for self-expression and the development of a signature style (Endrissat et al., 2016, p. 2359-2360). Within the field of design education, Garner and McDonagh-Philip (2001) found mood boards useful for design students. According to them (2001, p. 63), mood boards provide a “mechanism to respond to perceptions about the brief, the problem as it emerges and the ideas as they develop”. The creation process of a mood board can foster lateral thinking during the process. This interpretation suggests the mood board as an anchor (see Laamanen & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2014) that can help students deepen and expand the design process. Also, Cassidy (2012) noticed that the creation of mood boards is related to the generation of creative and innovative ideas. However, there are some issues concerning the use of mood boards in design education. Despite being a useful tool for the whole process of design, the lack of experience and information in creating and utilizing mood boards has been recognized as a problem among researchers. Cassidy (2011) calls for guidance and instructions in the process of creating and using mood boards in design. She noticed that there are several issues related to the creation of poor-quality mood boards: e.g., students do not understand the task, students do not conduct extensive enough research at the data collection stage or are too permissive when it comes to the selection of the visual material included. Similarly, Garner and McDonagh-Philip (2001) noticed that a poor mood board can actually narrow students’ abilities to engage emotionally. When it comes to mood boards in design education, they say, the attention should always be focused on the process, not the product. Furthermore, that the quality of the process tells much more than the quality of the mood board itself. In a successful process, the potential of a mood board can be harnessed. Ultimately, Garner and McDonagh-Philip (2001) state that much more could be done to improve the use of mood boards within design education (also Cassidy, 2011).

Methods

Participants and Setting For the present interview study, we collected the data from an ‘Inventing and Craft-Design’ study module that is a compulsory part of intermediate studies in craft teaching at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Students attending this module are in their second year of studies. From the craft teacher study program, students gain a masters’ degree in education and are qualified to teach craft subjects at levels from early childhood to adult education. The ‘Inventing and Craft Design’ study module is divided into three sections: conceptual design, modeling, and production, lasting for approximately 15 weeks. In this module, the students study the basic principles of conceptual design and its applicability in craft design by developing a collective mood board, and individually designing and preparing an outfit based on that board. After this study module, the students: 1. are familiar with the core theories and practices of conceptual design, 2. are engrossed in craft design from the perspective of clothing, 3. understand the development stages of pattern making and draping and 4. are able to design and prepare an outfit based on a mood board. In sum, the study module provides the students with a chance to participate and thus gain a better understanding of the entire clothing design process. Our study focused on the first section (conceptual design) of the study module. In this section, students gain knowledge and practices of the early phase of design by generating ideas, exploring ideas, and creating solutions. In other words, the conceptual design section includes the development of a mood board as well as students’ individual design research and idea development (see McKelvey & Munslow, 2012), the use of personal idea books, the generation of representations (i.e., sketches), fabric material samples, and knitting samples. We asked the students participating in this course to attend our study. There were 11 second-year students (two male, nine female) who volunteered to participate (see Table 1).

398

Table 1. Participants, teams, and the name of each team’s mood board

Team A / 'the pearl of the year' Team B / 'the Finnish summer' Team C / 'the sprout'

Anna Eric Amy

Bethany Kathy Emma

Iris Mary Peter

Tracy Sarah

All students in the course were divided into teams of three or four and were given an assignment to collectively develop shared mood boards. Participating students (divided into teams A, B, and C) were given the exact same assignment. The only constraint for developing mood boards was that they ought not to contain any material related to clothing. Teams A, B, and C shared their final versions of their mood boards for the use of the present study. The mood boards the teams created included verbal content (e.g. concepts, metaphors words related to feelings, atmospheric words). Two of the mood boards (team’s A and B) were visually rich, team C’s board was simpler including only one metaphorical picture (see Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1. Team B mood board ‘the Finnish summer – unpredictable and surprising’

After the team sessions, students participating in the course were instructed to start ideating their own clothing designs based on their team’s mood board. The task was to design an outfit (a knitted top and a sewn bottom). In the ideation (or conceptual design) section of the course, each student was supposed to create a minimum of 10 versions (sketches) for both top and bottom parts. The students were also directed to make entries in a self-reflective idea book, where they were instructed to gather all written and drawn material related to their idea development (e.g., sketches, materials, notes). After this, the students created a presentation version of their personal idea books. In these presentation versions of the idea books, the students were assigned to present their key-garment ideas and reflect on their team’s mood board (how the garment ideas related to the shared mood board).

Method of Data Collection and Analysis In this study we applied the simulated recall method by conducting material-stimulated interviews with open-ended questions (see e.g., Fox-Turnbull, 2009). We designed the open-ended questions in order to enable the observation of students’ thoughts and views of abstract themes while maximizing participants’ objectivity without leading them to answer in any predetermined way (see Corbin & Strauss, 1990). The main purpose of the interviews was to collect students’ reflective thoughts about collaboratively created mood boards. Each

399

participant was individually interviewed and the interviews were video-recorded. We asked the participants to tell in their own words: 1) about their main garment ideas and 2) how they would describe the meaning of the shared mood board in their individual idea development. The materials the participants presented during the interview were photographed. During the interviews, participants were allowed to recall their teams’ shared mood boards, their personal presentation idea books, and all the material produced during the idea development process. The interviews lasted between 10–23 minutes and enabled us to collect short stories from each participant. The data consisted of 1) teams A, B, and C’s shared mood boards, 2) video-recorded interviews, and 3) written and drawn material produced by the participants (e.g., sketches, notes, idea books, presentation idea books). Presentation idea books (including written material and photographs) and video-recorded data were analysed using the scientific software Atlas/ti. We conducted a data- and theory-driven qualitative content analysis. Earlier studies about the role of mood boards in design (e.g., Garner and McDonagh-Philip, 2001; Endrissat et al., 2016; Lucero, 2012) and the first observations of the data helped us to formulate two questions: a and b. We divided the analysis into two different segments by asking:

• a) What was the starting point for the clothing idea development? (This question helped us to observe whether the shared mood board/the creation process of the mood board set a spark for the individual idea development)

• b) How the student relates his/her ideas to the mood board or vice versa? (This question helped us to analyze the connection between students’ specific ideas and the mood board, i.e., if the student found a specific element in the mood board meaningful in their idea development)

All the responses where organized into different themes that became apparent during the analysis. At first, we started by going through the first segment of the interviews, where the participants freely spoke about their key ideas, in order to find answers to question (a). After this, we moved to the second segment of the interviews, where the participants reflected on their team’s mood board, by asking question (b). Under both questions (a and b), we collected and listed responsive quotes from participants’ answers about the meaning of the mood board. Finally, we built the results upon the analysis of the selected quotes and by reflecting our findings with earlier studies (Endrissat et al., 2016; Lucero, 2012). We also cross-referenced the participants’ interview data to their presentation idea books, sketches, and notes to find resemblance or additional material to enrich the interview data and also to increase the reliability of our analysis.

Results All of the students reflected on the connection between their own individual idea development, key ideas, and the collaborative creation process of the shared mood board and/or on the shared mood board as an artefact. Some students were able to reflect on the meaning of the shared mood board quite easily, while others found it hard to pinpoint unambiguous and clear definitions. However, the meaning of shared mood boards seemed to be entwined with their active role in the process of supporting the anchoring of the idea development or serving as a mechanism to expand and deepen a student’s idea space. On the other hand, the mood boards also had a contradictory and limiting meaning in some students’ idea development.

Anchoring the Design Process When the students spoke about their idea development and their key ideas, it became very clear that the shared mood boards helped some of the students to set a starting point for their idea development. Nine students generated individual concepts and started a creation process of personal visual boards that included more inspirational material (e.g., pictures of different garments, knitted surfaces, patterns, landscape pictures). Anna, Bethany, Iris, and Tracy from team A, Kathy, Mary, and Sarah from team B, as well as Emma and Amy from team C all implied that they were able to form a starting point that arose either from a specific term or from a metaphor that was included in their team’s mood board. All of the students from team A said they started to ideate during the creation process of the shared mood board and that they developed their ideas around the thought of what is the most meaningful moment for them within a year. This thought was also the idea behind their mood board ‘the pearl of the year’.

[Anna] It [the mood board] somehow positioned my idea development… the thing that what we spoke [referring to conversation amongst team members during the mood board development] that what different things could one do during the year, it kind of led me to think that what is the most precious thing or period within a year for me, and I ended up with Christmas…

400

[Kathy] I started to think from the surpris[e] that is included in our mood board…and also the term ‘controversial’…I thought from the very beginning that I want to include some details that bring surpris[e]…

For Bethany, who claimed to have had huge difficulties in starting her idea development, the existence of the team’s mood board somehow forced her to continue the process, even though she said it felt uncomfortable at first.

[Bethany] I almost had a block…it was really hard for me to start ideating…I don’t think I’m a designer…I felt that I didn’t want to design anything…Let’s see our mood board…yeah, my hobby, mounted archery and that I spoke about it during the mood board development…that it is the most meaningful moment for me in the past year…and that I like to attend parties…and so the pearl of my year is also parties…and that the pearl of my year is also these relaxing moments when you curl inside wearing comfortable clothes…I had this as a starting point.

The use of the shared mood board was not obvious for each of these students. For example, Iris spoke about how she does not quite realize the meaning of the shared mood board, but still spoke about how she thought about what was important to her in her year and how she started to search for additional inspiration based on that thought.

[Iris]…it’s hard to, or at least I wasn’t aware of the role of the mood board…at some point I just asked myself that do these ideas relate to the mood board…maybe a subconscious meaning…for the colours and the mood-pictures I searched for it gave a spark.

Emma and Amy both said that the terms ‘nature’, ‘ecological’ and ‘sustainable’ resonated with them. For Amy, the season spring/summer that relates to their team’s mood board ‘the sprout’ was the starting point for a search for additional inspiration. Kathy and Sarah both had some preliminary, vague ideas of what they wanted to create during the course.

[Amy]…from there the idea started, that there was these words [referring to words in the mood board] what would be ecological and sustainable, in colours of spring and summer and would include the idea of growth and seed…

The shared mood boards also played a role in providing a tool to reflect upon and evaluate ideas. Students returned to the mood board to reflect and evaluate their ideas. This is an example of the active role the mood boards had in helping students to: clarify thoughts and vague ideas, keep the ideas in line with each other and in their context, and help to select which ideas are relevant for further development and fostered students’ determination. By all this, we mean that the shared mood boards anchored the idea development and provided a direction to follow.

[Mary] I had heard about this course…and before this [course] started I already had pre plans of what to do… and I started to draft my ideas based on the mood board, and what I could wear… it was nice to have the mood board to reflect on and to go back to that…when I referred to the mood board it clarified what to do…it helped to narrow down ideas, because I had so many ideas, it helped me to see…where to concentrate… [Sarah]…mainly it [the shared mood board] cropped down the number of ideas… [Amy]…the mood board guides…that the ideas are coherent and in line with each other.

Expanding and Deepening the Idea Space It seemed that the creation process of the mood boards and the mood boards as shared artefacts served as concrete and abstract sources of inspiration. They enriched students’ designs, but also gave new ideas to follow. Many of the students reflected on the creation process of the mood boards and especially the conversations had during this process. As mentioned earlier, all of the members from team A, Kathy and Sarah from team B, and Emma from team C spoke about how they felt they gained initial ideas or new insight from others during the mood board creation. Also, these students, Amy from team C included, adapted inspiration from the mood board in the form of more abstract sources (e.g., memories, feelings, words that gave a spark to a detail) or then concrete sources that were directly adapted into ideas (e.g., colors or surfaces) (see Figure 2). Mary and Amy also spoke about the nature of the shared mood board. They thought because the mood board was ‘open’ it still allowed them to be creative and make personal choices.

401

[Tracy]…the conversations gave ideas what to do, and gave inspiration what to to…that it gave some base for [my] own thoughts. [Emma]…and the inspirational picture of a plant, a sprout, green leaves, and really dark soil, and white roots. And I thought I have to start with those colours and ideate my work. And first it felt like ‘oh, now, brown, green, white’ those are not my colours and I don’t have that kind of colour palette ready’… but then when I thought about the green [I] started [to] feel more comfortable, and that is the power of creating together, that you get new ideas and ways to see things that you wouldn’t normally even consider…first I had a black out, that I couldn’t use the material I already have…but then I started to find new ideas…you somehow free yourself from your ‘old patterns.

Figure 2. Collage from Emma's idea book alongside team C’s mood board 'the sprout' (on the left)

It seemed that the shared mood boards also helped to engage some students with a deeper emotional level of the idea development, because the mood boards were built upon matters that are connected to their world of experience and values. It seemed so, that the students did not only want to prepare an outfit for use but an outfit that had some purpose and ideology behind it.

A Contradictory, Superficial, or Limiting Role Although it seemed that the use of a shared mood board aided students’ designs in multiple ways, we also observed that the mood boards might have had a contradictory, a superficial, or a limiting role in some of the students’ processes. Emma, who spoke about how she was inspired by the collaboration and the shared mood board, also felt that she had to base her ideas upon the mood board. It seemed that for Emma, the use of a mood board was not a possibility, but rather a condition for the design process. Similarly, Sarah spoke about how she was at first irritated by the fact that they were supposed to utilise the shared mood boards in their individual work.

[Emma]…I thought that the mood board should be the base for my ideas. At first it felt too constraining and un-inspiring… ’cause I had developed these pre-assumptions of what I’m going to do. [Sarah]…I was irritated because it felt that the mood board somehow limited my possibilities and the preliminary ideas that I had…

Eric and Peter, who both had highly refined preliminary ideas before the mood board creation process, did not find any greater meaning through the mood boards. For them, the shared mood boards had only a superficial meaning and only needed to be taken into consideration during their individual processes. However, based on how they described the creation process of the mood board, it seemed so that the collaborative creation process served as a platform to introduce their already existing ideas and to prompt the mood board into a

402

certain direction that was beneficial for them.

[Eric] I don't see a big of a meaning in my idea development. The idea was already thought too far…the mood board in a really superficial way supported my ideas… and because I was creating the mood board I was able to adjust it in such way that it supports my already existing ideas. [Peter]…the mood board suited me really well, it was easy to start ideating, the mood board didn’t cause any constraints. I already knew what I want to do…so I implemented my ideas already in the mood board.

Discussion and Conclusions The purpose of this study was to examine what different meanings the students gave to the shared mood boards in idea development. The shared mood boards and process of creating these boards seemed to have an important impact on students’ idea development. Most of the students found that the team-design session gave inspiration and a spark for idea development. The collaborative creation processes of the mood boards gave each individual a chance to share thoughts, reflect their own ideas, and absorb new ways to see. We see that using a team-design process and a shared artefact as a stepping stone for an individual design process is a useful way to enrich and disrupt the individually oriented design. Our findings also support earlier studies (e.g., Lucero, 2012; Endrissat et al., 2016; McDonagh & Storer, 2004; Garner & McDonagh-Philip, 2001; Cassidy, 2012) about mood boards having a variety of roles in directing the design process, inspiring ideation, and engaging individuals at a much deeper level in the design process. However, our study also showed that the use of the mood board can remain on a superficial level. This we consider to be related to the possible lack of information that students have gained, for example, about the creation process of the mood boards or the quality of the mood boards. Our study also showed that not all students felt themselves to have benefited from the use of mood boards. These two students were those who already had preliminary ideas before the creation process of the mood board, and who seemed to be quite fixated upon their garment ideas. However, we see that by creating and utilizing a shared mood board, there is a possibility to somehow ‘confuse’ students’ individual ideation, expand their idea space and bring new insights. Nevertheless, when it comes to the two students in our study, their heavy commitment to previously existing ideas made it impossible for the external stimulus (i.e. the mood board) to have any effect on them. This is a common challenge when teaching design. As a possible solution, we believe that design educators should pay more attention to how they plan and present the content of a course. If a team-design creation process of a mood board could be arranged separately, without students knowing where the collaborative creation process is going to lead them, the outcome could look different. Ultimately, there is still a lot to consider when it comes to the use of shared mood boards in craft-teacher education. As Cassidy (2012, p. 248) suggests, it is advisable to inform students about the “power of the mood boards”, so that students consider mood boards to be “qualitative search tools that will assist them to develop more innovative solutions and enrich their knowledge of the subject area under exploration”. Reflecting on Cassidy (2012), we must remember that participants in this study are not students training to become professional designers. We cannot presume that they have the same knowledge as design students, let alone professional designers. However, our findings revealed that even a short introduction to the world of visual boards in design can have a significant impact on students’ performance. Despite the richness of our data that provided us with an in-depth overview of the subject, our study only reveals the views of a small number of students. Therefore, the results may lack generalizability. For a deeper understanding of the role of mood boards in student-level design processes, the analysis on the creation process of the mood boards and the quality of the mood boards should be carefully examined. Our study calls for further investigations related to the use of collaboratively created mood boards at all levels of education in craft, design, and art.

References Cassidy, T. (2011) The Mood Board Process Modeled and Understood as a Qualitative Design Research Tool,

Fashion Practice, 3(2), 225–251. Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria.

Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21. Drew, L., Bailey, S. & Shreeve, A. (2002). ‘Fashion variations: student approaches to learning in fashion design’,

in Enhancing curricula exploring effective curricula practices in art, design and communication in Higher Education, proceedings of 1st international conference, London: Centre for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design, 179–198.

403

Eckert, C. & Stacey, M. (2000). Sources of inspiration: a language of design. Design Studies, 21(5), 523–538. Eckert, C., Stacey, M. & Clarkson. P. (2000). Algorithms and inspirations: Creative reuse of design experience.

Paper presented at the Greenwich 2000 International Symposium: Digital Creativity, London: University of Greenwich, 1–10.

Endrissat,N., Islam, G. & Noppeney, C. (2016). Visual organizing: balancing coordination and creative freedom via mood boards. Journal of Business research, 69(2016), 2353–2362.

Fox-Turnbull, W. (2009). Stimulated recall using autophotography - A method for investigating technology education. In Proceedings PATT-22 Conference. Strengthening the Position of Technology Education in the Curriculum, 204––217.

Garner, S. and McDonagh-Philp, D. (2001). Problem Interpretation and Resolution via Visual Stimuli: The Use of ‘Mood Boards’ in Design Education. The Journal of Art and Design Education, 20(1), 57–64.

Howard, T., Culleyand, S., & Dekoninck, E., (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180.

Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11. Laamanen, T-K. & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2014). Constraining an open-ended design task by interpreting

sources of inspiration. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 13(2), 135–156. Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think? The design process demystified. Oxford: Elsevier Lucero, A. (2012). Framing, aligning, paradoxing, abstracting and directing: how design mood boards work.

2012. In proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference, 438–447. McDonagh, D. and Denton, H. (2005). Exploring the degree to which individual students share a common

perception of specific mood boards: observations relating to teaching, learning and team-based design. Design Studies, 26(1), 35–53.

McDonagh, D. & Storer, I. (2004) Mood Boards as a Design Catalyst and Resource: Researching an Under-Researched Area. The Design Journal, 7(3), 16–31.

McKelvey, K. & Munslow, J. (2012). Fashion Design: Process, Innovation and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Petre, M., Sharp, H. & Johnson, J. (2006). Complexity through combination: an account of knitwear design. Design Studies, 27(2), 183–222.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Shreeve, A., Bailey, S. & Drew, L. (2004). Students’ approaches to the ‘research’ component in the fashion

design project: Variation in students’ experience of the research process. Art, Design and Communication in Higher Education, 2(3), 113–130.

Ward, T.B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27(1), 1–40.

Ward, T.B., Patterson, M.J. & Sifonis, C.M. (2004). The role of specificity and abstraction in creative idea generation. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 1–9.

Anniliina Omwami Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Finland anniliina@gmail.com Anniliina Omwami (a PhD student at the University of Helsinki, Finland). In the context of craft science, her research focuses to analyse professional and student idea development and sketching, the role of sources of inspiration in individual and collaborative designing, the nature of collaborative design process as well as the development of shared understanding in team design.

404

Henna Lahti Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Finland henna.lahti@helsinki.fi Henna Lahti (Ph.D., Docent of Craft Science) works as a university lecturer in the Faculty of Educational Sciences, at the University of Helsinki, Finland. Her main research interest is in developing collaborative designing in various learning environments. She has published articles on collaborative design methods, virtual design studios, design thinking including material and embodied practices, and pedagogical aspects of collaborative designing. Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen Faculty of Educational Sciences, Department of Education, University of Helsinki, Finland Pirita.seitamaa-hakkarainen@helsinki.fi Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen (Ph.D.) is professor of Craft Science at the University of Helsinki and docent at Aalto University. Her main research interest has been to analyse expertise in design, the nature of the design process and the role of the external representation, embodiment, materiality in the design studio learning and makerspaces (STEAM). She has analysed collaboration and embodiment in various settings, and at different levels of education.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Preparing to Introduce Design Thinking in Middle Schools Critically Examining Planning Processes Involving School Officials and Design Educators

Michael Gibson, Keith Owens, Peter Hyland and Christina Donaldson https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.07.189

This case study critically analyses and describes knowledge gained by a team of university-based design educators and researchers who engaged in the planning necessary to introduce specific aspects of design thinking in middle school classrooms in Denton, Texas, USA, a city of about 140,000. (Middle schools in the U.S. typically educate students aged 11 to 14.) This piece articulates key insights about how and why the introduction of design thinking should be collaboratively and strategically planned if it is to function as an effective augmentation of a college preparatory curricula, and the learning experiences that constitute this, at this educational level. The authors are university-level art and design educators at the University of North Texas, and they share what they learned during a three-years-plus collaboration with key school district administrators and advisors, middle school instructors, and more than 90 middle school students. The intent of this discourse is to provide readers with actionable means to effectively prepare the groundwork for introducing design thinking in middle school classrooms.

Keywords: teaching design thinking; habits-of-mind; S.T.E.A.M.; strategic planning; critical thinking

Introducing the ‘Why and How’ of Our Project The primary reasons why our university-based art and design education team sought to establish and maintain a relationship with a mid-sized American middle school system in Denton, Texas—albeit temporarily hampered by a pandemically induced suspension of in-school learning in the school district within which we have been working—are framed within Chris Argyris’ ideas regarding the need to utilize, or create and utilize, actionable knowledge (1996). In our case, the actionable knowledge we began seeking almost three years ago in mid-2018, and are still seeking, is two-fold: 1.) if the approaches and methods common to the process of design(ing) (e.g., open-ended problem-based framing, iterative thinking and prototyping, recursive exploration and reflection, failure as a learning heuristic) could be reconciled with and enrich middle-school pedagogical approaches that typically favour single ‘right’ answers arrived at by engaging in a linear, expeditious manner; and 2.) whether this hybrid approach to learning could engender habits of mind that could transcend subject matter to become meta-level skills upon which students could rely as they take on increasingly complex learning and life challenges. In order to describe how our investigation would work in a way that was understandable to our educational partners, and to dispel or attenuate widely-held misconceptions about what the professional practice of design entails (i.e., untethered creative expression, technological facility as an end rather than a means, visual selling and consumer demand creation), we employed ‘design thinking’ — a term now in common usage that has come to mean the codification and use of design practices by non-designers seeking a system of user-centric problem understanding and solution seeking—as an encapsulating descriptor for our efforts. More broadly, we situated our efforts within the educational realm as the “A” in the acronym “S.T.E.A.M.” This is the letter that represents the (A)rts and is a recent addition to the longstanding acronym “S.T.E.M.” that has come to denote core subject matter areas that, at least in the United States, have come to be seen as vital and necessary for pre-university-level students to acquire and master — (S)cience, (T)echnology, (E)ngineering, and (M)athematics. In so doing, we positioned our investigation within a contemporary movement gaining

406

purchase in western education that, somewhat ironically, has returned to the belief that the arts and humanities remain a vital way of interpreting, understanding and shaping action in the world. This positioning also serves as an antidote to the belief that technology is the sole arbiter of and catalyst for human progress, and also a response to the uneasy feeling that the uber-networked, hyper-globalized online creations of our ‘silicon saviours’ have somehow distorted the diverse and socially rich ways people can construct identity, build community, and relate to their lived environments and cultures. Armed with a belief in the efficacy of design thinking as an educational catalyst, and a conceptual framework that we believed would be acceptable to existing sensibilities and priorities in K-12 education, we entered into a conversation with a local school district (one that was near the university where our art and design education team was based) that had shown an interest in new ways of enriching education in its visual arts classrooms and beyond.

Figure 1. Texas-based, university-level design educators and researchers Michael Gibson and Keith Owens (both are shown standing) facilitate an initial meeting with school district administrators, advisors and middle- and high-school educators in Denton, Texas, USA to explain how and why design thinking might be an effective addition to the learning experiences of students enrolled in these classrooms. Source: ©Peter Hyland 2019

This school district had a long, 30-plus year history of affording research teams from outside of our College of Visual Arts and Design opportunities to work with their administrators, advisors and consultants, instructors and students to pursue a variety of research initiatives. Previous efforts by various members of our university’s research community led our team to believe that our endeavour stood a reasonable chance of yielding some understandings about how and how not introduce design thinking into middle school classrooms. While this did indeed occur to a degree, it did not occur at all in ways that we could have (or should have) anticipated. What this case study will reveal is what our team learned from what failed to evolve as we had hoped it would with our attempts to interject a new pedagogical approach into middle school classrooms. In what follows, we offer what we discovered when we considered “what didn’t work” with our preparatory efforts for this project. We believe these revelations could be useful to others who are considering or beginning similar types of investigations into the roles that the habits of mind common to engaging in the process of design might play in the classroom.

407

Examining How Early Compromises and Misunderstandings Led to Eventual Problems We had hoped our attempts to introduce design thinking in middle school classrooms would help students learning in those settings construct new knowledge for themselves by engaging in the following four “steps” inherent in this approach.

• Build empathy for the needs of people unlike themselves — their users — through research.

• Suggest new ideas — lots of them — that could help their users improve a given, undesirable situation in their daily lives.

• Develop a selection of their new ideas into various prototypes that they could then test.

• By engaging in this testing process, assess which prototypes were the most and least effective at meeting their particular users’ needs.

An Investigation Regarding What Our Initial Interactions with School District Personnel Entailed An overarching catchphrase we developed early on as we attempted to explain design thinking to the array of stakeholders in the school district that we would be working within was that “design thinking is an iterative process to help students develop LOTS of ideas, and then eliminate all but the strongest among them based on their assessments of which of these ideas worked best as prototypes on behalf of specific users.” We felt it was important to use this catchphrase as a way to remind ourselves and our collaborators that design thinking was an effective means to: 1.) develop critical thinking skills, such as being able to perceive a given issue from multiple points of view, 2.) reason from logical rather than passionate perspectives, 3.) use evidence to support statements and courses of action (even if this evidence disconfirms your personal ideas), and, 4.) avoid “falling in love and then staying married to” the first idea you develop (Willingham, 2008). We also felt it was important to remind our collaborators that the decision-making processes that guide design thinking are more important to student learning than whatever artifacts they produce as a result of engaging in these processes. The initial response to our articulation of these ideas, and to our further articulation that they could be used to frame a qualitative research platform that would operate as a case study, was met positively by our school district-based collaborators. We also initially presented a plan to support our qualitatively based foundation with a limited set of quantitative data sets that would be gathered from observing the evolution of classroom projects we had co-developed with middle school classroom educators. These would be developed by students who would engage in design thinking processes as the schedule of these projects progressed. What we did not realize as we began to formulate methods for operating and assessing particular, project-based approaches for introducing design thinking in two to four of the school district’s middle school classrooms was that their administrators’ and instructors’ conceptions of what constituted viable and acceptable approaches and methods for engaging in qualitative or quantitative case study-based research were not well-aligned with ours. For example, based on our previous experiences as design educators and researchers of planning and operating design projects in other types of classrooms, we were accustomed to being able to compare and contrast the operation of a specific type of design learning experience in one classroom against the operation of another in another classroom. Assessing what types of project descriptions, parameters, and strategies and tactics for facilitating critical, in-classroom discussions against each other usually allowed us to gather evidence-based data that could be used to construct the types of knowledge necessary to guide future project planning. As the course of our early interactions with school district officials progressed, they changed from initially supporting the idea that design thinking could be introduced differently, or not at all, in some of the classrooms within which we were being allowed to introduce it, to insisting that all classrooms we would be allowed to work within have design thinking be introduced into them. This insistence made it impossible for us to compare and contrast how the same type of project-based parameters would affect students’ and instructors’ responses to our project-based prompts, as well as students’ abilities to engage in iterative design decision-making processes, and also students’ willingness to learn from having some of their prototypes fail while others succeeded. (An example of the type of middle school-level design prompts we operated was, “use design thinking to guide the development and construction of a hat that visually communicates your feelings about a social, cultural, environmental or political issue that is important to you.”)

408

Figure 2. Our university-based team’s introduction of using design thinking as a process to facilitate empathy-building as a means to inform idea development and design processes resulted in our school district partners creating diagrams like this one depicting significant, “outside-of-classroom” issues that affect student learning. Source: ©Peter Hyland 2019

What had been planned and initially agreed upon as way to learn from what could happen in middle school classrooms that were given virtually the same set of project parameters — except that one set would evolve as a project guided by design thinking and the other would evolve without it — did not occur. Instead, the same set of project parameters was mandated to operate across all of the middle school classrooms we were allowed to operate in. This decision was taken by school district officials out of a concern about feelings of disparity among teachers, students, and parents, as not all classrooms in the district were being afforded an opportunity to engage in an activity available to other students in other classrooms, or schools. This concern prevented us from being able to engage in a comparison between the outcomes of project-based learning guided by design thinking and project-based learning that was not.

409

Figure 3. The project parameters that were operated within the middle school classrooms our team of design educators and researchers were allowed to observe were not primarily guided by the empathetically informed, iteratively developed prototyping methods that form the basis of design thinking. This resulted in the outcomes of student projects resembling traditional visual arts artifacts rather than the final iterations of design processes. Source: ©Peter Hyland 2019.

These aspects of our preparation processes revealed a fundamental misunderstanding about how (and why) we framed “research” as we did and how (and why) school district administrators, advisors and instructors dhttps://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021. It also highlighted the fact that educational approaches are shaped by socio-cultural imperatives as much as they are by any desire for discovering and implementing effective pedagogy.

Examining the Challenges of Situating Design Thinking in Visual Arts Classrooms We had proposed that design thinking be thought of as a synthetic set of activities that could be used by students and the instructors who taught them to bring together multiple types of knowledge from diverse disciplines. We also proposed it as a complex phenomenon that could be studied in-depth for a specified period of time within a set context (Muratovski, 2016, p. 49), like a middle school classroom. The district, however, constrained by a subject-oriented approach driven by a strict testing culture, believed that the project should situate in visual arts classrooms, as state standards related to that subject area offered more flexibility in developing curriculum, with the possibility of engaging with other disciplines at a later date. While design and the arts, per se, share common visual language and exploratory methods, the two endeavors part company at the level of intent — creative self-expression versus evidence-based problem-solving on behalf of others. Our initial observation sessions conducted prior to our actual co-teaching revealed that the visual arts classrooms in which we would operate were widely believed by students and teachers alike to be sites for personal expression and a redoubt from the stultifying ‘skill-and-drill’ learning approaches so commonly deployed in other middle-school classrooms. The mere act of creation, apart from any systematic approach or reflection, was celebrated as a successful learning outcome in and of itself. Thus, we worried (rightly so) that our design thinking exercises and their underlying philosophy would be at odds with the accepted culture animating these classrooms. Moreover, because the finished prototypes would visually resemble typical results of student visual arts projects, it would become too easy to conflate our design thinking-based

410

outcomes with the creation of more traditionally and intuitively guided visual arts artifacts. The result of this would be to lose sight of the methodological underpinnings we were attempting to instill and demonstrate on behalf of both students and instructors.

Figure 4. The group of student projects depicted here reveals one of the principal challenges for students who weren’t effectively introduced to design thinking during the facilitation of this project: that of not engaging in the iterative development and testing of LOTS of ideas early on in a development process to avoid ‘falling in love with your first idea.’ source: ©Peter Hyland 2019

Siloed subject orientation, incommensurate classroom learning culture and likely misperceptions about what should constitute the final work product were not the only possible barriers to success. Underlying and amplifying all of these dynamics was the requirement that we align our approaches with the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) framework as mandated by the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the governmental organization that oversees primary and secondary public education in the state of Texas. (The TEKS framework was adopted in 1997 to outline what students enrolled in Texas public schools at particular grade levels must learn in each subject matter area before being allowed to matriculate into the next grade level.) To ensure that this stipulation could be met, we were invited to participate in curriculum development training, along with some of the middle school educators and administrators with whom we were partnering to introduce design thinking into this school district’s middle school classrooms. The central goal of this training was to help us better align the design thinking approaches we were seeking to introduce with the per-grade-level learning outcomes specified within the TEKS framework to guide curricular planning and day-to-day instruction in the visual arts. This work had to be completed and approved before the design thinking-based projects we had co-developed with our middle school partners could be introduced into specific middle school classrooms. The learning outcomes stipulated by the TEKS framework were not necessarily onerous or inimical to our agenda, but aligning them with how we felt design thinking should be introduced as an approach and as a set of working methods proved ineffective. Processes for productively integrating what we were proposing into their curricular planning efforts were not realized, as this was not articulated clearly enough early on as an essential goal. This was particularly true with regard to meeting the objective of introducing design thinking as a means to improve student learning experiences across several, middle-school-level subject areas outside of the visual arts, such as social studies, language arts and technology applications.

411

This failure to broadly introduce design thinking occurred despite the fact that we were afforded the opportunity to work early in this process with our middle school partners in two, day-and-a-half-long workshops that afforded us an opportunity to co-develop curricular templates based on approaches rooted in Understanding By Design (UBD; Bowen, 2017). The essential premise of Understanding By Design is to guide the planning of curricula and learning experiences in ways that emphasize the outcomes that a student should achieve from engaging in a given lesson or activity rather than the lesson or activity itself. The intent is to foster and facilitate planning processes that are rooted in learning rather than teaching. While utilizing Understanding By Design as a means to guide curriculum and lesson planning did allow us to begin to envision how design thinking could have been synthesized across subject areas outside of the visual arts, we were ultimately unable to introduce it outside of this subject area. This occurred as a result of our inability to reconcile what we could envision conceptually with the day-to-day, TEKS-framework-imposed realities of having to ensure that subject-area-specific learning objectives would still be met in the particular types of classrooms — social studies, language arts and technology applications — within which any learning experiences informed by design thinking would be taught. Ultimately, attempting to satisfy the per-subject-area stipulations articulated within the TEKS framework curtailed most of our efforts to connect learning across rather than within them.

Not Allocating Sufficient Time for University-Based and Middle-School Instructors to Work Collaboratively The difficulties posed by having to closely align lessons guided by design thinking with institutionally imposed curricular frameworks such as Understanding By Design and the TEKS were not the only barriers that affected the success of our efforts. Another was the fact that the school district had limited funds available to pay for substitute teachers. This became problematic because it prevented the full-time, middle school instructors we were attempting to partner with sufficient time to plan lessons guided by design thinking from leaving their classrooms long enough to effectively work with us to plan them. (We had originally planned to work with them for between five and eight days during an approximately 18-week semester.) Specifically, it prevented these full-time instructors from working with us closely enough to develop these lessons in ways that they believed would actually work on behalf of their respective groups of middle school students in their particular classroom settings. As a result, our full-time, middle school faculty partners were not able to be absent from their respective classrooms to work with us to plan lessons and projects rooted in design thinking for more than one to three days — non-consecutively — per semester. Their limited classroom release time significantly curtailed our ability to effectively work with them to co-develop learning units rooted in design thinking. As a result of this, key opportunities were lost to:

1 seamlessly integrate student learning outcomes with the planned execution of lesson or project plans guided by design thinking;

2 work realistically within or in light of non-fungible classroom realities, such as timing, sequencing and student expectations, and;

3 develop project-based learning opportunities that had resulted from a collaboration which allowed all parties to bring to bear their unique perspectives as the design thinking lesson plans were conceived, shaped, and assessed.

The result of this siloed development process could be seen each time learning units rooted in design thinking were deployed in the classrooms of our middle school faculty partners. They freely interpreted the delivery and classroom expectations for each of these units, which resulted in them being facilitated primarily as art-making projects that yielded visual arts artifacts rather than opportunities for students to utilize design thinking as a means to empathize with people different from themselves and then develop and design a product, service or experience on their behalf. Additionally, as these art-making scenarios unfolded, university faculty came to operate less as co-teachers and more as outside observers or classroom visitors for the duration of each learning experience that had become only rudimentarily informed by design thinking. Little if any integration occurred to coordinate new understandings that could have been gained by comparing existing and new learning experiences. Similarly, there were no comparative analyses performed during segues from ‘teaching into’ or ‘teaching out of’ learning units that were rooted in visual arts approaches versus their design thinking counterparts.

412

Summary/Key Takeaways The following excerpt from Jessica Lahey, an English teacher and contributing writer for The Atlantic, succinctly and accurately synopsizes the most essential understanding our team gleaned from engaging in the preparation processes of necessary to introduce design thinking in middle school classrooms in a mid-sized, American city in Texas (2017):

When executed with a clear understanding of its purpose as a method for fostering empathy, creativity, and innovation, design thinking can be a powerful tool for learning and change. If it is hastily and inexpertly implemented by educators with a weak or incomplete understanding of its principles, however, it is likely to be a waste of energy and precious classroom time.

Our now three-plus years of interactions with a diversely populated group of school district administrators, subject matter coordinators, curricular advisors and consultants, and middle school classroom educators — our “non-university-based research project partners” — have clearly revealed the need for us to have more concise and purposeful dialogue around three key issues. The elemental makeup of this threesome as they affected our attempts to introduce design thinking into middle school classrooms is interrelated, and we learned that each one of them directly and indirectly affects the other two. They are described as follows.

• In order for middle school-level learning experiences rooted in design thinking to be adequately operationalized in actual classroom settings, we as art and design educators and researchers needed to frame and manage the expectations of our non-university-based research partners more effectively than we did about the knowledge and insights among students and teachers that these kinds of learning experiences could and could not yield.

• In order for the groups of middle school students we worked with on a per-project basis to utilize design thinking to 1) empathize with the rational and emotional needs of others, 2) organize what they learned from this into a design strategy, and then 3) generate lots of ideas that could have been tested and assessed as prototypes, we needed to work much more closely and collaboratively with the instructors of these students to ensure that the lesson plans being created to guide specific “design thinking projects” were actually feasible as such in those instructors’ classrooms.

• In order for our university-based team of design educators and researchers to effectively introduce and study design thinking in this school district’s middle school classrooms, a clearly understood definition of what actually constitutes research in this area needed to have been agreed upon early on by our university-based team and the school district’s administrators, curricular advisors and consultants, and the middle school educators who were involved with this endeavour.

Our university-based team’s failure to engage early on in more deeply plumbed and broadly informed critical discussions with key, middle school-based personnel from our partner school district severely limited the knowledge that introducing design thinking into our chosen school district’s actual middle school classroom settings could have yielded. With that stated, we emerged from our engagement in this partnership with what we feel are crucial understandings about how to prepare to engage in the planning processes necessary to effectively introduce project-based learning experiences in middle school classrooms that are guided by design thinking. Equally as important, we emerged with crucial understandings about how not to engage in these types of planning processes, including knowledge that we believe could help others in the design education and design research communities avoid making some of the mistakes we made. Learning ‘what not to do’ and ‘what to avoid’ have been essential aspects of engaging in design processes since these were introduced as distinct means for guiding decision-making in the 1960s. What we have introduced in this case study are some guidelines for operationalizing these within the realm of public education settings — particularly at the middle school level — that wish to incorporate design thinking into their curricula in ways that realistically and meaningfully affect student learning in positive ways.

References Argyris, C. (1996). Actionable knowledge: Design causality in the service of consequential theory. The Journal

of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 390–406. Bowen, R. S. (2017). Understanding by Design. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved March 25,

2021 from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/understanding-by-design/. Lahey, J. (2017, January 4). Education: How Design Thinking Became a Buzzword at School. The Atlantic.

413

Retrieved March 15, 2021 from https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/01/how-design-thinking-became-a-buzzword-at-school/512150/

Muratovski, G. (2016). Research for Designers: A Guide to Methods and Practice. Sage Publications Ltd., London, U.K.

Willingham, D.T. (2008). Critical Thinking: Why Is it So Hard to Teach? American Educator, Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 21–32

Michael Gibson The University of North Texas (UNT), College of Visual Arts and Design, U.S.A. Michael.gibson@unt.edu Professor Gibson is the graduate programs coordinator in interaction design and design research at UNT. He also teaches user experience design, critical writing, design research theory and methods, and communication design and its history. He has lectured and published widely and has operated a visual and interaction design consultancy for more than 30 years. He is the Producer and Co-Managing Editor of Dialectic (dialectic.aiga.org), the scholarly journal of the AIGA DEC. Keith Owens The University of North Texas (UNT), College of Visual Arts and Design, U.S.A. Keith.owens@unt.edu Professor Owens coordinates the operation of UNT’s undergraduate degree program in user experience design. He also teaches design research theory and methods at the graduate level, as well as prototyping, usability testing and analysis, and human-centred approaches to framing design opportunities. Owens has presented and published widely, and currently is the Managing Editor of Dialectic (dialectic.aiga.org), the scholarly journal of the AIGA DEC. Peter Hyland The University of North Texas (UNT), College of Visual Arts and Design, U.S.A. Peter.hyland@unt.edu As director of UNT’s Onstead Institute, Peter Hyland collaborates with CVAD faculty and students and community partners to fulfill the Institute’s mission of developing, supporting, and sustaining innovative art and design practices and processes for K-12 education through a program of research, project administration, and public dissemination of information. Christina Donaldson The University of North Texas (UNT), College of Visual Arts and Design, U.S.A. Christina.donaldson@unt.edu Christina is a designer, design strategist, and educator. Drawn to the interplay between design education, psychology, and sociology, her current work examines curriculum, mental health, and community. She is currently pursuing doctoral studies in the art education program at UNT, and is also teaching as an adjunct faculty member in Southern Methodist University’s Master of Arts in Design and Innovation program.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Socially-Engaged Distance Design Collaboration A Study on the Effects of Digital Collaboration Over Design-Based Creativity

Kardelen Aysel and Can Güvenir https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.08.246

Applied design education was required to replicate the socially constructivist structure through digital tools due to Covid-19 Pandemic. However, the effects of distant design education on the students’ learning experience are not stated yet. For this reason, this study aims to discuss what are the affective learning outcomes, creative and design self-efficacy and visual literacy levels of design students. Within this framework, the effects of distance education in the scope of introduction to industrial design course was indicated and discussed through reflections and self-evaluation surveys. The study was held with 26 first year industrial design students in the fall semester of the 2020-2021 academic year. Digital collaboration tools on the students’ perspective provide a ground for socialization and group work, simultaneously supporting distant collaboration in the educational perspective. This interaction comes forward as motivational support for students, more importantly, leads to an increased level of self-awareness in various layers of learning.

Keywords: distance learning; design education; design collaboration; self-efficacy; visual literacy

Introduction Applied design education includes a social constructivist approach. However, the only obligation to use distance learning, which comes with the pandemic, has forced this social interaction to transform. The different digital tools used in this distance education are designed to replicate the classroom environment, but the contribution of these tools to the student's learning process is not yet completely known. The affective learning outcomes of design education focus on improving the learners’ creative and design skills and also their visual literacy by the social constructivist education approach. The learning experience of design students in digital environments is designed as a simulation of the critical culture in face-to-face design education and the social interaction brought by the working environment. For this reason, it is thought that the applied design courses are conducted on platforms that can support digital collaboration and reflect on students' own creative and design skills. For this reason, this research aims to frame the affective learning outcomes of distance design education in higher education. Besides that, the study questions what the effects of applied design education in the concept of distance education are over the first-year industrial design students' design and creative self-efficacy and their visual literacy. In this context, it aims to shed light on how students' Creative Self-Efficacy, Design Self-Efficacy and Visual Literacy scores have changed through teamwork and the use of different digital tools.

Literature Review A brief discussion of learning outcomes and cognitive skills will be made in this section, followed by a look at the social cognitive theory approaches of learning. A lasting improvement in behaviour as a result of an action is referred to as learning (Wexley & Latham, 1991). As a result, instructional goals, learning objectives, and outcomes are all intertwined with the learning experience.

415

The instructional goals are quantifiable techniques that define the abilities that a student acquires after completing a learning task (Kibler, Cegala, Miles & Barker, 1974). Learning goals, on the other hand, play a tactical role in education, supporting observable behaviour and skills. The learning goals highlight what students will be able to achieve as a result of their learning experience. Finally, the learning outcomes are designed to direct the student through the process of connecting information for the student to explore and incorporate the gained knowledge's capacity in a variety of contexts. The learning outcomes often enable students to focus on and assess their progress during a course or program. The learning outcomes are manifested at the cognitive, skill-based, and affective stages (Kraiger, Ford & Salas, 1993). Cognitive stability is achieved by the ability to maintain autonomy and awareness of the world, as well as the internalization and externalization of experiences (Fosnot & Perry, 1996). To put it another way, cognition is the relationship between a set of variables and varying quantities, forms, and elements of information (Lord & Mahler, 1991). Cognition expresses itself in the context of verbal awareness, knowledge organization, and cognitive techniques in learning outcomes (Gagne, 1984). Secondly, having a set of goal alignment and activities that are structured sequentially and hierarchically is referred to as skill development (Weiss, 1990). The phases of development creation start with the learning of new skills, followed by the compilation of those skills by proceduralization and composition, and finally, skill automaticity. Understanding learning outcomes solely based on cognitive and skill-based attributes is insufficient. Affective outcomes, such as self-efficacy and motivation (Krathwohl, 1964), also influence the overall learning experience.

Self-Efficacies in Design Education Self-efficacy is described as a person's confidence in his or her ability to effectively perform required behaviours to produce the desired result or to effectively complete a specific task (Bandura, 1977, 1995a & Pintrich, 1999). Self-efficacy (Bandura, 1989), used in education, communication, and psychology, is a theory that argues that knowledge is formed by observation, interaction, experience, and external media factors. With social impact, knowledge and meaning are formed, environmental and personal factors linked to behaviour are interdependent, and every action has an impact. Bandura argues that with basic interventions, people can gain many behavioural tissues. The effects of the physical and social environment on people are also emphasized. It is advocated that it provides self-confidence through interactive learning and practice. Learners build information by social interaction with other individuals in the interactive constructivist approach, so learning construction is considered social. Reflections on social experiences help to build awareness (Henriques, 1997). The constructivist learning approach is based on the following principles: the learner's prior and current experience is valued, pedagogy is shaped by this, education is constructed actively by the learner in both individual and social ways, and comprehension is a process of adaptation (Olssen, 1996). Understanding self-efficacy is particularly useful for designing intervention strategies to help students learn better. Carberry, Lee and Ohland (2010) discuss the need for understanding student learning and effective teaching in education as below:

Knowing an individual's self-efficacy serves as a valuable supplement to their cognitive gains, they claimed. Understanding how self-efficacy influences student learning will aid in the improvement of intervention strategies to help students perform better (p. 77).

Improvements that occur in self-perceptions of creative efficacy contribute to increases in creative efficiency, so creative self-efficacy growth is beneficial. Creative self-efficacy refers to a person's confidence in his or her own ability to be creative. CSE is described by Abbott (2010, p. 12) as a motivational condition characterized by an individual's self-efficacy for expressing creativity and an individual's confidence in one's own ability to express creative efficiency. Design self-efficacy is described as the “extent to which a person feels confident to perform well on the design aspects of the job” (Beeftink, van Eerde, Rutte & Bertrand, 2012, p. 73). Design self-efficacy can be characterized as an individual's confidence in his or her ability to effectively perform expected behaviours to create a design or effectively complete a design mission, according to the definitions of Bandura (Bandura, 1977, 1995a) and Pintrich (1999). A higher level of design self-efficacy is linked to becoming a more effective designer (Beeftink et al., 2012). Self-efficacy is thought to be enhanced by repetitive practice in self-regulation, and self-efficacy can contribute to the controlling behaviour and emotions required for success in design and business. Developing an innovative cognitive style, also referred to as Innovative Cognitive Style, is found to have a positive impact on creativity (Shalley, Zhou & Oldham, 2004). The control theory of self-regulation proposes that task completion necessitates repetitive cycles of feedback loops to keep track of task progress.

416

There is a popular discussion on how the view of self on creative tasks affects actual, evidence-based, creative performance (Tierney & Farmer, 2002), with the belief that creatively confident people may perform better in creative tasks (Kelley & Kelley, 2013). One way of assessing self-efficacies in creative tasks is through the Creative Self-Efficacy Scale (Tierney & Farmer, 2002). The scale assesses the self-confidence in creative aspects of a task, whereas Design Self-Efficacy Scale (Beeftink et al, 2012) assesses the self-confidence in the performing of a design aspect of a task. In this study, the culturally adapted Turkish scales by Atabek (2020) for both will be used as the tools to reflect how the students perceive their creative and design abilities. Additionally, the Visual Literacy Scale will be used to assess how much the students are aware of and have adapted to the visual world of design, such as the use of visual tools and principles.

Case Study: Introduction to Industrial Design Course This study was made with the students enrolled in the Introduction to Industrial Design I course at Yaşar University Department of Industrial Design. The period of the study is the 2020-2021 Fall Semester. The students who have taken the course are a total of 36. However, the number of students who have completed both the pre-test and post-test are 11 male, 15 female students, a total of 26. In this study, the data of participants who have taken both tests will be analysed to develop an understanding of how the course has transformed them.

Table 1. Information on the participants enrolled in the course

Female Male Total

Number of Participants 15 11 26

Average Age 18.1 18.8 18.4

The common characteristic of the participants of the study is they are first-year students, 18.4 years old in average, who have not taken any design-related courses. It must be noted that the first-year compulsory courses the students must succeed in are developed for transforming a non-designer into a beginner level designer. Four compulsory courses are in the educational plan of the Product Design Department in Yaşar University for the first-year fall semester: Basic Design I, Technical Drawing I, Freehand Drawing I, and Introduction to Industrial Design I. In the first year of industrial design education, the Introduction to Industrial Design course plays a synthesizing role between compulsory design courses such as Basic Design, Freehand Drawing, and Technical Drawing. Not only that but also the course presents an introductory level design culture and knowledge for familiarity. Considering that the practice and application of the knowledge acquired is more holistic, for this paper the Introduction to Industrial Design course was chosen as a case. The course is 4 hours a week incorporating two design projects and one research project. The course consists of one instructor, one research assistant and 36 students. At the end of the course, the students are expected to learn cognitive, skill-based, and affective aspects of design as described in the following. The content of the course includes the methods of idea exploration, idea development and transforming ideas into 3D designs. It consists of exercises of three-dimensional (3D) thinking related to product design, comprehending basic geometrical shapes, sketching, abstract thinking on two and three-dimensional relations, improving physical 3D modelling and experiencing various modelling techniques with different materials. In other words, the course outline requires the development of creative, design thinking skills concerning an improved literacy in the visual world.

Data Collection The digital tools used during the course can be categorized by the roles attributed to the usage of those tools such as communication, collaboration, and assessment. As for the communication role, the Zoom Video Conferencing platform was used to provide instructions and facilitate in-class discussions (Figure 1). Additionally, the Breakout Room function of Zoom was used in each class for group works, planning and peer-review.

417

Figure 1. Screenshot from first project jury

Secondly for collaboration, the students presented, reviewed, commented, archived, and submitted their works on the classroom board on Miro. As a digital whiteboarding platform, the characteristics of pre-pandemic, face-to-face experience was imitated for the students to be able to adapt to this new system easier. Lastly, for the role of assessment, Google Forms were used for both quantitative and qualitative reviews. During each presentation and project juries, the students evaluated themselves and other students according to the survey template provided. Moreover, through Google Forms, the students were asked to review and reflect upon the learning experience. At both the beginning and the end of the course the students were asked to fill out forms that will be used as pre-test and post-test. The quantitative survey consists of the Creative Self-Efficacy Scale, Design Self-Efficacy Scale, Visual Literacy Scale and Peer-Review survey. Scales used in the data collection stage are culturally adapted to obtain more consistent data.

Figure 2. Course's Miro Board

418

Additionally, evaluation criteria for students, which are also filled out at the final submissions of two projects and one research paper were presented. The qualitative data collection was also made through peer-review forms where the students evaluated themselves and each other by writing a paragraph-long critique including positive and improvable comments (Table 2). The survey's overall form was designed to allow students to evaluate the abilities they learned in each semester. They were asked to assess the design projects based on each course's learning outcomes. The purpose of this assessment was to project design students' skill transfer concerns. Students were asked to use Miro and Google Forms at the same time during the peer-review process. Students completed the survey questions while looking at the projects on the class Miro Board.

Table 2. Template for the peer-review form

Class Evaluation Form for Project 1

Name-Surname: _____________

Please select what fits the project most (5 is the highest)

1 2 3 4 5

Student 1_name-surname

Idea - Investigation o o o o o

Design Process o o o o o

Workmanship o o o o o

Overall Presentation o o o o o

Comments Write your comments on the project. What are the positive aspects and what can be improved in what ways?

Together with the forms, the students were asked to review the learning experience at the beginning, during and end of the class through a reflective writing activity (Gelmez, 2016). The reflective writing survey included questions regarding the students' feelings, experiences, and perspectives on the course. Its goal was to discover the connections between the student's prior knowledge and experience and what they learned in class. In addition, the survey inquired as to how the student would behave differently if the course were to be repeated. The study conducted within the Introduction to Industrial Design I course was during the 2020-2021 Fall Semester, which was 16 weeks including the final juries. In the 4th week of the course, a pre-test was done, consisting of the CSES, the DSES, the VLS, reflective writing survey and peer-review forms. The same set of tests, as post-test, was also completed at the end of the 16-week course period to collect data for evaluating the contribution of the course content to the students through comparison.

Findings and Discussion Affective learning outcomes in industrial design education were researched under the title of self-efficacy, focusing on creativity and design, additionally the learning outcomes were assessed under the title of visual literacy. For this, the surveys for the assessment of the creative and design self-efficacy followed by the visual literacy was completed by the students. The assessments were applied at the beginning, the middle and the end of the training process. The data were analyzed and evaluated separately. The analysis of the data was compared and confirmed through students’ reflective writing results and peer-reviews. Within this framework, distant synchronous applied industrial design education has been evaluated from the perspective of learning outcomes, students’ design-related skill acquisition, creativity, and visual expressions under the title of self-efficacy through the social constructivist model, modified for the digital environment. While no significant change has been observed in the creative self-efficacy levels of the students, the design abilities and visual expression skills have transformed significantly. Design-wise, an increase has been observed in the process of overcoming problems, application of visual materials and typography, the production of static and animated visuals, and the examination ability of visuals. The survey results, consisting of the culturally adapted questions of the CSES, DSES and VLS, were tested for reliability and validity. The students who did not participate in all 3 sets of questionnaires were excluded from the study, resulting in N=26. Due to the number of students and questions, the results were not found suitable to infer a typology (Phelan & Wren, 2007). Changes in mean values have been looked at (Appendix 1),

419

additionally, the inferences were made through the changes in p-values. To increase the objectivity of the study, the questions that present a p-value below 0.05 were considered unchanged, therefore excluded from the findings. No significant change was observed in the creative self-efficacy values of students. In DSES, the students' self-perception on overcoming and satisfying design issues were improved. As mentioned by Participant 18, “We used to solve problems we come across from the easiest way but this time, through exploring it together we could think of more and more creative alternatives”. Not only that but also design-wise, Participant 11 commented that the course was helpful for self-awareness with the quote, “This course revealed so many things in me that I have not known about myself before, I can be creative and design”. Lastly, on the design-based confidence, the peer-reviews were found to enable awareness over own skills as Participant 4 mentioned, “I feel happy because my friends were interested in the ideas that I shared during teamwork, and I saw that I can think of good ideas”. As well as self-awareness, the social aspect of the design studio was found to be beneficial for the students as Participant 7 described: “I believe the course has taught me to observe the environment by firstly asking the why question, the instructors always took our opinion on the course activities. This way, the course structure allowed me to participate in the in-class activities and projects”. The interactive nature of the course was found to be enabling in terms of motivation, “I think, making an interactive studio course made me more focused and motivated for participation” (Participant 9). Still, some students needed face-to-face education with the applied studio courses, “The course being online had disadvantages as well as advantages. The in-class activities were fun and educative, but I think face-to-face education would be more effective” (Participant 4). Additionally, the awareness over self-discipline was discussed to be an important gain of the course as Participant 22 stated: “The tasks with sharp deadlines helped me to be more disciplined”. Self-discipline did not only have the role of facilitating a systematic course experience for the students. “My perception and perspective over design expanded. I have learnt how to cope with limitations and force myself to continue. This way I have taken big steps within the scope of a semester” (Participant 17). The visual literacy levels of the participants were found to be improved during the semester. The use of design elements such as drawings, appropriate fonts and hierarchizing text with basic design principles increased. Not only that but also Participant 4 has mentioned the learning experience of visualization, “I realized drawing for communication, sketchnoting, is parallel to my notetaking style. It was nice to incorporate this to the class”. Secondly, overall, the use of visual design principles such as the framing of images, and developing limitations for own design increased. In addition, the students’ level of performing the visual design skills was assessed by the level of workmanship. In this study, it was found that there was an increase in the usage of tools for documentation, editing and presentation. As Participant 12 comments, “Before the class, I have never made a presentation which made me scared. And at first, I didn’t know my limitations and tools. But over time, I have felt more capable of expressing my work by learning new digital tools”. Overall, it can be inferred that the students have developed visual awareness and inquiry in the first semester. Those who were negatively reviewed in terms of workmanship and quality of design outcomes have claimed it to be a path that needs to be improved. For this, Participant 13 has written “It was a fun course, however, I felt insufficient and upset because of not being able to draw what I imagine, I should spend more time on improving myself on that”.

Conclusion This paper aims to shed light on the creative development of the individual in the process of becoming a designer from a non-designer within a digital educational setup. For this, the first-year industrial design students were assessed by evaluating their creative self-confidence, design self-efficacy within the framework of visual literacy. The findings suggest that continuous peer-review and self-assessment activities deepen the students’ awareness of self over creative and design skills through collaboration. Along with this, the researchers' observation is that they provide increased student participation and engagement in an introductory design lesson in a virtual environment. Although the creative self-efficacy levels of students do not increase, detailed future studies regarding the increase in design self-efficacy is important to be done. In other words, the self-perception of the students about producing original and creative ideas did not change, however, their view of themselves on problem-solving changed positively. The positive change in the design self-efficacy levels might be due to the students’ concrete experience of the problem definition and solution, causing increased awareness over the designerly skills. On the other hand, the awareness over own creative skills may require the ability to assess an idea in

420

terms of its novel qualities and innovative characteristics. For the first semester of industrial design education, these aspects of a product may be difficult to address. Thus, the students may not be able to assess their own creative skills objectively. This situation may be due to the structure of design education, or it may have occurred due to distance education during the pandemic period. Additionally, the compulsory use of digital tools may have forced students to improve their visual communication and questioning the skills of expression channels. We believe that the advantages of this situation specific to distance design education resulted in the students’ development of self-awareness on visual literacy, besides, the practical use of visual tools and the visual communication focus of design education have increased the effect on visual literacy. Likewise, we believe that increasing the visibility of the design process through using the visual tools used with peer-reviewing as a common sharing platform was beneficial for the students' interaction, facilitated through continuous visual output, problem-solving and visual communication by reflecting on the design processes. This study has shown that design tools, processes and activities contribute to design self-efficacy and visual literacy in the early development of designerly mindset within the scope of design education. On the other hand, the course did not affect the development of creative self-efficacy and brought the question of the relationship between problem-solving skills and creativity. We think that a more in-depth investigation of this topic can open space for discussion on design education, design tools and methods through the perception of design-based creativity. The mentioned improvements may be supported with the course flow and requirements such as repetitive practices and reflection sessions made on design presentation boards and presentation videos. The area of the subject needs to be researched in more detail to obtain more specific results. Also, the digital collaboration tools that were used in this study is a growing area in design education, specifically with the distance education due to the Covid-19 pandemic. For this, investigating the adaptation of digital collaboration tools in design education will be beneficial for both parties: students and instructors.

References Abbott, D. H. (2010). Constructing a creative self-efficacy inventory: A mixed methods inquiry (Order No.

3402936). Available from: ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global; Publicly Available Content Database. (305217740). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/constructing-creative-self-efficacy-inventory/docview/305217740/se-2?accountid=17380

Atabek, O. (2020). Adaptation of design self-efficacy scale into Turkish language. Turkish Studies - Information Technologies and Applied Sciences, 5(1), 1-14. https://dx.doi.org/10.29228/TurkishStudies.40274

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977b). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist, 44 (9), 1175-1184. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media

Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 94-124). New York, NY: Routledge. Beeftink, F., van Eerde, W., Rutte, C. G., & Bertrand, J. W. M. (2012). Being successful in a creative profession:

The role of innovative cognitive style, self-regulation, and self-efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(1), 71-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9214-9

Carberry, A. R., Lee, H. S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self‐efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71-79. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2010.tb01043.x

Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (1996). Constructivism: A Psychological Theory of Learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: Theory, Perspectives, and Practice (pp. 8-33, 2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. http://rsperry.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Final-CHAPTER-2.pdf

Gagne, R. M. (1984). Learning outcomes and their effects: Useful categories of human performance. American Psychologist, 39, 377-385.

Gelmez, K., & Bagli, H. (2018). Exploring the functions of reflective writing in the design studio: A study from the point of view of students. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 17(2), 177–197. https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.17.2.177_1

Henriques, L. (1997). A Study to define and verify a Model of Interactive Constructive Elementary School Science Teaching (PhD dissertation), Publication Number: AAI9819946; ISBN: 9780591715828.

Kelley, D. & Kelley, T. (2013). Creative Confidence: Unleashing the Creative Potential Within Us All. Crown Business.

Kibler, R., Cegala, D., Miles, D., & Barker, L. (1974). Objectives for Instruction and Evaluation (1st ed.). Boston:

421

Allyn & Bacon. Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning

outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.311

Krathwohl, D. R. (1964). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives--Its Use in Curriculum Building. In C. M. Lindvall (Ed.), Defining Educational Objectives (pp. 19-36). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Lord, R. G, & Maher, K. J. (1991). Cognitive theory in industrial/organizational psychology. In M. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1-62). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Olssen, M. (1996). Radical Constructivism and its Failings. Anti-realism and Individualism. British Journal of Educational Studies, 44 (3), 275-95. https://doi.org/10.2307/3122456

Phelan, C., & Wren, J. (2007). Exploring Reliability in Academic Assessment. https://www.uni.edu/chfasoa/reliabilityandvalidity.htm

Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The role of motivation in promoting and sustaining self-regulated learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(6), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00015-4

Shalley, C. E., Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2004). The effects of personal and contextual characteristics on creativity: Where should we go from here? Journal of Management, 30(6), 933–958. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jm.2004.06.007

Tierney, P., & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1137–1148. https://doi.org/10.2307/3069429

Weiss, H. M. (1990). Learning theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 171-221). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Wexley, K. N., & Latham, G. P. (1991). Developing and Training Human Resources in Organizations. New York: HarperCollins.

422

Appendix 1. Analysis of student forms

Before After

Mean Value Variance Mean Value Variance p-Value

CSE1 3.79 0.69 4,04 0.73 0.16

CSE2 4,20 0.34 4.29 0.56 0.53

CSE3 4.29 0.38 4.29 0.65 1,00

DSE1 3.54 0.51 3,95 0,65 0,01

DSE2 3,58 0,68 4,04 0,56 0,00

DSE3 3,45 1,30 3,62 0,94 0,50

DSE4 4,08 0,60 4,00 0,60 0,64

DSE5 4,08 0,77 4,04 0,56 0,84

DSE6 2,08 1,81 2,25 1,41 0,59

DSE7 3,87 0,63 4,08 0,60 0,30

DSE8 3,91 0,68 3,62 1,28 0,25

VLT1 4,00 1,13 4,54 0,34 0,00

VLT2 4,08 1,03 4,33 0,66 0,31

VLT3 3,16 1,53 3,20 1,04 0,86

VLT4 2,75 1,41 2,83 1,27 0,75

VLT5 3,91 1,21 4,20 1,47 0,32

VLT6 3,91 1,03 4,37 0,50 0,05

VLT7 4,20 1,12 4,58 0,34 0,05

VLT8 3,29 1,51 3,45 1,65 0,51

VLT9 3,75 0,89 4,04 0,73 0,12

VLT10 2,79 1,12 3,12 1,24 0,06

VLT11 3,91 1,21 4,08 0,94 0,23

VLT12 4,00 0,69 4,16 0,49 0,25

VLT13 4,41 0,77 4,16 0,92 0,11

VLT14 4,45 0,78 4,62 0,41 0,29

VLT15 4,37 0,41 4,50 0,60 0,45

VLT16 4,29 0,56 4,41 0,60 0,41

VLT17 4,41 0,68 4,45 0,86 0,84

VLT18 4,45 0,69 4,66 0,57 0,34

VLT19 4,75 0,19 4,66 0,31 0,16

VLT20 4,50 0,60 4,58 0,60 0,42

VLT21 4,37 0,67 4,60 0,50 0,08

423

VLT22 3,45 1,91 4,45 0,69 0,00

VLT23 2,83 2,31 3,04 3,08 0,46

VLT24 3,41 1,99 4,00 1,30 0,04

VLT25 2,20 1,82 2,75 2,97 0,16

VLT26 2,12 1,67 3,54 1,65 0,00

VLT27 2,87 1,67 3,62 1,28 0,01

VLT28 4,16 0,57 4,20 0,60 0,83

VLT29 3,70 0,99 4,20 0,86 0,02

Kardelen Aysel Yaşar University, Turkey kardelen.aysel@yasar.edu.tr Kardelen has completed her undergraduate education in the Department of Industrial Design and her master’s education in the Design Studies Program at İzmir University of Economics. She has been continuing her doctoral education at Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Industrial Design Program since 2018, and since 2017 she has been working as a research assistant at Yaşar University, Department of Industrial Design. She has also participated in various international and national art exhibitions. Can Güvenir Yaşar University, Turkey can.guvenir@yasar.edu.tr After obtaining his Bachelor’s degree from Anadolu University Industrial Design Department, Can completed his master’s studies in Istanbul Technical University in 2014. He started his PhD at İstanbul Technical University on design thinking. Can Güvenir Design Studio has been giving design consultancy since 2011. In addition to being a part-time lecturer for seven years, Can has been working as a full-time academic in Yaşar University Department of Industrial Design since 2021.

3 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

4 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Improving Intercultural Collaboration with Visual Thinking

Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt and Denielle J. Emans https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.09.235

Intercultural collaboration is one strategy for promoting inclusion and innovation in design education. Bringing two or more cultures together in an environment facilitates learning from each other’s varied perspectives and ultimately creates positive interpersonal gains and design outcomes. This study explicates how visual thinking can address unspoken stumbling blocks that can disrupt teamwork. These barriers include unconscious bias, stereotyping, and other deeply held beliefs. This research is based on observations and virtual classroom interactions with remote collaborators located in North America and the Gulf Arab Region. The findings suggest that ignoring the existence of unconscious bias can maintain social and cultural barriers between teammates, thus restricting the opportunities for innovative approaches to collaborative projects and stifling a team’s outcomes (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020). Conversely, establishing trust helps teams reach their full potential (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). This inclusive approach to design is important in giving voice to underrepresented groups by opening up opportunities for discussion, dialogue, and understanding amongst team members.

Keywords: collaboration; bias; equity; visual thinking; methods

Introduction As a twenty-first-century skill, collaboration “is the process of two or more people, i.e. collaborators, working together to co-create something through joint decision-making, in which everyone takes part in the process and responsibility for the outcomes” (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020, xv). Intercultural collaborations can occur between teammates in the same physical location or separated by distance (Emans & Murdoch-Kitt, 2018b). Such an approach intends to give voice to those who may be historically underrepresented—nationally and/or globally—and create an equitable and inclusive teamwork scenario. Team-building is an ongoing process that helps teammates learn about themselves and each other in order to establish the requisite trust to effectively and innovatively co-create. As evidenced in prior research, the need to develop competencies for effective communication is magnified when teammates are working together globally and remotely (Bennett et al., 2017). During intercultural collaborations, focusing on team-building is also essential to effective outcomes (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020). Studies demonstrate that diverse teams work more effectively and creatively together than homogeneous teams (Rosen, 2009). Yet innovation also depends upon addressing potential stumbling blocks related to disciplinary, cultural, or social boundaries. Intercultural collaboration is one route to address these boundaries. Moreover, a lifelong journey in understanding others necessarily begins with deep introspection and engaged communication practices (Sandu & Lyamouri-Bajja, 2018). Education must prepare students to enter this complicated arena by learning effective collaboration, as research indicates that unprepared teams often perform at lower levels than individuals working alone, while high-performance teams achieve much better and more sophisticated results (Patton & Downs, 2003; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). Acknowledging and discussing values—deep beliefs that guide our lives—and biases are one route for improving the collaboration of diverse design teams (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020). Additional literature suggests that affinity bias and the need to "fit in" can result in team members unconsciously blocking inclusivity (Turnbull, 2016). Unconscious bias unintentionally influences individual

425

responses or behaviors toward another person or situation, whether positively or negatively, due to feelings or beliefs that are not consciously recognized (Turnbull, 2016). While individuals choose their personal values based on what they think is right or wrong, cultural values are often determined by particular beliefs and social patterns within different societies. Furthermore, some anthropological frameworks tend to explain cultural diversity by focusing on characterizing nationalities in broad terms rather than individuality within each culture (Hofstede, 2011; Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 2011). This can result in a sense of cultural absolutism and may even reinforce national, cultural, or racial stereotypes (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020). When individual identity is pigeonholed within a strict definition of culture, teammates have difficulty moving past stereotypes and embracing each other’s true characteristics and nature. This phenomenon makes intercultural collaboration more difficult and, in these situations, the outcomes of team-based projects are not always optimal or rewarding. Intercultural collaboration is also a strategy for de-centering cultural dominance by eliciting equitable contributions through discourse between diverse participants. In the context of our study, Muslim communities and students outside of a Middle Eastern context are often disenfranchised and disadvantaged socially and institutionally in the U.S. and other societies (Stevenson, 2019, 2018; Nadal et al., 2012). Visual thinking activities in this study also illuminate these concerns about racism and mistreatment (see Figure 1). Breaking down unconscious bias and deep beliefs is a necessary step toward team cohesion and toward establishing inclusive and safer teamwork environments. Therefore, this study focuses on how the creation and interpretation of visuals can enable teams to open productive conversations. Visual thinking activities—and the conversations they prompt—can also improve both the team’s collaborative experience and its creative outcomes. In turn, these activities can also promote a sense of team equity by challenging social and cultural partialities, which is essential to engaging previously underrepresented voices.

Figure 1. Belief Brainstorm & Affinity Diagram. This activity is completed simultaneously by partners in each culture as a way to begin confronting individual and group biases and assumptions when interacting with intercultural partners later in the teamwork process. The aim is to recognize, come to terms with, and ultimately confront unconscious and conscious attitudes and behaviors toward another person, place, or situation. In this example, a cohort in the Middle East explores facts, assumptions, and opinions about the United States and how their ideas illuminate concerns and gaps in knowledge related to their future project partners who are located there.

Although all humans possess both biases and values, it can be difficult to start a conversation about them when beginning a collaborative relationship. Understanding and coming to terms with these complexities encourages all members of a team to grow as individuals and as collaborators. Introspection, self-reflection, shared knowledge, and interpersonal relationship-building help to foster understanding and empathy. These skills can be learned during collaborative design projects which situate designers in unfamiliar contexts or when students are provided with opportunities to learn from other cultures firsthand. These projects may also focus on working with communities towards social change efforts or community development initiatives to understand others as partners in creative innovation (Bennett et al., 2006; Sanders & Stappers, 2012; Blair-Early, 2010). Building on these important studies, this research offers an approach for fostering interpersonal relationships between students located in North America and the Gulf Arab Region through visual thinking activities. The study drew from theories of collaboration (Rosen, 2009; Patton & Downs, 2003); global learning (Mansilla & Jackson, 2013); and intercultural communication (Martin et al., 2002), by asking:

How might we use visual thinking to improve upon the collaborative processes of diverse design teams by addressing abstract topics such as cultural values and biases?

426

Redesigning Intercultural Collaboration Participants in intercultural collaborations need to feel “both motivated and psychologically safe” in order to build the requisite trust to channel their differences into innovative ideas (Hill et al., 2014). There are also many evidence-based practices for dealing with the cognitive, emotional, and interpersonal challenges inherent to intercultural collaboration, ranging from lateral thinking (de Bono, 1992) to fluid movement (Slepian & Ambady, 2012), to boundary objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989). Building on this scholarship presents an opportunity to offer a hands-on approach to team-building by looking deeply at teammates’ cultural values and biases as necessary components of effective teamwork. Through visual thinking activities, teams can work together to create and interpret visual artifacts. This strategy of focusing on the artifact, rather than the person, enables group dialogue to evolve beyond judgment-based assumptions to dig deeply into topics of cultural and social relevance. Designers have long known that preliminary and in-process visualizations aid in a “divergent or expansive process of inquiry” as a strategy to evolve the development of creative outcomes (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p. 7) and in playing “a constitutive role in the production and communication of knowledge” (Gansterer 2011, p. 21). This study engages with these ideas specifically as an opportunity to build trust and cultivate deeper dialogues among teammates from different cultural backgrounds. The focus of this study is less about co-design methods as a means to arrive quickly at a beautiful final artifact, and more about the process of intercultural collaboration and communication between partners, which can ultimately lead to establishing equitable, inclusive, and safer teamwork environments. Thus, the visualizations created through this process are a form of “interpretive construction,” which “registers point of view, position, the place from which an agenda [...] occurs” (Drucker, 2014, p. 133).

Methodology This study involves quantitative and qualitative data gathered through observational studies in higher-education design classrooms to understand the productive and creative potentials of visual thinking to bring teams together in the context of intercultural collaboration. Conducted over ten years with 300 participants, attending five academic institutions hailing from 23 countries, the research investigates how visual thinking might promote a sense of inclusion necessary to engage diverse teams in open and productive conversations. Self-assessments from participants, combined with observation of the teams’ interactions throughout their collaborations, and evaluation of team projects, provide data about how the shared activities can serve as a catalyst to understand self and others. Given the humanistic nature of the questions this research poses, this study employs a multi-methodological approach to understand the collected data from “multiple points across the field” (Ellingson, 2011). Productively combining a range of theoretical and methodological perspectives helps clarify the identified phenomenon via the components of description, analysis, and interpretation of findings (Collins, 2010; Prosser & Schwartz, 1998). This is informed by the methods and approaches of a constructive-development paradigm, which suggests that participants can develop critical thinking and sophisticated problem-solving skills by first constructing a broadly informed understanding of themselves. This sense of self affects how they see their own development in relation to their colleagues or peers (Sandu & Lyamouri-Bajja, 2018; Baxter Magolda, 2001). Meanwhile, the grounded theory approach of assessing and analyzing this data over time enables researchers to construct new theories from comparisons of data “grounded” in earlier findings (Charmaz, 2014; Glaser, 1978). Grounded theory has led the authors to insights from studying and comparing the data from each collaborative cohort since 2012. The grounded theory approach includes classroom observations and the review of primary and secondary sources from business and creative collaboration (Rosen, 2009; Patton & Downs, 2003), global learning (Mansilla & Jackson, 2013), intercultural communication (Martin et al., 2002), and intercultural learning (Sandu & Lyamouri-Bajja, 2018). Combined with constructive-developmental theory, the study investigates how students construct knowledge about themselves, while also responding to the gathered textual and design data, as a strategy to make informed decisions about the findings (Sandu & Lyamouri-Bajja, 2018; Baxter Magolda, 2001). The study also employed guidance from the Council of Europe’s strategies for intercultural learning, which involved establishing: (1) equal status among teammates; (2) shared goals; (3) cooperation between teammates; and (4) social norms to support group communication (Sandu & Lyamouri-Bajja, 2018, p. 35). In line with the grounded theory approach, the authors’ analysis was constructed using constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of qualitative data gathered through empirical evidence such as documented faculty observations, design artifacts, and participant self-analyses. The authors also used inductive analysis to code

427

and compare participants’ written reflections, survey responses, and assessments of their creative work.

Analysis: Visual Thinking Activities Support Intercultural Collaborative Teams In analyzing the data, there were two major outcomes. Compared to cohorts that did not utilize these visual thinking activities, teams that participated in one or more of the visual thinking activities presented herein showed greater ability (1) to build more meaningful personal and working relationships with intercultural partners, and (2) to delve more deeply into different perspectives on project topics and lived experiences (rather than focusing solely on similarities and superficial characteristics). Because the outcomes of the visual thinking activities provide a focal point for discussion, teams can focus on knowledge-sharing and knowledge-creation, rather than singular ideas or individuals (Drucker, 2014; Star & Griesemer, 1989). With reduced pressure on individuals, more open and productive group conversations can occur. In contrast with earlier collaborations in the study, which did not utilize these preliminary visual thinking activities, later cohorts who used these activities were able to deepen group dialogue beyond basic assumptions or accessible facts. These activities were instrumental in teammates’ ability to broach more challenging social and political topics in their conversations. Through self-reporting via end-of-collaboration surveys, recent cohorts who utilized the visual thinking methods described in this paper reported several important findings. These include better sense of cultural learning and exchange; stronger sense of connection with teammates; and overall higher satisfaction with the collaboration. Furthermore, these cohorts were able to move past minimization of differences to discuss and embrace their contrasting perspectives and reflect on their personal growth because of this experience:

“I realized I perceived my cultural sensitivity was much stronger than it actually was. I appreciated the identification or my implicit biases and how I can learn to correct them.” —Participant, Michigan, USA “Such intercultural collaboration is also about learning to be sensitive and mindful of how we communicate with others, and being able to focus on simplest of details like 'being able to pronounce names'. It is also about respecting and learning from the work ethics of others.” —Participant, Bengaluru, India

In contrast, earlier cohorts who did not use these activities, were unable to discuss their partners’ cultures in depth. These cohorts focused more on surface-level characteristics, such as basic geography and the cities’ urban landscapes, as represented in these student quotes:

“Seeing as how I couldn’t point out Dubai on a map prior to starting this project, I think I’ve come a long way in the past several weeks.” — Participant, San Francisco, USA “Actually, we didn’t know anything about San Francisco before, but when our partner sent us some photos and information, we were amazed and excited...” — Participant, Dubai, UAE

The outcome of this research is a series of visual thinking activities that can be used beyond the original study to prepare participants for intercultural collaboration in higher education and beyond. The grounded theory approach supported an iterative process that enabled the authors to implement, test, and refine several preliminary visual thinking activities that help teammates think about values and biases in different ways (Table 1). With these activities in mind, findings from several collaborative cohorts are offered in the next section to exemplify how the methods work. Participating in these visual thinking activities leads to conversations that improve both the team’s collaborative experience and creative outcomes. The authors’ findings also suggest that developing virtual teams into mature and capable work-units does not occur instantaneously; rather, team development is a process that involves learning to understand all members of the team, their opinions, and their cultural values (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020; Emans & Murdoch-Kitt, 2018a, 2018b).

428

Table 1. These visual activities are intended for the pre-collaboration phase, before teammates have met their partners located in another culture. It is not necessary for a team to do all of these activities. Based on time and duration of the collaboration, teams can select and modify these activities on a case-by-case basis. Many of these activities can also be repeated later in collaboration with all participants as an effective way to unpack biases around the team’s project topic.

With this in mind, this section presents a number of visual thinking activities that can help teams address barriers to teamwork that arise due to unconscious bias and deep beliefs. In response to the need to build trust and understanding between team members, the Belief Brainstorm and Diagram (Figure 1), Comparative Impression Maps (Figure 2), and Video Introductions (Figure 3) are a few of the many activities that have evolved from the authors’ research (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020).

429

Figure 2. Comparative Impression Maps. This activity involves creating multiple sets of webs incorporating words and sketches to help individuals understand their ideas about a topic, location, or culture prior to intercultural collaboration. In this example, students worked together to create maps to explore their initial ideas about sustainability in their own culture compared to their partner’s culture.

Figure 3. Video Introductions. This activity can be framed as a way to launch teammates into discussion about critical topics by inviting each person to share a personal narrative or perspective in a closed online space. In this example, students simultaneously introduced themselves and relayed a personal story about discrimination that they had faced or witnessed as a strategy to begin conversations about a shared topic of concern. Collaborative teams formed based on content from these individual videos.

430

Conclusions This study indicates that visual thinking can improve intercultural collaboration activities. Findings reveal that when participants engage in these visual thinking activities, they are better able to address, circumvent, critique, or transform unconscious biases that may affect team cohesion to better account for differences. In contrast, responses from a cohort who did not use any of the preliminary visual thinking activities outlined in this paper remained at surface-level. The authors discovered that process-based, hands-on, visual thinking activities can improve collaboration of diverse design teams and help address cultural barriers between teammates. The study also indicates that visual thinking activities improve intercultural collaboration because they engage diverse teams in open and productive conversations around challenging topics. The conclusions suggest that visualizing and discussing differences as a planned part of team-building enables collaborators to come to terms with differences in productive ways that improve project success as well as foster individuals’ growth. Altogether, the activities described in this paper help participants get to know themselves better and learn how to work with others more effectively when used early in the collaborative process. Together, they are categorized as the second dimension within the authors’ Six Dimensions of Intercultural Teamwork, a multi-phase framework that includes more than 30 visual thinking activities to support intercultural collaboration (Murdoch-Kitt & Emans, 2020). Conversations about values and cultural biases are framed around the visual thinking activities, rather than about a specific individual and their ideas. This is an essential first step in encouraging teams towards dialogue about values and bias in small groups as a means to cultivate personal growth and learning about self and the world. Learning to utilize these methods can encourage teammates to disrupt feelings of cultural hegemony, establish team equity, and get at the heart of challenging local and global topics, which are essential to diversifying design.

References Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making Their Own Way: Narratives for Transforming Higher Education to

Promote Self-Development. Stylus. Bennett, A., Eglash, R., & Krishnamoorthy, M. (2017). Virtual Design Studio: Facilitating Online Learning and

Communication Between US and Kenyan Participants. In F. Sapienza & K. St. Amant (Eds.), Culture, Communication and Cyberspace: Rethinking Technical Communication for International Online Environments (pp. 185–206). Taylor & Francis.

Bennett, A., Eglash, R., Krishnamoorthy, M., & Rarieya, M. (2006). Audience as Co-designer: Participatory Design of HIV/AIDS Awareness and Prevention Posters in Kenya. In A. Bennett (Ed.), Design Studies: Theory and Research in Graphic Design (pp. 179–197). Princeton Architectural Press.

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Sage Publications. Collins, H. (2010). Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. AVA

Academia. De Bono, E. (1992). Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create New Ideas. HarperCollins. Drucker, J. (2014). Graphesis: Visual Forms of Knowledge Production. Harvard University Press. Ellingson, L. (2011). Analysis and Representation Across the Continuum. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 595–610). Sage Publications. Emans, D., & Murdoch-Kitt, K. (2018a). Connective Methodologies: Visual Communication Design and

Sustainability in Higher Education. In L. Filho, R. Marans, & J. Callewaert (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research (pp. 83–105). Springer International Publishing.

Emans, D., & Murdoch-Kitt, K. (2018b). Intercultural Collaborations in Sustainable Design Education. In R. B. Egenhoefer (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Sustainable Design (pp. 135–147). Routledge.

Gansterer, N. (2011). Drawing A Hypothesis: Figures of Thought. Springer. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (11.

printing). Aldine. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. The Sociology

Press. Hill, L. A., Brandeau, G., Truelove, E., & Lineback, K. (2014). Collective Genius: The Art and Practice of Leading

Innovation. Harvard Business Review Press. Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology

and Culture, 2(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014 Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The Wisdom of Teams: Creating the High-Performance Organization.

Harvard Business School Press.

431

Mansilla, V. B., & Jackson, A. (2013). Educating for Global Competence: Learning Redefined for an Interconnected World. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Mastering Global Literacy (pp. 5–27). Solution Tree.

Martin, J. N., Nakayama, T. K., & Flores, L. A. (2002). A Dialectical Approach to Intercultural Communication. In J. N. Martin, T. K. Nakayama, & L. A. Flores (Eds.), Readings in Intercultural Communication: Experiences and Contexts (2nd ed., pp. 3–13). McGraw-Hill.

Murdoch-Kitt, K. M., & Emans, D. J. (2020). Intercultural Collaboration by Design: Drawing from Differences, Distances, and Disciplines Through Visual Thinking. Routledge.

Nadal, K. L., Griffin, K. E., Hamit, S., Leon, J., Tobio, M., & Rivera, D. P. (2012). Subtle and Overt Forms of Islamophobia: Microaggressions toward Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 6(2), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.3998/jmmh.10381607.0006.203

Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. MIT Press.

Patton, B. R., & Downs, T. M. (2003). Decision-Making Group Interaction: Achieving Quality. Allyn and Bacon. Prosser, J., & Schwartz, D. (1998). Photographs Within the Sociological Research Process. In J. Prosser (Ed.),

Image-based Research: A Sourcebook for Qualitative Researchers (pp. 115–130). Falmer Press. Rosen, E. (2009). The Culture of Collaboration: Maximizing Time, Talent and Tools to Create Value in the Global

Economy. Red Ape Publishing. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. (2012). Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design. BIS

Publishers. Sandu, O. N., & Lyamouri-Bajja, N. (2018). T-KIT 4 Intercultural Learning (M. Georgescu, Ed.). Council of Europe

and European Commission. https://pjp-eu.coe.int/en/web/youth-partnership/t-kit-4-intercultural-learning Slepian, M. L., & Ambady, N. (2012). Fluid movement and creativity. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

General, 141(4), 625–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027395 Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, `Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and

Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001

Stevenson, J. (2018). Muslim Students in UK Higher Education: Issues of Inequality and Inequity. Bridge Institute. http://bridgeinstitute.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Bridge-Higher-Education-report-2-FINAL.pdf

Stevenson, J. (2019, May 26). Belonging, Mattering and Higher Education – the Experiences of Muslim Students [Lecture]. Choral Contemplation, Sheffield, UK. https://www.some.ox.ac.uk/news/belonging-mattering-and-higher-education-the-experiences-of-muslim-students/

Trompenaars, F., & Hampden-Turner, C. (2011). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. Nicholas Brealey International.

Turnbull, H. (2016). The Illusion of Inclusion: Global Inclusion, Unconscious Bias, and the Bottom Line. Business Expert Press.

Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt Penny W. Stamps School of Art & Design, University of Michigan, USA kmmk@umich.edu Kelly M. Murdoch-Kitt believes in integrating visual communication, interaction design, and service design with global and social responsibility. Murdoch-Kitt is an Associate Professor at the University of Michigan’s Stamps School of Art and Design. She holds a Master’s degree in Graphic Design from North Carolina State University’s School of Design; and a Bachelor of Arts from Wake Forest University. Denielle Emans Feinstein School of Humanities, Arts and Education, Roger Williams University, USA demans@rwu.edu Dr. Denielle Emans is passionate about intercultural collaboration, visual storytelling, and empowering teams to build strong relationships to fuel creative action. Dr. Emans holds a Ph.D. in Communication for Social Change from the University of Queensland, Australia; a Master’s degree in Graphic Design from North Carolina State University’s School of Design; and a Bachelor of Arts in Communications from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

It’s the Cultural Difference That Makes the Difference

Clive Hilton, Muxing Gao and Rong Wei https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.10.220

For three years, the Communication University of Zhejiang (CUZ), China, and Coventry University (CU), UK, have been collaborating in an annual project that sees multidisciplinary, transcultural groups of undergraduate and postgraduate design students engaging in projects that help prepare them for future employment as culturally aware global designers. Its focus is on an enhanced understanding of the importance of cultural dimensions, research led collaboration, and the need for empathetic, coordinated communication. In these accelerated, Collaborative Online International Learning (COIL) projects, the students self-direct their actions to rapidly break down initial inhibitions in becoming effective, creative problem solvers who, by the project’s end, possess an acute appreciation of the role that cultural perspectives and cultural difference play in the design process. This case study discusses the latest COIL 2021 project – the design of an item of medical equipment. It offers examples of the culturally orientated outcomes and gives insights from participating students. It concludes with explanations of how the COIL pedagogic paradigm is transforming design pedagogy, both at CUZ and CU.

Keywords: design pedagogy; transcultural; COIL; cultural difference; collaboration

COIL - Case Study Introduction The COIL project offers students opportunities to collaboratively engage with students from an internationally partnered institution giving them exposure to other cultures and seeing things from alternative perspectives. Lasting two weeks, these online projects are largely student led, requiring the rapid formation of strong relationships with their partnered students. The project starts with an online briefing to clarify the project aims and outcomes. Thereafter, groups independently liaise with each other to research the cultural, user-centred, and technical considerations in the brief. CUZ students design solutions for an identified UK user, and CU students reciprocate. Delivering the project against a tight deadline requires students to quickly become proactive in assuming personal responsibility for decision making processes. They must coordinate collective effort to collate and disseminate information while transcending barriers of language. These are all extremely valuable skills that command an employment premium in the globally connected world of design and international commerce. Their mastery in two weeks represents a significant challenge

Project Framework Following the model established in the first such COIL project run in 2018, five groups were formed with a mix of gender, culture, design disciplines and educational level (undergraduate and postgraduate). These were paired arbitrarily across institutions. MS Teams was used for online meetings and WeChat for direct discussion between UK and China based students with its in-app text translation (Chinese ↔ English), file sharing and live video features. Some CU group members also coordinated with each other using WhatsApp. Participating Product Design students included those native to the UK, with others from India, Italy, the Czech Republic, and China. The students from CUZ comprised mainly Product Design students along with some students of Visual Communication, and Environmental Design.

433

The Brief The briefs for these COIL projects are written to generate a response that demonstrates a culturally attuned proposal based on effective research and close collaboration with their group counterparts. The brief was augmented with Chinese text so that Chinese students would not be disadvantaged by any ambiguity in the English. Once the paired groups were introduced to each other it was explained that they were required to design an item of medical equipment for an identified target user and need. The cultural emphasis was made explicit in the brief:

The product designed by CU students will focus on Chinese healthcare culture, while CUZ students will focus on UK healthcare culture. This requires all students to understand and research each other’s cultures…You are encouraged to discuss this with the students you are partnered with. Remember, that you are to design for a culture that is different to your own (COIL CUZ-CU brief, 2021).

The students were encouraged to interpret the notion of ‘medical equipment’ freely, to explore the theme from a range of perspectives such as traditional medicine, state of the art medical care, home therapies, general health, well-being, and self-diagnostic devices, etc. The design proposals should contribute to the improvement of human health (physical and/or mental) and be sustainable in its use of materials and construction. The design outcome, in the form of a CAD model supported by developmental concept sketch-work and research inputs, was to be a design proposal for a material artefact that addressed an identified need within a cultural context. Groups were asked to deliver their project as a ten-minute, six-slide PowerPoint presentation.

Ways of Working In the first week, through WeChat, groups arranged meetings, coordinated research activities and sent each other questions, liaising synchronously and asynchronously. While Chinese learner passivity is a frequently reported trope in the literature (Chan & Rao, 2009; Gao, 2006; Gieve & Clark, 2005; Hofstede et al, 2010), what was very quickly apparent during the live discussions between the CU and CUZ students is that, despite some occasional language difficulties, there was not much evident passivity among the Chinese students. A number of factors might have influenced this during work: an innate familiarity and comfort with working and communicating within the WeChat environment; the autonomy to self-govern their actions away from tutor oversight; as well as a natural curiosity and evident enthusiasm for the project as verbalised by a CUZ student: “Working with people from various cultures always gives me a chance to get first-hand insight into a problem, which proves to be the most valuable way of getting information”. In their role as mediators, the Chinese students studying at CU were particularly helpful in clarifying any cultural uncertainties. For example, it was difficult for the UK students to gain a sense of the role of traditional medicine in everyday Chinese culture, especially in the context of its use alongside pharmaceutical medicine as practiced in Western cultures. The CU Chinese mediators were able to clarify some of these difficulties. Without them it is likely that the groups’ understanding of the cultural perspectives of the target user would have been lesser. In terms of this being a preparatory exercise for their future roles as professional designers and managers, they also gained experience of being a kind of specialist, transcultural, project coordinator. Their centrality to the success of the initial research phase of the project was recognized by both sets of students: “The [UK] Chinese students answered our questions carefully, and our plan was carried out smoothly” (CUZ Student); and “It was great to have XXX to help us because she could explain things to us more clearly” (CU Student).

Design Phase By the end of the research phase, the groups had gained a good contextual understanding of the cultural and user scenarios and were primed to feed their research findings into the design phase. The groups used a variety of methods for collating and sharing information. Some used collaboration applications such as Miro and Padlet, others created a shared online folder, accessible through MS Teams or institutional networks. While COIL projects are run and coordinated online, under normal circumstances, the students would have the opportunity to work together either in studio spaces or other, informal, physical spaces to better facilitate the design phase and the coordinating of concept generation, prototyping, CAD modeling and visual communication design. Because of the Covid lockdown situation in the UK, students were only able to coordinate and communicate online, sharing digital files. In China, the CUZ students were able to work together in their studio to coordinate their activities, while continuing to use WeChat as a means of keeping everyone up to date on progress and stage gate deliverables.

434

Design Outcome Examples

Figure 1. An architectural design proposal for a community village for the elderly in the UK, from one of the multidisciplinary CUZ teams (CUZ, 2021)

Given the two-week project duration, the design proposals were noteworthy for the generally high design standard and the cultural relevance of the concepts. Critically, one project was somewhat underdeveloped compared to the majority, and given the lack of research material in the presentation, it seems that the initial collaboration phase proved problematic for that group. Otherwise, the range of outcomes was impressive. From shower cabinets for the paralyzed to traditional medicine storage container; and from a portable Covid sterilizer kit to an aromatherapy mood enhancer. Of all the projects, two stood out for the sophistication of the thinking, the cross-disciplinary inputs, and the cultural relevance. The first of these, Figure 1, was from a CUZ multidisciplinary team of Visual Communication, Product Design and Environmental Design students. In essence it is an architectural proposal for community-living for the elderly in the UK. Drawing on research into the lifestyle of the British elderly that identified a love of gardening and nature, as well as a fondness for socializing in pubs, the concept is envisaged as a series of structures in which nature and open spaces play a therapeutic part in the daily social life. The product designers contributed furniture concepts, while the visual communication students designed branding and signage. The multidisciplinary aspect of the project really shone through to produce an attractive and credible proposal. The second project was from a CU team comprising undergraduate and postgraduate Product Design students from the UK, China, India, and the Czech Republic (Figure 2). Their cultural investigations focused on how the poor in Chinese cities and those living in remote, rural locations gain access to healthcare systems and medical provision. Conceived as an internet connected medicine dispensing machine, the system also provides a connection to medical centres, and enables users that lack their own internet access to remotely discuss health matters with medical professionals. Prescribed medicines are collected from the machine in a similar manner in which delivery parcels are sometimes collected from remote, internet connected, secure lockers. The system can also be used to collect samples to be sent to labs. The innovation of adapting a familiar model of package delivery and adapting it to medicinal use demonstrates a capacity to consider the provision of medicine and health care in new terms.

435

Figure 2. Concept for internet connect medical access and dispensing system for use in cities and remote regions in China (CU, 2021)

Student Response – Participant Feedback Universally, the response to the project was positive:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to communicate with British students and broaden our horizons. The course uses the form of a group to enhance our ability to communicate and cooperate, and the content of the course is very flexible so that students can do their part. Everything was very good. (CUZ Student) I learned a lot of new knowledge, such as the relevant living habits and culture in the UK, which broke the previous views on the UK. Through communication with foreign friends, we also improve my English ability. In the exchange with teachers and students, also exercise the ability of communication. (CUZ Student)

For the CU postgraduate students, for whom this multidisciplinary, transcultural way of working is the norm, they too were clear about the value of working with students from a different institution in a different country:

Group work can be difficult, but we worked well together despite our cultural differences (and time zones) and delivered a successful outcome. Working with the Chinese students enabled me to see many perspectives that I had never considered before in previous design projects. This way of working enables me to have more diverse ideas in the thinking and design processes. (CU Student)

Some saw the success of the project in terms of how it might provide an advantage in the employment market after graduation:

Through the project to understand foreign culture, to communicate with school students, and our professional ability has also been improved. (CUZ Student) Multicultural or multidisciplinary work has always come up during my graduate job interviews I've done so far. And I believe that's always been an advantage for me over other candidates. Working in the industry is about collaborating with different people / dealing with customers from all around the world, this project was a great introduction to the "real" design world. (CU Student)

While the overwhelming student responses to the project were extremely positive, it would be misleading to suggest that there weren’t hurdles or that the communication was always good between the groups:

In fact, our early research in the exchange with British students we had some problems, due to software and time difference. British students don’t use WeChat, we haven’t used Teams for a long

436

time. Happily, in the end the Chinese students studying in the United Kingdom soon answered our questions and our program was able to proceed smoothly (CUZ Student)

This insight is relevant in a number of ways. It challenges a number of stereotypes about Chinese learners, including the trope that they are generally more passive than Western learners (Gieve & Clarke, 2005; Gao, 2006; Hofstede G.H., et al, 2010); Cheng & Guan, 2012) - a position that these authors are sceptical of. Here it was usually the Chinese students who initiated contact and pressed for engagement. The proactive student behaviour also casts doubt on the supposed lower toleration of uncertainty of Chinese students compared to their Western counterparts, and a claimed reluctance to challenge authority (Hofstede et al, 2010). Throughout the project, the CUZ students used their initiative to overcome hurdles, and were proactive in seeking clarifications directly from the Chinese mediators at CU if the UK students failed to respond. All groups seemed to thrive on the opportunity to run their projects under their own initiative, and certainly didn’t appear to flounder in the absence of close tutorial guidance or oversight.

Pedagogic Significance For the postgraduate students at CU, this cross-disciplinary, transcultural way of working, with the independent freedom to set their own deliverables and methodologies, is very much normal practice and is built into the Product Design Course curriculum. For the UK undergraduate participants, some aspects of the project were novel (working with postgraduate students and the international collaborative context). However, for the CUZ students, most had never worked in this way before at all. Hence, the CUZ feedback, pedagogically, was insightful in that for these students this was a first. The freedom to work independently, the broadening of cultural horizons, the development of English skills, and the reconsideration of cultural stereotypes are cited as learning experience gains:

In this studio course, I experienced the opportunity to communicate with British students. This experience was extraordinary and I gained a lot of knowledge in various aspects. (CUZ Student) International exchanges and cooperation, education without borders, cultural integration, and on this basis, we designed excellent products to provide benefit society. (CUZ Student)

Responses like this also counter another trope attributed to Chinese learners – that they prefer to work among like kind, are rote learners and need strong pedagogic guidance (Saravanamuthu & Yap, 2014). Here the CUZ students rapidly and effectively embraced this novel, experiential method of working and learning. A key factor was the degree to which students had independent control of the project, free of direct pedagogic oversight. “Working independently on projects allows me to grow faster, whether it is professional ability or personally” (CUZ Student). The post-project survey in which students were asked what they gained, showed that respondents from both institutions felt that this experience would help them later find employment, “I have not only learned some new perspectives of thinking but also learned some new skills through the interdisciplinary communication in this activity, which I think will enhance my job opportunities” (CU Student). The challenges of a purely online project in which students, from cold, had to work at speed with strangers, seemed to really stimulate the creative, problem-solving processes and collaborative effort. Presumably, the urgency of the deadline overrode any innate participatory reticence. The mutually successful collaborative effort contests the idea that Chinese learners are only collectivists within the same cultural in-groups (Brew et al, 2001; Hofstede et al, 2010; Chen & Bennett, 2012). Possibly, the very novelty and the unknown of the experience is what made the transcultural collaborative aspect of the project so successful.

Conclusion Contrary to the stereotype, Chinese students, even those who have no experience with working across disciplines, cultures and nationalities, are shown to participate with just as much commitment and enthusiasm as those from other nations. The student comments support those whose writings also seek to debunk the myth of the universally passive, uncertainty intolerant learner (Gieve & Clarke, 2005; Grimshaw, 2007; Hilton, 2019; McMahon, 2011; Saravanamuthu & Yap, 2014). It is also clear that what they feel they have learned goes well beyond simply designing a physical artefact. Many of the student comments explicitly mention their cultural engagement and offer tangible examples of how the project benefitted them: “The best point is the exchange of Chinese and British culture. In this project, the deepening of cultural exchange not only made me [aware of] British culture but also it spread Chinese native culture” (CUZ Student). A key benefit of the COIL paradigm is its simplicity. With greater autonomy over the mechanisms of communication and collaboration, students are freed from the anxieties of tutor oversight and control. This transforms the activity into

437

something closer to a sustained social event rather than an onerous, proscriptive, undertaking. Yet it is not without weaknesses. For design students, the collective, physical making dynamic is a key part of the design process and this is hard to replicate online in anything other than very simple terms, such as making card models with the webcam switched on. Similarly, for more sophisticated prototyping, future ambitions for the COIL paradigm include the facility for students to create shared digital CAD models that can be uploaded to online 3D printing services for production anywhere. At CUZ, the course academics are also exploring ways in which the cross-disciplinary aspect of the model can be further expanded and formally introduced across a number of design courses there. The CUZ team are also proposing inviting other institutions to simultaneously participate, adding a further collaborative dimension into the mix.

References Brew, F. P., Hesketh, B., & Taylor, A. (2001). Individualist–collectivist differences in adolescent decision making

and decision styles with Chinese and Anglos. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(1), 1–19. Chan, C. K. K., & Rao, N. (Eds.). (2009). Revisiting the Chinese learner. Springer. Chen, R. T.-H., & Bennett, S. (2012). When Chinese learners meet constructivist pedagogy online. Higher

Education, 64(5), 677–691. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9520-9 Cheng, H.-Y., & Guan, S.-Y. (2012). The role of learning approaches in explaining the distinct learning behaviors

presented by American and Chinese undergraduates in the classroom. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 414–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.009

Fang, T. (2003). A Critique of Hofstede’s Fifth National Culture Dimension. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 3(3), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595803003003006

Fang, T., & Faure, G. O. (2011). Chinese communication characteristics: A Yin Yang perspective. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2010.06.005

Gao (Andy), X. (2006). Understanding changes in Chinese students’ uses of learning strategies in China and Britain: A socio-cultural re-interpretation. System, 34(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2005.04.003

Gieve, S., & Clark, R. (2005). ‘The Chinese approach to learning’: Cultural trait or situated response? the case of a self-directed learning programme. System, 33(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.09.015

Grimshaw, T. (2007). Problematizing the construct of ‘the Chinese learner’: Insights from ethnographic research. Educational Studies, 33(3), 299–311. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701425643

Hilton, C. (2019). A Response to the Challenge of Internationalisation of Design Teaching: Hybrid Learning Spaces. In J. Hakkila, M. Pakanen, E. Luiro, E. Mikkonen, S. Miettinen (Eds.), Cumulus Conference Proceedings Rovaniemi 2019 Around the Campfire - Resilience and Intelligence (pp. 259–273). University of Lapland, Finland, 27 May-1 June 2019.

Hilton, C. (2019). The Evolution of the Design Studio: Hybrid Learning Spaces. In N.A.G.Z. Börekçi, D. Özgen Koçyıldırım, F. Korkut & D. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS Learn X Design Fifth International Conference for Design Education Researchers: Insider Knowledge. 9-12 July, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey. https://doi.org/10.21606/learnxdesign.2019.01089

Hofstede, G. H., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind: intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.

McMahon, P. (2011). Chinese voices: Chinese learners and their experiences of living and studying in the United Kingdom. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 33(4), 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.585739

Rao, N., & Chan, C. K. K. (2009). Moving Beyond Paradoxes: Understanding Chinese Learners and Their Teachers. In Revisiting the Chinese Learner (pp. 3–32). Springer.

Saravanamuthu, K., & Yap, C. (2014). Pedagogy to empower Chinese Learners to adapt to western learning circumstances: A longitudinal case-study. Cambridge Journal of Education, 44(3), 361–384. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.914154

Yeh, R. (1988). On Hofstede’s treatment of Chinese and Japanese values. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 6(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01732256

438

Clive Hilton Coventry University, UK ab2359@coventry.ac.uk Clive Hilton is the Course Director for the MA Product Design Innovation Course which recruits predominantly international students. This has driven an interest in the design and development of internationalised, multidisciplinary, transcultural curricula aimed at mitigating cultural difference in attainment. The multicultural aspect of the PDI Course is reframed as a positive strength, especially in collaborative projects. Research interests are Sino-Anglo design pedagogy, collaborative learning, and the processes of creativity. Muxing Gao Communication University of Zhejiang, China 15281370@qq.com Muxing Gao, received the BA from Tianjin Academy of Art, China in 2008, the MA from Universität der Künste Berlin UDK, Germany in 2013, and the PhD from Shanghai University, China in 2019. She is currently working as a Product Design teacher and Chair of the Board of International Co-ordinator Joint Programme of CUZ-SDA (2019-2021) in the School of Design and Art, Communication University of Zhejiang, Hangzhou, China. Her academic interests include international education of art and design, creational design for traditional culture. Rong Wei Communication University of Zhejiang, China 1559853371@qq.com Rong Wei, a full-time teacher of product design in CUZ (2015-2021) and a teacher in Hangzhou Normal University from May 2021, PhD of Drama, Film and Television Art of Xiamen University. Now he mainly studies the production design of creation culture and the production of science fiction short videos. His research interests include cross-cultural media for image and product design.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Cross-Cultural UX Pedagogy: A China-US Partnership

Ziqing Li, Colin M. Gray, Austin L. Toombs, Kevin McDonald, Lukas Marinovic and Wei Liu

https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.11.170

The recent emergence of new undergraduate and graduate design programs with a focus specific to User Experience (UX) offers new opportunities to engage with the complexity of these educational practices. In this paper, we report on a series of ten interviews with students and faculty to describe cross-cultural connections between two UX-focused programs, one in China and one in the United States. Our study includes the perspectives of students who engaged in intercultural UX experiences, as well as the perspectives of the faculty who designed those student experiences through an intercultural partnership. We report on how each program was created, developed, and iterated upon, describing program goals and student experiences across both programs from student and instructor perspectives. We demonstrate the complexity of UX educational experiences on an international scale, concluding with opportunities for intercultural engagement and the potential for links among education, profession, culture, and pedagogy.

Keywords: UX education; design education; comparative education; cross-cultural UX

Introduction Design education is rapidly changing (Faiola, 2007; Meyer & Norman, 2020), with new disciplines of design leading to increasingly powerful potential for impact on industry practices. This shift in design disciplines was anticipated, in part, by scholars such as Buchanan (1995) through the concept of the “four orders of design,” which implied a progression beyond design disciplines that focused on communication or physical products to the design of interaction and strategy. However, the impacts of this shift on traditional and emergent disciplines alike has resulted in substantial volatility (Kou et al., 2018). In traditional design disciplines, studio education practices have changed little since the Bauhaus (Cennamo, 2016), and the introduction of design disciplines that operate at the intersection of multiple existing disciplines challenges how studio education is constructed, with whose knowledge and instructional practices, and at what scale. In this paper, we will focus on the emergence of user experience (UX) design educational practices in two culturally and programmatically distinct programs. With this shift in design disciplines and educational practices in mind, new areas of educational research have also arisen to support interdisciplinary framings of design work. In relation to UX education, human-computer interaction scholars are increasingly interested in studying the shape and form of educational experiences, including work on “global curricula” (Churchill et al., 2016; St-Cyr et al., 2018), instructional approaches and pedagogical models (Faiola, 2007; Oleson et al., 2020), key concepts and educational barriers (Kharrufa & Gray, 2020), and means of engaging with cultural and regional difference (Abdelnour-Nocera et al., 2012; O’Leary & Turner, 2020). Design approaches, often coinciding with studio-based educational approaches, increasingly drive HCI educational experiences (Blevis et al., 2004, 2007; Gray et al., 2020; Greenberg, 2009; Koutsabasis & Vosinakis, 2012; Reimer & Douglas, 2003). The role of different communities of interest in relation to design education adds additional complexity, but also outlines new opportunities for engaged scholarship and pedagogical intervention across multiple fields. Emerging design disciplines such as UX have connections to traditional design disciplines both in terms of studio pedagogy and conceptual/theoretical foundations, but also take on new forms of disciplinary complexity that are chaotic, ill-defined, and dynamic (Kou et al., 2018; Lallemand et al., 2015).

440

The contributions of this paper are three-fold. First, we provide a description of two recently implemented programs with a focus on UX education, contributing to a growing body of program-level literature. Second, through a range of educator and student experiences, we identify characteristics of pedagogical experiences across dimensions of culture, geography, professional status, and program design, demonstrating the complexity of creating partnerships to support design education practices on an international scale. Third, we offer a program-level view of UX educational structure, demonstrating the links among education, profession, culture, and pedagogy, pointing towards future innovation opportunities in design and UX education.

Related Work

Engaging Transdisciplinarity in Design Education While many traditional design disciplines still draw heavily on studio-based traditions and themes of disciplinary knowledge that have roots back to the Bauhaus or École des Beaux-Arts, efforts to define inter- and trans-disciplinary engagement have been the focus of many emerging design disciplines. The introduction of new approaches is needed to support innovative practices (Meyer & Norman, 2020), but brings with it the complexity of selecting among multiple sources of disciplinary knowledge and traditions (Faiola, 2007) and then building alignment across program staff (Exter et al., 2020). The Design Enterprise Model from Faiola (2007) proposed integration of knowledge domains that included social (human and culture), design (graphic and interaction), business (market value and return on investment), and computing (building and testing), with attention to integration across these domains through theory, application, and management. This model mirrors contemporary transdisciplinary engagement in UX design practice, with connections across multiple domains of disciplinary knowledge, such as psychology, computer science, anthropology, cognitive science, design, and ethics. This multiplicity of knowledge domains points towards complexity relating to epistemological challenges in forming coherent educational experiences, and complexity relating to the identity construction work students need to undertake to effectively work within and across disciplines (Adams et al., 2011; Coso Strong et al., 2019).

International Design Education and Decolonization Design work is increasingly global, and students’ ability to practice building connections across multiple cultural and geographic spaces is a valuable competency to support their future work. While the idea of international partnerships in design is not new (see Bohemia, 2010), the role of partnerships in volatile design fields such as UX present different potential challenges and opportunities as compared to traditional design or engineering disciplines. For instance, in reports of collaboration in the context of industrial design (Kaygan et al., 2019; Van Boeijen & Stappers, 2012), the primary barriers to partnership and engagement focused on issues of culture and collaboration modes, with differences due to disciplinary alignment rarely reported. In contrast, recent work from an HCI and UX perspective reveals differences in Asian (Dey et al., 2015), African (Bidwell, 2016; Dey et al., 2015; Lazem & Dray, 2018), and United States (Blevis et al., 2004; Churchill et al., 2016; Greenberg, 2009) framings of educational practices. In understanding differences in alignment with differing disciplinary traditions and cultural expectations, we align our work with prior interests in de-settling and de-colonizing design education practices (Abdelnour-Nocera et al., 2012; O’Leary & Turner, 2020), where we view the connections among multiple partners across cultural, geographic, and disciplinary values to be productively in tension in ways that must be actively communicated and negotiated.

Method This study spans two UX programs on two different continents, serving students at different higher educational levels, but with the same ultimate professional destination: UX practice. Our two contexts include:

• Purdue UX: The undergraduate UX Design program is located at Purdue University in the United States. This program was launched in 2015, and is one of the only comprehensive programs of its kind in the United States that is located neither within a department of Computer Science or HCI, nor within a traditional School of Art and Design (Vorvoreanu et al., 2017; Gray et al., 2020). While this program has an associated graduate-level concentration in User Experience, the focus of this analysis is on the undergraduate program.

• BNUX: The graduate UX program is located at Beijing Normal University in People's Republic of China, and is part of the Faculty of Psychology. This program was launched in 2016 and is the first program of its kind in China (Zhu et al., 2021). These two programs have a history of cooperation and student exchange since 2017, including: the creation of a dual-degree Master's program; guest instruction of an educational module in China by instructors from

441

Purdue UX; visits by students and instructors to Purdue UX from BNUX; students from Purdue UX participating in summer instruction at BNUX; and one student participating in the newly formed dual-degree program in 2020. These interconnections between the two programs provided us a space to solicit and describe a range of student experiences that were anchored primarily in one of the two programs.

Data Collection We constructed an interview protocol using a critical interview approach (Carspecken, 1996), with the goal of describing the pedagogical experience, cultural expectations and norms, societal positioning of the programs, and educational outcomes from the perspective of the students. This project was approved by the Purdue University Institutional Review Board, and all research team members participated in general IRB training as well as sensitization training specific to the project focus. We structured the set of interviews around three topic domains: 1) instructional methods and program structure; 2) student goals, expectations, and experiences (particularly as they related to different experiences across the two programs, if applicable); and 3) perceptions and societally-grounded history of UX as a discipline. Within each of these topic domains, we identified potential follow-up questions as a research team, benefiting from a range of perspectives—including cultural and ethnic origin, gender identity, formal UX training, academic role, and degree of familiarity with each of the programs. We interviewed seven student participants who had interactions between the two programs over time. Some students participated in a single intercultural interaction, while others participated in multiple interactions over more than two years. Due to the relatively small sample of students, we will not provide a comprehensive list of participants and experiences to reduce discoverability. However, we provide below a summary of the experiences of our participants.

• one dual degree student, originating in BNUX who subsequently studied at Purdue UX

• two students from Purdue UX who participated in summer research activities at BNUX

• three students from Purdue UX who participated in guest instruction at BNUX by Purdue UX instructors (one of whom began their interactions with Purdue UX after their BNUX experiences)

• two students from BNUX who participated in guest instruction at BNUX by instructors from Purdue UX

We augmented these student experiences with interviews from the program instructional teams, including two faculty from Purdue UX (interviewed by student authors) and the lead faculty member from BNUX (interviewed by the other authors). Three program faculty (Colin, Austin, and Wei) are also authors on this paper and have committed to a reflexive and transparent evaluation of their pedagogy and program decisions over a three-year period.

Data Analysis To reflexively build upon the data we collected, we sought to engage in regular reflections as a research team, including discussing new patterns of behavior or themes of student experience after each interview concluded. Through these series of conversations and the creation of research memos, we began to identify and document key aspects of cross-cultural experience that became salient. We then augmented these more holistic means of reflexive engagement on a project level with open coding on each interview transcript. Three researchers engaged in this open coding effort using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2019). Because of the lack of strong existing research to guide this inquiry, we used sensitizing concepts such as studio pedagogy (Boling et al., 2016; Cennamo, 2016), aesthetic learning experience from Parrish (2009), and comparative education (Bray et al., 2014) as points of departure. These elements were then used to inform aspects of student experience that emerged across both programs, unique to one program, or existed in opposition to each other; these themes were then elaborated in relation to educational structures, the nature of UX as a profession in each national context, cultural norms and expectations, and pedagogical imperatives.

Collaboratively Building the Program Narratives This project began as a way of encouraging intercultural engagement in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. We had originally intended to participate in a Purdue-sponsored study abroad trip to China in Spring 2020, but due to the pandemic, this trip was cancelled. Instead, we used this project as a means of identifying and reflecting upon aspects of intercultural and cross-cultural approaches to UX design, with an explicit goal of better understanding the overlaps and tensions among our respective culturally bound approaches to UX education in the United States and China. Because both programs are only now beginning to stabilize in

442

relation to program growth and the construction of core coursework, the success of our individual programs and the dual-degree initiative that connects them is only now emerging. Both programs enjoy good placement rates for students in industry, but since each program serves a particular national need for UX designers, it is difficult to directly compare outcomes at this stage due to the differing “volatility” of UX as a discipline in each country context. As a team, we represent diverse perspectives with relation to training, cultural experiences, and levels of education. The program faculty have all earned PhDs in programs with a substantial HCI framing, and each of these programs also included an explicit focus on design. All program faculty also had experiences in learning design with a studio pedagogy approach (Boling et al., 2016; Shulman, 2005), including the presence of key studio elements such as project-based learning, critique, and reflection (Cennamo, 2016). The students on the research team included two students formally trained in UX in the undergraduate program at Purdue UX (Ziqing Li; Kevin McDonald), as well as one student who was trained in information technology and began pursuing a graduate degree at Purdue UX after data collection was complete (Lukas Marinovic). One of the three undergraduate students (Ziqing Li) and the program faculty (Wei Liu) from BNUX are originally from China, and both have received substantial training in studio-based design in a North American or European context.

A Story of Two UX Programs We document the origin stories of Purdue UX and BNUX, identifying key pedagogical distinctives, framings of UX and HCI knowledge, desired student experiences, and known and emergent challenges in building a new program in a rapidly changing area of practice. We then share students' experiences, revealing spaces where there are links or disjunctures along dimensions that include: educational system requirements, notions of UX as a profession in each national context, impacts of cultural norms, and pedagogical structures and outcomes.

Purdue UX: Envisioning Undergraduate UX Education in the United States In 2015, multiple faculty were hired at Purdue University with the goal of creating the first comprehensive undergraduate degree program in UX Design in the nation—from scratch. Building on the then still emerging promise of UX as a discipline and profession, our goal was to create a studio-based program to support a wide range of UX-related specializations in a project-intensive, collaborative environment with close ties to industry. As Colin noted, this “was an audacious plan [... because] we were really some of the first people to be doing this kind of thing at the undergraduate level. And so, this was another huge risk […] this is why people had sort of steered away from undergraduate UX education for so long.” Purdue UX strategically recruited faculty with expertise that represented “different ends of the spectrum,” including faculty members representing perspectives from computer science, graphic design, industrial design, information visualization, and communication. Leveraging these multiple perspectives, with the capability to create a new set of integrated courses from scratch, “we were able to build something from the ground up to scale really, really quickly that would normally take a number of years.” In parallel with our goals to invent a robust approach for undergraduate UX education, the instructional team also leveraged extensive support from the college, with the stated goal of the dean to “revolutionize teaching at the undergraduate level.” With Colin playing a lead role as program designer, the UX Design major was the first in the college to be designed with “a new set of pedagogical principles and approaches and modernizing teaching approaches” in mind, including a project-based structure, horizontal and vertical integration to maximize the overlap of student experiences, and experiential learning with industry partners, among other goals. The program faculty sought to maximize third-wave HCI thinking in creating a design-focused program, with the initial goal of identifying: “[what] experiences do we want the students to remember and to take with them more than any content that they might remember?” We also began this venture with a lack of clarity surrounding the readiness of the job market to accept undergraduate students with a UX degree, where master’s students had historically been hired, and whether undergraduate students would have the competency and competitiveness to succeed without prior disciplinary training (one of the suggestions of the 1992 SIGCHI Curricula Report; Hewett et al., 1992). Our curricular goal was to provide a broad foundation, while allowing for students to build specialization in areas where they had interest. To accomplish this goal, the undergraduate students in this program enroll in two parallel studio sequences. In the first set of studios, students progress through studios numbered 1 through 5, each of which has a broad area of experiential focus (e.g., “foundations,” “screen,” “cross-channel,” “strategy,” and “specialization”). While each studio engages in this overarching focus, the pedagogical themes presented above are revisited throughout the entirety of the program. In parallel with these cohort-specific

443

studios, the students are also enrolled in another studio where they work in teams on problems and project prompts developed by industry partners and external collaborators. Students take this studio course multiple times, with lower-level students taking on an intern or trainee role, mid-year students engaging in robust design and research work, and upper-level students taking on increasingly more facilitator-oriented roles as they progress through the sequence. The goal of combining vertically integrated (students taking a course in which all levels of UX students are enrolled) and horizontally integrated (students taking both a cohort-specific studio and the program-wide studio at the same time, each semester) courses supported an early goal we had identified: “that we want these students to feel like they inhabit the role of a professional as quickly as possible in the program.” The program quickly grew from 15 students in Spring 2016 to 50 students starting in Spring 2021. The supporting course experiences grew alongside the students until Spring 2018, when the vertical integration of three undergraduate cohorts was complete. Industry partnerships were built over time, and began to stabilize as students graduated, joined companies, and were able to support industry projects themselves. The studios have benefitted from a loose organizational structure that allows content to shift across experiences or change entirely as business requirements and technologies change. A spiral structure ensures that students work towards mastery across strands of knowledge multiple times, supporting their current and future success as practitioners.

BNUX: Creating the First Graduate UX Presence in China In 2015, the Dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Beijing Normal University initiated the creation of a new program in Applied Psychology, with one area in UX design. The dean “had a vision of interdisciplinarity and globalization” with the application of psychology as a “very important” and strategic area of focus, culminating in a “vision to apply theory into practice.” From the beginning, this program came together at rapid speed. While the program was founded in July 2015, they only started recruiting students and faculty in the end of 2015. This program reflected a growing interest in UX in China which paralleled a lack of academic programs: “UX in industry began […] in 2000 in China, but in academia there were [no programs]. There was no program called UX. There were programs called interactive design or multimedia design, but [… UX] was only a direction of Master’s education.” Thus, from the beginning, the UX-focused program in applied psychology was unique—“if you look at the market, if you talk to the undergraduate students, UX is a popular field of study, but they can only find BNUX.” To staff the program, the original goal was to recruit an older professor with substantial research experience to lead the new program, but “they couldn't find anyone” matching this description. Instead, Wei was hired due to his credentials as the “first Chinese guy to get a PhD on user experience from overseas”—he had recently completed a PhD at TU Delft and was quickly hired to lead the program. “So in 2016, September, the first cohort was there. And I was onboarded on August 31, 2016. It was a rush.” One of the first issues was to define the educational approach; Wei had worked at other universities in China, and for even the top universities, “their way of doing education is a bit old.” He built upon his involvement in project-based and studio education at Delft, drawing on course experiences in user empathy and interactive technology design to define the pedagogy for BNUX. Because the UX program was based in psychology, Wei also used a convergent approach to identify the overlaps between traditional interaction design areas (e.g., multimedia, art, engineering) and psychology with an “approach [that] is really different.” Psychology became the foundation—where “only when you understand people can you do things for people and build empathy.” Building upon psychology, BNUX could exploit common gaps in the field of psychology, such as a “lack of technology or science of engineering thinking.” This interdisciplinary mix became a unique blend of psychology, design, and human-computer interaction approaches that sought to connect to industry needs in China. These goals led to the creation of three clear tracks: user research, project management, and interactive design. Industry support and engagement was also key to BNUX's early success, with the goal of promoting “win-win collaboration.” Multiple companies engaged in these partnerships across a range of industries, with the capability to arrange projects that had both educational and professional utility. However, these corporate partnerships also came with a risk—“since most of most of the [students'] jobs come from their undergraduate study […] they had not formed a good [pattern of] working with companies[… and] sometimes they would ruin the collaboration.” Thus, while the industry relationships sustained parts of the BNUX curriculum, these partnerships created new risks that had to actively be managed. This utilization of industry support—in conjunction with the identification of key collaborators from other parts of the globe—helped Wei to mitigate a primary threat of a lack of trained Chinese faculty. While psychology-focused courses were taught by top-rated professors in China at BNUX, Wei used his “relationship or friendship in the industry or with global partners” to locate expertise within China and across the globe. BNUX quickly built partnerships to cover key

444

parts of the curriculum, including user interface design, tangible embodied interaction, user research, engineering psychology, and usability engineering. The program began at 65 students per cohort with over 40 undergraduate backgrounds represented and has since grown even further to over 70 students per cohort. The supporting course experiences range widely based on the utilization of faculty from other institutions around the globe or members of industry, and coursework is typically undertaken on the weekends, while students work in placements, internships, or other research projects during the week. Even while the program fee is one of the most expensive in China, hundreds of applicants apply each year for the space-limited program, with most graduates paying off the two years of high tuition with the proceeds of their salary from their first year after graduating.

Student Experiences in Cross-Cultural UX Education We will summarize some of the key themes from our student participants with additional context from the program faculty. Our goal is to identify areas of commonality in approaching UX, while also demonstrating tensions and opportunities due to student expectations, cultural norms, and differences in job roles.

Impact of Culture on Experience Students mentioned numerous challenges with engaging in a studio-based classroom environment—a pedagogy shared by both Purdue UX and BNUX. While coursework in the United States increasingly includes “active learning” techniques to encourage cooperation and collaboration, Chinese higher education is still largely focused on lecture-based coursework experiences. In addition, cultural differences in power distance and expectations based on instructor role also presented tensions when comparing the two program experiences. Both programs addressed these tensions in different, but complementary ways. At BNUX, the students came in with the expectation that things would be similar to their previous course experiences where the instructor was at the center of the classroom. This environment was described by Wei as “a bit old; […] it's always like a blue background [with] white text, and the old professor can stand in front of one slide talking for 40 minutes.” This typical mode of education came into tension with the goal for students to participate in a studio-focused program that was collaborative and highly communicative. Wei leveraged his PhD work at TU Delft, referencing his desire to try out a studio-based approach in China: “I know [studio] works well in the Dutch or in the Western system. And I don't believe Chinese people cannot do so. I don't believe Chinese companies cannot do so. So I just want to try and see to find out.” However, the studio approach presented challenges to students as they learned to adapt to this new educational mode. Because China is a high-power distance culture, students expect instructors to provide parent-like guidance and give clear instructions—a level of direction that is atypical in a studio. One student with experiences in both BNUX and Purdue UX characterized the instructional differences this way: “BNUX is more hand holding, whereas Purdue UX is more like guiding you through stuff. […] These structures are here for you to cross this river, and BNUX instructors are just literally gonna hold your hand and cross the river together. But [at Purdue], instructors are actually on the other side of the river, but telling you how you could build a boat and cross it yourself.” When engaging in collaborative work, students had to learn how to organize themselves in teams and work with other students that had widely different educational backgrounds. In what is typically a flat hierarchy of students, project teams appointed a “leader” to organize when and how to make key decisions, with one student explaining: “We just share our opinions of our ideas and our leader make[s] the final decision.” Based on experiences with an American team, another student felt that “American students are more used to recognizing each other. After each team member talks about their own ideas, the American students always say, ‘I like your idea; What is this; What I like about what you just said’ and I think it's really amazing. You will not hear that from a Chinese student and in a Chinese team”, since in Chinese context, students are less likely to use direct verbal compliments to indicate approval. When students interacted with instructors from Purdue UX, they found that “the major cultural shock [was] the difference from the power distance”—adding difference in cultural expectation of interaction to the interactive expectations of the studio. When contrasting studio experiences from a Chinese versus American perspective, one student reflected on the unique cultural challenges of a Chinese studio environment: “I [think it] is due to the cultural differentials, because I think Americans are just more open or more comfortable with speaking up.” To help students adapt to the dynamic mode of engagement in a Chinese studio classroom, “BNUX [instructors] would encourage us to speak up, to do as many presentations as possible to break us from the kind of constraints we put on ourselves.” Another cultural expectation was the centrality of the instructor in gaining employment in a Chinese context: “the mindset [that] you'll need to have a network with your professor to get a job is heavily rooted in some other people's mind. And it's like a norm for people.” This

445

expectation differed from experiences at Purdue, where instructors encouraged students to network on their own; as Colin stated: “our assumption is students are the ones doing the networking to find the right people, not me connecting them with the right people.” One final cultural issue that emerged frequently was the nature of work-life balance and work ethic, as compared across cultural contexts. From a Purdue perspective, one student from China felt that a significant factor was the “time constraint—we have four years or under four and BNUX students] only have two years and they only studied during weekend. It imposed a lot of stress on them. And then during those two days they need to do a lot themselves. And I would say—in undergrad, I feel like I'm a UX major student, but I also have a lot of things going on and my life is always other things, instead of just like UX.” In contrast, BNUX students took on a common approach to defining a strenuous workday known colloquially as the “996” (9am to 9pm, six days a week): “then because a work schedule in China is like 996 and I must adapt to a schedule[...] we do this in the US too when it's the end of the project.”

Interaction with Industry Partners Many students expected good job opportunities in exchange for the high tuition of BNUX and planned to join technology companies after graduation. This goal was supported by extensive industry engagement in the program through different forms of paid and unpaid project work for governmental and industry partners. One student reflected on this partnership: “After I joined BNUX, I found there were some projects collaborating with real companies, so I was not just learning by class. I was also learning by collaborating with people from companies. That was something beyond my expectations.” As Wei elaborates, these industry opportunities aligned with the capabilities and goals of the program, even exceeding the capabilities of many consulting companies: “My approach is that I will talk to [industry partners] like this: Our faculty knows how to do qualitative study. We have equipment. We have professors, we have good students. And we have good partners like Purdue UX. And then we are multidisciplinary. And we can help you with that.” However, students noted that they were often “assigned to the kind of projects that's very time consuming. [Companies] value the efficiency and effectiveness and minimizing the cost. [... companies] dedicate that work to academia and to finish it for them because [companies] just don't have the time and the money to do that.” Additionally, students had less freedom in deciding the project direction on these quasi-consulting projects, with some students feeling like they were “working” instead of “learning and exploring.” Even though these projects were time intensive, students at BNUX found that when “applying for jobs, [company sponsored projects] are still better projects, or the more useful projects compared to the things we gave in school, to the recruiters at companies.” The industry focus also engaged students in thinking about business value as well as flexible use of methods: “We […] could do anything and use any methods we want [with class projects]. But when we do projects with companies, we need to think as a system, like our way to think from the business perspective […] how to make profit.” The approach to industry engagement at Purdue UX was focused on vertically-integrated course experiences, leading to less flexibility in out-of-class research partnerships, but providing enhanced opportunities for leadership and engaging in teamwork with students from multiple levels with less separation between “learning” and “working.” Students from Purdue UX reported the need not only to consider leadership as a chance to delegate tasks, but rather about “need[ing] to communicate [...] and inspire people to do things you need to do. It's not just about assigning people to do stuff.” The broader base of vertical integration—stretching from freshman to graduate levels—also provided multiple opportunities to learn from others; as one student stated: “I just learned that you don't need to be perfect [to be a leader]. It's okay to learn from classmates even if they are just freshmen who are in a lower grade than you.” While these projects in Purdue's industry-focused studio provided a somewhat balanced work and educational experience for students, these work-like experiences are still quite education-focused and less representative of real-world work experiences when compared to BNUX's industry partner projects.

Program and Course Expectations Students in both program contexts expected to learn and apply knowledge from psychology and other disciplines in the creation of real things. While psychology was one of several disciplinary perspectives at Purdue UX, due to the applied psychology focus of BNUX, this area of knowledge became more central to curricula and student expectations; as one student shared: “psychology is the basic and something about designing how to use psychological knowledge into design into real things.” Other students came into BNUX with the expectation that they would learn about design, with a focus on visual approaches and building apps, but later realized there was a stronger focus on design research methods: “Our teachers teach us a lot about user research, and brainstorming […] but not as much as graphical design in prototyping or in interactive

446

design”. From a Purdue perspective, students came in with the expectation of a focus on design thinking and marketing strategies, but later realized that the program focus was on “bring[ing] the best value you can to the people and the stakeholders you're designing for.” Because BNUX had to grow in place with large cohorts of students compared to Purdue UX's more gradual growth, the course sequences also resulted in different student expectations and experiences. Students felt that the consecutive studio sequences offered by Purdue UX tended to encourage more in-depth learning and understanding, but the BNUX program courses were offered by professionals with various backgrounds, adding additional richness and diversity beyond the knowledge of the core program faculty. One student discussed the opportunities and challenges of the BNUX approach to course sequencing as follows: “I'd say from the education side, the classes are not [created in a] consecutive way—especially UX classes because they have professionals on the psychology side, and then professionals in CS […] behavioral psychology, and UX specialists. [… Faculties and visiting instructors] travel around the world to ‘run the errands,’ so BNUX students learn a lot from their peers and [from] working with companies.” In contrast, Purdue UX faculty had less responsibility to form extensive international partnerships early in the program development and were able to spend more direct teaching time with students over a more traditional 16-week semester format.

Potential Job Roles Job roles and expectations converged across both programs, but with some differences in each cultural context. From a BNUX perspective, one student reported that most of their classmates had gone on to work as a UX researcher or product manager after graduation; however, a minority of BNUX students prioritized visually focused design jobs, which are often labelled with roles such as “UX Designer” in China. Students appeared to be aware of tensions and differences in job roles across user interface, research, and business-related careers, recognizing that different skillsets and interests were required for each role. User interface often intersected with “UX,” research jobs required both traditional qualitative skills as well as experimental psychology knowledge, and product management jobs required business acumen. BNUX graduates were well-prepared for UX careers in China, and due to international exposure to Europe and North America they experienced during their program of study, some students may also fare well in building a career outside of China—particularly if they engaged in longer terms of exchange in other countries. A Purdue UX student referenced some differences across the two cultural contexts, explaining: “The UX education I received enables me to do multiple kinds of jobs. So even though I have lived in the United States for such a long time, if I want to adapt to the work setting in China, I am still able to do that and try different roles instead of UX Design.” In contrast, UX jobs in the United States more commonly used the term “UX” without positioning the work as solely user interface focused, often representing generalist roles with responsibilities that include research, prototyping, and evaluation work. UX researcher roles in the United States similarly had less focus on psychology and testing, with these tasks often being commonly addressed in related business-focused roles that included product management. Students straddling both countries and programs recognized the differences in roles in both contexts and appeared able to reorient their skills to appropriate job positions depending on their career aspirations and location preferences.

Implications and Future Work We have described a range of hidden assumptions that can substantially impact the performance and experience of individual pedagogical decisions, and the constitutive role of these individual engagements that point towards the overall educational experience. This work implies the need to identify opportunities for educational partnerships that enrich student experiences and future industry success that are culturally and locally bound, while also recognizing the role of subverting or extending institutional support and structures that guide or control the form of these pedagogical experiences. This finding points toward the need for future work that engages with the experiential qualities of HCI and UX pedagogy, representing a shift from past approaches that have largely focused on objective and visible elements of education, such as curricula, required readings, and project prompts. More research should identify the implicit norms of existing curricula, using action-oriented research methodologies to propose new student experiences in UX-focused programs. Future work should also continue to identify the cultural boundedness and situatedness of HCI knowledge, instructional strategies, and pedagogical philosophies. Building on the call to decolonize HCI and design (Abdelnour-Nocera et al., 2012; Tlostanova, 2017; Tunstall, 2013), research should clarify the role of context, subjectivity, and culture in UX and HCI education, pointing towards the need for a multiplicity of curricula that support diverse local and regional educational practices that account for cultural differences, priorities, and goals. This situatedness of experience and outcomes points towards the need to define HCI and UX practices in

447

a pluralistic way (Bardzell, 2010) that recognizes the role of difference in design practice, while also facilitating communication along the recognized dimensions of that difference. Importantly, it is important for design education scholars to further investigate both the role and value of local and indigenous pedagogies as well as means of enriching these pedagogies with other modes of instructional engagement. While in the context of this study, we primarily focused on how exterior pedagogies may transform the study of UX design (with studio pedagogy as a non-dominant pedagogy both in the US and China), there is also value in better understanding what local, regional, and national cultural norms may be positively or negatively impacted by this importation. Indeed, there seems to be a fine line between pedagogical colonialism and an ongoing program of pedagogical improvement which deserves further exploration.

Conclusion In this paper, we reported on a four-year cross-cultural engagement in UX educational practices, drawing together program-level design decisions and the experience of students that span UX-focused programs in the United States and China. We identify a range of factors that influence the formation and performance of studio culture in these environments, including instances where culture, social, and contextual factors constrain or enable particular kinds of educational experiences. We conclude with opportunities for future research on UX and HCI educational practices, including a greater focus on local educational practices and a multiplicity of curricular philosophies.

References Abdelnour-Nocera, J. L., Austin, A., Michaelides, M., Modi, S., & Oyugi, C. (2012). Exploring cultural differences

in HCI education. Proceedings Cultural Attitudes Towards Technology and Communication, 410–419. https://repository.uwl.ac.uk/id/eprint/535/

Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M., & Dall’Alba, G. (2011). Being a professional: Three lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32(6), 588–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.004

Bardzell, S. (2010). Feminist HCI: taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1301–1310. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753521

Bidwell, N. J. (2016). Decolonising HCI and interaction design discourse: some considerations in planning AfriCHI. XRDS, 22(4), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1145/2930884

Blevis, E., Lim, Y.-K., Stolterman, E., Wolf, T. V., & Sato, K. (2007). Supporting design studio culture in HCI. CHI ’07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2821–2824.

Blevis, E., Rogers, Y., Siegel, M., Hazlewood, W., & Stephano, A. (2004). Integrating HCI and design: HCI/d at IUB, a design education case story. Workshop on the Relationship between Design and HCI, ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors and Computing Systems. Vienna, Austria.

Bohemia, E. (2010). Complexities of Teaching and Learning Collaborations with International Partners: The Global Studio. DRS Biennial Conference Series. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2010/researchpapers/14/

Boling, E., Schwier, R. A., Gray, C. M., Smith, K. M., & Campbell, K. (Eds.). (2016). Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Studio-Teaching-in-Higher-Education-Selected-Design-Cases/Boling-Schwier-Gray-Smith-Campbell/p/book/9781138902435

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

Bray, M., Adamson, B., & Mason, M. (2014). Comparative Education Research: Approaches and Methods (M. Bray, B. Adamson, & M. Mason (Eds.)). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/https://doi-org.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/10.1007/978-3-319-05594-7

Buchanan, R. (1995). Rhetoric, humanism and design. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), Discovering Design: Explorations in Design Studies (pp. 23–66). University of Chicago Press.

Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. Routledge.

Cennamo, K. (2016). What is studio. In E. Boling, R. A. Schwier, C. M. Gray, K. M. Smith, & K. Campbell (Eds.), Studio Teaching in Higher Education: Selected Design Cases. Routledge.

Churchill, E. F., Bowser, A., & Preece, J. (2016). The Future of HCI Education: A Flexible, Global, Living Curriculum. Interactions, 23(2), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1145/2888574

Coso Strong, A., Lande, M., & Adams, R. (2019). Teaching Without a Net: Mindful Design Education. In D. Schaefer, G. Coates, & C. Eckert (Eds.), Design Education Today: Technical Contexts, Programs and Best

448

Practices (pp. 1–21). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17134-6_1 Dey, A. K., Shi, Y., Tian, F., & Cheng, S. (2015). Developing HCI Education Crossing Asia. Proceedings of the 33rd

Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2361–2364. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702613.2702651

Exter, M. E., Gray, C. M., & Fernandez, T. M. (2020). Conceptions of design by transdisciplinary educators: disciplinary background and pedagogical engagement. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(4), 777–798. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09520-w

Faiola, A. (2007). The Design Enterprise: Rethinking the HCI Education Paradigm. Design Issues, 23(3), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2007.23.3.30

Gray, C. M., Parsons, P., Toombs, A. L., Rasche, N., & Vorvoreanu, M. (2020). Designing an Aesthetic Learner Experience: UX, Instructional Design, and Design Pedagogy. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 11(1), 41–58. https://doi.org/ijdl.v11i1.26065

Greenberg, S. (2009). Embedding a design studio course in a conventional computer science program. Creativity and HCI: From Experience to Design in Education, 23–41.

Hewett, T. T., Baecker, R., Card, S., Carey, T., Gasen, J., Mantei, M., Perlman, G., Strong, G., & Verplank, W. (1992). ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. dl.acm.org. https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2594128

Kaygan, P., Dilek, I., & Kaygan, H. (2019). Industrial Design Students’ Reflections on Cross-Institutional and Distance Collaboration. In Insider Knowledge - Proceedings of the Design Research Society Learn X Design Conference, 2019. https://doi.org/10.21606/learnxdesign.2019.07018

Kharrufa, A., & Gray, C. M. (2020, May). Threshold Concepts in HCI Education. 2nd Annual ACM SIGCHI Symposium on HCI Education (EduCHI 2020). https://educhi2020.hcilivingcurriculum.org/paper/threshold-concepts-in-hci-education/

Koutsabasis, P., & Vosinakis, S. (2012). Rethinking HCI Education for Design: Problem-Based Learning and Virtual Worlds at an HCI Design Studio. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 28(8), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2012.687664

Kou, Y., Gray, C. M., Toombs, A. L., & Adams, R. S. (2018). Understanding Social Roles in an Online Community of Volatile Practice: A Study of User Experience Practitioners on Reddit. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 1(4), 17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3283827

Lallemand, C., Gronier, G., & Koenig, V. (2015). User experience: A concept without consensus? Exploring practitioners’ perspectives through an international survey. Computers in Human Behavior, 43, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.10.048

Lazem, S., & Dray, S. (2018). Baraza! human-computer interaction education in Africa. Interactions, 25(2), 74–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3178562

Meyer, M. W., & Norman, D. (2020). Changing Design Education for the 21st Century. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6(1), 13–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002

O’Leary, S. R., & Turner, B. (2020, May). Towards a Decolonized Future: Desettling HCI. 2nd Annual ACM SIGCHI Symposium on HCI Education (EduCHI 2020). https://educhi2020.hcilivingcurriculum.org/paper/towards-a-decolonized-future-desettling-hci/

Oleson, A., Solomon, M., & Ko, A. J. (2020). Computing Students’ Learning Difficulties in HCI Education. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376149

Parrish, P. E. (2009). Aesthetic principles for instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 57(4), 511–528. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-007-9060-7

Reimer, Y. J., & Douglas, S. A. (2003). Teaching HCI Design With the Studio Approach. Computer Science Education, 13(3), 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1076/csed.13.3.191.14945

Shulman, L. S. (2005). Signature pedagogies in the professions. Daedalus, 134(3), 52–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20027998?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

St-Cyr, O., Jovanovic, A., Chignell, M., MacDonald, C. M., & Churchill, E. F. (2018). The HCI living curriculum as a community of practice. Interactions, 25(5), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1145/3215842

Tlostanova, M. (2017). On decolonizing design. Design Philosophy Papers, 15(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/14487136.2017.1301017

Tunstall, E. (2013). Decolonizing design innovation: Design anthropology, critical anthropology, and indigenous knowledge. Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice, 232–250.

Van Boeijen, A., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Designers Coping with Culture in an Educational Setting. DRS Biennial Conference Series. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2012/researchpapers/143/

449

Vorvoreanu, M., Gray, C. M., Parsons, P., & Rasche, N. (2017). Advancing UX Education: A Model for Integrated Studio Pedagogy. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1441–1446. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025726

Zhu, D., Liu, W., Tang, S., Wang, M., Liu, Y., & Sheng, J. (2021). Landing UX Design Thinking Tools and Strategies in a Chinese Context. Human Interaction, Emerging Technologies and Future Applications III, 63–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55307-4_10

Ziqing Li Purdue University, USA li3242@purdue.edu Ziqing (Nicole) Li is a graduate student at Purdue University studying User Experience Design. She holds a bachelor’s degree in UX Design from Purdue University with minors in Computer Science and Psychology. Colin M. Gray Purdue University, USA gray42@purdue.edu Colin M. Gray is an Associate Professor at Purdue University and program lead for an undergraduate major and graduate concentration in UX Design. He holds appointments as Guest Professor at Beijing Normal University and Visiting Researcher at Newcastle University. His research focuses on the ways in which the pedagogy and practice of designers informs the development of design ability, particularly in relation to ethics, design knowledge, and professional identity formation. Austin L. Toombs Purdue University, USA toombsa@purdue.edu Austin L. Toombs is an Assistant Professor at Purdue University and leads the Community-Computer Interaction Lab. He studies the impact that digital technologies have on how communities develop, are maintained, and foster (or not) strong interpersonal relationships between community participants. This includes how these technologies are implicated in explicit and implicit forms of care. He is also interested in how community-centered technologies encourage the formation and maintenance of some identities, while discouraging others. Kevin McDonald Purdue University, USA mcdona76@purdue.edu Kevin McDonald is a UX Strategist at KeHE Distributors. He holds a bachelor’s degree in UX Design from Purdue University and has previously completed internships at Chamberlain Group and KeHe Distributors. Lukas Marinovic Purdue University, USA lmarinov@purdue.edu Lukas Marinovic is a graduate student at Purdue University studying User Experience Design. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Computer and Information Technology with a minor in Film and Video Studies from Purdue University, and has previously worked as a cybersecurity intern for Ford Motor Company.

450

Wei Liu Beijing Normal University, China wei.liu@bnu.edu.cn Wei Liu is an Associate Professor and the director of the UX master’s program at Beijing Normal University, and an Adjunct Associate Professor at Purdue University. He is interested in HCI, human factors, and transdisciplinary teaching and learning.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Process Based Collaborations Spanning Boundaries for Future Provocations

Rebekah Radtke, Hannah Dewhirst, Joe Brewer and Ingrid Schmidt https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.12.146

From the COVID-19 pandemic upending higher education, design education has been stretched, challenged, and reckoned with over the course of the past year. Against this backdrop, many have shifted their focus from in-person to online learning modalities. While understanding that this is an accessible solution, we also recognize that it is at a detriment to collaboration and creation in traditional design education practices. Seeking to actively foster diverse ways of approaching interior design pedagogy, a collaborative team of faculty created a platform for multidisciplinary making to engage students in a semester-long workshop series, entitled, Blender. Blender intends on creating inclusive learning landscapes imbuing making with optimism toward the future and the profession. Without question, this sense of collaboration and belonging created from Blender far exceeds the tangible outcomes of the physical output created by students. Faced with extended amounts of screen time, students readily engaged with the opportunity to reconnect with their peers, explore making in new robust ways, and create a community of making within their school, collapsing distances and stitching together new ideas.

Keywords: interior design; collaboration; visual communication; workshop

Forming In the spring semester of 2021, the School of Interiors: Planning/Strategy/Design at the University of Kentucky College of Design created a multidisciplinary platform for making and creation. The University of Kentucky committed to creating an in-person residential learning experience, but to maintain proper social distancing, many courses shifted to online learning modalities due to space constraints on the physical campus. However, after an intensive fall semester of increased online learning and severe Zoom fatigue, students and faculty alike desired more opportunities to engage in person. This necessitated the creation of an in-person experiential learning opportunity for the spring semester. The resulting solution was Blender, an experimental workshop series. It is multimodal, maker-based, and celebrates the study of interior design. Throughout the semester, a series of multi-disciplinary designers led maker-based workshops for all interior design students in the program, questioning the limitations of the discipline and evolving toward a more examined, inclusive future.

Initiating The School of Interiors has a strong history of bringing in experts from the field as visiting lectures and guest speakers, engaging varied perspectives from the industry in a series called, Design Chats. Design Chats are an intimate setting for alumni in the practice of design and guests from local and national venues to share their experiences. Typically, these are narrative based and focus on one’s journey in the profession. This year, Design Chats switched to an endeavor led by student voices through the Interior Design Student Association, bringing together students in leadership roles and further linking the profession and the academic community which resulted in more student autonomy in the conversation-based gatherings.

452

Figure 1. Students creating immersive material-driven enclosures. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

The School was seeking to develop a new type of co-curricular program to enhance collaborative aspects of student learning as a new initiative. A team of faculty who authored this case study, identified the opportunity to create a culture of making and contemporary practices in approaches to interior design, realizing that it was an area of weakness in the School. The team collectively desired to highlight individuals who are change-makers in their transdisciplinary fields of study and whose work showcases concepts that are an intersectional approach in interior design. Additionally, the collaborative team aspired to invoke power, optimism, and fun as foundational elements of the workshop series. The authors of this case study and the Blender team are the interim director of the program and the faculty for the design communication courses in the School of Interiors. The faculty profile included one associate professor, two visiting assistant professors, and the director of technology and facilities who served as a part time instructor. This allowed a seamless approach to program level support and curricular implementation. In addition to the authors, graduate and undergraduate student leaders were co-collaborators and key stakeholders in the collaborative team. Collectively the team decided on the comprehensive goal with shared objectives. The visiting professors were the creative drivers and selected the visiting artists and designers, and the director of technology and facilities ensured the materials, technology, and spaces were ordered, prepared, and reserved. The interim director allocated funding and resources with coordination from administration. The students created the sets, materials, communication on social media, as well as set up. Aside from these roles, the team was highly collaborative and operated in a flat organizational model. Students and faculty worked together to realize the Blender series. Blender was implemented through the utilization of a newly created series of required design communication courses within the curriculum. The series of courses are a sequential experience that run concurrently with the Interiors studio courses. The information learned in the Design Communications courses support the projects being created in the accompanying design studios. Outcomes from the courses offer a comprehensive perspective on design communication as practiced today in the design professions, including hand-rendering, verbal presentation skills, and a myriad of visualization and production software. With the intention of enhancing multimodal communication within the design experience, the courses focus on written, digital, and oral output. Since its inception, these courses have grappled with meeting these varied and diverse requirements while effectively integrating into the studio. Since the courses are relatively new, in the third year of implementation, they are still malleable structures within the pedagogical framework. Using these courses as a platform for the series, it allowed Blender to impact every level of the program, using process-based explorations, exploring the invisible boundaries as provocations for the future.

Building The preplanning of Blender focused on the development of the mission, scope of workshops, graphic representation, and a strategy for communications. Once this framework was established, specific workshops

453

were developed in alignment with the outlined objectives. Using the faculty’s expertise and expansive network, the design leaders were selected and connected to a specific and targeted population of students based on their level in the program. Coordination was required in each aspect of the series for funding, procurement of materials, and use of facilities. Because of parameters set in place by COVID-19, the team had to intentionally develop every aspect of the programming in advance to meet safety protocols. Wherein typical access to facilities and space could be serendipitous in previous workshops, this required collaboration with the fabrication staff, computing personnel, faculty, administration, and facilities management.

Figure 2. Students creating volumes from handcrafted marbled paper. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

Conducting In the first workshop, approximately 40 second- and third-year students with graduate students participated in making activities focused on rapidly deploying new skill development. Students used provided materials to quickly create an interior environment over two days, working with pattern making and abstract form creation. The workshop was directed by Aaron Jones, an interdisciplinary designer, to bring different processes linking thinking through making. The process prioritized collaboration in the discipline and with peers with tight constraints to guide the facilitation of making. Greater exploration and organization of a simple process resulted in a wide range of material output. The resulting artifacts were conceptual and theoretical explorations of authenticity and materiality within the interior design industry. Students were prompted to look at patterning and material qualities of veneer as a starting point, necessitating a discussion of material representation in interior spaces. Materials such as marble and rare woods, their resulting extractive practices question sustainability through the lens of the interior. Students and faculty participated in a dialogue led by Aaron Jones to reconsider and engage critical voices and influences in the act of future making that address these intrinsic unsustainable practices. Key themes explored in the making process were reinterpretations of these finite materials through new ways of fabrication exploring surface tension to create a marbling effect resembling rare woods. Through the consideration of recreating representations of fine materials, participants were challenged to connect surface patterning to stir an emotional response in design. In doing so, the evolution of material perspective and its latent sustainability impacts, shifts the material sensorial experience. In the second workshop, approximately 45 first year students and graduate students participated in making immersive material-driven enclosures over three days. The workshop directed by Antonio Torres of Bittertang Farm posed multiple ways of creating material, shape, and form with an emphasis on creating atmospheric

454

experiences and interiors. Students worked with readily available materials, ranging from plaster, textiles, wax, and model magic to create interesting textures and forms. Because of the number of students, the accessibility of low-cost materials was important to provide a robust base of materials for maximum possibilities. The final outcome was an exploration of materials and the generation of an enclosure documented through GIFs to capture the qualities of spaces at the human scale. Working at a ½” scale, students were able to ground their understanding in the scale of a room with sensorial experiential ways of exploring materials. Participants pushed the idea of textures and tactility of materials of the enclosures through photography and video. Dynamic modeling captured light, wind, and other effects of space allowing for intentional explorations of close vantage points. In the third workshop, approximately 50 undergraduate and graduate students, with a focus on graduating students, participated in creating an inflatable structure as a totem to the lost memories of the pandemic over two days. Knowing the lost moments that are milestones in the final year of the program, the third workshop connected unrealized moments to spatial attributes using found objects to relate people and experience, had and unrealized, to space, place, and form. Systematic processes of structure creation were used to create thresholds within the space. Color was used as synaptic stimuli to transform the environment. The created space within an old warehouse marked a pivotal moment in the pandemic and in the academic career of students. All of the workshops were focused on a team-based learning approach. The students were able to select their team members in advance of the workshops to prepare and organize any materials they were required to bring. Most supplies were provided by the School of Interiors; however, they might need to bring a ruler, a cutting board, chair, or computer. The team-based approach was a high priority for Blender. The team of faculty wanted to encourage interaction and engagement in making, thus, each workshop required to work collaboratively. In some cases, some students were unable to participate in person. To be able to address this shift, faculty work with students to acquire the necessary supplies and placed them on a team that could Facetime or Zoom with them so that they could participate remotely. However, it should be noted that the this could not be accommodated for the final workshop since it was a quite large build with spatial constraints.

Figure 3. Students documenting spatial effects of model. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

Completing Students benefited from the skills and knowledge acquired through the series. They were able to quickly educate themselves and deploy new fabrication techniques in a team-based learning environment resulting in

455

tangible high-quality outputs. This directly impacted student outcomes in design related courses immediately and over the course of the semester. It also enhanced student understanding of theoretical approaches to interior design because of the diversity of ideas brought to the School of Interiors by the guest workshop leaders. Vertical experiences allowed for integration across the entire school, comingling populations that often don’t intermix, further broadening collaboration.

Figure 4. Fabrication of spaces by students and faculty. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

Faculty engaged in the making process as well, illustrating the importance of collaborative making alongside the students. Key outcomes from this involvement were the facilitation of the process of making, creating equalization among the participants, increasing vulnerability through failure and prioritizing risk taking. Faculty facilitated making so that improvisation could occur and show students the importance of exploration as a formal and conceptual process. Faculty benefited by the alignment of workshop leaders' research to advance personal research agendas and scholarly pursuits. The workshop instilled a philosophy of testing and making processes through the facilitation of a scientific approach aligning with faculty research focused on generative making. The connection of design practice to faculty research reinforced concepts of embedded emergence around variables from material manipulation bringing deeper connections to faculty research practices. Collaboration in the facilitation of workshop series was a key outcome of Blender. The success of the workshop was reliant on a high level of collaboration among faculty members and students’ leaders to implement the series of workshops. Students developed sets for the work, organized materials, created promotional collateral for social media strategies, and facilitated the overall workshops. Faculty members were creative drivers of the content and connected workshop leaders from a nationwide network of thought leaders and changemakers to the College. The framework for Blender was created through collective brainstorming sessions centered around effective and meaningful ways of using student generated funds in order to have high impact change within the School of Interiors. Through a comprehensive approach of documentation, Blender was captured through photography and videography to create an overarching narrative of the experience and process, noting the collaborative teamwork and material exploration. Unexpected outcomes were also captured in the process: a joy of making things together as a pleasurable communal experience which was further exacerbated by seemingly endless isolation during the pandemic.

456

Figure 5. Aaron Jones demonstrating techniques to students. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

Assessing Collaboration enhanced student learning was an important theme in student feedback. Overall comments were overwhelmingly positive about the workshops. They appreciated the opportunity to learn in-person and to physically make models after spending significant time online learning and on devices. In a written report from the Student Council for the College of Design, students stated, “They would appreciate more workshops that are interdisciplinary and could be taken by the entire college.” and “They want collaborative workshops that expose them to technologies that they wouldn’t usually learn.” as well as, “Emphasis was placed on a desire to have the option to collaborate with other majors.” Faculty met with students in casual conversations to assess the outcomes of workshops during and after each was completed. They noted the excitement of students being in-person and attending workshops. Often in previous experiences students begrudgingly attend workshops that are mandatory outside of regular class time. However, in this case, it was quite the opposite. Students eagerly attended and stayed longer to participate beyond required meeting times, supporting the goal of creating a community of makers within the school. After each workshop, the faculty and student leaders convened on Zoom calls to discuss how the workshop was successful and what were the areas for improvement. Often, the assessment of one workshop would immediately be implemented in the following workshop given that we hosted a workshop each month. We were able to rapidly deploy lessons learned because as soon as one workshop was completed, another one would begin to be implemented. Our team quickly realized the intensity of the workshops and the required time far exceeded our expectations. In our assessment of the workshops the team suggested that in future semesters, we focus on fewer per semester. However, the team also recognized that the workshops created a “buzz” and high energy on campus throughout the semester. In the future, a more formalized learning assessment plan for student learning outcomes is desired from the team using a multi-method approach.

457

Figure 6. Exhibition of student work. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

Projecting The collaborative team considered with intention the new futures of interiors around shared values questioning how can we increase equity and access to the profession in a meaningful way that is sustainable for the college, powerful for our program, and meaningful to our community? Blender is an attempt to set a vision for an interdisciplinary interior design practice that changes how we educate design, unlearning inequities by shifting the practice of limitations of interior design. The team understands this is an incremental process, but a step towards removing boundaries and recognizing new strategies for success, understanding a long culture and history of marginalization.

Figure 7. Installation of structures by students. Source: ©Ben Rickard 2021

458

The collaborative team intends on continuing Blender as a platform for incremental continual change, pushing the notions in varied diverse perspectives on design. The team is currently considering how to share the narrative of the work and showcase this as a pivotal moment in the School of Interiors, inspiring long term cultural shifts. Blender was a catalyst for sparking collective imagination and innovation, mobilizing change makers, and bridging to a fuller, richer, narrative of interior design. It amplifies the importance and added value of design through activation of shared resources to build cultural equity within the broader context of the School within the College and as a result, making a stronger, more resilient program and practice overall.

Rebekah Radtke University of Kentucky, USA rebekah.radtke@uky.edu Rebekah Radtke investigates how interior design enables social change by applying boundary-spanning pedagogical approaches rather than discipline-specific processes. Since 2011 her transdisciplinary multi-scalar projects produced better living and learning environments and healthy communities in national and international venues. Her collaborative work, funded by national entities, include pedagogical projects in China, design-build projects in Brazil, community-activated interventions in Appalachia, and experiential learning design initiatives in Lexington, KY. Hannah Dewhirst University of Kentucky, USA hannah.Dewhirst@uky.edu Hannah Dewhirst is a designer, co-founder of SUBSTUDIO, and Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky College of Design. She received a bachelor's degree in architecture from the University of Michigan and a Masters of Architecture from Cranbrook Academy of Art. She brings to the table 8+ years of professional experience working for award-winning firms such as Steven Holl Architects, Rafael Viñoly Architects, and Gensler. Joe Brewer University of Kentucky, USA joe.brewer@uky.edu Joe Brewer is the Director of Technology at the University of Kentucky College of Design. His research revolves around leveraging emerging technology in architectural education and pushing for innovation in the AEC industry. In his architectural practice, Joe focuses on the use of technology to benefit the underserved and disenfranchised, designing and building projects in Haiti, Honduras, India, and the continent of Africa. Ingrid Schmidt University of Kentucky, USA ingrhttps://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.schmidt@uky.edu Ingrid A Schmidt is a multidisciplinary designer, co-founder of SUBSTUDIO, and Assistant Professor at the University of Kentucky. Her research aims to challenge perceptual boundaries through the construction of finely tuned visual and textural elements. Her work relies on full scale material experimentation to test the emotional and social impacts of highly stimulating, sometimes obliviating environments. She brings her practice into the classroom through introductory design exercises, learning through making, and film analysis as a critical reflection of our built environment.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Advisory Committee Structures of Chinese Design Schools Research From the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Perspective

Fan Chen, Lin Li and Jing-Yi Yang https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.13.176

The design and education fields have been starting to pay attention to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ever since 2019, and the following two events would affirm this tendency. Firstly, the committee of the iF Design Award triggered to adopt SDGs as their evaluation standard. Secondly, the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings began to assess the performance of 768 universities from 85 countries against SDGs. This reflects a broader consideration towards sustainability has been establishing. Based on the context, this study inquired about the sustainable quality of nine educational institutions of design in China under an advisory committee perspective, which has worked to suggest the future direction of the institution. The researchers made use of comparative methodology to explore each institution’s developing trend and their specialties. After qualitative and quantitative analysis, the researchers have found the limitations involving the diversity, the scale, and the sustainability of these objects, then recommended the corresponding suggestions expecting to create an environment, which would lead design education to a more sustainable future.

Keywords: design education; advisory committee; Sustainable Development Goals; future trend

Background The advisory committee is a strategic consulting system set up to improve performance in the process of corporate management. It is composed of experts or scholars from inside and outside the industry with varying numbers of experts or scholars, and through regular gatherings, they can make suggestions for the future development of the company. Corporate governance is the mission of the advisory committee, which refers to the relationship between various stakeholders used to make and control an organization’s strategic direction and corporate performance. Its core is to seek ways to ensure the effectiveness of strategic decisions. The system stipulates that the term of committee members is limited. After expiration, a new member will be elected through voting or internal appointment. After several years of development, the advisory committee system has spilled from commercial institutions to other social fields, such as medical care, education, leisure and entertainment. Among them, with the in-depth integration of government, industry, education, and research, higher education institutions have increasingly coordinated development with commerce, accelerating the efficiency of knowledge transformation. In this process, universities gradually iterated from passive dependence on external investment to actively profitable ‘academic enterprises’, which further broke the barrier between higher education and the external society, and made academic research activities more sustainable and serve the real world. An important step to achieve this leap is the establishment of a university advisory committee system. Although the titles of the advisory committees of universities are slightly different, such as academic committees, advisory committees, and education fund councils, of which they are essential to find a way out for future development. On the other hand, with the advancement of social technology, the connotation of sustainable development has been extended from the pure protection of the natural environment to the concern for the future development of human beings. In 2015, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were promulgated. It can be seen as an iteration of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. It covers 17 goals related to the development of human society, from natural ecological protection to personal

460

future development (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d.). This will further expand the scope of sustainable development. Interdisciplinarity is one of the most important features of design education today, which brings new opportunities for design education and the suggestions of industry professionals will also bring new development momentum. This study took the composition of the advisory committees of nine design schools in China as the research objects, and referred to SDGs to analyze the diversity from the perspective of sustainable development, so as to explore its future tendency. With the expansion of the scale of the advisory committee and the diversification of its members, it can obtain key resources, and these resources will inevitably expand the scope of business activities and bring new strategic information (Pearce & Zahra, 1991). With the further opening of higher education, the operation of the design schools will be more closely connected with the real world, and the diverse backgrounds of its committee members will help this process.

Literature Review In papers related to sustainable design education research, the authors affirmed the importance of sustainable design education. However, they had different definitions of the concept of sustainable design, so different perspectives for analyzing the current situation of sustainable design education assisted this study to view a wider picture of this field. Zhang & Gibson (2021) regarded studying abroad (exchange) as a mean of sustainable education, and studied how short-term study programs abroad with the theme of sustainable development affect students' attitudes and behaviors. Using qualitative analysis tools, the authors interviewed 31 students studying abroad to identify and discuss the behavior changes of the participants. Among them, the behavioral changes recognized by the participants mainly related to lifestyle, professional development, and responsible travel behavior. Effective project design elements include: emotion, cognition, and action. In addition, the research results suggested revising the value-belief-norm model to add more motivation, and the weight of responsibility may need to be reassessed. Zhou (2020) explained the widespread dissemination of art and design education through the interpretation of environmental ethics, the social responsibilities of contemporary art and design teachers, and the misunderstandings about sustainable design in current art and design education. Then the author suggested the importance of popularizing environmental ethics, and the main way to eliminate these misunderstandings: strengthening environmental ethics education and integrating sustainable design principles into professional design education and practice. Zhou listed three passive sustainable cognition: 1. People-oriented may be the opposition between man and nature; 2. Sustainable design should not be a new style or genre; 3. Sustainable design does not necessarily save money. Xiong (2015) regarded ecological sustainability as an evaluation criterion for the sustainability of design education, and conducted a comparative study on the current situation of sustainable design education in art design majors in Chinese and American universities. The study mainly analyzes the system, strategy, and practice of sustainable design education in the United States, and horizontally compares the status quo and limitations of Chinese sustainable design education. The paper puts forward three characteristics of sustainable design education in American universities: 1. Sustainable design education was professional and multi-level; 2. Environmental education was necessary and common in sustainable design education; 3. Multi-party support for sustainable design education had a driving force in college education. The main form was the main body of the school, government laws, industry guidance, expert, and business participation to meet the educational needs of students and practitioners. China was rich in various sustainable design education activities, and there were many forums, competitions, exhibitions, and societies related to sustainable design. Many universities had established academic research institutions such as sustainable design institutes and laboratories. The limitation was that these were all design research institutions and temporary activity organizations settled in well-known colleges and universities. They were not long-term education mechanisms. The popular education research on sustainable design was rarely mentioned. The sustainable design education in the art and design of Chinese colleges and universities appeared to be very weak in terms of content, form, means, methods, and ultimate educational goals. The sustainable design education system had not yet been formed. The main problems comprised six parts: 1. Its status had not been promoted; 2. Its ideas had not penetrated into the entire educational concept; 3. Teachers were lacking; 4. Its standards were almost blank; 5. There was no typical case of school-enterprise integration, enterprises were either eager for quick success and short-term profit without long-term development, or neglected environmental protection policy constraints, resulting in sustainable design education unable to have a benign communication with the production process; 6. Lack of comprehensive popularization and promotion, which was mainly manifested in

461

the differences in regional and economic levels. Xiao (2015) believed that sustainable design aimed to provide a creative overall solution. This creativity was based on a systematic perspective, re-integrating existing raw materials, technology, funds, resources, and represents a sustainable way that takes into account economic development, environmental protection, social harmony, and cultural inheritance. The paper’s rethinking of China’s sustainable fashion design education is firstly based on the re-cognition and reflection of traditional Chinese culture in the context of globalization; secondly, it is the source of modern design concepts in the context of sustainability. Then the author analyzed the theoretical model of design education in Sri Lanka. Finally, by re-understanding the essence of design under the background of sustainable development, the author rethought the problems that may be faced by sustainable design education in the context of modern design. The author believed that today's research on sustainable design was often out of touch with teaching practice. To narrow these gaps, colleges and universities should promote the connection between research and teaching. On the other hand, since the practical requirements contained in sustainable design were more than previous design concepts, it is particularly important to strengthen the cooperative relationship between education and enterprises. Xie (2015) took the architectural design engineering subject as an example and divided the sustainable design course into four parts: professional courses (design courses/studio), other core courses, sustainable knowledge and theory, and methods and skills training. Based on the specific analysis of the architectural design courses of the University of Nottingham and Hunan University, it was recommended that China's sustainable design education learns from the European teaching model, emphasizing the professional relevance and practicality of educational methods, interdisciplinary uniformity, lifelong continuity, strengthened teamwork training, and research capabilities. Long et al. (2014) noted that the conceptual connection between studying abroad and sustainable development education was a good match. Given that sustainability is a global issue, cultivating global awareness through studying abroad may help students have a more comprehensive understanding of sustainability. In addition, travel enables people to learn about other cultures, develop local attachments, and support the local economy, which may contribute to the sustainable development of the destination. Through literature research, it was found that sustainable education in most universities was limited to the teaching level, and just implemented their educational goals through a series of activities. In this case, this study intended to propose an administrative perspective, the diversification of advisory committee, to look into sustainable education.

Methodology This study utilized a mixed methodology to inquire about the system of advisory committees in Chinese design schools. In detail, the researchers investigated the members of nine advisory committees against SDGs, which were affiliated to Central Academy of Fine Arts (CAFA), Hunan University (HNU), Jiangnan University (JNU), Macau University of Science and Technology (MUST), Shanghai University (SHU), Shanghai Jiao Tong University (SJTU), Suzhou University (SU), Tongji University (TJU), and Wuhan University of Technology (WHUT) respectively. The above step was intended to explore the diversity of the Industry-University-Research partnership among higher education institutions. Firstly, the researchers identified the definitions of sustainable design education and its latest progress, this was to recognize the gaps within the field. Then, the academic or professional backgrounds of advisors were scrutinized qualitatively and corresponded to the 17 items of the SDGs (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, n.d.), with which to produce nine tables and pie charts of outcomes. This quantitative analysis process was to visualize the emphasis of the educational strategy of each institution. Therefore, their future trend of design education would be clearly expressed by comparative observation. It was noted that all of the titles of SDGs were replaced by their order numbers, such as ‘Goal 1. No Poverty’ was replaced by ‘1’ in the tables, which was for type settings. After data analysis, the researchers conducted a series of interviews with the related professionals, which aimed to critically review the research outcomes and adjust the future direction of this study.

Analysis and Discussion According to the SDGs system, the professional fields of advisors have been represented in pie charts. Next, the researchers will comparatively explain the situation.

462

Central Academy of Fine Arts

Figure 1. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in CAFA, made by the authors.

The academic committee is the highest academic institution of CAFA. It generates and exercises its functions and powers in accordance with regulations, and coordinates the decision-making, deliberation, evaluation, and consultation of academic affairs on the school's discipline construction, academic evaluation, and academic development. It also promotes the training of professional talents in various disciplines and the continuous improvement of academic research levels in the academy. The academic committee serves the CAFA’s development strategy, adheres to the principles of fairness, justice, and openness, advocates academic freedom, encourages academic innovation, and maintains the academic reputation (Central Academy of Fine Arts, 2018). The academic committee of CAFA consists of ten members, all of them are affiliated with the academy. Their professional fields related to SDGs can be summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. SDGs professional fields of CAFA academic committee members, made by the authors.

1 Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1

Member 2

Member 3

Member 4

Member 5 ●

Member 6 ● ●

Member 7 ●

Member 8 ●

Member 9

Member 10

It is indicated in the pie chart that most members have contributed in the Quality Education area, which may result from their faculty status. Besides, there are three advisors focus on Goals 3, 10, and 11 respectively according to the Table 1. In general, as an art academy, CAFA tends to engage art-related professionals in their think tank, such as fine art and art history. Extra-curricular pedagogy can be regarded as a supplement toward schooling education, which facilitates the transfer between knowledge and empirical practice. Until now, CAFA possesses 71 education bases out of the campus, they involved 18 provinces and two province-level municipalities (Central Academy of Fine Arts, n.d.). The partnership assembles a cohort of artists, designers, engineers, educators, and politicians, who contribute ideas to the extra-curricular teaching as a think tank by the approach of conducting projects. This can be an advantage compared to comprehensive universities. Yet, these suggestion-providers have not engaged in the advisory committee. To some extent, the diversification and inclusion of this committee have been decreased, then its status quo just like a decision-making body for administrative demands.

463

Hunan University

Figure 2. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in HNU, made by the authors.

As is shown in the pie chart (Figure 2), advisors of HNU are involved in all seventeen areas of SDGs, which basically reflects the inclusive characteristic of a comprehensive university. Among the goals, all of the twelve advisors have focused on Goals 9, 11, and 12, which relate to industrial design and environmental design (Table 2). They are two of the most advanced subjects in the HNU design field and even in the local educational field.

Table 2. SDGs professional fields of HNU academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 4 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 5 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 6 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 7 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 8 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 9 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 10 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 11 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 12 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

The administrative management structure of The HNU School of Design is composed of five parts: party committee, academic committee, teaching committee, monitoring group, and labor union (School of Design, Hunan University, 2017). It is interesting to find that the members of the three parts with most members, academic committee, teaching committee, and monitoring group, belong to the same cohort. Under this situation, works like the administration will be easy to handle, for they share the same ideas. Yet, working on innovation probably decreases due to the lack of diversification in the teams, especially in the field of academic and design practice. Since 2009, HNU design school launched the New Channel project to explore the path of transforming local cultural resources into an industrial value with residents in Hunan, Chongqing, Sichuan, Xinjiang, Qinghai, Inner Mongolia, and Yunnan (Hunan Industrial Design Association, n.d.). This initiative has been supported by their

464

government and enterprises as well. More than ten years’ cultivation enables the project with an increasing influence worldwide. In addition, it will be more diversified if the school involves the local stakeholders in the advisory committee, and customizes a rational term of office against the lean management thinking (Dennis, 2015).

Jiangnan University

Figure 3. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in JNU, made by the authors.

Different from the other schools, the advisory committee of JNU is organized according to the form of a fund council, Jiangnan University Design Education Development Foundation (DEDF), established in 2018 and involving 39 members (School of Design, Jiangnan University, n.d.). The board of DEDF directors is elected from the members of the foundation and serves a term of five years. The board consists of one chairman, several deputy directors, one secretary-general and several deputy secretaries-general. The board is the decision-making body that designs the collection, use, and management of the fund. The members of the board meet once a year. Events that have an important impact on the DEDF must be voted by all directors and approved by more than half of them. Besides, the establishment of the board will build an important platform for peer exchanges. It will not only promote the development of the school’s discipline construction, talent training, and scientific research, but also benefit the corporate brand and reputation.

Table 3. SDGs professional fields of JNU academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ● ●

Member 2 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 4 ● ● ●

Member 5 ● ● ● ●

Member 6 ● ● ● ●

Member 7 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 8 ● ● ●

Member 9 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 10 ● ●

Member 11 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 12 ● ● ● ●

Member 13 ● ●

Member 14 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 15 ● ● ●

Member 16 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 17 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 18 ● ●

465

Member 19 ● ● ●

Member 20 ● ● ●

Member 21 ● ● ●

Member 22 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 23 ● ● ● ●

Member 24 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 25 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 26 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 27 ● ●

Member 28 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 29 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 30 ● ● ●

Member 31 ● ●

Member 32 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 33 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 34 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 35 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 36 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 37 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 38 ● ●

Member 39 ● ● ● ● ● ●

The constitution of the fund council suggests a strong connection between the school and the industry: more than 60 percent of directors are CEOs or chairman of their companies. Apart from school faculties, most directors are committed to medical treatment, business, infrastructure, sustainable life, and responsible manufacturing, according to the statistics. Generally, JNU owns the largest number of advisors among the nine institutions. Additionally, advisors mainly come from Wuxi, Hangzhou, and Shanghai, and belong to design consultancies or manufactures (School of Design, Jiangnan University, n.d.). Since Herman Schneider proposed the cooperative education model in 1906 (Wikipedia, n.d.), the Industry-University-Research (IUR) partnership has been iterated several times: later were added the parties of politics, finance, service, and application until the Shandong government launched the Implementation Opinions of the People's Government of Shandong Province on Building an Innovation and Entrepreneurship Community of Government, Industry, University, Research, Funding, Service, and Application (Shandong Provincial People's Government, 2019). This can be regarded as a tendency during the cooperation between fields, and a growing number of cases have proved that diversification and inclusion relate to the sustainable development of organizations.

466

Macau University of Science and Technology

Figure 4. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in MUST, made by the authors.

As one of the special administrative regions of China, the MUST advisory committee is of reference for the future development of design disciplines in mainland China and the promotion of cross-strait cooperation. Benefiting from the leadership of Mr. Bo LU, the President of Macau Daily, the committee has engaged a number of professionals who come from the media and communication field. In addition, people who belonged to public or private organizations are also committed to this group, like the Dean of Macau Art Academy, the President of Macau Designers Association, the Dean of Chinese Culture International Communication Research Institute, and the President of China Industrial Design Association. Most of them focused on education, business, and infrastructure, this responds to the program settings of MUST (Macau University of Science and Technology, n.d.).

Table 4. SDGs professional fields of MUST academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ● ● ●

Member 2 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 3 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 4 ●

Member 5 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 6 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 7 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 8 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 9 ● ●

Member 10 ● ●

Member 11 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Member 12 ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Benefitting from the geographic and political advantage, Macau has engaged a quantity of innovative and research talents for the design education field from Hongkong, Taiwan, mainland, and foreign. Developed industries of service and entertainment, such as gambling travel, endow Macau with advanced design news. Given this condition, a popular lifestyle can be strong support for the direction of MUST design education, which may provide strategic ideas for the committee.

467

Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Figure 5. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in SJTU, made by the authors.

There is a distinguishment between the SJTU advisory committee and others: the committee is not settled in the design school, but in an independent organization International Center of Innovation and Design (ICID). The ICID of SJTU has established in 2017, which relies on the traditional advantages of the design discipline groups of SJTU and the industrial vitality of the Zero Bay Global Innovation and Entrepreneurship Cluster. The center aims to become a platform of multi-disciplinary cross-integration, in-depth international cooperation, and IUR partnership oriented to the development needs of national creativity and emerging industries (International Center for Innovation and Design, SJTU, n.d.). At the same time, based on the school of design, ICID shared a quantity of design-related professionals, and its advisory committee also serves the school. All of the advisors come from higher educational institutions such as academician Xu Zhilei, who was committed to the Chinese Academy of Engineering. Because of this, 33 percent of advisors are engaged in education. Moreover, most of them have focused on the sustainable life field, which probably results from the SJTU’s quality of natural science and engineering (International Center for Innovation and Design, SJTU, n.d.).

Table 5. SDGs professional fields of SJTU academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ●

Member 2 ●

Member 3 ●

Member 4 ●

Member 5 ●

Member 6

Member 7 ●

Member 8 ●

Member 9 ● ●

Member 10 ●

Member 11 ● ●

Member 12 ● ●

Member 13 ● ●

Member 14 ●

Member 15 ●

Member 16 ●

Member 17

Most of the ICID advisors come from SJTU, others come from universities of Shanghai, Hangzhou, and Wuxi, and two from enterprise and China Academy of Engineering. This construction ensures higher education

468

faculties to suggest their ideas in a formal approach, but will be short of voices from other societal fields like business, industry, and management. SJTU design school has organized a series of seminars, such as Hudec lectures, to involve professionals and scholars to share working experience, which to some degree strengthens the design education in a period as well as other design schools (Youfang, 2020). However, a long-term partnership ought to be considered in order to foster an in-depth intelligence in the field of design education, otherwise the impact of lectures or seminars cannot be sustained, for education needs time to produce its influence.

Shanghai University

Figure 6. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in SHU, made by the authors.

In 2018, the Shanghai Academy of Fine Arts (SAFA) separated from Shanghai University and started its independent enrolment and pedagogy activities since then. The title of SAFA identifies its quality, the advisors of which mainly belonging to fields of fine arts and sculpture. Therefore, there are a few advisors whose areas belonged to the SDGs system, except for city sculpture and environmental design. SAFA owns a large group of advisors, but many of them focus on fine arts. This homogenization of professional fields leads SAFA to a qualification of practical arts.

Table 6. SDGs professional fields of SHU academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ●

Member 2 ●

Member 3 ●

Member 4

Member 5 ●

Member 6 ●

Member 7

Member 8 ●

Member 9

Member 10 ● ● ●

Member 11

Member 12

Member 13

Member 14

Member 15

Member 16 ● ●

Member 17

Member 18 ● ●

Member 19

Member 20 ●

469

Ever since the initiation in 2017, SAFA has been planning the SAFA Forum to act as its academic branding. The forum will continue to invite renowned designers and artists to give lectures and seminars to the younger generation, which is to progress the development of Chinese design and art education (Shangmei Lecture Hall, 2021). Apart from lectures, the forum calls for visiting tours out of campus in order to enrich students’ liberal arts knowledge. It is noted that these tours also welcome students who do not belong to SAFA, which benefits to nurture a larger exchange platform toward design study. In addition, SAFA launched the International Studies in SAFA project since 2020. This project establishes teaching cooperation with art and design colleges and universities from the United Kingdom, the United States, Japan, France, etc., and invites their teachers to introduce the courses, so that students can experience the local culture without going abroad (Study abroad, 2021). The courses adopt an intensive workshop model to be conducted within one month, which is to efficiently iterate the international design and research resources for those who want to study abroad but are limited by the pandemic situation. Thirdly, one of the missions of SAFA Global, the international exchange center of SAFA, is to engage out-of-campus professionals and researchers to supervise doctoral students in arts theory, fine arts, and design field (SAFA Global, 2019). These supervisors who have diversified backgrounds in design and arts come from leading institutions. At the same time, SAFA actively disseminates summer short courses hosted by foreign schools like Royal College of Art and Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, these courses are fee-based services. Based on the projects mentioned above, SAFA has earned a growing reputation within the design education field. These human resources may produce more influence if they are introduced into the advisory committee.

Suzhou University

Figure 7. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in SU, made by the authors.

Advisors in SU account for the least number among the nine institutions, all of them belong to the SU School of Arts. In this respect, it is not as strategic as an advisory committee but an administrative agency. According to the pie chart, most advisors involve education as a result of holding faculty positions.

Table 7. SDGs professional fields of SU academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ●

Member 2

Member 3 ● ● ●

Member 4 ●

Member 5 ●

Member 6 ●

Member 7 ●

Actually, the structure of SU advisory committee represents a common condition in most design and art colleges in China: a group of faculties coming from the same institution regularly discuss and decide the future

470

teaching affairs. They decisively implement the regulations published by the superior departments and seldom do much beyond the rule. Although SU has been approved to build a doctoral project of arts in 2009, there are few exchange partnerships with foreign institutions (School of Art, Soochow University, n.d.). This cuts the diversification of the design education inevitably.

Tongji University

Figure 8. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in TJU, made by the authors.

The Tongji University College of Design and Innovation has established an international strategic advisory committee. The committee is composed of well-known experts in the field of design, such as Don Norman, Ken Friedman, and Naren Barfield. These experts are well-versed in theory and practice, have insights into the frontiers of subject development, academic styles, and industry trends. They have rich design research and education experience. Advisors include the chief professors of the world's top design schools, the editors or editorial committees of renowned design journals, the leaders of major interdisciplinary research projects, the senior consultants in the national innovation strategies, and the design industry giants. The members of the committee are nominated by the dean of The College of Design and Innovation and approved by the academic committee. The committee is responsible for providing strategic consulting for teaching and research, and ensuring that the development strategy of the college is internationally advanced. These advisors adopt a three-year term of office (College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, 2019).

Table 8. SDGs professional fields of TJU academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ●

Member 2 ● ●

Member 3 ●

Member 4 ● ● ●

Member 5 ●

Member 6

Member 7 ● ● ● ●

Member 8 ●

Member 9 ●

Member 10 ●

Member 11 ●

It is worth noting that all of the advisors in TJU are foreigners who have both served in higher educational institutions and other organizations. This condition has facilitated TJU to head for a more international education platform connecting design and strategy. As is shown in the pie chart, Goals 4, 8, and 9 account for the top three items, responding to the educational preference of the college (College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University, 2021).

471

Wuhan University of Technology

Figure 9. Pie chart of the constitution of design advisors in WHUT, made by the authors.

Similar to the above institutions, advisors of WHUT School of Art and Design also come from the home university. However, apart from the HNU and JNU, some advisors focused on gender equality in WHUT (School of Art and Design, Wuhan University of Technology, 2018). Although the number is small, it has attracted people's attention. Inclusion and human factors have always been considered as essential elements during a design process, yet the significance of gender equality has not been notified by a wider group of audience. The respect towards varied genders will lead design to a more inclusive future and play a key role when cultivating humanization.

Table 9. SDGs professional fields of WHUT academic committee members, made by the authors.

Member 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Member 1 ● ● ● ● ●

Member 2 ●

Member 3

Member 4 ● ● ●

Member 5 ●

Member 6 ● ●

Member 7 ●

Member 8

Member 9

Member 10 ●

Member 11 ●

Member 12

Member 13 ● ●

Conclusion Through investigating the selected objectives, the researchers have found the following findings. Afterwards, suggestions towards the variety and the cooperation will be given based on the current situation. Firstly, the scale and the diversity of an advisory committee have a great impact on its organization, and even the scale has a positive effect on the diversity. With the expansion of the board of directors and the diversification of board members, it can obtain key resources, and these resources will inevitably expand the scope of the company's activities and bring new strategic information (Zhou, 2008). Taking JNU and HNU as examples, the two universities can be regarded as the earliest institutions establishing modern design programs in China. The professional background and the vision drive them to engage a diversified think tank in order to keep advanced. In terms of inclusion, students, as the main body of design education, should have the privilege of expressing their opinions and suggestions in the advisory committee. For example, a group of

472

students (involving undergraduates and graduates) participate in the events decision-making process with alternative members. This will drive students to experience the democracy of design and enable them to be responsible toward the real world and sustainability. On the other hand, there are more than two thousand higher educational institutions that have settled the design disciplines in China. Nevertheless, most of them do not have an advisory committee yet, and their teaching faculties have similar educational backgrounds. Also, the regulations of these committees are uniformly distributed by the Ministry of Education, this makes them similar at the political and administrative levels. Nevertheless, the unified guidance has inevitably limited the activeness of conducting an educational exchange, such as engaging a diversified teaching and academic group. Although this condition might lead to a highly school-level working efficiency, it cannot be sustainable for design research and pedagogy in the future. It can be believed that heterogeneity will bring up prosperity, but homogeneity may not. This has already been confirmed by the tendency of inter-discipline, national integration, and globalization.

Figure 10. Pie chart of the constitution of the nine advisory committees.

In detail, the above statistics suggest that more than 80 percent of advisors are involved in Goals 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12. Commonly, these goals are highly relevant to the traditional design subjects all over the world, and they tackle problems by means of industrial design, environmental design, design management, and urban planning. However, with an awakening consideration of stakeholders and the growing necessity of sustainability, an increasing requirement has linked with design fields from other societal issues, such as food supply, sufficient educational resources, equal rights, clean energy, a healthy environment, and a fair society. Design has been gradually expected to satisfy an extended spectrum of worldwide concerns. Therefore, we may start to think it over by establishing a varied and expanded advisory group in a design school, which probably improves the condition by cultivating far-sighted leaders. The rapid urbanization of modern China provides numerous opportunities for design research and practice. An increasing tendency of building connections is emerging between the fields. But a quantity of disposable deals ignores the value of sustainable coordination, bringing the risk of losing the occasion of cultivating a vital career. For example, many faculties in design schools usually have business cooperations with out-of-campus enterprises, and they engage students in the projects as interns. Nevertheless, this kind of employment relationship sometimes can be fragile as students are short of stable schedules and income. It is recommended that the IUR system be iterated to be an integrated one with a quality assurance system, which involves the aspects of government, industry, university, research, finance, service, and application. In fact, the latter indicates a more integrated situation networking the diversification to face the complex societal context. Besides, the advisory committee can be seen as an ideal experimental platform to activate this transform.

References Central Academy of Fine Arts. (2018, December 4). Introduction to Academic Committee.

https://www.cafa.edu.cn/st/2018/40119520.htm Central Academy of Fine Arts. (n.d.). Education and teaching. https://www.cafa.edu.cn/sp/2018oldjyjd/ College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University. (2019, November 12). College International Strategic

Advisory Committee. https://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn/about.do?ID=120&lang= College of Design and Innovation, Tongji University. (2021, March 4). Development Overview.

https://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn/about.do?ID=56&lang= Dennis, P. (2015). Lean Production Simplified: A Plain-Language Guide to the World's Most Powerful Production

473

System. Productivity Press. Hunan Industrial Design Association. (n.d.). New Channel. http://www.newchanneldesign.com/tongdao/ International Center for Innovation and Design, SJTU. (n.d.). About Us.

https://design.sjtu.edu.cn/index.php/About/aboutas International Center for Innovation and Design, SJTU. (n.d.). Academic Committee Charter.

https://design.sjtu.edu.cn/index.php/About/xxjs.html Long, J.; Vogelaar, A.; Hale, B. W. (2014). Toward Sustainable Educational Travel. Journal of Sustainable

Tourism, (22), 421–439. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2013.819877 Macau University of Science and Technology. (n.d.). List of members of the Advisory Committee of the School of

Humanities and Arts. https://www.must.edu.mo/fa/about/advisory Pearce, J.A., II and Zahra, S.A. (1991). The relative power of ceos and boards of directors: Associations with

corporate performance. Strat. Mgmt. J., 12(2), 135-153. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120205 SAFA Global. (2019, June 29). Waiting for you to tell us your story.

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/gmBMe98zYUoAH1wM8egL5w School of Art and Design, Wuhan University of Technology. (2018, October 22). Academic organization.

http://a-d.whut.edu.cn/gy/xsjg/ School of Art, Soochow University. (n.d.). Doctorate site. http://ysxy.suda.edu.cn/3226/list.htm School of Design, Hunan University. (2017, October 11). Organization.

http://design.hnu.edu.cn/info/1066/3924.htm School of Design, Jiangnan University. (n.d.). Constitution of Jiangnan University Design Education

Development Foundation. http://sodcn.jiangnan.edu.cn/info/1141/4464.htm School of Design, Jiangnan University. (n.d.). The list of composition of the Design Education Fund Council of the

School of Design, Jiangnan University. http://sodcn.jiangnan.edu.cn/info/1141/4462.htm Shandong Provincial People's Government. (2019, March 21). Implementation Opinions on Building an

Innovation and Entrepreneurship Community of "Government, Industry, University, Research, Financial Services and Use". http://www.shandong.gov.cn/art/2019/3/21/art_2267_31149.html

Shangmei Lecture Hall. (2021, May 24). 0521 Shang Hui Lecture Review: The Image Construction of Epic - The Creation of Historical Paintings in the History of the Party in the Past Century. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/7Hfsny6Hdd7NmZw2-X7iRA

Study abroad. (2021, May 25). INTERNATIONAL STUDIES IN SAFA: Preview of 2021 Local Study Abroad Courses. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/BZTPZ7K4RyjHxGPrBf8Pjg

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. (n.d.). THE 17 GOALS. https://sdgs.un.org/goals Wikipedia. (n.d.). Herman Schneider. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Schneider#References

Xiao, Y.X. (2015). 中国“可持续设计教育”的再思考 [Rethinking China's "Sustainable Design Education"]. Art

Education, (03),28-31. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:YSJY.0.2015-03-013 Xie, F. (2015). Study on European Sustainable Design Educational Modes in Europe and their Implications for

China. University Education Science, (01), 54-58. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:JXGJ.0.2015-01-010

Xiong, T.T. (2015). 中美高校艺术设计专业“可持续设计教育”现状的比较研究 [A Comparative Study of the

Status Quo of "Sustainable Design Education" in Art Design Majors in Chinese and American Universities]. Designs, (08), 104-107. https://doi.org/10.16129/j.cnki.mysds.2015.08.035

Youfang. (2020, October 23). Ruan Xin, Dean of the School of Design, Shanghai Jiaotong University: What is the "world-class" standard? School of Design, Shanghai Jiaotong University. https://designschool.sjtu.edu.cn/4a9f60211c74f45b7759ae08d3ee4d71/1596af94a80d838a21302d7ce9cb5925/cad7b924520779caf1e3a4ce9aefe997/detail/5f967aeaa4f2592c6e43282a

Zhang, H., & Gibson, H. J. (2021). Long-Term Impact of Study Abroad on Sustainability-Related Attitudes and Behaviors. Sustainability, 13(4), 1953. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13041953

Zhou, H.M. (2020). The Education of Sustainable Design based on the Environmental Ethics. Design, 33(11),105-107. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:SJTY.0.2020-11-037

Zhou, J., Liu, X.Y., Qin, Y.L., & Cao, S.C. (2008). Study on the Relationship between Strategic Committee of the Board and Firm Performance. Journal of Shanxi University of Finance and Economics, (08), 62-69. https://doi.org/CNKI:SUN:SXCJ.0.2008-08-012.

474

Fan Chen Tongji University, China chenfantj@foxmail.com Fan CHEN is a PhD candidate in Tongji University. His PhD research focuses on the doctoral education system under Chinese context. He has published several academic papers on design education and design practice on Cumulus, IASDR, DRS. Lin Li Tongji University, China 941350914@qq.com Lin LI is a master student in Tongji University. Her main research direction is Environment and Habitat, and she integrates sustainable interdisciplinary thinking into the research of localization in this study area, also she focuses on environmental design education. Jing-Yi Yang Tongji University, China 471787469@qq.com Jing-Yi YANG mainly focuses on the research of sustainable design, educational architecture design and design strategy and management. And she has published two papers related to the research of architecture in Tibetan areas of Sichuan.

Section 05 Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Track 05: Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations

Arild Berg, Camilla Groth, Fausto Medola and Kate Sellen https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.00.312

In the ‘Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations’ track we welcomed contributions that discuss challenges and potentials experienced by researchers engaging in interdisciplinary research involving design and other domains. We discuss these issues in relation to both practice and related research but foremost in education and collaborative curricula development. Collaboration and cross disciplinary creativity are essential 21st century skills and students need to be exposed to these aspects early, however, curricula development always need to be a step ahead. To enable swift and purposeful educational development to facilitate these changes collaborative efforts are needed between disciplines especially in the educational sector. Professionals from several domains thus need to educate each other and form a common language to be able to reach over the disciplinary borders (Groth, Pevere, Niinimäki, & Kääriäinen, 2020). While such co-creation efforts may have significant positive consequences if successful, it is generally acknowledged that collaborations over disciplinary borders is challenging due to differences in epistemology and worldviews (Nimkulrat, Groth, Valle-Noronha & Tomico, 2020). We are interested in analyzing the challenges and possible solutions found in co-creation processes between different domains involving design as one partner and to investigate the consequent need in interdisciplinary education based on these. Co-creation and co-design are essential in future perspectives of sustainable research and innovation strategies (High Level Group, 2017) thus there are not only local benefits in such collaboration. As problems are global and intertwined, they also need to be approached with a global aim. This includes a variety of collaborative processes and citizens involvement where questions arise about who to involve and how, whether we are on the right track, and how new practical and theoretical insights can influence societal development also on a political and decision-making level. Design education and design practise traditions hold many methods for participation through creative practice that constitute a toolbox of participation methods emerging from health (Sellen, 2016), technology (Medola, Sandnes, Ferrari, & Rodrigues, 2018; Pavel, Medola, Berg, & Brevik, 2020) and the arts (Niinimäki, Kääriäinen & Groth, 2018). Additionally, there is a need to discuss how to decolonize knowledge in design education for better collaboration and communication on a global scale. The topics that are presented in this track thus mainly concern interdisciplinary education and related collaborative efforts between disciplines to facilitate the design and implementation of learning experiences. Many of them discuss opportunities and challenges in interdisciplinary collaborations and the strategies for navigating through these. Several contributions also offer methods for co-creation and educational designs for learning in interdisciplinary environments and contexts Stefano Perna and Pietro Nunziante discuss the field of Learning Design in general, giving a concise overview of an emerging field that approaches curricula development through the lens of design. They present a specific type of participatory workshop designed to facilitate the process of co-designing learning experiences by interdisciplinary teams of academics and educators. Jia Ying Chew points to the challenge in aligning varying epistemic frameworks in interdisciplinary education and discusses a case study of an interdisciplinary graduate programme that was experiencing curriculum (mis)alignment. The paper illustrates how co-design can be adopted in curriculum development processes to overcome existing operational challenges of interdisciplinary teaching. Santiago De Francisco Vela, Laura Guzman-Abello and Santiago Pardo Rodríguez take on the opportunities and challenges of developing interdisciplinary courses with courts, judges, and administrative organizations to improve access to justice in Colombia, presenting nine projects developed by students, explaining their

477

approach and their proposed solution. Melis Örnekoğlu-Selçuk, Marina Emmanouil and Jan Detand gained insights into students’ experiences and problems when taking part in a multidisciplinary co-creation process between students from different study disciplines, levels and countries who worked together in groups to tackle societal challenges. By analyzing student’s self- and peer-assessment reports they found that soft skills were highlighted as fundamental skills while working with their interdisciplinary peers. Asja Aulisio, Amina Pereno, Fabiana Rovera and Silvia Barbero discuss systemic design education in interdisciplinary environments through the European Erasmus+ project MULTITRACES that is based on the co-creation of a multidisciplinary online training programme. The learning process focused on the acquisition of both hard and soft skills relevant to the Circular Economy in the rural area. The experience allows for a reflection on how to teach design to students from different backgrounds, how design skills can foster a co-disciplinary approach to complex issues, such as the Circular Economy, and how digital tools can support design education. Laura Ferrarello and Catherine Dormor tackle the challenge of different mindsets that interdisciplinary collaboration naturally brings with it. Their paper presents an example of interdisciplinary collaboration aimed at growing mindsets capable of dialoguing with other disciplines through boundary learning. They specifically focus upon the role of conversation as a learning method that harnesses different kinds of knowledge at the boundaries of their discipline and thus facilitates interdisciplinary integration. Bilge Merve Aktaş and Camilla Groth acknowledge that interdisciplinary collaboration requires adjusting to new situations and rapidly changing knowledge systems. Such situations are intrinsic to design practice, and design and making practices lend themselves well to developing such skills. By examining an interdisciplinary group of students’ creative processes, they found that navigating unknown situations with the explorative and adaptive mind-set that emerges through creative practices nourish transferrable skills that are useful in interdisciplinary interactions and communication. Anne Solberg and Ellen Baskår discuss their creative practices during the co-creation of an art exhibition as artist-researchers working with diametrically different materials. The experienced co-creation and collaboration process was a vital force throughout the project, enhancing awareness of the other and learning from each other. The approach forced the artists to give the other and the public access to personal artistic strife and struggle, thus enhancing the transparency that is crucial for a learning process. Han Shi, Feng Xue, Jing Pei, Yijing Li, Zhihang Song, Chunli Ma and Shangshang Yang combine design education with STEAM education in their new educational approach and present it from three aspects: teachers' activities, teaching links and students' activities. The paper further discusses these teaching methods and the future development of design education. Kate Sellen, Nav Persaud, Stuart Werle, Mariam Al Bess, Nick Goso, Ruslan Hetu and Habiba Soliman discusses the insights gained from a co-created experiential learning opportunity that was realized through an interdisciplinary project-based learning opportunity offered to an undergraduate advertising and packaging studio class in the context of health design. The paper includes reflections on the adjustments done due to the Covid 19 pandemic. Finally, Stefano Perna and Moritz Philip Recke offer a collaborative workshop in which they introduce a Learning Objective Design Board as a practical tool to make the process of defining Learning Objectives and Assessment Strategies for any type of educational experience easier, more creative, collaborative and even playful. In short, the themes may be listed as follows:

• Opportunities and challenges in interdisciplinary collaborations

• Collaborative curricula development for transdisciplinary education

• Learning Design as a field

• Systemic design education in interdisciplinary environments

• Decolonizing knowledge through co-creation for interdisciplinary design education

• Learning through dialogues between disciplines

• Creative practice as enabler in interdisciplinary education

• Learning through interdisciplinary artistic collaboration

• STEAM integrated design education

• Co-created experiential learning in design practice

• Methods for co-designing learning experiences

478

References Groth, C., Pevere, M., Niinimäki, K., & Kääriäinen, P. (2020). Conditions for experiential knowledge exchange in

collaborative research across the sciences and creative practice. CoDesign, 16(4), 328–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2020.1821713

High Level Group (2017). LAB – FAB – APP. Investing in the European future we want. Report of the independent High Level Group on maximising the impact of EU Research & Innovation Programmes. Brussels: European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/research/evaluations/pdf/archive/other_reports_studies_and_documents/hlg_2017_report.pdf

Medola, F. O., Sandnes, F. E., Ferrari, A. L. M., & Rodrigues, A. C. T. (2018). Strategies for Developing Students’ Empathy and Awareness for the Needs of People with Disabilities: Contributions to Design Education. Stud Health Technol Inform. 256, 137–147. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30371468/

Niinimäki, K., Kääriäinen, P. & Groth, C. (2018). NEW SILK: Studying experimental touchpoints between material science, synthetic biology, design and art. Temes de Disseny Journal, 34.

Nimkulrat, N. Groth, C., Valle-Noronha J. & Tomico, O. (2020). Editorial: Knowing together – experiential knowledge and collaboration. Co-Design: Special issue: Experiential knowledge and collaboration, 16 (4). 267-273.

Pavel, N., Medola, F. O., Berg, A., & Brevik, B. (2020). Multistable Technologies and Pedagogy for Resilience: A Postphenomenological Case Study of Learning by 3D printing. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 25(1), 1-14. https://ojs.lboro.ac.uk/DATE/article/view/2712

Sellen, K. (2016). Understanding the Dynamics and Temporal Aspects of Work for Human Centered Design. In S. Yamamoto (Ed.), Human Interface and the Management of Information: Information, Design and Interaction. HIMI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9734 (pp. 454-461). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-40349-6_43

Arild Berg OsloMet - Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway arildber@oslomet.no Arild Berg is Professor of Artistic Research in the field design, applied art and art. His expertise is in product design, architectural ceramics, methods for participation and communication through the aesthetics of materiality Fausto Medola Sao Paulo State University, Brazil fausto.medola@unesp.br Fausto Medolas is associate professor and his main research interests are: Assistive Technologies, Product Design, Ergonomics and Rehabilitation Engineering. Kate Sellen OCAD University, Canada ksellen@faculty.ocadu.ca Associate Professor of Design and Canada Research Chair in Health Design Camilla Groth University of South East Norway, Norway Camilla.Groth@usn.no Camilla Groth is an associate professor in Arts, Design and Crafts. She is leading the Embodied Making and Learning Research group (EMAL) and her main research interests are experiential knowledge, materiality and interdisciplinary research in the creative fields.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Learning Design, Co-Designing Learning Collaborative Learning Design Workshops for Innovation in Teaching/Learning.

Stefano Perna and Pietro Nunziante https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.01.211

The paper explores the field of Collaborative Learning Design Workshops, a specific type of participatory workshop designed to facilitate the process of co-designing learning experiences by interdisciplinary teams of academics and educators from all backgrounds. An overview of the field of Learning Design or “Design for Learning” is presented. A specific case study is then presented, The Learning Experience Design workshop a co-design workshop designed and run by the authors as part of the F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. faculty development program for innovation in teaching and learning targeted to newly hired lecturers and researchers at the University of Naples Federico II, Italy. The workshop is aimed at promoting a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach for the innovation in teaching practices, with a special focus on blended and remote learning scenarios. In doing so the workshop introduce collaborative design and co-creation practices among academics from very different backgrounds. The workshop presented is an adaptation of a well-established model, the ABC Learning Design Workshop developed at the UCL, and has been adjusted and partially re-designed by the authors to fit the specific context of the project and the remote online collaboration scenario imposed by the Coronavirus emergency. Details on the implementation of the workshop and discussion are finally presented.

Keywords: Learning Design, Learning Experiences, Co-creation, Collaborative Design, Interdisciplinary Workshop

Introduction Recent developments in Learning Sciences have seen a growing number of scholars advocating for a “Design Turn” in educators practices. An influential book by one leading scholar in the field, Diana Laurillard, is programmatically titled Teaching as a Design Science (2012). Scholars in this field are looking into the tradition of design research and design thinking to borrow models, methods and processes that would allow to better and more intentionally design learning experiences. Learning experiences are proposed as “processes” that can (and should) be designed, and teachers and educators of all disciplines are invited to become “designers” themselves. An entire new field of collaboration and co-creation between design disciplines, learning science and everyone involved in education is emerging. Starting from the experience of F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. (Formation Experiences Didactics Competences Evaluation Organization Reflexivity Innovation), a project aimed at activating a process of teaching/learning innovation through a path of professional development of newly hired lecturers and researchers (RTD-B in the Italian academic system) at the University of Naples Federico II (Striano et al. 2020), the authors present a specific opportunity for cross-pollination between Design and Learning Sciences represented by the Learning Experience Design Workshop that the authors developed in the context of the F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. project. Starting from an overview of the emerging field of Learning Design, and then focusing on previous experiments that have been conducted at the intersection of Learning Sciences and Design, the Learning Experience Design Workshop is then described in detail. The workshop is an adaptation of one of the most established models, the ABC Learning Design Workshop (Young & Perović 2020) developed at the UCL and progressively spread across many universities in Europe and worldwide, and it has been adjusted and partially re-designed by the

480

authors to fit the specific context of the F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. project and the remote online collaboration scenario imposed by the Coronavirus emergency.

Learning Design, Design for learning Learning Design has evolved as a discipline in the last decade, with the goal of assisting educators of all types in making better and more intentional decisions when it comes to developing pedagogically relevant learning interventions or activities that make efficient use of recent developments in learning theory and emerging educational technologies (Conole 2013). In this context the term Learning Design is therefore not related to the theories, processes, methods aimed at educating designers, rather to the contribution that design theories, processes and methods can provide to the process of designing educational experiences for learners in all fields. Diana Laurillard, in Teaching as a Design Science (2012), gives voice to the growing recognition in the field of education scholars and practitioners that the role of educators is “not to transmit knowledge to a passive recipient, but to structure the learner’s engagement with the knowledge, practising the high-level cognitive skills that enable them to make that knowledge their own” (2012). Laurillard and other scholars in the same tradition position educational practices as acts of design. (Laurillard 2012, Maina et al. 2015, Hokanson et al. 2015). The framing of educational practices as design practices is substantiated by explicit references to seminal design authors such as Simon (1988, 1996), Schön (1983, 1987), Cross (1982, 2001) and others, that are often cited as main sources of inspiration when it comes to define this emerging cross-disciplinary field. The definition of Learning Design as “a goal-directed, problem solving activity that results in the creation of something useful that did not exist before” (Ertmer, Parisio, & Wardak, 2013) or as “the creative and deliberate act of devising new practices, plans of activity, resources and tools aimed at achieving particular educational aims in a given context” (Mor et al. 2015), echoes Herbert Simon’s classic statement: “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones” (Simon 1996). Drawing both on Simon and Schön, Holmberg (2014) sees educators as designers who devise new methods and artefacts to solve problems. In particular Holmberg builds on Schön pragmatist-construtivist view, recognising that education is full of an uncertain, ambiguous, ever-changing, ill-defined and complex “problems” (Mor et al. 2015). Design learning theorists and practitioners find resonance in Schön works when he writes that "from the perspective of designing as learning and learning as designing, the teaching/learning process could be seen, at its best, as a collaborative, communicative process of design and discovery” (Schön 1992). A key principle of learning design is to help making the design process more explicit and shareable. Learning design as an area of research and development includes both gathering empirical evidence to understand the design process, as well as the development of a range of learning design resources, tools and activities (Mor et al. 2015). Conole (2013) defines learning design as a "methodology for enabling teachers/designers to make more informed decisions in how they go about designing learning activities and interventions, which is pedagogically informed and makes effective use of appropriate resources and technologies. This includes the design of resources and individual learning activities right up to curriculum-level design” (Conole 2013). For the process of planning learning programs, educators and learning design professionals use a variety of techniques and practical methodologies. Various types of representation and tools are used, both as a scaffolding method to guide educators/designers through the design process and as the result of the process itself (Pozzi, Persico & Earp, 2015). The product of a learning design process is a design artefact that externalizes the educator/designer thinking process and serves as a record of the designer's thinking/planning process as well as an artefact that can be theoretically reused by designers for future implementations or by other educators. (Pozzi, Persico & Earp, 2015).

Collaborative Learning Design Workshops A learning design process can be enacted at different levels of granularity – from a whole course down to an individual learning activity. For this process, Beetham and Sharpe prefer the term “designing for learning”, as “the process by which teachers – and others involved in the support of learning – arrive at a plan or structure or design for a learning situation" (Beetham & Sharpe, 2007). Scholars and practitioners in the field developed several methods and functional workflows for designing learning experiences. In the context of the work presented here, "Learning design workshops” are particularly relevant. These workshops combine pedagogical concepts with techniques and approaches drawn from design disciplines such as user-experience design, service design, design thinking, and interaction design, with the aim

481

of enhancing educators' approach to learning design. What follows is a brief overview of the most relevant workshops documented in recent literature. The so-called Carpe Diem workshop, which is a collaborative learning design workshop with a particular emphasis on developing learning environments with a strong focus on rapid prototyping and which is grounded on well-established pedagogical research, is one of the most developed and commonly used methods (Salmon 2014). Many of the common techniques and methods used in the original Carpe Diem are borrowed from design areas such as design thinking, service design, and interaction design (Armellini & Jones 2008; Usher et al. 2018). The Carpe Diem workshop involves participants, who are typically faculty members from the same department, in a hands-on design cycle that facilitates dialogue, decision-making, and rapid prototyping in order to create a course, module, or activities. Carpe Diem evolved into CAIeRO (Creating Aligned Interactive Educational Resource Opportunities) workshops, designed to help educators and teachers create meaningful, interactive learning activities, with an emphasis on e-learning and blended learning. (Usher 2014, Usher et al. 2018). CAIeRO workshops aim at enabling academics and teachers to design effective, engaging learning activities. CAIeRO's assets and outputs include course/activity blueprints and storyboards, as well as a range of tried and effective e-tivities (Salmon 2013). Both Carpe Diem and CAIeRO are intense, time-consuming and immersive workshops that necessitate a significant amount of time and effort, presenting non-trivial logistical challenges in contemporary academic settings. As a way to overcome these limits, other models aimed at a more synthetic, fast, and lightweight approach to learning design sessions have emerged in recent years. The Viewpoints workshop (Nicol 2012) is one of the first learning design workshops to try a rapid prototyping approach, similar to what occurs in a design sprint workshop setting, with broad ‘canvases’, sticky notes, markers, and custom-built deck of cards that could be picked, sequenced, and annotated on the canvas and storyboards. The project, according to Nicol, has been found to be especially successful in promoting teamwork and innovation, helping participants in designing or redesigning courses while redirecting the focus on learning rather than teaching, following a learner-centred approach (Nicol 2012). One of the most established and widespread workshops is the ABC Learning Design method proposed by Young and Perovic (2016), which is an iteration of Viewpoints’s principles and is conceived as a time-effective hands-on rapid-development workshop for faculties and academics. The ABC method utilises a slightly different set of tools, canvases and cards compared to Viewpoints and is grounded on a different theoretical background, namely Diana Laurillard’s (2012) conversational framework with its notion of the six “learning types”. In the ABC methodology, the six learning types, that are connected to a number of possible teaching/learning activities, are rendered in the form of a card deck. The deck is then combined with a custom designed canvas and a storyboard template, that allow workshop participants to collaborate in a highly visual and tangible fashion (Young & Perovic 2020). The ABC workshop gained a lot of traction in recent years across several universities in Europe and worldwide (Hasenknopf et al. 2019).

The Learning Experience Design Workshop F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. (Formation Experiences Didactics Competences Evaluation Organization Reflexivity Innovation) is a project aimed at activating a process of teaching/learning innovation specifically targeted at newly hired lecturers and researchers (RTD-B in the Italian academic system) at the University of Naples Federico II, Italy. The project is aimed at promoting opportunities to develop reflections on teaching and learning practices that could be leveraged for developing models and strategies functional to an effective organizational change (Striano et al. 2020). In this context the authors designed a workshop aimed at promoting a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach for the innovation in teaching practices, with a special focus on blended and remote learning scenarios. The workshop was also an opportunity to introduce to a wider audience some of principles and approaches of Learning Design described in the previous sections. A group of lecturers and researchers from a wide range of disciplines were invited to remotely partecipate to a collaborative design session that had the objective to produce concepts and outlines for brand new courses, seminars or workshops with a strong emphasis on interdisciplinary encounters, active learning approaches and innovative use of instructional technologies. The workshop was held 5 times between June and October 2020, involving around 100 lecturers and researchers from a wide range of disciplines, including Physics, Engineering, Arts and Humanities, Philosophy, Life Sciences and Social Sciences. The workshop was in large part based on the ABC Learning Design workshop (Young and Perovic 2020) and it was partially redesigned both in the contents and in the structure to better fit the specific scenario of a completely remote realtime collaboration experience.

482

The original ABC workshop is designed as face-to-face, fast-paced activity, to be run in short sprints of 90 minutes in a typical design-studio setting, on wide tables with participants around collaborating through the use of large, printed storyboards, card decks, sticky notes and other tools that support an highly visual and material collaborative design process (Young and Perovic 2016). From a theoretical perspective the ABC workshop is grounded on Diana Laurillard’s conversational framework (2012). The framework identifies six learning types (acquisition, inquiry, practice, production, discussion and collaboration) that in the context of the workshop are rendered as a set of coloured printable cards, each representing a type of learning. Participants to the workshops are invited to divide in teams and to manipulate and combine the cards over the storyboard (which represents the time dimension of the learning unit that is being designed) with the aim of collaboratively crafting the outline of an actual instructional activity, which ideally would blend different typologies of learning and technologies. The redesigned Learning Experience Design workshop for the University of Naples program took into account the radically different setting and temporality of online collaboration and has been repurposed as a 6 hours workshop divided into 3 chunks of about 2 hours each (breaks included). The materials for the workshop (cards, canvases, storyboards, etc..) have been redesigned and adapted for a realtime collaboration platform named Whimsical (whimsical.com) that allows multiple participants to interact simultaneously over the same whiteboard, manipulating virtual “cards” and arranging them over an ad-hoc designed storyboard. The redesigned workshop is structured as follows. A short introductory speech is provided to give some broad context to the activity, clarifying the theoretical background and detailing the goals of the workshop, the expected outcomes as well as the detailed agenda of activities and exercises. The main prompt given to workshop participants is to design the outline and draft a storyboard of a tangible learning experience that could later be eventually implemented and delivered to actual students. Interdisciplinary interactions, blended scenarios and multiple teaching/learning approaches were encouraged. On these general premises the workshop is then divided in 3 chunks, each characterised by different exercises and objectives.

Part 1: Co-creation of the “learning/teaching methods palette” The first part of the workshop provides participants the opportunity to familiarise both with the concepts and the terminology of Laurillard’s 6 learning types and with the remote collaboration environment provided by the Whimsical tool. Divided into break-out rooms through a videoconferencing software, interdisciplinary teams of 3-5 lecturers and researchers are provided with a set of guiding resources and a first collaborative canvas. The prompt given for this first exercise is to build the team’s own collection or “palette” of teaching/learning activities, represented as small coloured cards and categorised according to the six different typologies provided by Laurillard’s framework. Few examples are provided as starters, then the teams are prompted to continue on their own populating their collection of “learning/teaching cards” drawing on their own experience as teachers and educators, discussing and sharing ideas form their different perspective and disciplinary background (fig. 1). This section of the workshop and the corresponding canvas are not part of the original ABC method and were designed by the authors for two main reasons: the first was getting participants comfortable with an educational framework that is new for the most part of them through an hands-on and active inquiry approach; the second reason was to engage participants in the co-creation of an initial collection of learning/teaching methods, that would already represents a valuable interdisciplinary outcome in the form of a repository of educational approaches. This repository also allowed participants to expand and customize the original collection of “building blocks” - the learning activity cards - that would be used in the following part of the workshop.

483

Figure 1: First Canvas. Collaborative creation of a collection of learning/teaching activities according to Laurillard’s (2012) Framework

Part 2: Designing the learning experience outline The second part of the workshop challenges the team to outline a broad overview of the course/program/module they’re going to design. The group is asked to come up with a title, a tagline (a synthetic sentence that could “advertise” the course), main learning objectives (written in student-centric sentences such as: “by the end of the course students will be able to…”), learning evidences/artifacts expected to be produced by the end of the course. Then the team is asked to visually represent - with the help of an interactive spider-chart and a scale - the balance between the different learning types and the mix between online and face-to-face learning they would like to put into their designed module. To support the discussion and the co-creation of the outline another interactive canvas is provided to the team (fig. 2). The canvas is an extension of the original ABC workshop printable templates and its Italian translation by Milani and Pinelli from University of Milan (https://abc-ld.org/download-abc/translations/). Compared to the original one, the reworked version offers more space to participants to think about their proposed activities in terms of learning objectives (adding the “learning objective” box) and tangible outcomes (adding the “evidences of learning” box) that learners might produce and that teachers might be assess. In doing so the authors borrowed elements from other frameworks such as Backward Design (Wiggins & McTighe 2008) and Constructive Alignment (Biggs 2011) that are not part of the original ABC model by Perovich and Young. In addition to these elements, the interactive version redesigned for the Whimsical platform allows team members to collaboratively manipulate the graphs, add cards and textual details. The main objective of this phase of the workshop is to facilitate a high level discussion and the sharing of perspectives about the course being designed between participant that may have very different scientific backgrounds and views/approaches to teaching. There might be educators mainly used to traditional frontal lectures (“acquisition” in Laurillard’s terms) and others more oriented towards active-learning or project-based approaches (“production” and “inquiry” in Laurillard’s framework). By the end of the second part the team reaches a pretty defined high-level vision on the type of learning experience they want to develop, both in terms of contents and objectives, learning/teaching approaches and mix of remote/in presence experience.

484

Figure 2: Second Canvas. Collaborative Learning Experience Outline Design. Re-worked starting from the original canvas of the ABC Learning Design by Young and Perovic (2016)

Part 3: Collaborative storyboarding The third and last part of the workshop asks the participants to actually develop on a time-axis the educational experience they outlined in the previous steps, providing a more granular detail in terms of specific activities, approaches, mix of technologies and tools and how they will be deployed in time. Teams are asked to use the palette of teaching/learning cards created/collected during the first part of the workshop and to position the cards on a storyboard. The storyboard is built on Whimsical and can be easily adjusted by the participants and dynamically customised according to the intended duration of the experience they’re designing: rows and columns can either represent hours, days or weeks depending the scope of the project. Compared to the original storyboard from the ABC workshop, here the individual cells are divided in two small subsections (online and face-to-face) that help the designers better specify if the intended activity is going to be performed online or in presence (fig. 3). The learning/teaching cards created in the first part, or new ones created just in time, can be dragged and dropped over the storyboard and moved around while a discussion unfolds about different options and perspectives on how the experience should be shaped in time. Another addition to the original ABC model are some specific cards related to assessment strategies. Formative and summative assessment (Nicol&Macfarlane-Dick 2006) cards are added to the collection of draggable cards and can be used by participants to specify what assessment strategy they envision, and when/how assessment might be done. The main objective of the third and last part of the workshop is to support the team to reach a tangible outcome. The way the canvas is structured put some emphasis on the blending process, nudging participants to collaborate towards a more articulated and innovative approach to teaching and use of technologies. By the end of this section participants produce an actual prototype of a brand-new interdisciplinary learning experience that could be turned into a refined proposal and presented to university stakeholders and eventually implemented.

Discussion The introduced Learning Experience Design Workshop combine concepts and methods derived from design thinking and design education on one side and established learning science and instructional design methodologies on the other, to support the faculty development program F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. at the University of Naples Federico II, specifically targeted to newly or recently hired lecturers and researchers from all disciplines and backgrounds. The aim of the workshop is leveraging design thinking and design methods to promote

485

action and reflection on innovative practices in teaching/learning, with a special focus on blended and remote learning scenarios.

Figure 3: Storyboard. Collaborative design of the scope and sequence of learning activities and assessment approaches. Re-worked starting from the original canvas of the ABC Learning Design by Young and Perovic (2016)

Since the audience of the workshop is composed by lecturers and researcher coming from non-design backgrounds, it serves also as a first and practical approach to collaborative design methodologies and workflows, in line with Laurillard’s (2012) “call to action” for everyone that will be involved into education to “become designers” and adopt a “designerly” approach to learning and teaching. Recent literature on learning activities theory and established methodologies in design for learning activities was reviewed. The Learning Experience Design Workshop connects findings on learning activity design and previous works on workshop design, drawing on established methods in the learning design field (Young & Perović, 2016; Hasenknopf et al. 2019, Young & Perović, 2020) and introducing elements of novelty. The main reference is the ABC Learning Design workshop (Young & Perović, 2016) which is repurposed and adapted introducing some elements of novelty both in the content/structure of the workshop and in the way it’s conducted, especially taking in consideration the remote collaboration scenario achieved through the use of the realtime collaborative online whiteboard Whimsical. The workshop was held 5 times between June and October 2020, involving around 100 lecturers and researchers coming from a wide range of disciplines, including Physics, Engineering, Arts and Humanities, Life Sciences and Social Sciences. The workshop was promoting the creation of cross-disciplinary teams with the aim of activating collaborative thinking and practices that would transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries both looking at established teaching approaches and themes and topics for the courses to be ideated. The role of the authors was to act both as co-designers along with the teams and as facilitators of the process, considering that the majority of the participants were coming from backgrounds that traditionally don’t promote participatory design and collaborative ideation/creation practices. While an extensive and in-depth analysis of the results and evaluation of the impact of the workshop is still ongoing, preliminary observations collected during and right after the workshops indicate a positive impact in making the faculty members involved in designing learning experiences feel more collaborative, creative and productive. In a relatively short amount of time, small teams of people who had never met or worked together before, were able to rapidly immerse in a collaborative design flow, engaging in discussion and knowledge-sharing, and to deliver a tangible and valuable outcome at the end. While a more structured and methodologically sound process of feedback collection and analysis of the results is still ongoing, a quick and “informal” collection of feedbacks operated through the realtime conference interaction tool Mentimeter allowed the authors to capture quick impressions and reaction from the participants. Most of the participants considered the workshop an engaging experience under several aspects. First of all, the co-creation process of a learning experience in a multidisciplinary setting was perceived as a value per se, in a context that doesn’t typically provide many opportunities for such type of interactions. Participants reported to be surprised of discovering such diversity in the approaches to teaching/learning between different areas and were inspired to borrow ideas and techniques from each other.

486

From another angle the idea itself of re-framing teaching as a “design activity” revealed unexpected possibilities in terms of creativity and innovation. The process of devising a plan for a course or a module in a way so different from the one they were used to reveal the role and the power that design methodologies, especially when participatory and co-creation processes are put in place, might have in shaping innovative and more engaging learning experiences. The unusual approach, with the use of “tangible” artefacts to manipulate collectively - the learning/teaching cards -, the process of arranging and rearranging the cards on a storyboard as a team and thus giving shape to a collaborative solution emerging almost in real-time, has been perceived by the lecturers involved as potentially transformative for their own teaching/learning design strategies and practices. Another observation captured through the quick feedback collected via Mentimeter and post-workshop debriefing discussions concerned the ability of such a workshop to elicit reflective practices in participants, in both the sense given by Schön (1983) as reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action. Participants reported to be pushed by the different exercises in the workshop and the discussions with team mates to reflect on what can be called their “implicit theories of learning and teaching”, the unquestioned assumptions they were always applying when planning and performing a lesson or a course. The visual approach of the workshop which “make visible and tangible” the group thinking process, pushed participants to make explicit their positions and assumptions and doing so nudged them modifying, negotiating and changing the course of action and decision making as it was happening. Once finished, the composed solution, the storyboard, allowed for collective review that helped identify gaps, weak points and areas of improvement that might be used as starting point for a second round or iteration on the process.

Conclusion The authors presented the Learning Experience Design Workshop, a workshop designed for multiple and concurring purposes: introducing collaborative design and co-creation practices among academics and educators coming from very different backgrounds; promoting a collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to innovation in teaching practices, with a special focus on blended and remote learning scenarios; elaborating on the field of “Learning Design” intended as the application of design methods and approaches to educational and learning experiences that extends the field of design education. The F.E.D.E.R.I.C.O. (Formation Experiences Didactics Competences Evaluation Organization Reflexivity Innovation) project at the University of Naples Federico II, Italy, was an ideal context to run such an experimentation, being the project aimed at activating an organisational process of innovation and creativity in teaching/learning practices through a path of professional development for newly hired lecturers and researchers. The workshop takes Diana Laurillard’s prompt for teachers and educators of all disciplines and backgrounds to “become designers” themselves and to re-frame teaching/learning activities as “design interventions” (2012). The workshop moves in that direction by letting educators of all kind to experience “designerly” ways of knowing and working together, introducing them to collaborative, interdisciplinary, co-creation processes. The workshop starts form the ABC Learning Design method (Young & Perović, 2020) as a main reference and extends it both in terms of internal structure and contents, borrowing elements from other learning design frameworks, and adapting it to realtime collaboration tools, redesigning some of the tangible elements - the cards and the canvases - or designing new ones, to better fit the remote collaboration scenario imposed by the Coronavirus emergency. Next steps include a structured analysis of the results and in-depth evaluation of the impact of the workshop on participant practices. Also, iterations on the workshop format itself are needed to further explore the multiple setting in which it can take place: face-to-face, remote, blended, synchronous and asynchronous and all the various possible combinations that can be explored. Anyway, preliminary collection of observation and direct feedbacks to the authors indicates that the workshop has been considered highly effective by the participants, which reported high levels of engagement, collaboration and creativity in processes (course or lecture planning) that usually are considered substantially individual activities and that not very often are seen as opportunities for innovation and co-creation with colleagues. Also, beyond the design activities, exercises and outcomes expected, the workshop promoted between participants discussions and reflections on their own practices, in line with Schön concept of a “reflective conversation with the situation” (1983; 1987) that professionals of all kind, researchers and educators in this case, can and should engage with.

487

References Armellini, A., & Jones, S. (2008). Carpe Diem: Seizing each day to foster change in e-learning design. University

of Leicester. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/2381/4403 [accessed on 28 May 2021] Beetham, H. (2007). An approach to learning activity design. In H. Beetham, & R. Sharpe (Eds.), Rethinking

Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 26–40). London: Routledge. Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (2007). Rethinking Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning.

London: Routledge. Biggs, J. B. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-hill education

(UK). Conole, G. (2012). Designing for learning in an open world (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media. Conole, G., & Wills, S. (2013). Representing learning designs–making design explicit and shareable. Educational

Media International, 50(1), 24-38. Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), 221-227. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design issues, 17(3), 49-

55. Ertmer, P. A., Parisio, M. L., & Wardak, D. (2013). The practice of educational/instructional design. In Luckin, R.,

Puntambekar, S., Goodyear, P., Grabowski, B. L., Underwood, J., & Winters, N., Handbook of Design in Educational Technology. New York: Routledge.

Hasenknopf, B., Michou, V., Milani, M., Perović, N., & Young, C. (2019). Sharing the ABC approach to learning design across three European universities. In European Learning & Teaching Forum (pp. 14-15), Retrieved from https://eua.eu/resources/publications/839:sharing-the-abc-approach-to-learning-design-across-three-european-universities.html [accessed on 28 May 2021]

Hokanson, B., Clinton, G., & Tracey, M. (2015). The Design of Learning Experience: Creating the Future of Educational Technology. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16504-2

Holmberg, J. (2014). Studying the process of educational design–revisiting Schön and making a case for reflective design-based research on teachers’‘conversations with situations’. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 23(3), 293-310

Mor, Y., Craft, B., & Maina, M. (2015). Introduction: Learning design: Definitions, current issues and grand challenges. In Maina, M., Craft, B., & Mor, Y. (Eds.). The art & science of learning design. Springer, 9-26.

Nicol, D. (2012). Transformational Change in Teaching and Learning Recasting the Educational Discourse: evaluation of the Viewpoints project. Jisc UK, University of Ulster, Retrieved from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiNpZeC6-zwAhVP2qQKHfdICwMQFjAAegQIBBAD&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.reap.ac.uk%2FPortals%2F101%2FDocuments%2FPEERToolkit%2FVIEWPOINTS%2520EVALUATION_Final_dn.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0FHX3b-aorgYSTlq-AmTZJ [accessed on 28 May 2021]

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199-218.

Pozzi, F., Persico, D., & Earp, J. (2015). A multi-dimensional space for learning design representations and tools. In Maina, M., Craft, B., & Mor, Y. (Eds.). The art & science of learning design. Springer, 49-62.

Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning. New York: Routledge. Salmon, G., & Wright, P. (2014). Transforming future teaching through ‘Carpe Diem’ learning design. Education

sciences, 4(1), 52-63. Schön D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the

professions. Jossey-Bass. Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-

Based Systems, 5(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(92)90020-g Simon, H. A. (1988). The science of design: Creating the artificial. Design Issues, 67-82. Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial. MIT press. Striano, M., Cesarano, V. P., & Priore, A. (2020). Migliorare la didattica attraverso la riflessione sulle pratiche. Il

progetto FEDERICO dell’Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II. Scuola democratica, 11(3), 605-614. Usher, J., (2014). Demystifying the CAIeRO, University of Northampton, Learning Technology Blog. Retrieved

from https://blogs.northampton.ac.uk/learntech/2014/12/24/demystifying-the-caiero/ [accessed on 28 May 2021]

Usher, J., MacNeill, S., & Creanor, L. (2018). Evolutions of Carpe Diem for learning design. Compass: Journal of

488

Learning and Teaching, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.21100/compass.v11i1.718 Young, C., & Perović, N. (2016). Rapid and Creative Course Design: As Easy as ABC? Procedia - Social and

Behavioral Sciences, 228, 390–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.07.058 Perović, N., & Young, C. P. L. (2020). ABC LD – A new Toolkit for Rapid Learning Design. EDEN Conference

Proceedings, (1), 426–437. https://doi.org/10.38069/edenconf-2020-ac0041 Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2008). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Stefano Perna Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy stefano.perna@unina.it Stefano Perna has a PhD in Information and Communication Design, conducted research at intersections of design, new media and humanities at University of Salerno, taught New Technologies for Art at the Academy of Fine Arts of Naples. He is a faculty member of the Apple Developer Academy at University of Naples Federico II. Pietro Nunziante Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, Italy pietro.nunziante@unina.it Pietro Nunziante tenured researcher in Industrial Design at Department of Architecture, University of Naples Federico II. Pietro does research in Industrial Design and Digital Design, deals with research at the crossroads between design methods and educational and process innovation. Previously at the Apple Developer Academy as Head Teacher and Design teacher.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Siloed in Breaking Silos A Case of Interdisciplinary Curriculum (Mis)Alignment

JiaYing Chew https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.02.231

Higher Education Institutes globally are rapidly developing inter/ transdisciplinary education initiatives at varying scales. However, several operational challenges persist in interdisciplinary teaching as there are few incentives to share resources or engage in discourses for mutual deconstruction of knowledge frameworks. Nonetheless, collaboration and communication are vital to bridge the varying epistemic frameworks when different disciplines are brought together. Especially because the way individuals understand concepts contain traces of disciplinary- specificities; without clarity through a common platform, the messiness is reflected in the curriculum design, development and delivery of interdisciplinary courses. Reflecting upon a case study of an interdisciplinary graduate programme that was experiencing curriculum (mis)alignment; this paper illustrates how co-design can be adopted in curriculum development processes to overcome existing operational challenges of interdisciplinary teaching.

Keywords: Interdisciplinary, Transdisciplinary, Curriculum Design, Co-Design, Student Experience

Introduction Higher Education Institutions (HEI) globally are developing multi-, inter- or trans-disciplinary education programmes in varying scales (e.g., from projects, modules to degree programmes). However, these cross- disciplinary efforts are often vaguely established and implemented within the context of HEI as highly specialised structures (Godemann, 2008). Most HEI initiatives that claim to be inter- or trans-disciplinary remain paradoxically homogenous in their setups and curriculum design (e.g., Ertas, Maxwell, Rainey & Tanik, 2003; Tully, 2013; Self & Baek, 2017). HEI have traditionally been built upon siloed disciplinary boundaries representative of the industrial age (Steinberg, 2010; Bourgon, 2011). Such divisions of knowledge no longer match the needs of contemporary society’s challenges that are complex, ever-changing and cannot be definitively described (Buchanan,1992; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Dorst, 2015). Thus, the concept of mixing disciplines is increasingly welcomed to provide more holistic and comprehensive solutions to global challenges. Synthesizing definitions most consistently established on the spectrum of mixing disciplines (Nicolescu, 1999; 2005; Ramadier, 2004; Gasper, 2010; CERI, 1972); this research adopts the following working definitions:

• Multidisciplinarity suggests separate input from each discipline, typically presented independently with no interaction.

• Interdisciplinarity describes interaction between disciplines and can range from simple communication of ideas, to the mutual exchange of understandings and organization of research.

• Transdisciplinarity leverages on interdisciplinarity in an approach to complex issues that are beyond comprehension of individual domains— emphasizing, understanding, and embracing disciplinary differences beyond contribution to individual disciplines.

However, the main challenge of interdisciplinary education lies in dismantling existing institutional setups that

490

are already deeply in place— the persisting focus on specialisations in universities (Russell, Wickson, & Carew, 2008) and a relative lack of an integrative platform for knowledge exchange (Jahn, Bergmann & Keil, 2012). Even when provided with a heterogenous setup, it is critical to acknowledge that interdisciplinarity is not reactive— collaboration derives from both top-down and bottom-up initiatives, and communication is required to bridge the varying epistemic frameworks that drive different problem-solving approaches (Klein, 1996, p.195). HEI curriculum has typically been developed within “disciplinary conceptual worlds” (Land, 2012b, p.38). Involving others in this traditionally autonomous process may invoke discomfort and tensions as it threatens existing power structures that requires giving up control (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Furthermore, there are little incentives to share resources or engage in discourses for mutual deconstruction of knowledge frameworks (Gasper, 2010; Land, 2012a), creating misalignment and poses obstacles to interdisciplinary collaborations. Looking towards parallel examples in organisational transformation (e.g. Collopy & Boland, 2004; Martin 2009; Kimbell 2011), design is recognised as a tool to bridge different disciplines (Bremner & Rodgers, 2013) in existing cross-disciplinary initiatives, especially when focusing on wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973) and service innovation (Yeo & Lee, 2018; Kimbell, 2015). Co-design has been oft-featured in facilitating multidisciplinary collaboration, creating collaborative platforms, providing a shared language through visualisation, and guiding future-oriented solution-envisioning activities (Hyysalo, Marttila, Perikangas & Auvinen, 2019; Lee et al., 2018; Hyvarinen, Lee & Mattelmaki, 2015). Moreover, extant literature around interdisciplinary discussion in education often surface with the term design or design thinking as a problem-solving logic, bonding different tools and different disciplinary epistemologies (Jahn et al., 2012; Ertas et al., 2003; Garbuio, Dong, Lin, Tschang & Lovallo, 2018). Tapping on these qualities of design; this paper illustrates the value of co-design in navigating challenges of transdisciplinary curriculum development. Using the case study of a Nordic design school, this paper aims to uncover the dynamics and tensions present when multifarious stakeholders come together.

Case Study: IDBM Curriculum Development Towards Transdisciplinarity This research looks at the case of the International Design Business Management (IDBM) graduate programme, Aalto University’s flagship programme. Established as a multidisciplinary minor programme in 1995, the programme was conceived as an initiative between three discipline-based universities, in response to industry needs. Following the merger of three hitherto public universities into a single public-private university in 2010, the programme was then conferred as an interdisciplinary two-year major programme. Presently, the IDBM programme is offered to all graduate students across the university, from the Design, Business and Technology schools. The programme’s setup features an equal-part disciplinary representation; students of the programme come from various cultural backgrounds and have differing levels of work/ industry experience. These heterogeneous conditions (Lawrence & Després, 2004; Ramadier, 2004; Klein, 2004) across the student body and faculty allows for a dynamic knowledge exchange across disciplines beyond the typical siloed structure of traditional HEI. Central to the programme’s structure (Figure 1) is the mandated exposure to different disciplinary perspectives, intended for students to embrace epistemological differences when collectively navigating the uncertainty and ambiguity within diverse teams. First-year students take a series of mandatory courses aimed at equipping each cohort with a foundational understanding in Design, Business and Technology disciplines, respectively. Thereafter, students are assigned to multidisciplinary teams where they get to apply their cumulative knowledge in a six-month long industry-based project designated by an industry collaborator.

491

Figure 1. Programme structure, mandatory courses for first-year students

This structure was designed to create a “threshold concept (Land, 2012a, p. 176)” amongst students, to “lead to a transformed way of understanding, or interpreting concepts” that might be difficult for them to comprehend outside of their usual epistemic frameworks. The expectation is that students originating from different schools and distinct worldviews, capabilities and skills will foster creative abrasion that enables innovation through interdisciplkinary exchange (Koria, Karjalainen, Salimäki, 2009). However, despite the programme’s long-standing history of experimenting with mixing disciplines in curriculum setups, it was observed that students consistently grapple with articulating their learnings or breaking out of their comfort zones beyond their disciplinary experiences when working on team projects. Recognising these prevalent challenges, this research was conducted in Fall 2018, in conjunction with the revision of the programme’s design and development in moving towards transdisciplinarity.

Curriculum Development Through Action Research Guided by an action research approach (Ferrance, 2000; Carr & Kemmis, 2003; Stringer, 2008), insights were gathered from archival records, observations, in-depth interviews and co-creation workshops based upon the process of the programme’s curriculum development timeline (Figure 2)—conducted over the span of six months (October 2018- March 2019).

Figure 2. Research process and methods adopted within at various phases of action research

The emic-etic (Pike, 1967) outlook of action research enables a situated response and reflection within and around the context, focusing on the improvement of an existing practice that is based around a problem, dilemma, or ambiguity from the situation in which practitioners find themselves in (Muratovski, 2015). As such, it makes a dual commitment to study a system and simultaneously collaborate with members of the system in collectively changing it to what is regarded as a desirable direction (Huntjens et al., 2014). Taking this approach allowed the researcher to influence decisions and actions during and throughout the research process, rather than suggestions after.

492

Data collection began with reviewing archival records and conducting participatory observations of the mandatory first-year courses. Then, 13-in depth interviews were conducted with key actors of the programme: two members of management; five faculty members (two administrative staff and the three instructors who taught the business, design and technology courses) and six first-year students (two representatives from each discipline, of varying cultural and education backgrounds). Each interview lasted 45- 60 minutes focusing on key themes presented in Table 1. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Table 1. Key themes of interviews

To Faculty Members To Students

• Their understanding of transdisciplinarity and its implications for the programme

• Programme’s goals, aims and directions

• Experiences in course and programme planning, design and delivery

• Student expectations towards the programme

• Their understanding of how individual courses fit into the larger picture of the programme

• Challenges and opportunities for the programme from a faculty perspective

• Rationale for choosing a cross-disciplinary graduate programme

• Their understanding of transdisciplinarity

• Programme experience thus far vs expectations when they applied for the programme

• Experiences with individual courses and learning outcomes

• Mapping their transdisciplinary understanding of the programme based on the courses

• Challenges and opportunities for the programme from a student perspective

Coinciding with the conclusion of the three compulsory first-year courses, the fresh memory of course experiences allowed participants to reference examples when articulating their thoughts. In these interviews, participants were asked to reflect on their understanding of cross-disciplinary concepts in relation to their individual experiences with the programme. They were also asked to provide suggestions for future improvements and were encourage to talk about their backgrounds, educations experiences and expertise to allow the researcher to better understand their perspectives and possible disciplinary and cultural influences. A recurring theme that surfaced throughout the interviews, was the lack of common ground and clarity. Even though the overarching programme objective of interdisciplinary learning was understood by all, the concept of interdisciplinarity held different meanings for individuals. As a result, curriculum intent and learning outcomes were loosely interpreted and mostly mismatched.

(Mis)Alignment: Expectations, Intentions and Actions Interview findings indicated that the students experienced difficulty in navigating their expectations and applying their learnings as they had expected to make sense of the courses as part of a collective programme experience, rather than individual instructional settings. When asked about experience with the first-year course structure, one student expressed:

I did not know it was meant to be a Design course, I thought it was more Business. And on top of that I did not know it was supposed to be that we were taking Design-Business-Technology courses within the programme. It’s complicated… If it’s listed somewhere or explained to make it clearer, it might help. (First-year student from design)

The practice of individual courses being independently designed in attempt to align with the programme curriculum, creates confusion and struggle for both students and faculty members to map their understanding of the programme and its core components. It appears that legacy from the merger has left deep implications in terms of governance and administrative practices, as well as distinct operational cultures that had been built up over the last century (Koria, 2016). This is reflected in the approach individual instructors adopt to crafting the course curriculum and learning outcomes in response to societal and industry needs and trends, while balancing elements of interdisciplinarity within their courses. Evident that interrelations between the courses were critically missing; identifying these aspects of dissonance enabled a clearer overview of the influences and processes that shape curriculum development and delivery.

493

Co-Design for Alignment: Guided by Student Experience Based on the insights, it was apparent that communication was lacking amongst the faculty members and that discussions around the programme were required to create coherence and relevance. A series of co-design workshops were conducted with the key faculty members as a means to create collaborative settings for open discourse around concerns, practices and dissonance. Using Biggs’ (1996) constructive alignment model as the common denominator to allow for disciplinary-neutral engagement, the goal was to allow the instructors to articulate their rationales around their course design and discuss curriculum delivery challenges. Co-design workshops were first conducted individually with the three instructors teaching the foundational Design, Business and Technology courses. Instructors were tasked to reflect on their own curriculum plans and existing practices, going over the format of the current curriculum enabled identification of key issues creating dissonance for each course. Thereafter, they suggested possible improvements to their existing curriculum. In these sessions, the instructors had not made significant changes to what they were intending to teach but visualising and verbalising their thoughts (Figure 3) allowed them to sound out what the main priorities were, as well as the pitfalls for the existing curriculum. The one- to-one sessions also allowed the researcher to seed a shared vocabulary as a platform for discussion.

Figure 3. Individual co-design workshop guided by visualisation processes

Thereafter, in the group co-design workshop with all key faculty members, the agenda was broadly listed as curriculum planning for the following academic year. This provided a frame of mind for participants as they anticipated discourses around roles, rescheduling and improvements to the existing curriculum. In this setting, the visual artefacts generated from individual settings were put up on the walls to facilitate sharing around the existing syllabus and curriculum format of individual courses (see Figure 4).

494

Figure 4. Group co-design workshop, strategy meeting

With intention to generate a Curriculum Blueprint— an education adaptation of the Service Blueprint (Shostack, 1982; Bitner, Ostrom & Morgan, 2008); a blank timeline of the academic year was provided in the group setting to allow for visualisation of how the individual course components fit into the overall programme design. The hands-on group workshop served as a tangible way for instructors to express abstract ideas (Comi & Whyte, 2018) around the intent and pedagogy within and around their courses, as well as identify synergistic opportunities that were present in the larger context of the transdisciplinary programme. Additionally, the three instructors reflexively partook as co-facilitators in leading the collective co-design workshop. This allowed them to articulate their individual concerns and rationales, while creating a common understanding for the rest of the faculty. The workshop also provided an exemplified understanding of the nuances and underlying tensions that persist within existing siloed structures.

Discussion: Breaking the Silos Through thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) of the research data from observations, interview findings and co-design insights, it was observed that several factors were causing the misalignment and dissonance in curriculum design and delivery, and can be largely categorised as follows:

• Solitary course design dilutes interdisciplinary knowing

• Lack of common platform generates syllabi incompatibility

• Traditional course design creates dissonance and misalignment

The following sections feature discussions around findings under each theme, explaining why and how these challenges persist.

Solitary course design dilutes interdisciplinary knowing The concept of interdisciplinarity may be a shared concept by the faculty, however, it is important to recognise that our understanding of concepts exhibit specificities of our disciplinary locations (Klein, 1996 p.50). Since research methods and epistemic frameworks differ radically across disciplines (Ingold, 2018), it is unwise for transdisciplinary course design to be done solitarily, based on existing norms and practices within a discipline. Doing so results in courses designed to be standalone, reverting to disciplinary-based setups where students are left on their own to make connections of various concepts (Figure 5, left). For example, when individual instructors attempt to infuse interdisciplinary elements from other disciplines to provide students with an interdisciplinary experience, this creates multiple perspectives towards interdisciplinarity around the programme structure and causes confusion. Instead, integrating different disciplinary perspectives from the various experts (Mieyeville, Gaultier, Peche & Silberzahn, 2015; Ramadier, 2004) while retaining discipline-specificity generates (Figure 5, right) presents opportunities for more conceptual teaching content and allows students to understand how subjects taught are transferable and

495

applicable to other projects they are working on. This creates a common understanding amongst instructors; instructors to students; and amongst students— all of which are integral and instrumental parts of transdisciplinary teaching and learning. Furthermore, communicating differences and negotiating conflicts while co-designing the programme curriculum shifts ownership from individual courses to programme development instead of relinquishing control (Sanders & Stappers, 2008).

Figure 5. Shifting ownership from individual course development to programme development

Lack of common platform generates syllabi incompatibility Due to the solitary practice of course design, there was a lack of shared platforms or standardisation in the way the syllabi and curriculum are structured for individual disciplinary courses. The dissimilarity and incompatibility made it challenging to cross-reference and make comparisons across the course descriptions (assessment modes, session formats, content and study material). The syllabus from individual courses were varied in format, presentation and choice of platforms for dissemination; there was use of jargons and discipline-specific terminologies and frameworks that made it difficult for communication, much less an avenue to design and develop the curriculum together. Unlike disciplinary-based programmes that typically use similar metrics for evaluation and intended learning objectives, it is critical to recognise that different disciplines have different approaches in teaching and learning (Land, 2012b). One of the main struggles identified in the co-design workshops, was the lack of shared practices for reviewing and crafting the programme’s syllabi collectively as every discipline has their own modus operandi: this poses a considerable obstacle in developing a transdisciplinary programme curriculum as there are diverse viewpoints. As such, it is essential to distil commonalities or leverage on existing pedagogical frameworks (i.e., Biggs’ (1996) Constructive Alignment as used here), in order to create shared platforms or standard practices for the development of syllabus and curriculum.

Traditional course design creates dissonance and misalignment Traditional course design that prioritises “content to be imparted” over “intended learning objectives” does not work well in interdisciplinary settings, where diversity and representation are vital to its success. In courses that are content- heavy, students often feel overly challenged without basic understanding of the topic, otherwise under-stimulated if they are already familiar with the subject. Thus, finding a common goal to guide curriculum development (cutting across the different disciplines) is instrumental. Apart from disciplinary-neutral pedagogical frameworks such as Biggs’ (1996) constructive alignment model, student experience was another common factor that gelled the teaching team together. Visualising how students would experience and interact with materials throughout the programme, the curriculum blueprint brought the intended learning outcomes to the forefront. This allowed the instructors to recognise overlaps and gaps between and across their courses, in turn refining and shaping their courses for better coherence and relevance throughout the collective programme experience. This process is referred to as “designing backwards”—first establishing the level of outcomes and standards required before deciding on the logistical details (Angelo, 2012). Moreover, engaging students as informants to (Arnstein, 1969) in the

496

curriculum design process highlights aspects of dissonance, legitimising the faculty’s immediate shift of attention towards issues present. Adopting this approach enabled better discourses and participation in the co-design workshops.

Conclusion and Future Work The enigmatic nature of transdisciplinarity gives rise to circumstances where there is a constant need to engage stakeholders, resolve underlying tensions, and creating a collective understanding. As inter-/ transdisciplinary nature of problems continues to gain currency, universities increasingly find ways to equip students with relevant skills to solve complex problems. Thus, this research provides actionable insights for inter-/ transdisciplinary programmes that may be facing similar predicaments of dissonance and misalignment. This paper illustrates how co-design can be adopted in curriculum development processes to overcome existing operational challenges of interdisciplinary teaching. This approach creates a collaborative platform to uncover tacit issues, while aligning and bridging different expectations, intentions and disciplinary-specific knowledge within multidisciplinary teams (Hyysalo et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2018; Hyvarinen et al., 2015). In terms of limitations, this study took place only within a time period of six months and features only a temporal snapshot of an ongoing process towards transdisciplinarity. Furthermore, the programme studied did not face as much inertia as other, more uni-disciplinary programmes. Thus, this study primarily features dynamics and tensions of operational challenges within an optimal setup. This negates other obstacles to transdisciplinarity including organisational infrastructures; resistance from stakeholders; and administrative or operational challenges within more siloed institutional setups. Therefore, future research should include longitudinal cases in different institutional contexts that could highlight various tactical and strategic challenges. Finally, on a more practical level, propositions in this paper should be developed into design interventions and tested in future inquiries featuring different settings.

References Angelo, T. (2012). Designing subjects for learning: Practical research-based principles and guidelines. University

Teaching in Focus: A Learning-centered approach, 93–111. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4),

216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32(3), 347–364. Bitner, M. J., Ostrom, A. L., & Morgan, F. N. (2008). Service Blueprinting: A Practical Technique for Service

Innovation. California Management Review, 50(3), 66–94. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166446 Bourgon, J. (2011). A new synthesis of public administration: Serving in the 21st century. McGill-Queen’s Press

- MQUP. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2),

77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Bremner, C., & Rodgers, P. (2013). Design Without Discipline. Design Issues, 29(3), 4–13.

https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00217 Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637 Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (2003). Becoming critical: Education knowledge and action research. Routledge. CERI (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation) (Ed.). (1972). Interdisciplinarity Problems of Teaching

and Research in Universities. Collopy, F., & Boland, R. (2004). Managing as designing. Stanford Business Books. Comi, A., & Whyte, J. (2018). Future Making and visual artefacts: An ethnographic study of a design project.

Organization Studies, 39(8), 1055–1083. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617717094 Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press. Ertas, A., Maxwell, T., Rainey, V. P., & Tanik, M. M. (2003). Transformation of higher education: The

transdisciplinary approach in engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(2), 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2002.808232

Ferrance, E. (2000). Action research. LAB, Northeast and Island Regional Education Laboratory at Brown University.

Garbuio, M., Dong, A., Lin, N., Tschang, T., & Lovallo, D. (2018). Demystifying the genius of entrepreneurship: How design cognition can help create the next generation of entrepreneurs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 17(1), 41–61.

Gasper, D. (2010). Interdisciplinarity and Transdisciplinarity. Diverse purposes of research: Theory-oriented,

497

situation-oriented, policy-oriented. In P. Thomson & M. Walker (Eds.), The Routledge Doctoral Student’s Companion. (p. 444). Routledge.

Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: A key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation. Environmental Education Research, 14(6), 625–641. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504620802469188

Huntjens, P., Eshuis, J., Termeer, C., van Buuren, A., & van Vliet, M. (2014). Forms and foundations of action research. Routledge, London.

Hyvärinen, J., Lee, J.-J., & Mattelmäki, T. (2015). Fragile Liaisons: Challenges in Cross-organizational Service Networks and the Role of Design. The Design Journal, 18(2), 249–268. https://doi.org/10.2752/175630615X14212498964358

Hyysalo, S., Marttila, T., Perikangas, S., & Auvinen, K. (2019). Codesign for transitions governance: A mid-range pathway creation toolset for accelerating sociotechnical change. Design Studies, 63, 181–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.05.002

Jahn, T., Bergmann, M., & Keil, F. (2012). Transdisciplinarity: Between mainstreaming and marginalization. Ecological Economics, 79, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.04.017

Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: Discovering policy lab [Report]. University of Brighton. http://thegovlab.org/applying-design-approaches-to-policy-making-discovering-policy-lab/

Klein, J. T. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities, and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press.

Klein, J. T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515–526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.007

Koria, M. (2016). Making an interdisciplinary difference: Twenty years of design, business and technology at Aalto. In B. Banerjee & S. Ceri (Eds.), Creating Innovation Leaders: A Global Perspective (pp. 267–277). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20520-5_17

Koria, M., Karjalainen, T.-M., & Salimäki, M. (2009). Cross-educating in design, business and engineering: Challenges of coherence and relevance. International Conference on Engineering & Product Design Education, 311.

Land, R. (2012a). Crossing tribal boundaries interdisciplinarity as a threshold concept. In P. Trowler, M. Saunders, & V. Bamber (Eds.), Tribes and Territories in the 21st Century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education. Routledge.

Land, R. (2012b). Discipline-based teaching. In L. Hunt & D. Chalmers (Eds.), University teaching in focus: A learning-centered approach (pp. 38–55). London Routledge.

Lawrence, R. J., & Després, C. (2004). Transdisciplinarity: Special issue. Futures, 36(4), 397–526. Lee, J.-J., Jaatinen, M., Salmi, A., Mattelmäki, T., Smeds, R., & Holopainen, M. (2018). Design Choices

Framework for Co-creation Projects. International Journal of Design, 12(2), 17. Martin, R. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard

Business Press. Mieyeville, F., Gaultier, R., Péché, J.-P., & Silberzahn, P. (2016). A design-based approach research on

innovation: From multidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. https://doi.org/10.7190/EAD/2015/12 Muratovski, G. (2015). Research for designers: A guide to methods and practice. SAGE. Nicolescu, B. (1999). The transdisciplinary evolution of learning. Symposium on overcoming the

underdevelopment of learning at the annual meeting of the American educational research association, Montreal, Canada.

Nicolescu, B. (2005). Towards transdisciplinary education. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 1(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.4102/td.v1i1.300

Pike, K. L. (1967). Etic and emic standpoints for the description of behavior. Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures, 36(4), 423–439.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2003.10.009 Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–

169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730 Russell, A. W., Wickson, F., & Carew, A. L. (2008). Transdisciplinarity: Context, contradictions and capacity.

Futures, 40(5), 460–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2007.10.005 Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068 Self, J. A., & Baek, J. S. (2017). Interdisciplinarity in design education: Understanding the undergraduate

student experience. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-016-9355-2

Shostack, G. L. (1982). How to Design a Service. European Journal of Marketing, 16(1), 49–63.

498

https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000004799 Steinberg, M. (2010). Design Policy–a perspective from Finland. Conference presentation. Helsinki global

design lab. Stringer, E. T. (2008). Action research in education. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ. Tully, R. (2013). Design education; At the cross roads of different disciplines [Conference Proceedings].

http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84891290301&partnerID=40&md5=b7404ad156545512425899d26df12b3c

Yeo, Y., & Lee, J.-J. (2018). Mapping design capability of public service organisations: A tool for collaborative reflection. Service Design Proof of Concept, Proceedings of the ServDes. 2018 Conference, 150, 534–549.

JiaYing Chew University of the Arts London, United Kingdom National University of Singapore, Singapore j.chew0520201@arts.ac.uk Multidisciplinary by training, JiaYing constantly treads the peripheries of design. A PhD student at the University of the Arts London, her current research interest focuses on design-driven transdisciplinary higher education and the role of design in systems-level change. Concurrently, she holds the position of Education Design Strategist at the National University of Singapore, where she is piloting a team-taught transdisciplinary innovation module.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Design for Justice Lab Interdisciplinarity in Times of Virtual Education

Santiago De Francisco Vela, Laura Guzman-Abello and Santiago Pardo Rodríguez https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.03.242

There is a growing interest in the formation of interdisciplinary competencies focused on issues of access to justice. The Design for Justice Lab is a bet between the Schools of Law, Design, and Engineering of Universidad de los Andes to promote challenge-based learning by articulating knowledge among multiple disciplines. The Lab has had five cohorts, of which two have been in classroom mode, and three have been in virtual mode due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following document presents the opportunities and challenges of developing interdisciplinary courses with courts, judges, and administrative organizations to improve access to justice in Colombia. We will present nine projects developed by students, explaining their approach and their proposed solution. Finally, there will be a reflection on the transition to virtual format and the opportunities this presents to continue with multimodal, interdisciplinary educational models.

Keywords: design for justice, legal design, access to justice, interdisciplinary, challenge-based learning, system thinking.

Introduction The crisis in the administration of justice in Colombia is evident. The country needs new ideas, new ways to explore solutions to the problem of access to justice. In 2016, the National Planning Department (DNP) developed a national survey on Legal Needs. The survey results show that access to justice is a systematic obstacle that impedes the Social Rule of Law development in Colombia (Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2017). Moreover, according to the Invamer poll-a bimonthly poll that measures the approval rating of many public institutions since 200- 80% of citizens disapprove of the Judicial System's work (Invamer, 2021). Access to justice has resulted from a traditional legal approach to a matter so crucial that diverse disciplines must address it. Since the COVID-19 health emergency, many of the justice services only operated online, which added a new barrier for citizens that lack technological infrastructure and accessibility; this became a new challenge for access to justice in Colombia. The paramount of these situations was to foster new ways of approaching justice-related problems in Colombia. There are methodological challenges in articulating thinking, methodologies and work tools, and technological challenges related to IT solutions. There is a use of divergent thinking, systemic approaches, and user-centric approaches within the different labs. The articulation of all these visions has presented the opportunity to create training spaces for future professionals from different disciplines interested in access to justice in Colombia to put their knowledge into practice. Nevertheless, to develop ways to keep teaching these topics in a virtual setting during the pandemic. The Design for Justice Lab (DJL) is a joint venture between the Schools of Law, Design, and Engineering of Universidad de los Andes that integrates design thinking and system dynamics to law school curriculums to expand access to justice knowledge. Our methodology is based on five elements: (i) real-problem approach. We address real and concrete issues regarding access to justice. We work directly with institutions and stakeholders to identify a problem; (ii) a human-centered design approach. We seek to implement a solution based on a Design Thinking methodology that puts people's experiences in the center. By doing so, we look for

500

bottom-up solutions that could be easily replicated as we consider the cultural and economic restrictions of our interventions; (iii) systems thinking approach. We seek to implement the proposals within its ecosystem and context. The proposals are based on systems thinking to understand the interactions of the actors in the system and contemplate the possible implications that they could have at the system level. (iv) an empirical approach. Qualitative data is a crucial component for us. We dedicate much time observing, analyzing, ideating, experimenting, validating, and iterating, so users' perspective is a critical element of our learning experience. We learn through failure, and reflecting upon it is pivotal to fine-tune the improvements; and (v) interdisciplinary approach. We promote a real conversation between law, design, and engineering students (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Representation of the Design for Justice Lab.

This article's contribution is to show the process, results, and reflections of students' work partnering with judicial stakeholders to foster human-centered solutions to real problems of access to justice in the last two years of work of the DLJ. The idea of working with interdisciplinary teams is to propose challenge-based learning, where students put into practice their knowledge to develop innovative solutions through new products and services for access to justice. Furthermore, to reflect upon the obstacles, opportunities, and advantages of attending virtually.

Course Methodology The course is based on the methodologies of systems dynamics, design thinking, and legal design. Understanding and delimiting a brief will be done through the design process's different phases. The course's orientation is fundamentally practical and is organized around the idea that an effective way to develop design skills and formulate ideas is to execute real projects and expose them to feedback from multiple observers. This type of space involves strengthening group work skills, empathy, critical thinking, collaboration, and ethics. Being a ChallengeProject-Based Learning course, the primary means of learning is interdisciplinary teamwork under the project scheme (construction, development, and management). This process is developed from three (3) pillars and their respective key factors: (i) Teamwork, collaborative learning through research and experimentation, self-evaluation, and evaluation of work and peer input. (ii) Work with organizations by

501

exploring and developing a real challenge and working with actors in public sector contexts. (iii) Work with tutors through accompaniment during the process and advise and evaluate the project's results.

Law and Design Legal Design's term stems from applying human-centered design methodologies to the context of justice and the complexity of legal systems (Santuber et al., 2019). The University of Stanford Legal Design Lab is a pioneer in this field and has helped develop design methodologies within the law domain. In her book, Design by Law, Margaret Hagan (2015) describes the adaptation of the design thinking process for lawyers and the opportunities to expand this new discipline further. More organizations and law firms have become interested in understanding, learning, and applying these methodologies to generate new ways of approaching challenges from their areas of expertise. Events such as the Innovation Justice Forum or the Legal Design Summit have served as events to bring together more innovators in justice and law. Likewise, firms such as Baxel Consultores in Peru, Háptica in Colombia, and Direito & Design in Brazil, are Latin American referents of Legal Design.

Design and Engineering Design can be understood as the core of all professional training if we understand that everyone who devises courses of action (or artifacts) to change existing situations into preferred ones is a designer (Simon, 1988). Design methodologies approach complex situations requiring observation, analysis, and implementation (Beckman & Barry, 2007; Kumar, 2009). These methodologies allow organizations to approach almost any scenario to foster innovation. Design helps broaden the studied context spectrum, connecting with the people involved in the processes, generating ideas that can create real impact. Engineering aims to transform situations through the design of artifacts to solve problems; herein, engineering design is a process of creation of design options that take into account the various properties and restrictions that co-define the design problem and co-determine the objective of design (García-Díaz & Olaya, 2018; Kroes, 2012; Pitt, 2011). The DJL is built on this natural connection between engineering and design. Some proposed readings on this topic are Simon (1988), Pitt (2011), Vincenti (1990), Petroski (1992), Goldman (1990).

Law and Engineering For engineering, the justice system, like any other system, is nothing more than a social system developed by agents to solve problems (Olaya, Guzmán & Gómez-Quintero, 2017). Thus, access to justice can be understood as a social system of actors who have interests, make decisions, and interact to access justice in Colombia. The interactions between the system actors (citizens, public and private entities, and other organizations) are decisive for its performance, which means that access to justice depends mainly on the structure of the access to the justice system. This approach to the justice system allows the structuring of processes and the formulation of alternatives that allow for the system's success. As mentioned by Camilo Olaya in an interview for the newspaper El Espectador:

"Engineering can offer strategies to make better use of resources or to achieve a better organization. Nevertheless, it can also provide tools so that, in the long run, all entities understand that they are part of a single system that has to be the best." (Medellín, 2016)

The Lab in Classroom Sessions The DLJ presents students with a scenario to conceive and formulate solutions for justice administration based on the analysis of challenges from Courts, judges, and other stakeholders responsible for judicial services in Colombia. DLJ classroom is a space for learning and experimentation where students are expected to critically integrate different tools to propose solutions to the brief and challenges. The teams of students, composed of a pool of Design, Engineer, and Law Schools, have to apply observation tools based on design methodologies and system thinking methodologies to understand their context. Most of this work is done in the field, where students can interact face-to-face with their audiences, apply prototypes, and validate their ideas. The classroom sessions are spaces for team bonding. In these sessions, tutors also carried out creative activities to provide a more critical approach to the challenges (Figure 2). Students and organizations share a final encounter where students present their ideas and receive feedback.

502

Figure 2. The marshmallow challenge (Wujec, 2010) was used as a bonding activity in the first session between the team members to get to know each other.

The Virtual DJL In 2020, due to the emergency of COVID-19, we had to migrate to virtual platforms. For this situation, the DJL maintained its objective regarding the development of projects in conjunction with organizations but had to transform itself to achieve it. This online migration presented the unique opportunity for the DJL to design, develop and implement new teamwork tools on collaborative platforms such as Miro and develop autonomous work guides. This transition has been a challenge to validate the interdisciplinary model relevance and strengthen the work dynamics in the Lab. The virtual sessions became spaces for reflection. In these sessions, tutors had to create short lectures and guides to apply their knowledge to the challenges. In the end, students prepared a five minutes video that was sent to the organizations before the final presentation. Moreover, during the final presentation, they spend some time discussing future implementations and opportunities. These final sessions went beyond our academic approach and caught the attention of the organizations.

Co-Creation of Challenges We have worked with public organizations, congresswomen, law firms, and innovation labs during the last two years. The dynamics proposed by the course for the project's development allow both students and partner organizations to define work schemes within the course duration, even in the virtual scenario. Together with each organization, tutors co-created a challenge suitable for the course. The challenges define the problematic situation to be addressed, the context, the audience, and a possible deliverable. This collaborative work was done through meetings with each organization, where we discussed the scope, resources, and time availability of the organization to work with the students. The final version of the challenge is a version approved by both the organization and the tutors. At the beginning of the course, students receive information on the challenges available for the course. Then teams are formed, taking into account student preferences towards the challenges and the rule that each team must include at least one student from each discipline. Then, each group defines its project management model. The teams are suggested to navigate the project through four phases structured as follows:

• Contextualization of the problem: Each team must narrow down the organization's challenge through research work based on primary and secondary sources.

• Information analysis and counterproposal: Through articulating the information collected, the teams propose insights and opportunities to narrow down the proposed challenge.

• Ideation and prototyping: With the challenge narrowed down, teams begin a process of ideation and

503

prototyping to validate and test their ideas (Figure 3). This process involves the participation of relevant stakeholders within the context.

• Definition and specification: After making several iterations, the teams should finalize and land their projects. The projects are presented to the organizations and are subject to comments and feedback from these organizations' members.

Figure 3. Students are working on a "What if" ideation dynamic.

Projects and Their Organizations The DJL has been working since 2019 and has collaborated with organizations from the public and private sector, academic context, and legislative working units. It has had 109 students from different disciplines and has worked on more than 25 projects (Figure 4).

504

Figure 4. Timeline of the projects, with the number of students, types of organizations, and class type.

For the first semester, students worked with the Colombian Constitutional Court to increase the tutela system's infallibility and traceability. Even though the solutions presented were different, this dynamic allowed the DJL to understand the need to diversify the types of challenges and organizations to expand the field of action and cover more social systems where justice is central. Nevertheless, this first experiment allowed us to identify the potential of this course. For the following semesters, including the virtual ones, we either diversified with organizations or ask organizations to give us more than one challenge. The following semester, students had the chance to work with Special Jurisdiction for Peace, the Interdisciplinary Center for Development Studies, and Lexbase, together with the Court. With the inclusion of more organizations, students could explore more contexts where access to justice is needed. After the Lab's first year of experience, we decided to expand the boundaries and include the industrial engineering department. With this addition to the team, the challenges' approaches had a double perspective, one on people approach, promoted by design thinking. The other, on social systems, arose from the vision of system dynamics. For this version, we also expanded the number of partners and focused on the challenges to take better advantage of interdisciplinary work. This semester was particular because we had to migrate to virtuality in the middle due to the emergency defined by COVID-19. This situation made us rethink the course and the tools to take advantage of virtuality. Learning from virtuality led us to propose activities focused on the asynchronous work of the teams. We developed virtual tools in Miro to document the teams' processes for each of the phases. Similarly, for the virtual sessions, we implemented activities that promoted information exchange among the groups. The final presentations were made employing video scenarios that told the project's problem and the solution reached by each group. In table 1, we enlist all the projects developed in the Lab. In the following section, we will discuss some of the projects carried out with the organizations, the context of each project, and some relevant outcomes.

505

Table 1. List of all student projects from 2019 to 2021. The projects marked in bold are explained in more detail in the following section.

Cohort Type of class

Team composition

Project Partner organization

Solution

2019-10

Face-to face

2 design students Dialogic toolkit Colombian Constitutional Court

Toolkit for generating a horizontal dialogue in follow-up hearings.

2019-10

Face-to face

2 design students 2 law students

Tu Tutela Colombian Constitutional Court

Canvas format for structuring and writing a tutela.

2019-10

Face-to face

2 design students 2 law students

Tutela for everyone

Colombian Constitutional Court

Intervention to visualize the actual number of tutelas.

2019-10

Face-to face

2 design students 2 law students

Tutelapack Colombian Constitutional Court

Packaging for tutela files.

2019-10

Face-to face

1 design student 2 law students

Tutelapp Colombian Constitutional Court

Mobile app to file and follow up on tutelas.

2019-10

Face-to face

2 design students 1 law student

Tuteverbalapp Colombian Constitutional Court

Digital platform for filing verbal tutelas.

2019-20

Face-to face

2 design students 2 law students

Urban planning toolkit

Urban and Regional Planning Master Program (ICDS)

Toolkit for urban and regional planning issues to propose participatory dynamics for decision-making.

2019-20

Face-to face

4 design students El derecho de los jueces web app

Lexbase Integrated web app for consulting and structuring jurisdictional trees.

2019-20

Face-to face

2 design students 2 law students

Interactive Substantialism

Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) Rapporteur of Colombia.

Interactive case law cover that connects to the search engine of the JEP Rapporteur's Office website.

2019-20

Face-to face

2 design students 2 law students

Tutorial for Judicators

Colombian Constitutional Court

Video tutorial for the welcome and training of judicals in the courthouses.

2020-10

Blended

1 design student 3 law students 2 engineer students

Herramienta interactiva de tutelas en salud (HITS)

Stanford Medical School

Web app that allows the judge to access all the jurisprudential, medical, and social information relevant to the case.

2020-10

Blended

2 design students 2 law students 2 engineer students

LexGenius

Interdisciplinary Center for Development Studies

Database software to analyze documentary and testimonial sources for urban planning.

2020-10

Blended

2 design students 3 law students 2 engineer students

Rumbo para emprender

Congresswoman Juanita Goebertus Legislative Work Unit

Mobile app that accompanies ex-combatants in the development of their productive projects.

2020-10

Blended

1 design student 3 law students 2 engineer students

System of Analysis and Support for Peace (SASP)

Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) Information

Platform that allows the articulation of software and facilitates direct and efficient communication between the

506

Cohort Type of class

Team composition

Project Partner organization

Solution

Analysis Group IAG and the SRVR.

2020-10

Blended

2 design students 2 law students 4 engineer students

Web Court Colombian Constitutional Court

Redesign of the Court's current web platform to incorporate the processes related to tutela review.

2020-20

Virtual

1 design student 2 law students 1 engineer student

Digital services of the judicial branch

Superior Judiciary Council

Study of the Judicial Branch's practice for social media.

2020-20

Virtual

1 design student 1 law student 1 engineer student

Cortexpress Colombian Constitutional Court

Development of an Instagram profile with informal language, innovative content that will achieve increased Court interaction.

2020-20

Virtual

1 design student 2 law students 1 engineer student

Juristool Supreme Court Toolkit to alleviate bottlenecks at the Supreme Court of Justice.

2020-20

Virtual

1 design student 2 law students 1 engineer student

Counterclock Family Welfare Institute (FWI)

Virtual tool that contains different sections such as offers available for teenagers who wish to be part of the community.

2020-20

Virtual

1 design student 1 law student 1 engineer student

EVEG

Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) Information Analysis Group

Restructure of IAG's current appraisal surveys to verify the quality of the report delivered.

2020-20

Virtual

1 design student 2 law students 1 engineer student

EduNET

Congresswoman Juanita Goebertus Legislative Work Unit

Social network that connects educational institutions throughout Colombia to achieve massive collaboration in the educational sphere of PDET municipalities.

2021-10

Virtual

2 design students 2 law students 1 engineer student

Vevi, virtual advisor

Colombian Constitutional Court

Virtual advisor to guide citizens in the filing of a tutela.

2021-10

Virtual

2 design students 1 law student 1 engineer student

PretorIA Plus+ Colombian Constitutional Court

Communication strategy for PretorIA.

2021-10

Virtual

2 design students 1 law student 1 engineer student

Tutela en tus manos

Colombian Constitutional Court

Digital tools to facilitate the tutela selection process.

2021-10

Virtual

3 design students 1 law student 1 engineer student

La Corte Dice Colombian Constitutional Court

Podcast channel to expand the coverage of the Constitutional Court's decisions in a clear and didactic way.

507

Description of the Projects Developed by Students TU TUTELA: A simple tool to claim and protect fundamental rights. A project developed by Alejandra Torres-Galindo (design student), Francisco Orjuela Pardo (design student), Natan Bernal Quiroz (law student), and David Célis Rodríguez (law student).

TU TUTELA is a canvas-type format for filing a tutela. The challenge aimed to solve citizens' autonomy to file a tutela and reduce the size of a tutela file. The team conducted user tests to present them with different iterations of their proposal. For each iteration, they had people fill out the form (Figure 5). Then, they ask judges to review the form to understand whether or not the information provided was sufficient. The prototypes focused on selecting information, format, and form—selecting information to develop a guide for drafting a tutela. The results showed different ways to use the canvas by different actors. The first ones are the citizens, who in many cases did not know how to file a tutela or how to claim their rights, but once they tested this canvas, they affirmed that it allowed them to do it by themselves and in a proper way. The judges were the other group, one of them stated that the format allowed her to understand the case thoroughly and make better decisions.

Figure 5. One of the prototypes explores the idea of creating fields for users to fill in the tutela information.

Tutelapp. A project developed by Sebastián Calderón Pedraza (law student), Lorena Arias Penagos (law student), and Gustavo Vega Castañeda (design student) Tutelapp is an app that seeks to provide citizens with legal tools that facilitate tutelas' filing through a digital file. The challenge aimed to solve the digitizing of tutelas, close the information asymmetry gaps, and contribute to the judicial branch's digital transformation process. The team made paper prototypes to structure the app architecture and validate the interaction with users. Once the fields were defined, they made mockups that allowed them to explore in-depth the app functionalities and also the opportunities offered by the creation of digital tutela (Figure 6). The prototypes focused on three aspects: Language, form, and navigation. Language aimed to explore different ways of simplifying the use of legal language. Form questioned the aesthetics of the app and the visual language to make it appealing and straightforward. Navigation inquired whether the different options of the application were coherent for the user. The results showed that the digital file is simple and easy to read, which will speed up the traceability process when the document reaches the hands of judges and magistrates. In this way, it is possible to reduce paper waste and environmental damage at the same time.

508

Figure 6. User test of the mobile app mockup.

Lexbase web app. A project developed by Alejandra Gómez Pinto, Santiago Monroy Valencia, Sebastián Piñeros Vargas, and Juan Sebastian Umbralia Aranguren (all design students). El Derecho de Los Jueces is an independent web app based on methodology created by Professor Diego López Medina in his book of the same name. It was integrated into LexBase subscription-based online legal research and consultation tool. The challenge aimed to solve how to improve the experience using El Derecho de Los Jueces through UX and UI. The team conducted a study to understand the methodology of El Derecho de Los Jueces and translated it into a flow map that allowed them to articulate the website structure. During the process, they conducted interviews and group sessions with lawyers and law students to understand how they used the methodology proposed by Professor López Medina. The prototypes allowed them to understand this service as a new social network for lawyers. Users would have their profile in this network, create their timelines, and follow other users to learn from their judicial timelines (Figure 7). The results created a much better experience for students and lawyers interacting with the data based on LexBase. The team created a navigation and user interface that allowed law students to interact with the latest decisions of tutelas.

Figure 7. Screenshot of the web app that shows the visualization of the jurisprudential tree.

509

Interactive Substantialism for the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (SJP) Rapporteur of Colombia. A project developed by Dario Agatón Díaz (law student), Laura Vanessa Vanegas Herrera (law student), Hannah Mora Valenzuela (design student), and Erika Nishida Quijano (design student). For the SJP Rapporteurs, the team proposed an interactive jurisprudence cover that connects to the SJP's website's search engine, facilitating understanding of the information published therein. The challenge aimed to solve how to develop a user experience focused on multiple actors using the new information search platform created and developed by the SJP rapporteurs' team. The team conducted interviews with the SJP Rapporteur's Office to learn about the publication process. Also, the team conducted interviews and video feedback with different users to understand their perception of the SJP Rapporteur's website and created paper prototypes of the cover to allow users to interact with them (Figure 8). The prototypes allowed them to explore different compositions for the information. The team allows users to reorganize information based on their interests. The results were a jurisprudence interactive cover that allows users to organize and hierarchize the information's order (layers of information). It also allows users to access only the information field of their interest. The interface proposes a new color palette and icons in each section to improve the user experience.

Figure 8. Paper prototype of the new jurisprudential file for the SJP Rapporteur.

Congresswoman Juanita Goebertus Legislative Work Unit. RUMBO para emprender. A project developed by Diego Silva Silva (law student), Jessica Sarai Gómez Blanco (law student), Juan Pablo Carbonell Muñoz (law student), Lina Pradilla Pinto (design student), Yaqueline Poloche Arango (design student), Daniel Franco Laverde (engineer student), and Emilia Isaza Escobar (engineer student). RUMBO is a mobile application that offers former members of the FARC guerrilla group a platform for developing their productive and economic projects, a pivotal part of their demobilization process. It provides remote access to helpful information in constructing these projects, from the moment they are conceived to their development and searching for alternatives that make them viable and sustainable. The challenge aimed to improve the lack of legal and economic tools to materialize productive projects belonging to ex-combatants hinders reincorporation into civilian life. The team made a study on the necessary aspects to participate in these grants to develop productive projects. They also contacted some ex-combatants who are success stories to determine their experience and improve it. The prototypes allowed them to understand the needs of ex-combatants that want to start their own business in terms of information accessibility and shared experiences. The results created a virtual space for accompaniment and learning that, through a path, provides the opportunity to create connections with investors, clients, and other contacts of interest (Figure 9). The application was designed with dual functionality in mind as an encyclopedia of entrepreneurship and social networks.

510

Figure 9. Screenshot of the video that explains RUMBO mobile app (see https://youtu.be/3_VFPkpbb-E).

Information Analysis Group of the SJP. System of Analysis and Support for Peace (SASP). A project developed by Juan Felipe Giraldo González (law student), María Fernanda Fernández Villamizar (law student), Nicolls Feghali Vargas (law and engineer student), Keneth Montoya Bernal (design student), Melissa Luque Medina (engineer student), and Nicolás Novoa Arciniegas (engineer student). The System of Analysis and Support for Peace (SASP) is a platform that allows the articulation of software and facilitates direct and efficient communication between the IAG and the Chamber for the Acknowledgment of Truth, Responsibility, and Determination of Facts and Conduct (SRVR in Spanish). The challenge aimed to solve the reception, analysis, and systematization of reports on conflict-related events submitted by state bodies, social organizations, and victims. The team worked with the IAG to review and understand all types of reports that they receive. Additionally, they made a study of the software used to classify this information. Currently, the SJP has CONTI, a judicial decision management software; Yachay, a document management software; and NVIVO, a qualitative data analysis software. However, the use of multiple platforms makes it difficult to manage information and communication within the organization. The prototypes allowed them to create a workflow of the information needed to scatter information in the reports and understand the different elements to include in a platform to make a unified analysis. The results defined five main products: (i) a work area that displays the reports of provisional universes of facts associated with each macro case and allows the inclusion of corrections, comments, and edits regarding the same (Figure 10); (ii) a work area that allows the display of connections between the data found in the reports related to each report; (iii) an area that allows the visualization, editing, and correction of hypotheses generated from the provisional universes by the IAG; (iv) The platform shows the progress and information associated with the different cases carried out by the SRVR; (v) the platform has a database that, based on a search engine, crosses all the information from the JEP and state organizations with which it has an agreement.

511

Figure 10. Screenshot of the video that shows the different sections of SASP (see https://youtu.be/X873FxLdOOY).

Family Welfare Institute (FWI). Counterclock. A project developed by Laura Urueña Camacho (law students), Valentina Marquez Wilches (design student), Juan Pablo Quiñones Segura (law student), and Santiago Marta Ortiz (engineer student). Counterclock is a virtual tool consisting of a web platform and a Facebook page. Counterclock contains different sections as offered for adolescents who wish to be part of the community. The different sections are: tell your story, work, entrepreneurship, study, and sports. The challenge aimed to help solve adolescents who enter the Criminal Responsibility System for Adolescents (CRSA). This situation causes adolescents to ignore the FWI's intention of accompanying them to fulfill the sanction and help them in their process, which the adolescents perceive as a threat. It means that some of the adolescents who graduate from the programs do not achieve the objectives set by the Sub Directorate of CRSA. The team worked with the FWI team, where they conducted interviews and group sessions with adolescents who are part of this program. The prototypes allow them to identify different touchpoints and features of this virtual tool. The results defined that a web platform is an effective channel for creating community ties by promoting events and talks, among other alternatives that allow knowing the situation of adolescents after leaving the CRSA (Figure 11). While the Facebook page showed an excellent point of contact outside the FWI for adolescents to make comments, share and easily connect with the project.

512

Figure 11. Screenshot of the video that shows the Counterclock web network (see https://youtu.be/XAwqGvdpCOw).

Colombian Constitutional Court. #Cortexpress. A project developed by Laura Carrillo Prieto (design student), Camila Rodríguez Acosta (law student), and Jorge Ávila González (engineer student). Cortexpress is an Instagram profile with an informal language, and novel content will increase the Court's interaction with users (Figure 12). Within the account, users will find a legal dictionary. A word or legal term will periodically be uploaded with its respective explanation in simple terms, thus facilitating their understanding. The challenge aimed to improve how the Constitutional Court communicates its progress and decisions to citizens adequately. The team used the Instagram account to prototype and validated different ways of approaching citizens through Stories, Challenges, Reels, and Publications. Instagram allowed them to measure the level of response and engagement to each of the publications made. The prototypes allow them to define the kind of tone, aesthetics, and content of the publications. The results showed that humorous videos help explain different topics of interest regarding the Court. Instagram stories allow direct interaction with citizens through trivia to involve citizens in the learning process. Open questions allow us to know their leading questions and suggestions to create content of interest and receive constant feedback from citizens.

Figure 12. Screenshot of the video that shows what is #Cortexpress (see https://youtu.be/9eLczuEJOfY). Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/cortexpressoficial/

Colombian Constitutional Court. La Corte Dice Podcast. A project developed by Gabriela Rodríguez Bermudez (design student), Valentina Usuga Gil (design student), Natalia Ortega Hortua (design and engineer student), María Victoria Rodríguez Ramírez (law student), and Miguel Ángel Castillo Córdoba (engineer student). La Corte Dice is a proposed Podcast series that seeks to explain the landmark and ground-breaking rulings of the Constitutional Court in simple language. The podcast distribution strategy will be through Instagram and

513

Spotify (Figure 13). Instagram will allow it to have a greater reach in the population, show content and chapter topics. Furthermore, Spotify will allow users to listen to it. The challenge aimed to solve how the Court communicates its decisions to citizenship. The Court is exploring channels to communicate its progress in the implementation of the digital transformation plan. This exploration has led them to use platforms such as Instagram or Twitter to massify their communication capacity. The team mapped the judicial system in Colombia to understand the way the Court communicates and the media it uses. In addition, the team researched how citizens use the media, channels, and social networks to stay informed. After some ideation sessions, students built some pilots to test the format and content of the messages. The prototype allowed them to define how the Court's communication function should be in the future. It should emphasize people's relationships and well-being to humanize justice. The results show opportunities for the Court to reach more people.

Figure 13. Mockup of La Corte Dice Instagram account and Spotify playlist (see https://youtu.be/L4JFLmb6_AE). To listen to the podcast prototype episode 1 in Spanish (see https://youtu.be/tU_lSdYvs4M).

Discussion and Reflection The Design for Justice Lab is committed to improving access to justice in Colombia through solutions that focus on user experience and consider the social system they implement. The objective of the DJL is to leverage access to justice with small interventions that have significant effects. This objective is achieved through challenge-based learning methodologies in which design, law, and engineering students work together to produce solutions to the challenges posed by partner organizations in the Colombian justice sector.

514

Some reflections on the methodological pillars of the DJL are presented below:

• Real problems approach: the development of solutions requires a close and fluid relationship with the allies who propose the challenge. This interaction with real "customers" exposes students to experiences that prepare them for the work environment. Also, the fact that the challenges are real requires a high level of commitment from students to solve the challenge. However, this relationship with partners requires continuous communication and coordination to align expectations and validate results.

• User-centered design approach: all solutions are user-centered, which implies that students approach the users of justice and fully understand their needs and perspectives in the face of the challenge they face. This approach is not always straightforward as it requires students to leave the academic environment to connect with the system's actors. The course configuration between face-to-face and virtual seems to determine the type of prototypes that students produce. There were more possibilities of physical prototypes (manuals, games, tools, templates, among others). In contrast, all the proposals were digital (applications, web pages, search engines). This probably responds that the justice services have moved to the virtual world during the pandemic. Consequently, the students' proposals aim to improve access to justice with purely digital proposals.

• System thinking approach: social context imposes its constraints on viable solutions (Kroes, 2012). Part of the challenge students has is to understand how the system produces the problem they are addressing. These challenges require fieldwork to recognize the actors that are part of the system and how they interact. Taking these elements into account leads to the solutions being immersed in the context in which the problems occur.

• Empirical approach: "engineering design is guided by the demands of practical rationality which deals with issues relating to the course of action to take in order to achieve given ends" (Kroes, 2012)). The development of solutions is based on trial and error processes (Pitt, 2011). Students iterate on prototypes that were validated with the teaching team and their partners. Sometimes students struggle with the "errors" because they consider that they have failed; however, the iteration process leads them to build on the errors and produce better solutions. The empirical approach also requires information gathering and validation processes that involve contact with people outside the academic environment. Students carry out ethnographies, interviews, and surveys to collect information and joint and participatory testing and validation workshops to ensure that the proposed solution solves the problem effectively.

• Interdisciplinary approach: the DJL seeks to articulate aspects of design, law, and engineering. This approach raises particular challenges in terms of working, language, and methodologies used in the three disciplines and requires students to look for ways to articulate the three types of knowledge. Sometimes students take on the role of teachers in front of their teammates to make sure they are all on the same page.

The DJL has also had challenges concerning its virtual setup. The essence of the course is the application of design and systemic research methodologies that require primary sources of information that allow evidence of the interaction of users in the context of the problem. Video calls and virtual work partially help gather information; however, if students are not critical enough, they can fall into a familiar place that does not necessarily produce a successful project. Students have found a space for reflection on their practice in this setup, rather than an academic space to complete their curriculum. These are elements that can determine the future design of the DJL.

References Beckman, S. L., & Barry, M. (2007). Innovation as a learning process: Embedding design thinking. California

Management Review, 50(1), 25-56. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166415 Corte Constitucional de Colombia. (2019). Funciones de la Corte. Retrieved March 2021, from

https://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/lacorte/ Departamento Nacional de Planeación. (2017). Colombia presentó ante la OCDE resultados de encuesta

nacional de necesidades jurídicas. Retrieved March 2021, from https://www.dnp.gov.co/Paginas/Colombia-present%C3%B3-ante-la-OCDE-resultados-de-encuesta-nacional-de-necesidades-jur%C3%ADdicas-.aspx

García-Díaz, C., & Olaya, C. (2018). Introduction: The Why, What and How of Social Systems Engineering. In Social Systems Engineering The Design of Complexity (pp. 1–10). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420058529.ch5

515

Goldman, S. L. (1990). Philosophy, Engineering, and Western culture. In Broad and Narrow Interpretations of Philosophy of Technology (pp. 125–152). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0557-3_10

Hagan, M. (2015). Law By Design. Retrieved March 2021, from https://www.lawbydesign.co/ Invamer. (2021). Informe de percepción abril y mayo 2021 (Medición 142).

https://www.valoraanalitik.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-05-Invamer-Poll.pdf Kroes, P. (2012). Engineering design. In Technical Artefacts: Creations of Mind and Matter: A Philosophy of

Engineering Design (6th ed., pp. 127–161). Springer Science+Business Media. Kumar, V. (2009). A process for practicing design innovation. Journal of Business Strategy, 30(2/3), 91-100.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660910942517 Medellín, M. J. (2016). El profesor que quiere arreglar el sistema judicial desde la ingeniería. El Espectador.

Retrieved March 2021, from https://www.elespectador.com/noticias/judicial/el-profesor-que-quiere-arreglar-el-sistema-judicial-desde-la-ingenieria/

Olaya, C., Guzmán, L., & Gomez-Quintero, J. (2017). An engineering perspective for policy design: self-organizing crime as an evolutionary social system. Trends in Organized Crime, 20(1), 55-84.

Petroski, H. (1992). To engineer is human: the role of failure in successful design / Henry Petroski. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat07441a&AN=cpu.269608&site=eds-live

Pitt, J. C. (2011). What Engineers Know. In Doing Philosophy of Technology: Essays in a Pragmatist Spirit (pp. 165–174). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0820-4_15

Santuber, J., Krawietz, L., Owoyele, B., & Edelman, J. A. (2019). A framework theory of legal design for the emergence of change in the digital legal society. Rechtstheorie: Volume 50, Issue 1, 50(1), 41-58. https://doi.org/10.3790/rth.50.1.41

Simon, H. A. (1988). The Science of Design: Creating the Artificial. Design Issues, 4(1/2), 67. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511391

Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: analytical studies from aeronautical history / Walter G. Vincenti. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat07441a&AN=cpu.766279&site=eds-live

Wujec, T. (2010). Build a tower, build a team [Video]. TED: Ideas worth spreading. Retrieved March 2021, from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower_build_a_team/

Santiago De Francisco Vela Universidad de los Andes - Design School, Colombia s.defrancisco@uniandes.edu.co Designer and professor in the School of Design at the University of Los Andes in Bogotá Colombia. He has been working in emotions and positive design, fostering emotional experiences and positive behaviors through product design. His areas of interest involve design for well-being, financial and social innovation, and behavioral design. He is a member of the Design for Justice Lab. Laura Guzman-Abello Universidad de los Andes - School of Engineering, Colombia l.guzman89@uniandes.edu.co Industrial engineer who works in research and consultancy in design, strategy and organizational management oriented towards the design of public policy. Her work focuses on decision-making processes and engineering designs with a systemic and participatory approach. She has worked with public sector entities, international organizations, and universities. She is a lecturer of the School of Engineering at Universidad de los Andes and a Design for Justice Lab member. Santiago Pardo Rodríguez Universidad de los Andes - School of Law, Colombia s-pardo@uniandes.edu.co Lawyer, with an LLM from the Universidad de los Andes, an MSc in Law, Anthropology and Society from the London School of Economics & Political Science, and a Master of the Science of Law from Stanford University. His research areas are Constitucional Law, Judicial Systems, Empirical Legal Studies, and Legal Design applied to justice. He is a founding member of the Design for Justice Lab.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Challenges in Multidisciplinary Student Collaboration Reflections on Student Peer Assessments in Design Education

Melis Örnekoğlu-Selçuk, Marina Emmanouil and Jan Detand https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.04.150

This paper reports on a study currently conducted in the scope of an Erasmus+ KA2 project on the subject of co-creation in design education. A case study was carried out on a third-year bachelor design engineering course (“Co-creation”) at which 48 students from different study disciplines, levels and countries worked together in groups to tackle societal challenges. This research aims to gain insights into students’ experiences and problems with regard to taking part in a multidisciplinary co-creation process by scrutinising student’s self- and peer-assessment reports. Findings refer to the essentials and challenges of multidisciplinary co-creation processes from a student perspective. In particular, soft skills were highlighted as fundamental skills while working with peers. Moreover, challenges in collaboration, specifically, in a remote learning environment during the COVID-19 pandemic, were noted. Recommendations were provided for design educators to ameliorate the multidisciplinary co-creation and learning environment in order to sufficiently prepare students for Industry 4.0.

Keywords: multidisciplinary design education, co-creation, student experiences, peer assessments, COVID-19

Introduction Co-creation refers to the involvement of users and other stakeholders (who are not designers) in the design process (Mattelmäki & Visser, 2011). It corresponds to the term ‘collective creativity’ in which more than two people share their creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008); assumed to be inherent in everybody (Sanders & Stappers, 2012). Originally, co-creation in design practice has its roots in the 1970’s participatory design movement that advocated the democratisation of the design process involving those individuals, who will be directly affected by its outcome (Ehn, 2008). In terms of context, co-creation practices draw attention to urgent societal problems addressed by, for instance, the United Nations under the Sustainable Development Goals scheme (United Nations, n.d.), and seek ways to solve these problems by involving multiple stakeholders (McAra & Ross, 2020). Since there is not only one correct solution that is customarily expected after following a linear process, these societal problems are generally considered “wicked” or ill-structured problems (Buchanan, 1992). Wicked problems may derive from multiple causes and, thus, they require a multidisciplinary approach (Cooke, Dusenberry & Robinson, 2020). Similarly, co-creation is multidisciplinary in nature and, importantly, is a term discussed not only in the design discipline (professional practice) and design education (Qu et al., 2020), but also in numerous other fields, such as, business (Ramaswamy & Ozcan, 2018), marketing (Whalen & Akaka, 2016), psychology (Carranza, Díaz, Sánchez-Camacho & Martín-Consuegra, 2021) and management (Windasari et al., 2021). Co-creation in education, in fact, dates back to the 1960’s when the benefits of collaborative learning such as innovative idea generation (Sung & Hwang, 2013) were recognised (Bruffe, 1999; Rock et al., 2018). Moreover, group work has been associated with promoting student engagement and sense of belonging (Masika & Jones, 2016) and bolstering experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), collaborative and cooperative learning (Laal & Laal, 2012). So far, design students have been engaged in co-creation projects in several universities including the

517

Glasgow School of Art (GSA) (McAra & Ross, 2020), TU Delft (Stappers, Sleeswijk Visser, & van der Lugt, 2007), Middle East Technical University (METU) (Turhan & Doğan, 2017) and Ghent University (Detand & Emmanouil, 2018). Including co-creation practices in design education curricula and providing multidisciplinary environments to students, is of paramount importance for various reasons. For instance, working in multidisciplinary co-creation settings may enhance certain interpersonal skills of students such as empathy (Lee et al., 2019; McAra & Ross, 2020) and teamwork skills (Fink, 2003). In addition, experiencing this multidisciplinary environment in design education has a strong potential to provide students a ‘decolonised gaze’ especially for approaching wicked or ill-defined problems. This is explained by Giloi (2017, p.89) as follows:

...‘wicked problems’ [...] cannot be approached using only one paradigm, procedure, form of knowledge or one group’s experience and way of knowing. In the case of design education, students would have to cultivate the dispositions and gazes that allow them to work within these complicated and ill-defined scenarios and to design for and with groups who have different experiences to their own. In adopting a decolonised gaze, design students would not only gain a better understanding of diverse experiences and perspectives, but would gain access to multiple forms of knowledge, knowing and ways of doing (Giloi, 2017, p.89).

Allowing students to take part in multidisciplinary and multinational participatory environments is beneficial for them to adopt a decolonised gaze (Charlotte Smith et al, 2020). Especially in design education, this is essential, since it contributes to broadening students’ perspectives (Schultz et al., 2018; Trias Cornú, 2020) and provides them numerous sources of knowledge and multiple ways of knowing, doing and being (Giloi, 2017), which will be necessary to tackle societal wicked problems (Buchanan, 1992). Moreover, engaging students in co-creation projects is in line with the bottom-up approach in design education that offers a sense of ‘joint ownership’ and allows students to learn-by-doing (Schelvis et al., 2013; Ind & Coates, 2013). Despite the plethora of reported benefits of multidisciplinary collaboration in design education, students are having difficulties during co-creation processes (Karjalainen & Repokari, 2007; Murdoch-Kitt et al., 2020). According to Karjalainen and Repokari (2007), students are confronting the biggest challenges stemming from their different backgrounds, languages and ways of working. Karjalainen and Repokari (2007) report that in their study, students struggled against the difficulties of collaborating with partners from different time-zones and the long distance led to spending more time and effort to achieve good quality communication and collaboration. Moreover, using different terminology and having diverse abstraction levels depending on the disciplines such as mechanical engineering and industrial design were seen as some of the major problems in multidisciplinary co-creation. Wallin (2020) also adds that the amount of time invested by the members in the co-creation work is open to comparison by themselves and this may lead to conflicts among students during a co-creation process. Davies et al. (2009) explains that the imbalance in the group may cause some problems such as social loafing and egoism. From the skill development point of view, Dhadphale and Baughman (2018) points out that the multidisciplinary work processes may become fruitless for students when teamwork skills are not taught and practiced actively. It has been shown that the effectiveness of the multidisciplinary co-creation processes has been linked with soft skills as well as hard skills (Gago & Rubalcaba, 2020). As explained by Philips et al. (2020), hard skills comprise technical skills that are related to a profession or job, whereas soft skills are transferable interpersonal skills. On the one hand, hard skills are teachable and measurable skills that can be about speaking a foreign language, accounting, using a computer program or having a degree (Tsey et al., 2018; Philips et al., 2020). On the other hand, soft skills pertain to a mindset regardless of a particular job. They differ from hard skills in terms of teachability as they are intangible, personality-oriented and hard to attest (Rao, 2014; Cimatti, 2016). Haselberger et al. (2012) divide 22 soft skills into three overarching categories; personal skills, social skills and methodological skills. According to Haselberger et al. (2012), personal skills include learning skills, professional ethics, self-awareness, tolerance to stress, commitment, life balance and creativity/innovation. Social skills cover communication, teamwork, contact network, negotiation, conflict management, leadership and culture adaptability. Methodological skills refer to customer/user orientation, continuous improvement, adaptability to changes, results orientation, analysis skills, decision making, management skills, research and information management skills. Soft skills are also seen as the skills that cannot be easily acquired by machines if the developments in artificial intelligence and automation cause unemployability of some individuals in the future (Philips et al., 2020). In addition, there is no wonder that with the rise of the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Industry 4.0), individuals will need to adapt to the incremental changes in the technology and soft skills such

518

as creativity is required for easy adaptation (Cotet et al., 2017; Maisiri et al., 2019). In this respect, acquisition of soft skills may have a vital role for students’ success in multidisciplinary co-creation processes that prepares students for Industry 4.0. However, the association between certain skills and their importance in multidisciplinary co-creation processes has hitherto not been studied in detail. Moreover, in spite of the fact that it has long been argued that it is important to give voice to the students about their experiences (Shor & Freire, 1987), little research has been done on this subject so far (Karjalainen & Repokari, 2007; Elsharnouby, 2015; Dhadphale & Baughman, 2018). Understanding the needs and expectations, as well as, the challenges and problems of students from ‘within’ their own point of view during a multidisciplinary co-creation process as members of a design team, is essential in order to act on it. Furthermore, this is crucial to empower students to take charge of their learning experience and make them feel that their opinions matter in the learning environment, in which they are seen as “producers” (Neary & Winn, 2009). Starting from this standpoint, this study focuses on the micro-world of the student teams. In the course under examination, co-creation has been looked at from the perspective of what was essential for the students during the co-creation process in their multidisciplinary and multinational group, and what obstacles they encountered throughout this process. Accordingly, the following research questions were formulated:

• What are the difficulties students face during multidisciplinary co-creation processes?

• What are the essentials of efficient and effective multidisciplinary co-creation processes?

Case Study A case study was conducted in the university-wide elective course “Co-creation” with 48 students, who worked in 8 groups on 8 different projects during the 2020-21 Fall semester. The project topics (‘challenges’) relate to real life issues and are offered by a variety of companies, organisations and the public sector (https://www.callforchallenges.be/en/). Initially, each student chose a project topic from a list that focused on a societal problem, such as, promoting tap water consumption; creating a sharing system for utensils; providing a safer automobile environment for children with the help of smart fabrics. The students who chose the same project worked together. Each group employed the course’s methodological framework (Design Thinking methodology) in order to make propositions for the societal, wicked problems of their projects during one academic semester. The students came from various departments within Ghent University, including industrial design, textile engineering, psychology and business economics educational programs. Furthermore, 13 of them were Erasmus+ (exchange) students, the majority of whom came from a textile engineering background. This opportunity enhanced the level of diversity achieved in the groups. In that sense, the groups were not only multidisciplinary but also multinational in nature, potentially allowing both expertise and culture exchange to occur on a project and group level alike. Throughout the semester, students utilized the T-CREPE Planet Platform, which is an online learning platform developed by Ghent University and its partners in the scope of the T-CREPE (Textile Engineering for Co-creation Paradigms in Education) Erasmus+ KA2 project. This platform guided students in the design process from the initial understanding of the problem and its definition, to ideation and testing of ideas. It was a complementary tool in the hands of the teacher to introduce or delve deeper into the Design Thinking methodology in a playful way, especially to non-design students (3rd year design engineering students already had training since their first year). The design process (seen as a ‘journey’) was represented through the metaphor of an imaginary planet that corresponds to the four stages of the Design Thinking methodology: Discover, Define, Develop and Deliver (Design Council UK, 2021). The four stages were translated as four continents on this planet, which includes general design tools/methods and custom-made games that were co-developed by the European consortium members specifically for this course. Students were invited to go through the continents, one-by-one, and explore tools that help them understand the nature and purpose of each stage in the design process. The games, specifically, allowed them to explore and enhance their understanding of the design thinking process by playing, modifying and designing their own games related to real life problems, possibly related to their course projects. By playing the games, students had the opportunity to discuss and share their ideas, as well as modify and create new games together with their peers for their project topics.

519

Figure 1. Team Charter Canvas (Van Der Pijl et al., 2016)

After determining their project topics and forming their groups, students completed the “Team Charter Canvas” (Van Der Pijl et al., 2016), which makes them contemplate on the roles of group members, team goals, expectations, team values and possible obstacles (Figure 1). In the Team Charter Canvas of some groups, it was seen that the students considered “different backgrounds” as an obstacle in reaching their goals. This underlines the importance of conducting a study to understand the reasons behind students’ struggles in multidisciplinary co-creation environments in order to remediate them. In order to deeply analyze the group dynamics and elicit information about these points, students are asked to articulate their opinions of their own performance and also of their peers by filling in a peer assessment report three times throughout the semester. After the first two peer assessment reports, these problems are discussed during the coaching meetings among students and coaches. This case study concentrates on the final peer assessment reports of the students that represent their final thoughts and opinions about each other and the multidisciplinary co-creation process. Figure 2 explains the journey of the students throughout the semester and highlights the focus of this study, the final peer assessment reports, which are submitted by the students at the end of the semester. It was aimed to investigate the key aspects of effective communication and collaboration among group members from the point of view of the students. Moreover, it hopes to reach an understanding of the problems encountered by the students who collaborated in this multidisciplinary environment in a challenging time period; during the COVID-19 pandemic.

520

Figure 2. The journey of the students in the semester for the Co-creation course

Methodology In order to gain insights from students’ opinions, various methods can be utilized. A legitimate and direct method is to consult their peer-to-peer assessment reports (Ehmann, 2005). Moreover, the peer assessment reports provide another benefit of encouraging active participation of students in the evaluation (learning) process. Therefore, these reports can be seen as a constructivist tool that supports students in active construction of knowledge in education (Doyle et al., 2019). In this way, students become co-creators of the student assessments, including their own (learning) performance during the course. This act contributes to democratisation of the assessment process (Deeley & Bovill, 2015). For these reasons, this study draws from this source (peer assessment reports) in order to get a better understanding from ‘within’, that is, by students and of their needs and problems during the co-creation process with students from different disciplines and nationalities. The report templates were prepared by the teacher and distributed to the students in the beginning of the course. The reports consisted of a rubric with seven criteria; project planning (1), innovation target (2), scientific research method & test results (3), final results (4), team performance (5), documentation of the scientific & design results (6), and communication & collaboration strategy in function of the co-creation process (7). At the end of the semester, the students (n=48) submitted their final peer assessment reports and evaluated the performance of themselves and of their peers during this co-creation process in their own groups. . In addition to assessing the performance of each group member including themselves through the given rubric, the students also wrote a small paragraph of their thoughts about their group members and their own performance. The comments of the students were analyzed with NVivo 12, which is a qualitative data analysis software (QSR International, 1999). The peer assessment reports of the students were read by all researchers in their entirety and coded with NVivo 12 through a combination of inductive and deductive coding approaches by one of the researchers (Saldaña, 2013). The research questions of this study determined two parent codes (deductive approach); (1) essentials of an efficient and effective multidisciplinary co-creation process, and (2) difficulties of a multidisciplinary co-creation process. After defining these parent codes, the child codes under them were generated simultaneously (inductive approach) through thematic analysis. Table 1 provides an example from the coding process and how the child codes are associated with the comments of the students.

Table 1. An example from the coding process with NVivo 12

Codes Students’ comments from the peer assessment reports

Being motivated “He was a very hardworking and motivated team leader. He managed to stimulate us all to work hard. He was great to work together with.”

Multidisciplinary approach - teaching and learning from each other

“Next semester, the Erasmus students won’t be in our team anymore and that will be a major adjustment for us. I mostly remember from this group that we were a great team and all had our personal input which made the project on multiple facets (educational, personal, cultural etc.) versatile and diverse. It was very nice to work with such a team and get a taste of what co-creation is really like.”

Not contributing to the group assignments

“He is not involved at all and he does not even try to understand. He did nothing during the whole semester for the oral and written

521

presentation.”

Findings and Discussion The peer assessment reports of the students provided valuable information from their perspective with regard to the characteristics of multidisciplinary collaboration, e.g., the key to have efficient meetings, as well as the essentials of effective communication during co-creation. Moreover, the reports shed light on the problems and challenges students encountered during this process, also during a remote learning setting due to COVID-19 restrictions. The repetitive patterns found during data analysis demonstrated the significance of certain skills of a multidisciplinary co-creation process as well. The section explicates the findings of this qualitative analysis under two main topics; (1) essentials of efficient and effective multidisciplinary co-creation processes, and (2) difficulties students face during multidisciplinary co-creation processes.

Essentials of Efficient and Effective Multidisciplinary Co-Creation Processes

From the first step (formation of groups) in the co-creation process, students started with sharing the actions that should be taken and assigning the roles, e.g. the ‘leader’ / the ‘motivator’ to each member. Students stressed the importance of having a clear and fair division of labor in the co-creation process. The roles and works were self-distributed to students by taking their strengths and weaknesses into account. For instance, in one of the groups, a psychology student was responsible for taking the lead in preparing and analyzing the data, since that student had prior experience on these tasks. Industrial design students in turn, were considered better at visualization of the concept and thus they created visuals for the project and the group presentations. Moreover, it is stated that students can compensate for their lacking points by doing the work in which they are confident. Leadership, as one of the soft skills (Bancino & Zevalkink, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010), is considered one of the most essential aspects in a group project and students expressed that they had difficulties when they cannot have an effective leader or they do not know who the leader is. This proves the significance of filling in the “Team Charter Canvas” (Van Der Pijl et al., 2016), which makes students decide on the roles of each group member as the first step. A key element to ensure good-quality collaboration according to them is fulfilling the works assigned to them in a group project. When some group members do not accomplish their own work, this creates an unbalanced situation among the members. Also, in this case, the other students complained that they had to do someone else’s work and this was tiring for them. For this reason, the students stated that their group members should be responsible and committed. Students pointed out the importance of being motivated to take part in this project. As explained by the students, getting involved in the project means taking initiative, sharing ideas, following the project closely, actively participating in the decision-making process and helping each other. Moreover, motivating the other group members was appreciated. The students mentioned that having motivated members in the group, providing positive encouragement, creating a democratic atmosphere, and finding the topic interesting, inspire them to work more on their co-creation projects. This also underlines the importance of giving the students an opportunity to choose their own co-creation project topics in parallel with their personal interests. She was really motivated and her enthusiasm and overall happiness was really catchy. In that way, she motivated all of us to be so as well. - Psychology student From the point of view of students, having an efficient collaboration among group members lies in being structured and well-organized and doing the work on time. For this reason, the students start with setting a clear goal, dividing the work into several subtasks and arranging weekly meetings to discuss these tasks. Furthermore, it is emphasized that setting a deadline helps students to stay organized, consistent and on time, and it is necessary for further development.

When we divided tasks, everybody was open minded and comfortable with doing assignments... When we set deadlines, every task was always delivered on time so that we could build further on those results. - Psychology student

The students stated that their group members should be hardworking, creative, clear and trustable for an effective and efficient co-creation process. Also, when they have an unexpected problem they should start looking for solutions instead of complaining about the problems. For instance, during the final presentation, one of the students had an issue with her microphone and could not present her part. Then, her group members handled this situation with kindness.

522

During the final presentation, despite the issue that we had, she stayed focused and I really appreciated that. Indeed, when the PDF wasn’t the right one, she managed to find another solution and spoke for me when I had to speak but couldn’t because of the problem with my microphone. - Erasmus+ student

Having empathy, respect and kindness in the group is also an important point to consider in co-creation. The students underlined the significance of respecting each other’s personal time schedule. For instance, in one case, they planned to finish their work earlier because after that time one of the members had a busy program. Furthermore, the students highlighted that they have respect towards multidisciplinary backgrounds of group members as well. Having a group member from a different discipline and gender type was seen as an advantage for them to have diverse points of views during the co-creation process. They embraced the diversity, accepted this as an opportunity to learn about each other’s specialization and this helped them to adopt a ‘decolonised gaze’ (Giloi, 2017). I’m going to miss her next semester. It’s because of that I find the idea of co-creation and multi-perspectivism interesting. She studies in another field of study and therefore gives interesting insights that industrial design students never think of. - Industrial design student Especially in this multidisciplinary environment, the students pointed out the importance of giving and receiving feedback for further improvement of the group project as well as their own learning process. This supports mutual learning in the co-creation process (Akoglu & Dankl, 2019). Students mentioned that their group members developed themselves throughout the semester with the feedback they received from their peers, teachers and stakeholders. They explained that when their group members do not provide them feedback, they cannot learn from each other.

I would like to receive more feedback from my group members during the next semester. I often asked for feedback on my work but didn’t receive any input. By receiving more feedback, I think I could learn much more from my teammates. - Economics student

The students mentioned that they did not only talk about their projects but also they had other (ice-breaking) sessions in order to get to know each other. In these sessions, they talked about their personal lives, personalities, as well as, likes and dislikes. In addition, they made jokes and used humor to create an enjoyable atmosphere in the group. They stated that these personal meetings helped them to strengthen their bonds and positively affected the project development process. Also, forming a strong bond and having a friendly atmosphere are stated among the aspects that motivate the students to work harder on the project. Moreover, they think that this was also a way to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and remind them they are not alone.

We have had a few meetings which start professionally – arranging everything that was put on the agenda – after which we have a more personal talk about our lives. Moreover, we have recently joined an online event with the board of AFD Gent to get to know our team as well as the board better. This was a fun evening and I’m sure it has brought us closer together. - Business economics student

On more procedural aspects of the process, according to the students, students stated that achieving efficiency in the meetings is a prominent aspect that must be ensured for effective communication. The students pointed out the benefits of having an agenda with objectives, taking notes during the meetings and giving an overview at the end of the meetings. Attending all meetings and having an active role during these is the key for having efficient group meetings that should be organized regularly each week. The students complained about the members who attended the meetings but did not turn their cameras and microphones on, which is not considered “attendance” by them. Especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, having the group members that equally participate in the meetings was a challenge, as reported by the students. The quietness and shyness are repetitively defined as an obstacle in communicating effectively. Lastly, using appropriate and useful platforms, media and software for communication was defined as another crucial point for successful collaboration. Since they could not have meetings in person due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this became even more essential. They generally had their meetings on MS Teams. For brainstorming and documentation of their co-creation process, they mainly used a shared Miro board. They explained that it was also helpful in presenting their ideas to their coaches and project stakeholders and to see an overview of what they have done. Google Docs was used for documentation of scientific and design results. Also, Google Slides was indicated as the program they utilized while preparing their presentations. These

523

platforms share a common essential feature; multiple participants can work on the same document at the same time. This feature gives all participants the opportunity to have access to the files and edit them. Furthermore, they can immediately see the changes made by each group member and this saves them time in building synchronous communication.

Difficulties Students Face During Multidisciplinary Co-Creation Processes

The main problems the students have had during the semester stemmed from the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, some students mentioned that they could not be involved as much as they would like to because of the restrictions of the mandatory use of the online environment for their communication that often were of weak or poor quality. Moreover, co-creation was more challenging for the exchange students who could not travel and come to Belgium due to the COVID-19 travel regulations. Generally, since they could not actively take part in the weekly group class assignments and meetings, and they were reported as late and reluctant to participate, their group members were not satisfied with the performance of the exchange students. For this reason, they complained that they had to remind other group members to do their work or had to do someone else’s work themselves. On the other hand, these exchange students explained the difficulty they have gone through also because of the time difference and poor internet connection locally. The students also mentioned that they were not comfortable with being assessed as a group by their teachers. This discomfort was especially detected when there is an unfair division of labor during the co-creation process. The students complained about the ones who did not take any responsibility but tried to take advantage of the other group members in their project, who eventually had to do all the work. In some cases, students deleted the name of the student who did not contribute to the project from their group assignment submissions with the explanation that those students did not participate at all in those instances. Another problem the students had was about not trusting each other. They stated that some students were untrustable because they lied to them and they did not complete their work. This negatively affected other students’ approach towards these students. The language barrier was another obstacle for the students during the co-creation process. As mentioned earlier, the students were from different backgrounds, countries and education levels. The level of English was not the same for all, and none of them was identified as native English speakers. The students mentioned that some group members could not express themselves easily because they were not fluent in English. Moreover, when they got feedback from their stakeholders in Dutch, non-Dutch speaking students found it difficult to translate and access the content. Also, communication became harder when the group members spoke fast and with an accent.

During the presentation itself, he talked very fast, with a strong French accent and at some points even somewhat inaudible. He explained the concept .. but it was not that clear to everybody. That might be a working point in other intercultural classes, to speak a bit slower and to articulate very clearly. - Psychology student

The students explained the factors that demotivated them. One of these factors was group members' decreased performance during the exam period. Furthermore, students were not happy when they were not rewarded, or could not achieve their goals. They also think that having less participants in the group increased their workload but they stated that comparing themselves with other groups did not have a positive impact on the co-creation process. Another problem that students had during co-creation was having selfish, overcritical members who were ‘too active perfectionists’. Similar to not doing their own work and being quiet and shy, when the group members did more than they needed to do, it may create an unbalanced atmosphere. In either way, the unbalanced occurrence among group members negatively affected the co-creation process.

The only thing that I saw is that sometimes she was ‘too present’ during the meeting or in the work. Indeed, she likes to do the work herself which is nice because the work is done on time but sometimes other members can’t add something more because it is already completed. - Textile engineering student

Conclusion Aiming to have an understanding of the students’ perspective in a multidisciplinary co-creation course, this study focused on the final peer assessment reports written by the students. Students’ evaluation of their group members and themselves shed light on the skill sets and characteristics that are required during a co-

524

creation process and also the type of behaviors they should avoid for an effective collaboration journey. The peer assessment reports yielded rich data on understanding the factors that aid or/and obstruct effectiveness and efficiency of co-creation processes. They provided practical advice for conducting co-creation projects in an effective way, such as setting a deadline, giving feedback to each other, and assuring clear and fair division of labor. In addition, the reports demonstrated that being helpful, active, clear, punctual, trustworthy, respectful and kind are the characteristics expected from group members in a co-creation project. Furthermore, since the peer assessment reports also included students’ opinions about themselves and expected them to evaluate their own performance during the co-creation process, it served as a way to raise self-awareness and self-reflection. In this way, students may have a chance to realize their own lacking points and concentrate on improving themselves especially on these points. The reports include a sentence about self-reflection on the topics that they have recognised in their fellow peers. Thus, this can be a meaningful approach for engaging students in their overall learning process as well. Furthermore, the peer assessment reports externalized students’ opinions on what they appreciated and disliked during their co-creation processes. It can be inferred from the reports that for an effective co-creation process soft skills (Bancino & Zevalkink, 2007; Chamorro-Premuzic et al., 2010) are required as well as hard skills (Phillips, Phillips, & Ray, 2020). Figure 3 shows the relation between the codes (e.g. motivating the team) generated from the analysis of the peer assessment reports of the students and three subcategories of soft skills (personal skills, social skills, methodological skills) explained by Haselberger et al. (2012). The skills mentioned by the students do not cover all soft skills but the alignment can be seen. This indicates that soft skills such as leadership, creativity, motivation, teamwork, problem-solving, decision-making, collaboration, communication and management skills, which were highlighted by the students in this study, have a common denominator: contribution to the enhancement of the co-creation processes. In this sense, this study implies that improving or developing the soft skills of the students can correlatively increase the effectiveness and efficiency of multidisciplinary co-creation processes. According to Vogler et al. (2018), the best way to improve the soft skills of students, which are also required to be successful in the 21st-century marketplace, is by engaging them directly in ill-defined, real-life problems/situations and active learning, instead of merely relying on conventional, ‘passive’ teaching techniques such as ‘one-way’ lectures. In this regard, since Design Thinking provides a roadmap for dealing with these wicked problems, design educators have a pivotal role in contributing to the development of soft skills of students and, consequently, increasing the effectiveness of the co-creation processes. As far as hard skills are concerned, students indicated the significance of software program knowledge and fluency in a common language. The fact that having a good command of the agreed language of interaction is a must for effective communication, cannot be ignored. However, this is not the only way that helps people understand each other. This deficiency cannot be filled completely without language knowledge but at least it can be supported in other ways. For instance, empathy is one of the soft skills that is required for building a strong communication channel in design education (Alsager Alzayed et al., 2020). In this case, design educators have an important role in encouraging students towards this end. They may integrate empathy into their courses through providing project topics that require empathy, organizing workshops or other events with people from different disciplines or nationalities, and helping students to have a decolonised gaze. Moreover, since we are moving towards a digital age, design educators could consider involving the use of state-of-the-art software programs that enhance the effective communication and increase the efficiency of the co-creation process more in their curricula. The findings of this study regarding the problems of students during co-creation overlapped with the challenges of co-creation mentioned in the literature. On top of that, this study uncovered more difficulties students faced, owing to the peer assessment reports that give a forum for their voice. According to this, the COVID-19 pandemic has negatively affected the quality of collaboration from many angles. The face-to-face co-creation was seen as much easier than remote co-creation by the students. However, the pandemic can be considered as the driving force that accelerates the exploitation of online and virtual tools in design education and co-creation, which can prepare students for professional practice and Industry 4.0 under similar circumstances. The students’ strategy to cope with the difficulties of remote co-creation is to strengthen their personal relationship with informal meetings. This strategy can be adopted in further studies to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of remote collaboration.

525

Figure 3. The codes generated from the analysis (e.g. being creative) and their association with soft skills divided into three as personal skills, social skills, methodological skills (Haselberger et al., 2012).

In conclusion, it is evident that students from different backgrounds learn from each other when they embark on a collective creativity process. Despite its difficulties, this collaboration should be supported and remediated. With this in mind, it is possible to draw an analogy between multidisciplinary co-creation in this digital age and changing weather. We cannot interfere in the weather changes but we can equip ourselves to survive in any weather circumstances. Similarly, students should be armed with soft skills, which will allow them to blossom in the age of Industry 4.0. It is hoped that the findings of this study will help design educators create a more beneficial and meaningful co-creation atmosphere for their students. In addition, starting from this point of view, this study may guide students in how to have more effective multidisciplinary collaboration and co-creation processes for their future skills development and for a smooth integration in Industry 4.0 and beyond.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to express their appreciation to the Co-creation course students for participating in this study and the European Commission for providing support and funding to the Erasmus+ KA2 project ‘T-CREPE’ (Textile Engineering for Co-Creation Paradigms in Education). Project No: 612641. This study was conducted in the scope of this project and the T-CREPE Planet Platform was utilized in this course.

References Akoglu, C., & Dankl, K. (2019). Co-creation for empathy and mutual learning: A framework for design in health

and social care. CoDesign, 1-17. Alsager Alzayed, M., McComb, C., Menold, J., Huff, J., & Miller, S. R. (2020). Are you feeling me? An exploration

of empathy development in engineering design education. Journal of Mechanical Design, 1-57. Bancino, R., & Zevalkink, C. (2007). Soft skills: The new curriculum for hard-core technical professionals.

Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers, 82(5), 20–22. Bruffee, K. A. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of

knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

526

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design issues, 8(2), 5-21. Carranza, R., Díaz, E., Sánchez-Camacho, C., & Martín-Consuegra, D. (2021). E-banking adoption: An

opportunity for customer value co-creation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 4003. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., Arteche, A., Bremner, A. J., Greven, C., & Furnham, A. (2010). Soft skills in higher

education: Importance and improvement ratings as a function of individual differences and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 30(2), 221–241.

Charlotte Smith, R., Winschiers-Theophilus, H., Paula Kambunga, A., & Krishnamurthy, S. (2020). Decolonizing participatory design: Memory making in Namibia. In Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020-Participation (s) Otherwise-Volume 1 (pp. 96-106).

Cimatti, B. (2016). Definition, development, assessment of soft skills and their role for the quality of organizations and enterprises. International Journal for quality research, 10(1), 97-130.

Cooke, L., Dusenberry, L., & Robinson, J. (2020). Gaming design thinking: wicked problems, sufficient solutions, and the possibility space of games. Technical Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 327-340.

Cotet, G. B., Balgiu, B. A., & Zaleschi, V. C. (2017). Assessment procedure for the soft skills requested by Industry 4.0. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 121, p. 07005). EDP Sciences.

Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58(4), 563-584.

Deeley, S. J., & Bovill, C. (2017). Staff student partnership in assessment: Enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 463-477.

Design Council UK. (2021). What is the framework for innovation? Design Council’s evolved Double Diamond. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/what-framework-innovation-design-councils-evolved-double-diamond.

Detand, J., & Emmanouil, M. (2018). Multiple research perspectives as a paradigm to co-create meaningful real-life experiences. Journal of Systemics Cybernetics and Informatics, 16(3), 42-46.

Dhadphale, T., & Baughman, J. (2018). Understanding characteristics of multidisciplinary collaboration using concept maps. In DS 93: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE 2018), Dyson School of Engineering, Imperial College, London. 6th-7th September 2018 (pp. 526-531).

Doyle, E., Buckley, P., & Whelan, J. (2019). Assessment co-creation: An exploratory analysis of opportunities and challenges based on student and instructor perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 24(6), 739-754.

Ehmann, D. (2005). Using assessment to engage graphic design students in their learning experience. In Making a Difference: 2005 Evaluations and Assessment Conference Refereed Papers.

Ehn, P. (2008). Participation in design things. In Participatory Design Conference (PDC), Bloomington, Indiana, USA (2008) (pp. 92-101). ACM Digital Library.

Elsharnouby, T. H. (2015). Student co-creation behavior in higher education: The role of satisfaction with the university experience. Journal of marketing for higher education, 25(2), 238-262.

Fink, D. L. D. (2003). Creating Significant Learning Experiences: An Integrated Approach to Designing College Courses. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass

Gago, D., & Rubalcaba, L. (2020). The role of soft skills to leverage co-creation in living labs: insights from Spain. The Innovation Journal, 25(2), 1-23.

Giloi, S. (2017). The benefits of incorporating a decolonised gaze for design education. In Design Education Forum of Southern Africa Proceedings from the 14th National DEFSA Conference (pp. 83-93).

Shor, I., & Freire, P. (1987). A pedagogy for liberation: Dialogues on transforming education. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Haselberger, D., Oberheumer, P., Perez, E., Cinque, M. & Capasso, F. (2012). Mediating Soft Skills at Higher Education Institutions. Guidelines for the design of learning situations supporting soft skills achievement. ModES Project. Lifelong Learning Programme. Brussels, Belgium: European Union.

Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co‐creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86-95. Karjalainen, T. M., & Repokari, L. (2007). Challenges of cross-Atlantic project collaboration in design education.

In DS 43: Proceedings of E&PDE 2007, the 9th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, University of Northumbria, Newcastle, UK, 13.-14.09. 2007 (pp. 607-612).

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning; Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Laal, M., & Laal, M. (2012). Collaborative learning: what is it?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 491-495.

Lee, J., Ahn, J., Kim, J., & Kho, J. M. (2019). Co‐design education based on the changing designer's role and

527

changing creativity. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 38(2), 430-444. Masika, R., & Jones, J. (2016). Building student belonging and engagement: insights into higher education

students’ experiences of participating and learning together. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(2), 138-150. Maisiri, W., Darwish, H., & van Dyk, L. (2019). An investigation of industry 4.0 skills requirements. South African

Journal of Industrial Engineering, 30(3), 90-105. Mattelmäki, T., & Visser, F. S. (2011). Lost in Co-X. Interpretations of co-design and co-creation. Edit.

Roozenberg, N. F. M., Chen, L.L. & Stappers, P. J. Diversity and unity. In Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research. The Netherlands.

McAra, M., & Ross, K. (2020). Expanding studio soundaries: Navigating tensions in multidisciplinary collaboration within and beyond the higher education design studio. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39(4), 795-810.

Murdoch-Kitt, K., Emans, D. J., & Oewel, B. (2020). Designing Six Dimensions of Intercultural Teamwork: A next-gen challenge in co-creation processes.

Neary, M., & Winn., J. (2009). The Student as Producer: Reinventing the Student Experience in Higher Education. In The Future of Higher Education: Policy, Pedagogy and the Student Experience, 192–210.

Phillips, J., Phillips, P., & Ray, R. (2020). Proving the value of soft skills: Measuring impact and calculating ROI. American Society for Training and Development. Virginia: ATD Press.

QSR International (1999). NVivo qualitative data analysis software [Software]. Available from https://qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/

Qu, L., Chen, Y., Rooij, R., & de Jong, P. (2020). Cultivating the next generation designers: Group work in urban and regional design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(5), 899-918.

Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2018). What is co-creation? An interactional creation framework and its implications for value creation. Journal of Business Research, 84, 196-205.

Rao, M. S. (2014). Enhancing employability in engineering and management students through soft skills. Industrial and Commercial Training. 46(1), 42-48.

Rock, J., McGuire, M., & Rogers, A. (2018). Multidisciplinary perspectives on co-creation. Science Communication, 40(4), 541-552.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. SAGE Publications. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5-18. Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design.

Amsterdam: BIS. Schelvis, R. M., Hengel, K. M. O., Wiezer, N. M., Blatter, B. M., van Genabeek, J. A., Bohlmeijer, E. T., & van der

Beek, A. J. (2013). Design of the bottom-up innovation project-a participatory, primary preventive, organizational level intervention on work-related stress and well-being for workers in Dutch vocational education. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 1-15.

Schultz, T., Abdulla, D., Ansari, A., Canlı, E., Keshavarz, M., Kiem, M., Prado de O. Martins, L. & J.S. Vieira de Oliveira, P. (2018). What is at stake with decolonizing design? A Roundtable. Design and Culture, 10(1), 81-101.

Stappers, P. J., Sleeswijk Visser, F., & van der Lugt, R. (2007). Teaching contextmapping to industrial design students. Proceedings of include 2007, 1-6.

Sung, H.-Y., & Hwang, G.-J. (2013). A collaborative game-based learning approach to improving students’ learning performance in science courses. Computers & Education, 63, 43-51.

Trias Cornú, L. (2020). (De)institution design: Decolonizing design discourse in Uruguay. In Proceedings of Pivot 2020: Designing a World of Many Centers. DRS Pluriversal Design SIG. Tulane University. (pp. 79-94).

Tsey, K., Lui, S. M., Heyeres, M., Pryce, J., Yan, L., & Bauld, S. (2018). Developing soft skills: Exploring the feasibility of an Australian well-being program for health managers and leaders in Timor-Leste. Journal Indexing and Metrics, 8(4), 1-13.

Turhan, S., & Doğan, Ç. (2017). Experience reflection modelling (ERM): A reflective medium encouraging dialogue between users and design students. CoDesign, 13(1), 32-48.

United Nations (n.d.). Take action for the sustainable development goals. Retrieved March 12, 2021, from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/

Van Der Pijl, P., Lokitz, J., & Solomon, L. K. (2016). Design a better business: New tools, skills, and mindset for strategy and innovation. John Wiley & Sons.

Vogler, J. S., Thompson, P., Davis, D. W., Mayfield, B. E., Finley, P. M., & Yasseri, D. (2018). The hard work of soft skills: augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), 457-488.

Wallin, P. (2020). Student perspectives on co-creating timescapes in interdisciplinary projects. Teaching in

528

Higher Education, 25(6), 766-781. Whalen, P. S., & Akaka, M. A. (2016). A dynamic market conceptualization for entrepreneurial marketing: The

co-creation of opportunities. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 24(1), 61-75. Windasari, N. A., Lin, F. R., & Kato-Lin, Y. C. (2021). Continued use of wearable fitness technology: A value co-

creation perspective. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 102292.

Melis Örnekoğlu Selçuk Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design - Design.Nexus, Ghent University, Belgium melis.ornekogluselcuk@ugent.be She is a PhD student and researcher at the Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design, Ghent University. In November 2020, she joined the Erasmus+ KA2 project ‘T-CREPE’ Textile Engineering for Co-creation Paradigms in Education as a researcher. She holds a MSc degree in Industrial Design from Izmir Institute of Technology. Her research interests are game-based learning, co-creation and the Design Thinking methodology. Marina Emmanouil Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design - Design.Nexus, Ghent University, Belgium marina.emmanouil@ugent.be She holds a PhD and an MA in the History of Design (RCA), and a BA (Hons) in Graphic Design. She is an Assist. Professor at Ghent University since 2017 and her teaching and research involves the history and theory of design, methodology, design education. Marina is a founding member of the Design.Nexus research group, and the project manager of the ‘T-CREPE’ Erasmus+ KA2 project on co-creation in education. Jan Detand Department of Industrial Systems Engineering and Product Design - Design.Nexus, Ghent University, Belgium jan.detand@ugent.be He obtained a MSc in Electromechanical engineering from Ghent University in 1986, and a PhD in 1993 from the Catholic University of Leuven. He is an Assoc. Professor at Ghent University, teaching in the domain of industrial design engineering and co-creation. Research focuses on design for health care and design for industry 4.0. He is head of the Design.Nexus research group.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Systemic Design Education in Interdisciplinary Environments Enhancing a Co-Disciplinary Approach Towards Circular Economy

Asja Aulisio, Amina Pereno, Fabiana Rovera and Silvia Barbero https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.05.250

The transition of our linear economic models towards a Circular Economy is perceived as a pressing need at European level. A growing body of literature highlights the demand for new skills to facilitate this transition: more than new professions, it is about specific professional skills for circular businesses. The European Erasmus+ project MULTITRACES falls within this scenario and is based on the co-creation of a multidisciplinary online training programme that involved Systemic Design in collaboration with other scientific and economic disciplines. The learning process focused on the acquisition of both hard and soft skills relevant to the Circular Economy in the rural area, through a structure combining a vertical approach to disciplinary topics, with a horizontal approach based on teamwork on industrial issues. The experience gained within the Systemic Design module opens a structured reflection on how to teach design to students from different backgrounds, how design skills can foster a co-disciplinary approach to complex issues, such as the Circular Economy, and how digital tools can support design education.

Keywords: systemic design, circular economy, co-disciplinary learning, interdisciplinary education, digital learning tools

Introduction

Acquiring New Skills for the Circular Economy The transition towards the vast and complex world of the Circular Economy first requires an understanding of how to develop and implement innovative circular models (European Commission, 2020) and, at the same time, how to define new skills necessary to interface with it. In particular, it is crucial to identify a series of expertise – specific professional skills – so as to obtain a healthy and smooth transition towards sustainable development and training of new professional profiles in this field. Naturally, the definition of these skills cannot be unambiguous and definitive, because the Circular Economy is a constantly evolving field, but it is possible to bring out those skills by matching supply and demand in the circular labour market. To this end, it is necessary to focus on the needed competence, which can be defined as "a bricolage of knowledge and the ability to act knowledge in specific contexts” and “a provisional outcome of a mainly spontaneous individual and collective learning process" (Cepollaro, 2008, p. 44). Indeed, learning processes play a key role for the acquisition of specific skills and professional knowledge, in fact it is significant to operate strategically at an educational level researching the most suitable learning models to educate different kinds of professional profiles able to deal with the systemic complexity of the Circular Economy. As mentioned before, students need to acquire specific professional skills to work in the Circular Economy today, but it is imperative to go beyond the existing scenario, defining the skills that will be needed in the future. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the new skills for Circular Economy can be divided into two main types: hard and soft skills. The hard or vertical skills have a technical-content nature, each individual is able to use them independently and responsibly and derive from previous knowledge, they can be defined as knowing-how (Jones & Lichtenstein, 2000). The soft or horizontal skills concern the distinctive characteristics of an individual, they are essential for transforming one's knowledge into behaviour. So, what are the soft and

530

hard skills most useful for creating and strengthening the curriculum of potential professional profiles in the field of Circular Economy? The literature (Burger et al., 2019; De los Rios & Charnley, 2016; Rovera, 2020) shows how the hard skills should focus on:

• the possible interactions or relationships that develop between Circular Economy models and the labour market

• the methodologies for communicating circular project through action of promotion and dissemination

• the knowledge of physical, chemical, sensory and organoleptic properties of a product and its by-products in order to enhance them

• the technical know-how, for understanding how to manage circular innovation, for example the procedures or technologies for accomplishing an efficient management of environmental resources and energy

Instead, the soft skills should be directed towards three different kinds of competences: the general competences that “lend themselves well for comparison across a wide range of contexts, but are often rather abstract, ambiguous, and difficult to measure” (Allen, Remaekers & Van Der Velden, 2005, p.52), the key-competences for sustainability (UNESCO, 2017) and the key-competencies of Circular Economy (Rovera, 2020). The first, the general competences, can consist in:

• leadership, in particular the concept of motivational leadership, the importance to know how to coordinate a work group from a cognitive, emotional and behavioural point of view

• team work’s, to know how to interact and communicate with people belonging different fields and nationality, being close-knit and proactive towards others and their ideas

• professionalism, autonomy, knowing how to make informed decision and how to organize one's work

• flexibility, to develop critical and reflective thinking

• time management, to manage time optimally The second, the key competences for sustainability, consist in the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The third, the key-competencies of Circular Economy, are the most closely linked to the it and consist in knowing how:

• to work in a multi-interdisciplinary team with different professional profiles

• to observe and be curious towards the innovative solutions

• to manage challenges and changes in business activities

• of qualitative communication skills to talk about company projects and activities

• be flexible in managing new tasks and new challenges related to the implementation of Circular Economy models

The above-mentioned hard and soft skills represent the key expertises to optimally approach the complex domain of Circular Economy. Design disciplines, with their infraordinary nature (Celaschi, 2008; Perec, 1984) are capable of teaching and transmitting competences in a simple and immediate way. The term infraordinary indicates the intrinsic capacity of Design to be a discipline among others. The Design tries to join disciplines constructively and making them dialogue profitably and interconnected. In particular the action is possible thanks to the valuable support of trans-disciplinary mediation skills developed by the designer to face-up different project, from socio-technical prospective, that is emerges as a link for connecting between different disciplines. On the other side, Design and, in particular, Systemic Design owns a very crucial and valuable role in the context of sustainable development. Thanks to its key principles and methodology (Bistagnino, 2011; Battistoni, Giraldo Nohra, & Barbero, 2019), Systemic Design becomes the effective and preeminent tool to be able to face the complex field of Circular Economy, due to the use of systemic thinking, in fact, as Senge (1990) states “this discipline helps us to see how to modify systems more efficiently and to act more in harmony with the natural processes of the natural and economic world”.

Systemic Design in Circular Economy Education: The MULTITRACES Erasmus+ Project The literature shows how the Circular Economy is not demanding a dedicated profession, but new skills that complement and renovate existing educational programmes. The Erasmus+ MULTITRACES project takes place in this scenario, involving four European universities (University 'Vasile Alecsandri' of Bacau, Politecnico di Torino, International Hellenic University, Universidad De Alicante) that collaborate around the topic of Circular Economy for rural areas. The framework of rural areas, indeed, is undergoing phenomena of abandonment due to increasing urbanization and lack of interest in agricultural activities by new generations. Circular businesses can bring new economic, social and environmental opportunities to these areas, since sectors such as agro-industry and agro-forestry have a high

531

circular potential for valorizing natural resources and by-products. For this reason, the three-year MULTITRACES project aims to develop a common vision of the topic, bringing together different national (Romania, Italy, Greece, Spain) and disciplinary experiences (environmental and production engineering, Systemic Design, agronomy and forestry sciences, business and management), with the active support of four partner companies. Starting from this common vision, the universities have built an international and interdisciplinary training programme which involves 56 students, aiming at providing them with the skills they need to train in the field of Circular Economy, both as future professionals and as future entrepreneurs. The authors actively participated in the co-design of the training programme, which is divided into four thematic modules, and in particular they personally implemented the Systemic Design for the Circular Economy module, taking up the challenge of teaching Design methods and tools to students from different countries and disciplines. Besides the trans-disciplinary mediation skills that characterize all design disciplines, Systemic Design “provides practical tools to approach complex scenarios with a holistic perspective, while supporting active cooperation among involved stakeholders” (Giraldo Nohra, Pereno & Barbero 2020). The scope of Systemic Design is that of complex systems, hence in recent years it has built strong synergies with the Circular Economy, which aims to rethink linear economic models from a broader and more systemic perspective. This paper illustrates the design process of the entire training programme and focuses specifically on the methodology and results of the Systemic Design training module in order to answer two main research questions:

1. What is the role of Design in a multi/inter/co-disciplinary approach to the Circular Economy? 2. How can the trans-disciplinary mediation skills of designers contribute to the training programme?

The experience of the MULTITRACES project provides an interesting use case to address these questions and open up new reflections on the contribution of Design disciplines to complex, cross-sectoral and inter-disciplinary issues such as the Circular Economy.

Methodology

Designing the Role of Design in a Multidisciplinary Training Programme The MULTITRACES course is based on a multidisciplinary approach to the issue of the Circular Economy in rural areas, which has led to identifying the key disciplines to be involved in the project: Systemic Design, environmental and production engineering, agronomy and forestry sciences, business and management. Each discipline has defined its own expertise and topics to be addressed over four disciplinary modules. However, while the participation of different disciplines ensures the multidisciplinary nature of the course, the common aim was to offer an interdisciplinary vision to the topic of Circular Economy, by adopting a shared approach to the educational programme. Hence, the development of the MULTITRACES course consisted of three main phases, illustrated in Figure 1

1. Multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary programme development. The first phase involved the four partner universities that shared a common research path on the Circular Economy in rural areas to build a common vision. At the same time, the partners jointly investigated the hard and soft skills needed by students for a career in the Circular Economy. This led to the definition of a horizontal and vertical structure of the course modules, combining vertical knowledge on each subject with the development of horizontal skills related to management, teamwork and communication aspects.

2. Design education. The second phase especially involved the Politecnico di Torino team in the development of the Systemic Design module. Once the approach and main contents had been shared with the other disciplines, it was essential to define what skills design can bring both to the Circular Economy and to students and future professionals from different disciplines. While the team has extensive experience in teaching Systemic Design in Circular Economy, within MULTITRACES it had to define what cross-disciplinary skills to offer to a multidisciplinary class and how to teach them. In that view, the direct collaboration with a company that deals with circular business in the rural area (Agrindustria Tecco), was crucial to working on practical issues, building a use case of design experimentation for the students.

3. Co-disciplinary experiential learning. Having students from four different countries and backgrounds is an important experience in itself. Again, limiting the course to multidisciplinary runs the risk of limiting students' engagement and teaching effectiveness. For this reason, developing an experiential activity (named "mini-challenge") in collaboration with the company made it possible to implement a

532

learning-by-doing approach based on teamwork, fostering cultural and skills contamination among the students, and enhancing design skills acquisition.

Figure 1. Summary scheme of the impact of Design Education for enhancing new skills in the Circular Economy field, 2021

Overall, the methodology adopted enabled to build an interdisciplinary training programme based on a common approach to the complex issue of the Circular Economy in rural areas, defining the contribution of Design both towards the topic addressed and towards the different disciplines interacting within circular businesses.

Experiential Learning in a Digital Setting The whole MULTITRACES course was run online to allow all students to attend the lessons remotely. This choice was taken before the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to facilitate access from all parts of Europe for all students, compatible with their academic courses. The online course allowed a large number of students to easily participate in high-level international training: the current health emergency has further increased the value of online courses for equitable access to education. In detail, the course is divided into thematic modules, which has made it possible to define a replicable starting framework adaptable to any discipline. The first module of Systemic Design included 2 hours per week of theoretical frontal lessons on key themes, methodologies and working tools of the discipline. The various methodological insights were covered by lecturers and researchers with expertise in each specific area to ensure timely teaching on the topics addressed. The digital platform in this case has allowed them to carry out the lessons live, recording them, thus giving the students the possibility to enjoy them at any time, catching up or deepening the topics asynchronously. In the preliminary phase of the course setting up, it was fundamental to reflect on the educational impact of e-learning platforms, due to their multimedia, interactivity and virtuality features. At the same time, it was important to reflect on their potential, in terms of engagement, going beyond the focus on the technical use of digital tools as communication media. From that perspective, the main goal was to propose a different way of thinking and experiencing the transversal integration of digital tools into education. The choice of digital tools, in fact, is not irrelevant. Some knowledge does not exist as a given content in itself, regardless the form in which it is taken (De Rossi & Ferranti, 2017). Its didactic form, transposed and mediated on a digital platform, starting from the source, takes on different characteristics depending on the type of media and tools that convey it. Moreover, technological advances have revolutionised teaching and learning processes (Aristovnik, 2012). In this scenario, the digital technologies determine a re-mediation of knowledge and produce a technological adaptation by the teacher and the student that introduces and produces a further level of knowledge, that of new digital tools.

533

To fulfil this, the e-learning platform selected and used for MULTITRACES is Moodle (acronym of Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment), an open-source tool designed to offer teachers and students a secure and integrated system for creating personalised learning environments beyond the University. The platform is a computer-based course management environment, born from the constructionist ideology that all learning is facilitated by the use and integration of tangible tools. With the use of Moodle, it was possible to organise and manage the entire course, which was made up of four interconnected modules. The tools already available on the platform for managing the work were integrated when necessary (such as quizzes, forums, chat). Starting from this kind of collaborative tool, capable of creating similar interactions to those experienced in a university classroom, the further integration with other digital tools became necessary. During distance learning, it was even more important to engage and interact with the students, to motivate them to complete the course, maintaining a high level of interest even in topics different from their standard academic paths. The interaction strategies adopted, such as individual and collective gamification, – using quizzes, Q&A sessions, debates and surveys – indirectly allow the application of co-design practices in the training programme. The implemented digital training system has employed standard tools (such as video lessons) for acquiring hard skills, while it has made use of innovative interactive and teamwork tools for acquiring soft skills. The educational approach based on the experiential learning theorised by John Dewey (Dewey, 1938) can and should be a constant reference also in digital learning contexts. In this way, in addition to relational and cultural exchange skills, the level of digital adaptation also brings learning. One of the most effective digital tools used during the course was MIRO, a platform with a well-designed User Experience, that enhances workflows and shared dashboards, both in real time and asynchronously. The complexity of Systemic Design projects, especially in multidisciplinary teams, requires a tool able to support different students in assessing and visualising the socio-technical system they take into analysis. To do this at remote locations, the authors have assessed different tools to support students in performing this task remotely Figure 2.

Figure 2. One of the concept examples made by a group of students, 2021

Preliminary results

Interdisciplinary and Cross-Sectoral Collaborations for Design Education. The Relevance of Synergy Among Academic World and Company Partner One of the aims of the MULTITRACES course is to train students, from different academic backgrounds, to meet the present and future market needs of the Circular Economy. Therefore, it is first necessary to investigate what those needs are, so as to be able to clearly and comprehensively define them and, at the same time, identify the key competences that a practitioner should learn in order to meet them. It is precisely on this last point that the entire European MULTITRACES Erasmus+ project devotes greater attention: what are today and what will be in the immediate future the skills needed for the Circular Economy market? What design skills different professionals should acquire, particularly in rural areas? As mentioned in

534

the introduction, it is possible to define two different types of skills: acquired competences (hard skills) and transversal competences (soft skills). In order to properly define these skills and make students more empowered for their professional future, the synergy among the Academic world and Company partner plays a crucial role. The advantages of collaborating with companies located in the various territories where the project partner universities are based enabled the identification of practical cases to work on with the students. Within the piedmontese territory, the Politecnico di Torino collaborated with the Agrindustria Tecco company in a constant comparison that further highlighted the unexpressed needs of the agri-food sector. Agrindustria Tecco is a small company, located in the area of Cuneo, it has been operating since 1985 and was born to transform secondary vegetable materials into industrial products useful for man. The company started reusing local waste to produce new sustainable vegetable products, moving from the agro-industrial sector to other fields of application, anticipating what we now call Circular Economy issues. The company, aims to treat niche products with the care and seriousness of an artisan business, boasting customers in Italy and abroad, as well as a series of assiduous collaborations with universities, innovation centres and other national companies, always with a view to enhancing the value of local products and fully respecting what nature teaches and makes available. The Company's attitude to establishing virtuous connections within local territorial systems, was important in the MULTITRACES course, providing a practical view on how to interconnect and consciously exchange resources. Agrindustria Tecco and Politecnico di Torino, collaborated in defining the topics for the students to work on within the mini-challenges. The three topics selected and proposed to the students were:

• analysis of the use and re-use of processing waste of dyeing plants

• mapping and study of natural porous materials, with a focus on their possible use as soundproofing materials

• valorisation of waste from the brewing process Thanks to several discussion sessions with the student groups, it was possible to directly involve the CEO of the company, who provided effective and practical feedback to the groups for possible implementations of the circular solutions presented per each topic. With this preamble, the role of the designer assumes a position of importance. The designer by definition has a role as a mediator between knowledge, (Celaschi, 2008). This has facilitated dialogue and interaction between disciplines both in the university environment and in the realisation of professional projects. It is with this assumption that the project emphasises the potential of Design Education to establish a cross-sectoral connection that generates contamination between the actors involved. Systemic Design, specifically, promotes the ability to communicate the complexity of a project, made up of relationships between actors and interconnection of material flows, in a clear and effective way through the use of different communication techniques and skills. Beyond the specific form of Design, Fry (2009) said, "The intrinsic capacity of design is to transform and shape the contemporary world". There is nothing more contemporary than fostering multi/inter/co-disciplinary educational projects in connection with the real sustainable needs of companies. The industry-academia collaboration of the MULTITRACES course has underlined how the first step in promoting an industrial transition to the Circular Economy is to create an awareness among companies that they need professionals with new skills in the field of circular businesses. For this the dialogue between Universities and Companies can do no more than facilitate an innovative and cross-sectoral transition towards Circular Economy.

From a Multidisciplinary to a Co-Disciplinary Approach: Fostering Cultural and Skills Contamination in Education The main idea behind the MULTITRACES project was to create a “MULTIdisciplinary TRAining in Circular Economy and Smart valorization of the rural area for new business models''. Indeed, initially, the brief of the project was to pursue a multidisciplinary approach to the construction of an innovative training course. This choice has been hypothesized and recommended from a top-down perspective in which it is possible to allow the division of the work among different professors. As Peruccio, Menzardi and Vrenna (2019) state, “multidisciplinary is intended as the use of solutions borrowed from another discipline”. However, the main limit of a multidisciplinary approach is that it aims at putting together multiple knowledge relating to different disciplines, in a purely additive way. To avoid this risk, the four universities involved in the MULTITRACES project have decided, through a co-design action and a bottom-up approach, characterized by a detailed and structured knowledge management strategy, to design a learning course that is based, also, on co-disciplinary experiential learning. Concerning this, the most challenging aspect came with the practical component of the course, as illustrated in Figure 3. How can we get a group of students from different backgrounds to work together, overcoming the

535

lack of a physical place for students and teachers to meet, get to know each other and work together? To meet this task, the engagement of the project companies was decisive. Starting from their specific requests or project suggestions in the field of Circular Economy, topics were defined on which to apply the notions seen in the lessons through the creation of mini-challenges assessment to achieve in a multidisciplinary team.

Figure 3. Summary scheme about the focal points of the training course MULTITRACES, 2021

The management strategy of the course is characterized through the two approaches just mentioned above: in the first part a multidisciplinary vertical approach to disciplinary topics based on lessons with a technical-content nature for learning hard skills and, in the second ones, a horizontal approach on practical activities – mini-challenge – to work on industrial issues and challenges. The horizontal structure gives soft skills but also allows students to confront each other independently, experiencing work dynamics in multi-interdisciplinary groups and building a common vision to the topics proposed to them which is no longer multidisciplinary but co-disciplinary. In fact, thanks to the co-disciplinarity approach, each professional profile can achieve at maximum a certain familiarity or empathic understanding with the knowledge of another one’s. Empathy becomes an essential element to allow for co-thinking, thanks to a critical, reflective and systemic thinking. Naturally, it is also crucial to specify that each professional profile cannot master the language or the disciplinary knowledge of another one's (Blanchard-Laville, 2000). The co-disciplinarity experiential learning is the ideal answer for promoting the development and the acquisition of new design skills, both vertical and horizontal and, at the same time, for a cultural skills contamination among students of different nationality. Finally, it is important to develop a consideration starting from the thought of Rossi (2017): “it highlights the need to put in place a teaching able to mobilize all the resources favoring the knowing how to act as a mental habitus” (p.194). In the next paragraph will be reported an in-depth examination of how education, Systemic Design discipline and a systemic culture (Barbero et al., 2019) can break down the current barriers for sustainable development and circular transition thanks to innovative learning approaches as the knowing how to act.

536

The Role of Digital Tools to Connect People Around Europe to Experience “Learning by Doing” Approach As we mention in the previous section (see par. 2.2), the selection of a digital platform for distance learning is crucial. It is necessary to have high-performance tools to be able to carry out activities that are usually done in presence. In the MULTITRACES project the digital tools used became, as affirmed by Angels & Valanides (2009), “cognitive partners”, able to amplify the methodological repertoire, in order to facilitate and personalize student learning. One interesting aspect is that in this epochal phase, education in general has to adapt, defining new contexts in which to transfer knowledge. From that perspective, ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) in university teaching offer the possibility of enriching strategies and formats by means of multimodality, flexibility and personalization in line with the complementary development of hard and soft skills (De Rossi & Ferranti, 2017). It is also essential to be able to involve students and stimulate their attention and involvement, especially in a remote, digital, and international context. For this reason, teachers should be able to make appropriate choices by transforming teaching methods. All this thanks to the development, updating and awareness of other knowledge such as pedagogic-didactic and technological know-how (Angeli & Valanides, 2009). The structure of the MULTITRACES course has at its core, a learning approach characterized by learning by reading, understanding, doing (Rovera, 2020). These approaches are the most suitable for developing high-quality education, based on the "creation of knowledge" (Kember, 2009; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001) with active learning at the centre. Furthermore, it is strategic, especially in the context of distance learning on digital platforms, to complement the three learning aspects described above with other three pedagogical approaches (UNESCO, 2017):

• a learner-centered approach, in this case the student is able to comprehend and assimilate knowledge autonomously, in an active way and, in particular, the role of the teacher changes, as it is not simply the one who transfers knowledge in a traditional, structured way (Barth, 2005), but it is the one who must facilitate, encourage the student to reflect, manage and monitor his knowledge.

• an action-oriented learning, in this case the approach focused on action and experimentation, only through experience, cognitive, emotional or sensorial nature, the student can learn and develop personally. At the same time, it is possible to speak about experiential learning, a theory to which various personalities have contributed over time including John Dewey (1938), Jean Piaget (1950) and David Kolb (1984).

• a transformative learning, in this case the learner is able to be critically aware of tacit assumptions or expectations and evaluate their relevance (Merizov, 2000). The teacher, instead, is the one who stimulates the students to form their own and unique vision of the world.

These pedagogical approaches influenced the co-design process of the structure of the MULTITRACES course and, in particular, the role of students and professors, fostering a context of mutual exchange aimed at stimulating interaction and co-learning processes. Teamwork fosters cultural as well as skills transfer by facilitating a dynamic and collaborative workplace that empowers students to achieve a shared goal. However, doing this at a distance involves experimenting with digital tools that facilitate brainstorming and support simultaneous work.

Discussion and Conclusion The co-disciplinary approach pursued within MULTITRACES permeates the whole learning process, from the general training structure to the module dedicated to Systemic Design. In order to effectively assess the impact of this approach, a questionnaire was administered to the students, focusing both on their personal and educational experience. A condensed analysis of the feedback shows that the practical dimension closely linked to experiential learning has proved to be an excellent method for engaging and motivating students. Moreover, the dynamics of practical work in groups, through "mini-challenges", have promoted team dimensions, fostering interdisciplinarity and reducing the elements of individuality. Unfortunately, building a strong team spirit in a virtual environment was sometimes difficult: this results in communication problems which hindered the work fluidity of some groups. Some respondents also pointed out that real-life coaching is more effective and engaging than online tutoring, precisely because dialogue is often not interrupted by circumstances beyond one's control. Although positive, the limitation of these results lies in the focus on a specific module and not on the whole training programme. However, this preliminary feedback is a valuable input to improve features and elements for the next modules of the course, by increasing performance. In the end, it is interesting to highlight that despite the difficulties encountered in this first phase of work, the ability of design to adapt to the different contexts in which it operates was crucial. Designers should work

537

as design agents to adapt different roles (Lee, 2008), from design facilitators to developers, especially when collaborating with different stakeholders in a cross-sectorial and inter-disciplinary context. The results from co-design practices carried out remotely through online, digital platforms show that it is increasingly necessary explore new interactive tools. Continuous research in this field is essential, especially for the education and training sector. Concerning the research questions, today more than ever, the pandemic has made us adapt to new educational practices and raised new issues that requires experimentation and co-design of innovative tools and services to effectively interconnect students, professors, and working teams. The paper presents the methods and outcomes of the online training through a holistic perspective, which looks at the educational experience within a broader disciplinary, cultural and social context. The aim is to contribute to the debate on multi/inter/co-disciplinary education through a practical and interdisciplinary case study, which implemented new interactive tools for design education. Moreover, the MULTITRACES experience has highlighted the urgency of stimulating the production of critical consciences, promoting the development of a circular and systemic culture to which Design Education can act as a pioneer.

References Allen, J., Ramaekers, G., & Van Der Velden, R. (2005). Measuring competencies of higher education graduates.

In D.J. Weerts e J. Vidal (eds.), Enhancing alumni research: European and American perspectives (pp. 49-59). New directions for institutional research, 126 (summer). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2009). Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: Advances in technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK). Computers & Education, 52, 154-168

Aristovnik, A. (2012). The impact of ICT on educational performance and its efficiency in selected EU and OECD countries: a non-parametric analysis. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(3), 144–152. Retrieved from http://www.tojet.net/articles/v11i3/11314.pdf

Barth, M. (2015). Implementing sustainability in higher education: learning in an age of transformation. London: Routledge.

Barbero, S., & Systemic Design Research Group (2019). Ricerca per mettere a sistema i siti UNESCO del Piemonte. Retrieved from http://www.cr.piemonte.it/web/files/ricerca_Siti_Unesco.pdf [accessed on 15 March 2021]

Battistoni, C., Giraldo Nohra, C., & Barbero, S. (2019). A Systemic Design Method to Approach Future Complex Scenarios and Research Towards Sustainability: A Holistic Diagnosis Tool. Sustainability, 11(16), 4458. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11164458

Blanchard-Laville, C. (2000). De la co-disciplinarité en sciences de l'éducation. Revue française de pédagogie. Evaluation, suivi pédagogique et portfolio, vol. 132, 55-66. http://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.2000.1033

Bistagnino, L. (2011). Systemic Design: Designing the Productive and Environmental Sustainability. Bra (CN), Italy: Slow Food Editore.

Burger, M., Stavropoulos, S., Ramkumar, S., Dufourmont, J., & van Oort, F. (2019). The heterogeneous skill-base of circular economy employment. Research Policy, Volume 48, Issue 1, 248-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.08.015

Celaschi, F. (2008). Design as a mediation between areas of knowledge. In C. Germak (Ed.), Man at the Center of the Project (pp. 19–31). Turin, Italy: Allemandi & C.

Cepollaro, G. (2008). Le competenze non sono cose. Milano, Italia: Guerini e Associati. De los Rios, I.C., & Charnley, F.J. (2016). Skills and capabilities for a sustainable and circular economy: The

changing role of design. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 160, Issue September 2017, 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.130

De Rossi, M., & Ferranti, C. (2017). Integrare le ICT nella didattica universitaria. Padova University Press, 9. De Rossi, M. (2017). Methodological demands, soft skill and ICT integration. In U. Margiotta (Ed.). Formazione

& Insegnamento XV – 1 – 2017: Education transformations: research perspectives. Pensa MultiMedia Editore. ISSN 2279-7505

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Touchstone. Dichev, C., & Dicheva, D. (2017). Gamifying education: what is known, what is believed and what remains

uncertain: a critical review. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14(1), 9. European Commission. (2020, 11 march). COM (2020) 98 final: A new Circular Economy Action Plan. For a

cleaner and more competitive Europe. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0098&from=IT [accessed on 25 March 2021]

538

Fry, T. (2009). Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Academy. Giraldo Nohra, C., Pereno, A., & Barbero, S. (2020). Systemic Design for Policy-Making: Towards the Next

Circular Regions. Sustainability, 12(11), 4494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12114494 Jones, C., & Lichtenstein, B. (2000). The “architecture” of careers: how career competencies reveal firm

dominant logic in professional services. In M. Peiperl, M. Arthur, R. Goffee e T. Morris (eds.), Career frontiers: new conceptions of working lives (pp. 153-176). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Kember, D. (2009). Promoting Student-Centred Forms of Learning Across an Entire University. Higher Education, 58(1), 1-13.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, Y. (2008) Design participation tactics: the challenges and new roles for designers in the co-design process, CoDesign, 4:1, 31-50, https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875613

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Perec, G. (1984). La vita, istruzioni per l'uso. Milano, Italia: BUR, Rizzoli. ISBN 88-17-11025-6 Peruccio, P.P., Menzardi, P., & Vrenna, M. (2019). Transdisciplinary knowledge: A systemic approach to design

education. In N.A.G.Z. Börekçi, D. O. Koçyıldırım, F. Korkut, D. Jones (eds.). Proceedings DRS Learn X Design 2019: Insider Knowledge (pp. 17-23). Ankara, Turchia: METU Department of Industrial Design. http://doi.org/10.21606/learnxdesign.2019.13064

Piaget, J. (1950). The Psychology of Intelligence (Piercy, M., & Berlyne, D.E., Trans.; 1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203164730

Rovera, F. (2020). Educare alla circolarità. L’educazione come strumento sociale per la transizione verso l’Economia Circolare del contesto rurale [Master’s thesis, Politecnico di Torino]. Webthesis, Biblioteche d'Ateneo. http://webthesis.biblio.polito.it/id/eprint/15558

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001), Revisiting Academics’ Beliefs About Teaching and Learning. Higher education, 41(3), 299-325.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

UNESCO. (2017). Education for Sustainable Development Goals. Learning Objectives. Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, © UNESCO, ISBN 978-92-3-100209-0

Asja Aulisio Politecnico di Torino, Italy asja.aulisio@polito.it She is a research fellow in Systemic Design at Politecnico di Torino and teaching assistant in Product Environmental Requirements. She graduated in Systemic Design with a study period in Japan and participated in international workshops with the Kyoto Institute of Technology. Her research focuses on the promotion of the systemic approach as a driver for territorial development in terms of sustainable and biodiverse tourism. Amina Pereno Politecnico di Torino, Italy amina.pereno@polito.it She is a post-doc research fellow in Systemic Design at Politecnico di Torino, and lecturer of Product Environmental Requirements. She has been a Lagrange Project fellow at ISI Foundation and a visiting researcher at the Nordic Center for Sustainable Healthcare. She took part in many national and international research projects on systemic and sustainable design. She has authored several peer-reviewed publications about systemic design, sustainable healthcare and circular economy.

539

Fabiana Rovera Università degli Studi di Scienze Gastronomiche di Pollenzo, Italy f.rovera@unisg.it She is a collaborator at Università degli Studi di Scienze Gastronomiche di Pollenzo and one of the University referents for RUS - Rete delle Università per lo Sviluppo sostenibile. During her studies she has been involved in projects about Systemic Design, Circular Economy and design education. Her current research revolves around the sustainability of universities and the strengthening of regional governance for sustainable development by defining new models of university-regional collaboration. Silvia Barbero Politecnico di Torino, Italy silvia.barbero@polito.it She is Associate Professor in Design at Politecnico di Torino, Department of Architecture and Design. She is lecturer of Product Environmental Requirements and Systemic Design. In 2005, she co-founded the Observatory of Eco-Pack. Since 2018, she is the chair of the international Systemic Design Association. She is the scientific coordinator of many EU projects about sustainable development and Circular Economy. She has authored numerous books and peer-reviewed articles, international proceedings.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Interdisciplinary Boundary Experiences Learning Through Conversations

Laura Ferrarello and Catherine Dormor https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.06.168

The complexity of many social systems and organisations together with the challenges the world is facing in terms of climate and health demands imagining new ideas and approaches. Interdisciplinary collaboration offers good examples of strategies and practices better able to cope with this complexity, but they are reliant upon the dynamics within collaborations and good integration of perspectives. This paper considers an example of interdisciplinary collaboration aimed at growing mindsets capable of dialoguing with other disciplines through the boundary learning. Based within the Royal College of Art Master in Research, we stimulated a learning experience that leveraged the cyclical dynamics of multi-disciplinary conversations towards an integrated space for knowledge production. This has been assessed through the students’ response to a collaborative project, in which cross-discipline groups developed activities for public engagement through collective research practices. This paper specifically focuses upon the role of conversation in interdisciplinarity as a learning method that harnesses different kinds of knowledge at the boundaries of their discipline and thus facilitates interdisciplinary integration of different disciplines.

Keywords: collaboration, boundary objects, conversation theory, integration, reflection

Introduction When Hurricane Sandy struck New York City in November 2012, President Obama created a task force to explore reconstruction strategies. There was a general agreement to rebuild the devastated areas using a more holistic approach, pivoted around the financing of the architectural competition Rebuild By Design (Ovink, H., & Boeijenga, 2018). This competition was the first of its kind in leveraging and harnessing knowledge emerging from the collaboration of stakeholders rather than selected experts (Ovink, H., & Boeijenga, 2018). The architectural solutions arising from the collective interdisciplinary experiences and approaches visualise interdisciplinary strategies that have generated multilateral knowledge and have unsiloed and reframed disciplinary experiences. Building from the positive experience Rebuild By Design has generated a set of successful interdisciplinary working dynamics. This paper draws on this, fostering interdisciplinarity and a boundary experience of learning able to consider the opportunities and challenges of working across disciplines. According to Jones (2010):

Interdisciplinarity is collaboration between two or more disciplines where actors from each discipline begin by adopting and integrating each other’s concepts, methods, theories, and even epistemologies in the creation of a reciprocal hybrid practice (Jones, 2010, p.157).

The motivation to support an interdisciplinary approach within a taught postgraduate research degree lies in the way that new knowledge is generated. It is also fuelled by the need to foster working practices and experiences better able to tackle the increasingly complex issues and challenges which now face the global community. An interdisciplinary approach generates a model of thinking that integrates different theoretical frameworks (Aboelela et al. 2007, p. 341 in Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018) and, by doing so is able to address

541

complex issues harnessing the diversity of different mindsets. Under these terms interdisciplinarity starts with a conceptual framework that integrates the processes of assessing, sharing and merging different disciplines (Singer, P. A., Martin, D. K., & Robertson, D. W. 2003) which enhances diversity and ‘buy-in’ from the stakeholders. Interdisciplinarity still lacks specific transferable methodologies that can leverage the value that people, and their knowledge, generate when integrating different mindsets, approaches and beliefs. The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development includes the cooperation of different cultures and sectors to generate capacity for meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) (UN Department of Economics and Social Affairs, 2021); however, this is still expressed at a meta level. Recognising these benefits for society in stimulating positive social change (The British Academy, 2016) there are a number of opportunities for education to produce methods able to train future generations for inclusive and holistic change through the intrinsic operational modalities of interdisciplinarity, specifically those created through clashes and misunderstandings that emerge from collaborating, co-creating and intermingling disciplines. The objective of generating methodologies able to foster a conceptual framework in which different languages, methods, practices and cultures can be entangled (Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. 2016) has been at the heart of the pedagogic approach leading the curriculum structure of the postgraduate programme object of this paper. McClellan and Johnson (2014) draw on Penny (2009) to suggest a form of ‘deep interdisciplinarity’, a way of working collectively and across disciplinary boundaries, that ‘celebrates the complexity and dedication critical pedagogy requires while simultaneously encouraging both instructors and students alike to see the world in altogether new ways’ (2014: 6). Interdisciplinary pedagogies are not new and there is extensive literature that sets out ways in which different disciplines can inform one another in terms of usefulness (for example, Mayrath and Trivedi 2009; Blair, 2011; McClellan & Johnson, 2014). There is also a body of work that tracks pedagogical uses of interdisciplinarity in curriculum planning and development (for example: Krizek & Levinson, 2005; Collis, McKee, & Hamley, 2010; Natalle & Crowe, 2013). What this body of research and positioning papers point to is that interdisciplinary working and pedagogies is achieved not through being built around one field/approach with others critiquing or adding into, but through forging a new approach that is built and owned collectively. This co-production and co-ownership of process, method, pedagogies and outputs, is a vital element of McClellan and Johnson (2014) and Penny’s (2009) notion of ‘deep interdisciplinarity’ in that it entails an unpacking of learned and disciplinary-located modes of working, turning away from notions of the ‘expert’ and all parties becoming shared learners. In extending this notion of deep interdisciplinarity this project proposes a framework capable of shifting understandings of “successful” interdisciplinary endeavours in higher education to better align with critical pedagogy’s praxical roots. This sets up a principle for working interdisciplinarily that needs shared and agreed processes of co-creation and collaboration in order to successfully develop an experience of knowledge exchange based upon difference (Robertson, D. W., Martin, D. K., & Singer, P. A. 2003). What it also offers is an inclusive space where experiences, knowledges and perspectives with and beyond disciplinary frameworks can be critically evaluated collectively. This entails a heuristic approach such as that proposed by Daron Oram (2020), an approach that privileges both inclusive and narrative forms of co-working including deep listening. In this it loops back to McClelland and Johnson’s ‘deep interdisciplinarity’, focusing upon listening carefully to disciplinary mores and embedded assumptions. In the MRes programme we lead, we wanted to develop this idea as a pedagogical tool and generated a learning environment in which postgraduate researchers worked in multi-disciplinary teams to bring together different kinds of knowledge and the related process of negotiation, assessment and communication that generates interdisciplinarity as approach to knowledge production. Approached with both heuristic and deep interdisciplinary framing in mind, we wanted students to start from an awareness of their disciplinary biases, assumptions and forms of communication that could potentially generate negative impacts within team dynamics (Fleming, L, 2004), and thus create barriers to interdisciplinarity. We wanted them to address these barriers rather than seek to swerve them. In this paper we want to reflect upon how we designed an experience of interdisciplinarity to encompass a diversity of approaches, cultures, working practices, languages (technical and cultural), methods to research, ethics awareness, biases and assumptions within a general attitude where protecting disciplinary boundaries often triggers misalignments and disagreements. In this approach of deep interdisciplinarity we aimed to embody such contrasts intrinsically and these as strengths, strategically used to develop working dynamics. This is to address such challenges as opportunities for deep listening and to mitigate polarisation which are often a route to failure (Fleming, L, 2004), (Jones, 2010). Therefore, we initiated an approach based on leveraging difference and championing inclusivity to stimulate interdisciplinary collaborations and thus deepen the experience of working collaboratively. It needs to be noted that the context in which we worked is defined by a set of disciplines where collaboration is a normal

542

activity for some, but where for others this is less often the case. Hence our intervention focussed on generating processes - and dynamics - whose role was to stimulate and increase the degree of breaking boundaries for eliciting processes of integration. The Royal College of Art (RCA) MRes curriculum creates and extends existing theoretical and practice-based approaches to interdisciplinarity by designing the dynamics of conversations, dialogue and negotiations. This is not about flattening or redistributing knowledge, but focusing on a bespoke set of heuristic practices for a specific project and outputs. For example, the unit entitled “Make it Public” was specifically created to elicit this with an open-ended evidence-focused rationale for the kinds of output realised to. This unit invites postgraduate researchers across the disciplines of art, design, communication and architecture to think through methods and modes for engaging the public in disseminating research processes in ways other than traditional papers and exhibitions. This unit is part of a programme which has an overarching ambition to develop skills for working and collaborating across disciplines in research projects. The “Make it Public” unit deploys interdisciplinary working dynamics as means to create alternative ways of engaging, which are more effectively able to communicate research to a wider audience. This unit reflects the MRes main objectives of eliciting discussion, debates and dialogues around research and research methodologies that might lead to interdisciplinary epistemologies through the convergence of disciplinary knowledge. It sets in relief disciplinary boundaries by pushing and questioning them through the exposure to other perspectives. With “Make it Public” this approach is exposed to the public for broader testing. Here we are focusing on the 2020 “Make it Public”, an online festival in collaboration with the Design Museum in London to meet the limitations imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic in Spring 2020. Where the students had previously shared workshops and studio spaces in London, they were suddenly isolated from this context, some returning to home countries across the globe, removing the immediate conversation flow. What resulted, however, was that the cohort of students and staff remained committed to realising the ambition and to use these limitations as opportunities to drive them in rethinking and reframing what interdisciplinary learning and collaboration can generate when certain pre-existing assumptions and ways of working need to be ‘abandoned’. As a pandemic-enforced opportunity, the online festival has stimulated an alternative experience of learning; this is still based on the concept of integration, exchange, of disciplinary knowledge and disciplinary attitudes that form the interdisciplinary epistemologies object of this paper. These were already factors integrated in the MRes curriculum but the limitations of meeting in person stimulated new methodologies of collaboration, discussion, knowledge exchange, negotiation of language and practices which revolved around the capacity to communicate, interrogate and integrate different kinds of perspectives. The online ‘Make it Public’ was able to produce these new forms of engagement and learning through the development of activities and experiences that l seven interdisciplinary groups of students created for the festival. We will describe how the form of these dialogues, expressed by the students, generated to engage the public, collectively elicited the integration of different forms of thinking and approaches to research. This is evidenced by how they leveraged diversity and supported heuristic learning and inclusivity. Their conversations generated feedback loops that stimulated agency for individuals and the groups to construct cross-disciplinary methods of learning and developing knowledge.

Methods: Designing Interdisciplinarity Through Designing Conversations The RCA MRes is one year postgraduate degree aiming at training interdisciplinary researchers across design, art and humanities. The programme is divided into four pathways: Arts & Humanities, Architecture, Communication Design and Design. Its multidisciplinary, multinational cohort of students develops research practices through a pedagogy that privileges peer discussions and peer collaboration within and across these pathways. The curriculum is structured upon a bridged structure with both discipline-specific and cross-disciplinary units. This offers students the framework to develop research practices and skills through individual and group projects. The objective is to instil a heuristic experience of cross-disciplinary learning through which students can push the boundaries of their disciplines. Such interactive experience is facilitated by a diverse body of faculty whose own practices are transferred to the students through seminars, workshops and group discussions. The MRes curriculum has been conceived and designed to allocate specific teaching spaces to the development of interdisciplinary forms of learning, in order to generate an environment in which the students are able to construct heuristically the means to integrate and assimilate knowledge, which is at and outside the boundaries, but can drive and innovate, their disciplines. This is built through reflection, holistic thinking, criticality and the capacity of compare and analyse (Berasategi, N., et al, 2020); these are guidelines the students are provided for communicating research intentions and objectives to their peers but also for

543

building a mindset that deploys conversations and dialogue in the development of a research project. As interdisciplinarity originates from a particular conceptual framework that is constructed upon negotiation, discussion and integration of different knowledge (Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K., 2018), our strategy is to develop this through pedagogies and epistemologies that foreground heuristic and inclusive approaches. Sweeting (2015) notes that conversations help students test and learn their ability to negotiate, agree and reframe pre-existing concepts which stimulates a process where new insights emerge. However, conversing is itself a process that assumes participants hold pre-existing knowledge, an understanding of which might be maintained and deepened across the action of conversation, or it can evolve with the experience of comparing (and negotiating) this knowledge with others. Often both take place together. In this programme the practice of conversing has been assimilated into the practice of learning, where learning can be defined as a process of continuous adaptation (Scott, B. ,2001). When conversing a person develops a self-awareness of their knowledge: a consciousness of both self and other (Scott, B. ,2001). This particular experience of conversing draws on Gordon Pask who divided the experience of knowing in “knowing why” (cognitive) and “knowing how” (procedural) (Scott, B., 2001). The relationship between these aspects is key to learning. Hence the experience of learning can be divided into four cycles - concrete experience, reflection, abstract conceptualisation and active experimentation (Scott, B., 2001). Conversation facilitates this by interfacing the knowledge exchanged between two or more persons. They become sensitised to difference and, through this, develop new knowledge. Any conversation can be therefore defined as a form of learning which has a context, language, a form of agreement and an objective (Pangaro, P., 2017). Conversation is therefore a descriptive process embodying forms of learning, or knowing. When conversing participants might experience positive misunderstandings, or forms of miscommunication, that create moments of alienation followed by revising assumed meaning (Sweeting, 2015) through a self-awareness generated by conversations (Scott, B., 2011). Learning through conversation is therefore a process in which we evaluate our knowledge through an approximation strategy enabled by the ongoing discussion. In this cyclical process ideas and opportunities are evaluated through iterations (Dubberly, & Pangaro, 2019). These cycles might be sequential, simultaneous or a blend of both, making multi-stream modes particularly potent pedagogically for the recursive nature of conversations in generating an evolution of knowledge. 1. A Word version of your submission, name the file using your submission number, e.g. 120.docx (see Figure 1.) 2. A PDF version of your submission, name the file using your submission number, e.g. 120.pdf The Word file will be used to compile the proceedings. The PDF will be made available to conference delegates prior to the conference via the online conference programme. As cyclical, any interaction in a conversation is key to enabling convergence of knowledge, which is stimulated by a process of negotiation through which participants reach an agreement (Dubberly, & Pangaro, 2019). Under this perspective conversation becomes an act of shaping “reframed knowledge” evolved from the collective action of negotiation. Through this process any participant develops self-awareness that, in its turn, stimulates the group in generating new ideas and each peer in redefining the understanding of the object of discussion (Figure 01).

Figure 1. Self-awareness developed through conversations

544

This approach is the foundation of the MRes, where discussion between students of different disciplines is key to generating heuristic and inclusive boundary learnings, and this became even more important when the Covid-19 pandemic hit the UK. Lockdown forced the programme to re-think collaboration and the “Make it Public” unit became an online festival. Respecting its objective of generating new methodologies of engagement in art and design, besides the more traditional formats of papers and exhibitions, the unit adapted. The MRes students gave the online festival the subtitle of “How to be out of the box when you are stuck in one”. The seven online activities reflected common research interests but also ways of engaging and collaborating from isolation.

Figure 2. The Make it Public Festival on the Design Museum web page

The seven topics - Balance, Body, Identity, Memory, Paper, Participation, Position - generated the following online activities:

• a zine developed upon the topic of the body (Body);

• a collection of interviews of artists and graphic designers on the topic of identity (Identity);

• a magazine illustrating the alienated experience of one’s home during lockdown (Balance);

• a series of digital cards collected on an Instagram account supporting interdisciplinary collaboration (Position);

• an interactive digital maze collecting some of the authors’ memories of spaces (Memory); Innovation

• a reflection on the lockdown isolation visualised through the technique of papier-mache (Paper);

• a soundtrack played by a piano with no player performing the collection of sounds people around the world shared on the topic of kindness (Participation).

These experiences were hosted and publicised through the Design Museum webpage (Figure 02. Figure 3).

545

Figure 3. The seven activities. From Left - Identity, Position, Memory, Paper, Body, Balance, Participation

To develop and create these activities we developed a detailed schedule of tutorials, group reviews and technical surgeries that supported the students’ learning and creative process in line with the programme’s learning outcomes of engaging and developing discussion, all related to interdisciplinary thinking. To achieve so it was important that the “Make it Public” should not be approached as a brief comprised of tasks but as a collection of conversations stimulating heuristic learning and new knowledge generated from the students’ lenses. This is not a process or pedagogy in which meaning is literally transferred from one participant to another, but it is constructed from a shared, negotiated and converged understanding of a given concept, which is acknowledged, implemented, or approximated, through the process of discussing with peers. Conversations reframe meanings by approximating the delta of knowledge resulting from the different understandings participants bring to the discussion (Sweeting, 2015). Using an open ended approach allows the different disciplines to assimilate, interpolate and integrate the respective boundaries (Jones, 2010), which produces an interdisciplinary approach to knowledge. As the” Make it Public” topics were open and applicable to the different disciplines, the risk of polarisation was reduced and curiosity was encouraged through building capacity to reflect and listen. These topics offered the groups agency, generated by a sense of ownership

546

(Kazansky, B. (2021), which informed the process leading to the development of the final outcomes. The debates supported participants in negotiating the decision making and evaluation process (Dubberly, & Pangaro, 2019); conversations, as a self aware process, shifted the attention away from a solution-making approach for generating mindsets able to debate any assumptions of any kind of knowledge brought to the group; in the “Make it Public” conversation has induced a kind of reflection that both negotiates and implements knowledge through the process of reaching an agreement, even if that agreement is to retain different viewpoints. This is not a reductionist approach, nor would that be a desired outcome of an interdisciplinary conversational pedagogy; in interdisciplinary contexts conversation leverages the agency of each participant as a negotiated process within a defined goal; it distributes responsibilities across team members, encourages proactivity and increases participation and motivation. The topics informing the online festival activities fostered conversations that constructed positive interdependence, motivated team members in engaging proactively and generated a boundary form of learning through the integration of different kinds of disciplines. The seven topics forced each team member to reflect, speak and debate, therefore develop a range of interpersonal skills (Berasategi, N., et al, 2020) able to express the complexity of dialoguing across disciplines. By promoting an awareness of knowing (Scott, 2011) these conversations helped the groups become comfortable with ambiguity and work through the conflicts generated by conversations (Dubberly, & Pangaro, 2019). Some of the groups managed to ‘tame’ or harness the cycle of conversations: for instance the activity developed by the Position group emerged from the struggles the team faced in aligning its members along a common position on methods of engagement; to respond to this a set of cards - Re.Tool Box - was created to facilitate processes of negotiations which emerged from the struggles of reaching agreements in interdisciplinary groups (Figure 4). The Position group is an example where conversations develop a model of working and planning based on an argumentative process that gradually manages agreement from conflict (Dubberly, & Pangaro, 2019). Reflecting on the activities, one of the groups commented that the project “helped to observe, listen to people from different areas”. Conflict is part of an interdisciplinary context where participants need to be equally engaged to mitigate this negative aspect, as outlined by another group: “Any group environment comes with challenges, but these are easily overcome by practicing patience, empathy and listening skills. I particularly enjoyed the ways in which my team members’ views could be vastly different from my own and led to insightful reflections”. The interdisciplinary space of the “Make it Public” opened up alternative ways of thinking and approaching research as a creative dialogic space. Another group commented: “The more we interacted with each other the more our ideas and values aligned” which reflects how the online festival activities created an engagement that reflected the combination of different attitudes and cultures, but also the methods used to develop this.

547

Figure 4. Retool box of cards on Instagram

The “Make it Public” activities visualise the complexity of the process of learning at the boundaries of the disciplines. For this reason, these activities can be framed in terms of boundary objects: objects that enhance the capacity of an idea to translate across cultural defined boundaries (Fox, N. J., 2011) or objects that represent a set of working arrangements (Star, S. L., 2010). Like boundary objects, these activities acted as ‘boundary experiences’ for the property of demarcating knowledge (Fox, N. J., 2011), i.e. of making clear what are the differences, definitions and diversities of a particular subject of studies. Where boundary objects have different kinds of meanings assigned by different kinds of actors, they also outline different kinds of understanding different people have of the same subject, which leads to processes of negotiation (Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P. 2017). The boundary role was played at two different levels; the topics informing the online festival enabled communication ABOUT boundary experiences (Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P. 2017); they were forms of repositories of knowledge as they offered multiple access to different kinds of disciplines, but also relate objects whose boundaries are the same for different communities, although the content that is bounded differers (Fox, N. J. 2011). The online activities were boundary objects FOR communication, i.e. they engaged different kinds of audiences (team members, peers, tutors and the general public) in dialogues which feedback loops, defined by the conversations between the students and the members of the public, increased the capacity to harness different kinds of languages and knowledge (Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P. 2017). Following Balint's definition of boundary objects the festival generated two levels of boundary experiences of learning stimulated by the very interdisciplinary context in which different groups of people communicate across the boundaries of their knowledge (Fox, N. J. 2011). Collecting the response from the public one of the groups commented that:

The work really extended far beyond our small team and showcased just how many different views and practices there are and it brought about such diverse conversations. By the time we collected the submissions, it felt like the work was less to do with us as individuals but became an entirely collective experience. What started as simple teamwork turned into a curative process.

Through dialogue and exchange of knowledge the seven festival activities instantiated the groups’ capacity to communicate art and design research through the integration of different practices and theories; they expressed a “convergent experience” of thinking where multiple disciplines merge into hybrid experiences (Jones, 2010) and also they offered the general public the means to creatively discuss and reflect on the

548

condition of the lockdown. The festival activities made debate and communication boundary objects because they acted as an infrastructure that locally has different meanings without changing its universal understanding (Star, S., L., 2010) and engaged in reflective practices (Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P. 2017). The festival activities are boundary objects FOR communication for the capacity of integrating and cross-pollinating knowledge across disciplines (Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P. 2017); they allowed researchers to communicate with different people and elicited new ideas emerged from the performance of communicating with different kinds of audiences. Such condition enabled inclusivity which is crucial in helping create experiences that stimulate convergence. Even the highly solution-focused experiences, like the zine or the papier-mache workshop, were capable of stimulating conversations about freedom of expression and empowerment with activities created upon clear instructions. For the role they played the initial topics can be defined as measures of the “distance” between the disciplines, as they visualise diversity but also the strategy to harness this diversity; the topics leveraged this polarity through their boundary object condition (FOR and ABOUT) which, in its turn, stimulated and developed conversations, hence boundary learning experiences. However, this was not a smooth journey as some of the groups demonstrated the capability to harness this polarity (Position), others used the topics to formulate clear divisions by keeping disciplinary boundaries (Memory) or to prevail against other disciplines (Paper); in other groups the topic acted as a means to bond and foster shareable but diverse experiences (Identity, Body and Balance). Overall the “Make it Public” festival collectively has developed a range of different attitudes and means for working and integrating different practices and disciplines. This is important and a vital element in such a pedagogical and research approach, born from within boundary learning experiences and in conjunction with boundary objects.

Discussion In the “Make it Public” project interdisciplinary was a product of a process for developing conversations across different kinds of knowledge but also a necessary step to develop boundary learning, which is an extended form of deep interdisciplinarity. The “Make it Public” festival gave us the opportunity for leveraging collaboration to converge different learning experiences able to integrate different kinds of knowledge. The reflections and discussions generated by the initial topics demonstrated a rich diversity of positions contrasting with individuated boundaries of knowledge. It needs to be specified here the context in which the “Make it Public” was developed, which was within academic research, i.e. a context driven by research questions. This process would almost certainly follow different dynamics in a professional context where the outcome is a more intrinsic element. But it does offer, through this lens, a way of rethinking and reframing the ways in which we work as disciplinary specialists and the potency of cross-disciplinary boundary experiences for stimulating fresh thinking and producing more innovative and creative solutions. What contributed to stimulating dialogue and discussion across disciplines in the “Make it Public” was what constitutes a sense of ownership of the process and how the students developed this as they became confident with experimentation and challenging their own boundaries of working and understanding (Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K., 2018). In the “Make it Public” activities the relationship between interdisciplinarity and boundary learning is interrelated: they are both necessary and sufficient factors needed to elicit the convergence and integration of knowledge; deep interdisciplinarity is generated by the experience of communicating and dialoguing across disciplines; boundary learning is elicited through cross-discipline conversations at the boundaries of the disciplines. Hosted online, the students needed to take personal and collective journeys which highlighted and developed skills related to communication, negotiation and dialogue. One of the group’s feedback reflects this double experience:

It [Make it public] enabled the group to explore more methods and avenues than you believe we would have if we had been a single discipline; It was inspirational to confronting questions in my research project that would not have ordinarily occurred to me. The more we interacted with each other the more our ideas and values aligned. Leading to a cohesive final concept

It needs to be noted that disciplinary cultures of research influenced this process, as reported by one of the groups: “It helped me understand how different creative minds can approach the same question through different ways” . Some of them used the experience of conversation to iterate and learn new ways of working,

549

others remained within the disciplinary context and used the different skill sets available across the team to generate a multidisciplinarity activity that recognised boundaries without necessarily crossing or blurring them. Another factor that had an impact on the development of interdisciplinary thinking was the multicultural context and with students located across Asia, Middle East, Europe and Americas. This influenced ways in which social interactions privilege and undermine certain personality types. This particular factor was highlighted by the modalities of online collaborating, using platforms like Zoom, and the practicalities of working across different time zones, potentially disadvantaged some students. Some of the groups found it easier to split tasks, while others prioritised discussion and negotiation. The outcomes generated were markedly different in terms of interdisciplinarity. Here we are defining interdisciplinarity in terms of a more interdisciplinary outcome/approach being one where specific disciplinary practices and approaches are not readily identifiable in the outcome. Two key knowledge formation processes sit within this way of thinking about learning: assimilation and integration. Assimilation reflects the complex process of bringing new ideas into an existing system of ideas. Bakan (1995) suggests that this process requires active participation from both sides: the assimilating and the assimilated ideas. In terms of learning, this requires the knowledge framework to adjust and make spaces for the new element or elements to be added to it. This might entail a wholesale restructure, aligning the new ideas with something closely related that already exists in the system or indeed creating an appendix to existing system that does not structurally change it. In contrast integration or an integrated pedagogy is multi-layer and multi-scalar, where all elements, new and existing, are considered simultaneously. Boundary learning experiences potentially include elements of both, and it is through this combination of multi-scalar knowledge systems giving way to assimilation that innovations and boundary objects can become realised. This method was tested within a unit which however resonated across the student’s learning experience as noted by one of them: “It was inspirational to confronting questions in my research project that would not have ordinarily occurred to me”; this point is reflected in the external examiner’s reports which confirms how the MRes students managed to adapt the project to the pandemic through the methods the programme offered to them. The “Make it Public” festival has been an opportunity for implementing the experience of working through and for an interdisciplinary objective and thus for generating methodologies of interdisciplinary boundary learning. The experience of boundary learning has been key to more fully understanding the value of communication associated with the capacity to discuss, reflect and generate convergence and entanglement (Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. 2016). In certain cases this reinforced the distances between cultures and approaches to research; in others it helped redefine and expand boundaries for communication. As reported by the students some of the groups found a balance in aligning, negotiating and dialoguing, which had a positive impact on the experience developed for the festival, others struggled with establishing working ethos, practices, technical limitations and group dynamics. As a pedagogical reflection, this boundary learning experience also highlights some of the ways in which prevailing teaching methods serve to privilege particular groups and approaches within each discipline. This can mean that students and researchers become drawn into a discipline on these grounds rather than on a certain set of skills and knowledge. To think and learn through boundary learning experiences, such as those deployed here, offers a space of innovation and open thinking, and a methodology for generating interdisciplinary methodologies. As reported the impact of the “Make it Public” on the final stages of the programme reflects the type of learning the students experienced. We noted that those who demonstrated highly integrated interdisciplinarity and learning experienced the greatest impact. This is not surprising, but offers a pedagogical reflection. Those groups that did produce interdisciplinary outcomes demonstrated a stronger capacity for listening and negotiating ideas overall. For these groups the respective personal projects didn’t necessarily deliver interdisciplinary projects but capabilities of working in interdisciplinary contexts and expanded modes of individuated thinking, which in the majority of cases translated into more confident communication, increased capability for listening and an ability to harness different opinions in different ways. One solo research project shifted the focus on the concept of female agency expressed as a form of dialogue to design the space for women’s voices to be heard. Another leveraged the concept of creativity in UK curricula to develop a system of conversations able to engage policy makers, teachers and parents in assessing what creativity means and how it is applied. A factor that had to be constantly mitigated was the students’ fear of failure, which created a barrier for experimentation; this was particularly evident at the beginning of the project. Despite the fact that failure is an intrinsic factor in research and given their research is built upon working towards unchartered maps, it is rarely harnessed by students in taught programmes for its negative connotations. Nonetheless learning how to fail is

550

vital in a research context. It enables iteration between search, discovery, test and prototype, in which failed outcomes are necessary. This is exacerbated or accelerated in an interdisciplinary context where there is the extra factor of collaborating with different kinds of attitudes, embedded cultures and preconceptions ( Jones, 2010). In this context failure was a necessary step to foster a culture of shared reflection; it closes the gap between performance cultures and learning cultures, and provides the first step in the creation of an organization that can successfully initiate and sustain interdisciplinarity (Jones, 2010). Failure increases the capacity to discuss, builds resilience and the capacity to balance a response to negative conditions, and also to harness and learn from errors and failures.

Conclusion This paper has considered interdisciplinarity as a form of enhanced communication able to intersect, integrate and interweave different kinds of disciplines for developing new knowledge. Through the MRes and Design Museum “Make it Public” online festival this paper has articulated the learning experience of the 2020 MRes students due to Covid 19 restrictions. We had already been developing a critical interdisciplinarity into the curriculum, but the pandemic accelerated this. With isolation and multi-locatedness of the students, we became interested in understanding how the process of dialoguing and conversing with peers of different disciplines can be used to enhance the interdisciplinary framework of learning. What was its capacity to promote a culture of self-reflection, awareness and the ability to negotiate ideas. The seven “Make it Public” activities gave these conversations a shape, which was represented by (1) the learning journey guiding the students’ dialogues with their peers across different disciplines and (2) by the engagement the students developed with the general public that extended those conversations outside the academic sphere. For this capacity to engage and empower different backgrounds the “Make it Public” activities can be defined as boundary objects FOR and ABOUT conversation (Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P., 2017) and, more specifically, boundary learning experiences; they were repositories of different kinds of knowledge (Fox, N. J. 2011) but also they offered people of different disciplines the opportunity and space to express ideas, concerns and ways of working. Through this particular condition the “Make it Public” festival has generated a number of interdisciplinary spaces through which the students were able to learn how to embrace and harness the feedback from discussion and the collective knowledge the group was able to generate through negotiation and debate. It then follows that interdisciplinarity was the objective but also the roadmap for designing boundary experiences of learning. Under these terms interdisciplinarity is a meta strategy offering space for discussion and reflection visualised and expressed by the activities and experiences the groups of students developed for the festival. With the “Make it Public” online activities interdisciplinarity has been translated in attitudes and behaviours implementing the creative (and learning) process the groups pursued as a collective but also as reflective individuals. In the context of this paper interdisciplinarity has been described as a process and experience of integration able to combine different contributions and forms of knowledge at and between disciplinary boundaries. This festival was motivated by the necessity to respond to the disruption of Covid-19, whose associated challenges needed multilateral and cross-disciplinary solutions. This has enabled us to articulate a pedagogy of boundary learning in which researchers from multiple disciplines, sectors and backgrounds design a communication and research project that fosters and champions the convergence of thinking, built upon integration and assimilation of knowledge shared. In this pedagogical turn, deep interdisciplinarity as a research method becomes extended and expanded as a pedagogical tool for training researchers.

References Balint, T. S., & Pangaro, P. (2017). Design space for space design: Dialogs through boundary objects at the

intersections of art, design, science, and engineering. Acta Astronautica, 134, 41-53. Barkan E. R . (1995). Race, religion, and nationality in American society: A model of ethnicity: From contact to

assimilation. Journal of American Ethnic History, 14, 38–75 Berasategi, N., Aróstegui, I., Jaureguizar, J., Aizpurua, A., Guerra, N., & Arribillaga-Iriarte, A. (2020).

Interdisciplinary learning at University: Assessment of an interdisciplinary experience based on the case study methodology. Sustainability, 12(18), 7732.

Blair, B. (2011). Elastic minds? Is the interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary curriculum equipping our students for the future: A case study. Art, Design, & Communication in Higher Education, 10, 33–50.

Collis, C., McKee, A. & Hamley, B. (2010). Entertainment industries at university: Designing a curriculum. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 24, 921-932.

Dubberly, H., & Pangaro, P. (2019). Cybernetics and design: Conversations for action. In Design Cybernetics

551

(pp. 85-99). Springer, Cham. Fitzgerald, D., & Callard, F. (2016). Entangling the medical humanities. Fleming, L. (2004). Perfecting cross-pollination. Harvard business review, 82(9), 22-24. Fox, N. J. (2011). Boundary objects, social meanings and the success of new technologies. Sociology, 45(1), 70-

85. Jones R. (2010) in Jacob, M. J., & Baas, J. (Eds.). (2009). Learning mind: Experience into art. School of the Art

Institute of Chicago. Kazansky, B. (2021). ‘It depends on your threat model’: the anticipatory dimensions of resistance to data-

driven surveillance. Big Data & Society, 8(1), 2053951720985557. Krizek, K. & Levinson, D. (2005). Teaching integrated land-use transportation planning: Topics, readings, and

strategies. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 24, 304-316. Leigh Star, S. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology,

& Human Values, 35(5), 601-617. Natalle, E.J. & Crowe, K.M. (2013). Information literacy and communication research: A case study on

interdisciplinary assessment. Communication Education, 62, 97-104. Mayrath, M. C., Traphagan, T., Heikes, E. J., & Trivedi, A. (2011). Instructional design best practices for Second

Life: A case study from a college-level English course. Interactive Learning Environments, 19, 125-142. doi:10.1080/17439880902921949

McClellan, E. & Johnson, A.(2014). ‘“Deep Interdisciplinarity” as Critical Pedagogy: Teaching at the Intersections of Urban Communication and Public Place and Space’. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, (online accessed 7/6/21)

Oram, Doron (2020) The heuristic pedagogue: navigating myths and truths in pursuit of an equitable approach to voice training, Theatre, Dance and Performance Training, 11:3, 300-309, DOI: 10.1080/19443927.2020.1788272

Ovink, H., & Boeijenga,J. (2018). Too big: rebuild by design: a transformative approach to climate change. nai010 publishers.

Pangaro, P. (2017). Questions for conversation theory or conversation theory in one hour. KybernetesPangaro, P. (2017). Questions for conversation theory or conversation theory in one hour. Kybernetes.

Robertson, D. W., Martin, D. K., & Singer, P. A. (2003). Interdisciplinary research: putting the methods under the microscope. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 3(1), 1-5.

Scott, B. (2001). Gordon Pask's conversation theory: A domain independent constructivist model of human knowing. Foundations of Science, 6(4), 343-360.

Singer, P. A., Martin, D. K., & Robertson, D. W. (2003). Interdisciplinary research: putting the methods under the microscope.

Sweeting, B. (2015). Conversation, design and ethics: The cybernetics of Ranulph Glanville. Cybernetics & Human Knowing, 22(2-3), 99-105.

Tobi, H., & Kampen, J. K. (2018). Research design: the methodology for interdisciplinary research framework. Quality & quantity, 52(3), 1209-1225.

The British Academy (2016), Crossing Paths: Interdisciplinary Institutions, Careers, Education and Applications accessed on March 2021 [https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/213/crossing-paths.pdf]

UN Department of Economic and Social Affair Sustainable Development, (2021), accessed on March 2021 [https://sdgs.un.org/goals]Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (1997). Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. London: Sage.

552

Laura Ferrarello Royal College of Art United Kingdom laura.ferrarello@rca.ac.uk Laura Ferrarello (PhD) is Senior Tutor and Pathway Leader of the MRes Design Pathway. She is an interdisciplinary researcher and designer focusing on developing inclusive/accessible innovation through design led collaborative and interdisciplinary methodologies. Laura’s research includes ethics, human-human-AI interactions, design for resilience and cultural transformations, future of work and education and design for safety. Laura is the course leader of the online course “Designing Products & Services with AI” and “The Ethical Innovator”

Dormor, Catherine Royal College of Art United Kingdom catherine.dormor@rca.ac.uk Dormor is an artist and theorist, currently Reader in Textile Practices and Head of Research Programmes at the Royal College of Art, London. Her research brings together textile materiality, imagery and language as a strategy of practice, leadership and pedagogy. Recent publications include: A Philosophy of Textile (2020, Bloomsbury) Future publications include Bloomsbury Encyclopedia of World Textiles; Volume 2: Wovens (2023, Dormor & Tandler: Bloomsbury)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Using Creative Practice in Interdisciplinary Education

Bilge Merve Aktaş and Camilla Groth https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.07.233

Interdisciplinary approaches in education help future professionals build better understanding and a common language between disciplines and individuals. To make such leaps, skills in adjusting to new situations and rapidly changing knowledge systems are needed. Such skills are intrinsic to design practice, and design and making practices lend themselves well to such personal development. Design and making activities also offer opportunities for students from different disciplines to gather around central topics and engage in interdisciplinary discussions about matters that concern everyone and to materialize their understanding while reflecting on their personal process. In this paper, we present a course design in which this type of transformational reflection might take place, and we discuss how designing and making processes can provide suitable means to build a platform for interdisciplinary discussions and learning. By examining an interdisciplinary group of students’ creative processes, we found that navigating unknown situations with the explorative and adaptive mind-set that emerges through reflection creates transferrable skills that are useful in interdisciplinary interactions and communication.

Keywords: interdisciplinary education; creative practice; material interaction; adaptive processes; reflective practice

Introduction Interdisciplinary education is becoming more important as the global challenges and opportunities of the future becomes more complex and manifold. As our knowledge systems and practices become interconnected with many types of knowledge, we need to train future professionals to adapt to rapid change and to be open to new situations and different types of problems. One way to achieve this is by bringing individuals from diverse disciplines together to communicate and collaborate beyond disciplinary borders on topics of mutual interest. Interdisciplinary education aims to bring different knowledge types together for innovation as well as working to propose creative solutions for existing real-life problems (Klaassen, 2018, p. 856). When it comes to tackling complex real-life problems, students need “openness, self-awareness, [and] personal development” for managing uncertainty while synthesizing various forms of information to generate solutions (ibhttps://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.). Further, we believe that sharing a learning experience with an interdisciplinary group of people can also become a transformational experience to gain skills for working in unfamiliar conditions. These skills and attitudes are intrinsic to design processes; therefore, we believe, design and making activities offer many opportunities for students from different disciplines to gather around central topics and ideas and concretely engage in discussions of matters that concern everyone. Additionally, design processes can introduce ways to materialize the student’s understanding while reflecting on their processes. This type of education may provide a platform for self-development and growth to gain the necessary skills for translating different knowledge types into each other as well as interpreting new information. While starting with a design problem, design processes are often described as open-ended in nature and allow for a flexible and iterative process to ensure the best possible outcome. These processes bear similarities to a dialogue (Nasseri & Wilson, 2017). Such reflective dialogues may emerge through the personal intentions of the designer, the material explorations and the serendipitous discoveries during the process (Mаkelа, 2016), as well as through the co-creation process between many designers working on the same case (Bowen, et al.,

554

2016; Bhömer, et al, 2012). These dialogical processes also build a personal connection, and form an emotional relationship with the practice, skill, and the outcome (Brinck & Reddy, 2019). Design processes thus involve a personal transformation and learning experience while offering a reflective tool for communicating with both self and others. Training in such groups that transgress the disciplinary border helps students to overcome problems connected to interdisciplinary collaborations, such as the inability to understand the epistemological reference points of others or the risk of disrespecting or avoiding disciplines other than their own. Also, the ability to find a common language is needed for expressing ideas, tolerating unconventional or opposing points of views, or even moving away from one’s own comfort zone in the attempt to truly understand and communicate with others on general terms (Groth, et al., 2020). In this paper, we present a higher education course design and some of its outcomes to discuss how designing and making processes can provide suitable means for building a platform for interdisciplinary discussions and transformational learning. We will first discuss design knowledge and its contribution to interdisciplinary knowledge development. Then, we will introduce the design of the Human-Material Interaction course as an example, and present three cases from student work and discuss how design processes were used and explored with concepts from various fields. Finally, we will present four transferrable skills that we believe that the students develop in the course and that are specifically relevant in handling uncertainties, such as open-ended processes and changing situations.

Design as a Platform for Knowledge Exchange Since Victor Papanek’s (1984/1971) criticism of the object-oriented design process and the concurrent development of different design approaches, such as participatory design, co-design, social design, transition design and service design, the field of design has expanded its disciplinary borders from producing objects for everyday use to becoming a platform for transforming all levels of human life. Design has now gained the additional role of facilitating social, cultural and economic change to build better, sustainable, and inclusive futures (Gasparin, 2019). Together with this new role, design has been understood as a way of knowing and thinking rather than merely being a creative practice (Cross, 2011). Studies have shown that designerly ways of knowing (Cross, 2011) can be applied in multidisciplinary teams to tackle complex topics. Examples that involve more than one discipline include a wide variety of topics ranging from developing patterns for knot-making in textiles through mathematical notations (Nimkulrat & Matthews, 2017) to improving public healthcare through experience-based co-design (Donetto, et.al., 2015). With design’s increasing involvement in multidisciplinary discussions, design education is also being reconsidered to train future professionals that can facilitate communication in multidisciplinary groups (Augsten & Gekeler, 2017). Design practice’s involvement in interdisciplinary collaborations has been explored with the notion of T-shaped skills. The concept of T-shaped skills refers to the type of interdisciplinary knowledge-set that the design practice requires and constructs as designers develop their career over time. The T-shape is a visual representation of a person's deep domain-specific knowledge, represented by the vertical stroke in the letter T. The horizontal stroke of the T represents the designers’ broad experience and their ability to apply their knowledge in new situations and collaborate across disciplines (Karjalainen, et.al., 2009; Hansen & Oetinger 2001; Barile, et.al., 2012; Madhavan & Grover, 1998). Such T-shaped skills and practitioners may be found in any type of domain and responds well to the demands for the interdisciplinary 21st century skills needed today. When design knowledge and methods are utilized in interdisciplinary groups for conducting research or searching for solutions, the processes can result in new knowledge and new skills as well as new attitudes towards collaboration and new values for respecting different ways of knowing (Niinimäki, 2019). Therefore, both design as a multidisciplinary practice in nature and designers as professionals who need to engage in multiple types of knowledge have become significant facilitators in interdisciplinary discussions and idea development.

Material Manipulation as Transformational Learning While design issues include abstract and intangible aspects of the world, material manipulation and making can help concretize ideas and may be a fundamental step towards transformational learning experiences. Design, including material manipulation, as a reflective practice emerges through attentiveness to situations as they evolve and transform. In such reflective practices, the practitioner follows an iterative process of analyzing situations, evaluating ideas, and deciding on the next actions (Dorst & Cross, 2001, p. 434). These

555

steps are repeated as the process progresses. Donald Schön (1992) proposes that by analyzing situations as they are unfolding professionals reflect-in-action to comprehend the situation and decide upon their next action, and through reflection-on-action after the process, practitioners make sense of their processes. Having direct contact with a material and following the changes closely to evaluate the process and the evolving sensemaking is an important process that enables knowing from the inside. ‘Knowing from the inside’ means that the process of learning is transformational and that what we learn changes how we are in the world. Tim Ingold (2013, p. 12), proposes taking an attitude of studying with the study subject, which can be materials, instruments or other things, to reconfigure knowledge by going beyond territorialization of knowledge. In a way, by studying with, being with, or thinking with others, one can go beyond the surface of knowledge into its layers and depth. As a method for accomplishing studying with something and to truly understand the capabilities of the material and discover ways of being with it, Ingold proposes following the material while making an artefact rather than forcing through a preconceived idea (Ingold, 2013, p. 56). Considering that designing and engaging with materials are often described as ‘thinking through making’ (Makela, 2007), in which interacting with the material unpacks the emergence of the artefact, material interaction through making can become a way to gain a deep sense of knowing from the inside (Aktaş, 2020). The reflections and insights gained from material engagement can generate a common understanding of certain obstacles as people who engage with the materials can explain their insights with reference to similar actions and reflect on these from their different epistemological standpoints and experience. Building on such an understanding, we (the two authors of this paper) designed an interdisciplinary higher education course. Next, we will present the course, and some of the students’ work, to answer the following question: What transferable skills emerged as a result of the students' learning activities in this course?

Designing an Interdisciplinary Course Aalto University in Finland identifies itself as a multidisciplinary “community of bold thinkers where science and art meet technology and business” (the Aalto University webpage). A merger of six schools, from such varying disciplines as art and design, business, and schools specialized in various fields of engineering, science and technology, the university supports inter- and trans-disciplinary exchanges to fulfil its promise of generating novel solutions for global challenges. In line with this ambition, the university developed a platform for University-wide Art Studies (UWAS) to bring students from various disciplines together within the context of artistic and creative thinking. Through a wide selection of courses that utilize arts as a means of thinking about societal issues and approaching complex systems from multiple angles, the platform brings students with different backgrounds together to explore creative ways of thinking. The course presented in this paper, the Human-Material Interaction course, has been offered as part of this platform since 2019. It is open to all students at the university, the participants being selected for the course by the course secretary. The selection system aims to ensure that the group is balanced with respect to cultural background, disciplines, sex and age. The group of 13 students that participated in the 2020 iteration of the course, and that form the data for this paper, was diverse in their backgrounds, including students from material science, computer science, business, industrial design, and art education. The teaching methods combined contact teaching that included lecturing, group discussions and hands-on material exploration, with individual practical work for five weeks. Two materials were offered in the course: ceramic clay and wool for felting. After the initial introductions to the materials, we encouraged students to focus on one material, so that they could explore the behaviour of that particular material in depth. Each class began with sharing the experiences and reflections from the previous week. Students came to the class having read a suggested article or watched a suggested video lecture to discuss the main topics and share their opinions on the subject matter. Although we selected the theoretical readings and video lectures from craft, design, and material related issues, we covered a wide range of sub-topics, such as phenomenological methods of studying, experiential knowledge, labour, environmental impact, waste materials, artistic research, theory of knowledge, and posthuman philosophy to show the extent of the practice’s influence. After these discussions, two teachers – the authors of this paper – gave 20-minute lectures on topics related to that session. In the second part, the students worked in the studios, exploring their material. These hands-on sessions were the most significant part of the course, and they took up to 2/3 of the contact teaching. Each class was wrapped-up by re-assembling in the classroom and sharing what everyone did in the studio (Figure 1). The

556

students continued working on their independent projects and material experimentation to develop a personal topic in their own time. By encouraging theoretical reflections and reflections on practical work in tandem, the course demonstrated how design and making may transform one’s personal views on social and environmental scales.

Figure 1. Each class was structured in three parts.

The Course Throughout the course, the students were encouraged to follow their intuition and their own open-ended journeys to explore various aspects of the material and to share their processes and ideas with the group. To accomplish this, we teachers, who are also practitioner-researchers, did not provide specific technical instructions on how things should be done, other than the basic introductory workshop. Rather, we made ourselves available if a student had a particular question about a technique or tool. Nonetheless, to a great degree the students were developing their projects independently or through peer support. Some students felt the need to have clear guidelines, and for many of the students from the science field this uncertainty was very uncomfortable and unusual at the beginning. They were used to getting very clear instructions on what is expected of them and in the courses from their own fields open-ended tasks are rare. However, one of the points of this course is to set the students slightly outside their comfort zone to make them question their own ways of thinking and expectations. Although in the span of the course students gain basic skills of working with the material, the aim is not to become competent in a craft practice. To embrace the idea of following the material without having a pre-conceived idea, in the first session, all students were guided by the teacher in throwing clay on a potter’s wheel while blindfolded (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Images from the studio. Photo: Bilge Merve Aktaş, 2020.

Findings from previous studies show that working with materials while blindfolded provides a powerful experience of the materials through other senses than sight (Groth, Mäkelä, & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, 2013). This experience also prompts a mindset that is ready to enjoy failure and let go of control (Aktaş & Groth, 2020).

557

As the course continued, students interacted with their materials in different ways, both while blindfolded and not, and they were encouraged to pick a particular aspect of their material interaction to explore this detail more explicitly. They focused on material transformation, its use in everyday life, the tools they used to interact with it, and the meanings of the material or the practice from a personal point of view. This process was facilitated via reflective diaries including texts, sketches, and photographs to explicate their experiences. As most of the students were not from art and design related fields many were very new to this type of open-ended exploration. For their final presentations, we did not expect finalized artworks but material and verbal narratives of a process accompanied by artefacts that showed how their thinking had developed. In the last session, the final assessment was conducted by the group and teachers together as the students presented their processes and had a discussion with their course-mates about their creative processes and the general topics that were discussed during the process. Later, they submitted essays and their reflective diaries. For their essays, the guiding questions that we gave them concerned the evolution of their project, and its societal impact, ways of transferring the course experience to their professional practice, and their takeaways from the course. Overall, the course encouraged students to follow their own thematic interests and design. This was reflected in the final presentations and essays, since all students worked with different aspects and were able to contextualize their thoughts in various areas of design and societal discussions.

Studying the Data The discussion in this paper is based on seven out of 13 students’ diaries and final essays. Three of these students worked with wool and felting whereas the other four worked with clay and ceramics. We reviewed the essays from all seven students to detect the most important parts of their experiences, insights, and reflections. We applied the procedures of thematic analysis and collected text pieces that carried information about the experiences, reasoning, reflections, and questions (see also Braun & Clarke, 2006; Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006; Aktaş and Groth, 2020). Adopting the analysis method of Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke (2006), we initially familiarized ourselves with the data by reading it several times. Then, by identifying the aspects that the students found interesting and decided to further explore for their projects, we generated the initial codes, or patterns of thinking. These were text pieces directly taken from the diaries and the essays. After identifying these, they were grouped into themes that showed the overarching similarities between those personal references (ibhttps://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.). The overarching themes were related to Emotions, Multi-sensorial experiences, especially related to sound and touching, Unexpected and dialogical making processes, The surrounding environment, Using new and/or existing tools, Finding a way to relate to the material, and Memories from previous practices and experiences. Most of these topics were interwoven and discussed in relation to each other. The main themes were related to four aspects: 1) the time that the students spent with the material or the practice, such as the initial surprises with the material and later finding their own ways, 2) their personal and professional knowledge, such as their approach to exploring and experimenting with the material, 3) the impact of the working space, such as available tools and making use of them, and finally, 4) making sense of bodily experiences as the design and making continue, such as iterating ideas and making several prototypes. Findings from previous studies that tackled reflective making processes show that in a typical design-craft project, students often refer to previous experiences, emotions, unplanned making processes and the dialogue with the material (see for example Kosonen, 2018; Makela & Löytönen, 2017). The frequent references to touching and exploring material behaviour can be also seen as typical reflections concerning any kind of familiarizing with new materials or processes, not unusual in other disciplines when having new experiences. However, bringing all these notions together in one course indicates its strength as a platform to initiate and prompt new and creative ways of making sense for non-designers too, perhaps exactly because it requires a whole new way of approaching a problem or theme for students who are not used to concrete material manipulation as a method for reflection. The prompting provided to share such new and explorative processes with others added a social dimension in which the personal experiences could be seen in the interdisciplinary arena on a more general level. We also believe that some of the themes that appeared from our study are related to personal knowledge that is constructed via the disciplinary background of the students. The disciplinary thinking becomes apparent especially in techniques of exploring, such as how the dialogue of making is built and the tools that are selected to conduct these explorations. These approaches are also often contextualized from the disciplinary viewpoint of the person who is engaging with the activity. It is only natural to build new understandings based on previous experience, and to use one’s own knowledge base as scaffolding when challenged in new

558

unknown situations (Groth and Mäkelä, 2016). To elaborate how disciplinary knowledge can be translated via crafting and design processes, we will present three examples in greater detail and discuss how students developed their projects from their disciplinary perspectives by referring to their field-specific notions to make sense of their design process and how they were able to communicate their ideas with others over disciplinary borders. We will also discuss their adaptive processes regarding how they navigated their way through the open ended and unfamiliar task of progressing from familiarizing with a material to presenting an artefact to the other students.

Examples From the Course The three examples we selected are from students that developed and discussed their works within a context of their own discipline, but who communicated it to the others via general and interdisciplinary terms.

Student 1 Our first example is from a material processing engineer student. In her project, she worked with the wetness and dryness of clay to investigate the properties and effects of different liquids on clay. Considering the climate crisis and possible water shortages in the future, this student explored the topic of humidity and draft. She made several pieces of simple clay forms and tested the effect of different liquids, such as water, cola drink, coffee, milk, and face cream (Figure 3). After her tests, she compared the visual and structural differences between clay pieces caused by different liquids.

Figure 3. Student 1’s set up to explore clay behaviour in different conditions, specifically with different liquids and wet substances. From her reflective diary, March 2020.

After her experiments, she documented how the clay reacted differently to these liquids. Her open-ended process emerged like a material scientist’s laboratory set-up. She documented the amount of each ingredient and the sizes of the test pieces in a way that makes the experiment repeatable by others. By combining her observational notes on the senses, such as the stickiness coming from working with milk, and on the appearance of the outcome, such as the change of colour when face cream is used, she had a comprehensive list of findings (Figure 4). In her concluding remarks after the experiments, she wrote in her diary:

I’m very surprised that the use of different liquids had such a little, almost no impact on the clay itself. … I’m just wondering how those liquids would behave during clay throwing, and if the behaviour of clay is going to be different than without throwing. … I’m not sure if water could be replaced in the clay shaping process with any other liquid, without a change of the clay’s appearance, properties, and the feeling of it. Surely there is space for experimentation, so that maybe in the future clean fresh water could be saved, and other ‘not directly life crucial’ liquids (for example leftovers which would be

559

otherwise disposed of) could be used instead to work on clay shaping. I’m very curious how the water saving process will look like in the future and how, if at all, the approach to this topic will change in forthcoming years (From her reflective diary, March 2020)1.

Figure 4. The result of the experiment; from the left: no added liquid, water, cola drink, beer, coffee, oil, coloured cream, hand cream, and tea; top half: dried in air; bottom half: dried under foil. From Student 1’s working diary.

The pondering on future potentials about how to develop new material interaction with clay and leftover liquids shows that open-ended processes continue even after the course is over because the students manage to find a personal connection to the topic. By contextualizing the open-ended process through iteration and testing, the topic becomes more relevant on a personal level. One can start building disciplinary connections while also paying attention to the impact upon the field and the environment. Indeed, at the end of the course she writes in her essay:

As a material’s processing engineer, I’ve studied the material properties based on numbers, calculations, and software-based analysis, rather than on ‘hands on’ experimental practices and observation. In my next professional practices, I will think more about the material itself, not only the numbers it’s described with. I will try to incorporate more ‘material play’, meaning considering the possible behaviour of the material under different circumstances and the possible outcomes (From her final essay, April, 2020).

Student 2 The second example is by a computer communication and information science student. He started his process by watching videos of throwing clay on the wheel that he found online and later developed an idea of what to make. After reviewing these videos and those of craftspeople from around the world, such as rural villages of India, Student 2 described his understanding using notions that are typical to his disciplinary knowledge. For instance, after describing how the craftsperson turns the wheel with the stick of his broom at high speed, this student writes:

I guess the wheel having a large diameter and weight to it, which results in [a] large moment of kinetic object, [the wheel] doesn’t want to slow down but keeps its current speed and the long broom with

1 All students wrote in their diaries in English. The grammar of the excerpts is checked for minor corrections to increase their readability.

560

[the craftsman’s] technique actually creates enough torque to gradually speed up this huge wheel. Absolutely amazing, even though I’m good with physics, the thing surprised the heck [out] of me! (From his reflective diary, March, 2020).

As he further researched ceramic artists, and came across geometric shapes made with clay, he decided to make a geometric sculpture-like shape for his explorative project.

Figure 5. The final artefact of Möbius strip. From Student 2’s diary.

He focused on making a Möbius strip, which is a surface with only one side, to show an abstract mathematical concept via material (Figure 5). While making, he worked with drinking glasses and spoons as tools to give the shape and a pillow and a blowtorch to overcome the effect of gravity on the form. He described his process of making as:

I started working when the clay was too wet and also the slab was too long. [A] wide enough slab (and dry enough) fights gravity adequately. … As the clay dried, I used my hands and fingers to work the material (as opposed to a metal spoon). The experiment nearly failed, and I had to make a really fast judgement on cutting almost 10 cm of the length to make the piece have a better proportion. … Coming from a near failure to a success made the whole experience much more rewarding (From his reflective diary, March, 2020).

Student 2 started his process from a different point than did his course mates: from reviewing the field to find a starting point for a form. Throughout the process, his way of explaining material transformations relied on his theoretical physics knowledge. However, the real physical experiences of the material surprised him as he was challenged by the gravity on the wet clay that distorted the shape he wanted to make. Discovering how to work with materials also provided an attitude to approach his own craft, which is programming, as he wrote in his final essay:

Working with the clay and trying to mould it into this complex geometry was very challenging, but also very rewarding. … Sometimes, however, I would get frustrated due to the slow process and try to take

561

short cuts, only to make things worse. … The experience one can take home from [this] is taking “short cuts” only makes things worse [and it] is one that’s certainly applicable to computer science and programming as well. Oftentimes a problem a programmer is trying to solve is so complex, that certain short cuts are taken only to find out later that a lot of work has to be completely redone because of the said short cuts. Patience pays dividends, or [what] do they say? … Respecting the tools and materials you’ve got and making the best of them (From his final essay, April, 2020).

Student 3 Our last example is by an art education student. She started her project with ideas around the body after one of the early lectures of the course about the relationship between the body and wearing clothes. Later, the idea developed to being inside and outside of the body, connecting the materiality of the human body with the immateriality of feelings. In her final work, based on her own experiences with her flowers, she moved from the idea of her body to the body of things that we cherish and take care of (Figure 6).

Figure 6. The felted body that takes care of the plant. From Student 3’s reflective diary.

Student 3’s work is powerful as it materializes a personal experience in a way that is relatable for other people as well. By making an image of an inside out body, she discusses “exposing one’s feelings that are usually kept hidden” (From the student’s final essay, Figure 7). Having these ideas, she developed a theme, a pattern design, and a way to display these two (Figure 6). The comprehensive approach coming from personal feelings appeared in her final essay too:

The parts of the felt are layered, often not clear … expressing my feeling of being lost in the thick, intense feelings that are often mixed up. In a way, I related to my artworks and my own emotions were released in them while creating the pieces. … While they are inside out, exposed and fragile they are not worthless but instead able to protect or at least co-exist with something else. I also find the material itself comforting, warm and enjoyable, and my intention would be that the person using these items would feel that [same] comforting feeling and warmth (From her final essay, April, 2020).

562

Figure 7: By making veins and bones, Student 3 worked with the idea of an inside-out body.

The way she discusses her project and the comforting positive feelings that it provided exemplified how to use crafting as a way of connecting with the self and translating personal positive or negative experiences to others. Considering that she is studying to become an educator, the way she opens up her experience with felting to others also exemplifies the use of crafting to construct communication around certain topics and facilitating the exchange of thoughts, experiences, and obstacles. These three examples presented crafting and design explored through the lens of material engineering, computer science, and self-development. Building upon these insights, next we will discuss the transferrable skills that we feel are gained from the course and that might encourage steps towards the sharing of worldviews and managing open-ended and unfamiliar tasks in interdisciplinary collaborations.

Four Transferrable Skills for Interdisciplinary Collaboration As the thematic analysis and the above examples reveal, the students’ projects were significantly influenced by the time that the students spent with the material or the practice, their personal and professional knowledge from their own disciplines, the impact of the workspace, and making sense of the experiences through reflection. However, when having to share these personal experiences with others in the group, who are not familiar with the specific disciplinary background one comes from, students needed to develop ways of generalizing and communicating them in a language that is understandable to others. The analysis also demonstrates that participating in an interdisciplinary design course can facilitate the gaining of transferrable skills that help in managing in new and unfamiliar situations such as lingering in the unknown, the courage of engaging in explorative processes beyond disciplinary norms, adapting to new situations and the skill of reflecting and meaning making. After reviewing the student’s processes and creative work, and considering how we designed the course, we present four transferrable skills that we felt were acquired by the students while they were participating in the interdisciplinary design course. We believe these skills can be applied in many other interdisciplinary contexts as they help in sustaining an explorative and open-minded attitude.

The Skill of Lingering in the Unknown The final essays and the analysis revealed that through open-ended processes students developed their own ways of tackling the ambiguous processes of developing and executing ideas. Although each student began with uncertainty, as they continued working with the material, they managed to pinpoint material aspects that they found interesting. Staying with the unknown situations can create space for turning to one’s inside to discover the sort of abilities, emotions, and intuitions one has (Kosonen, 2018, p. 263). From the first making session, the students followed a process that connected to their personal and subjective experiences without forcing them to come up with a finalized artefact. Supporting such a pressure-free time to think and explore gives room for many different directions rather than anchoring the project at the very beginning, although it can be challenging to linger in such an unknown space for long. Promoting iterative processes without getting trapped with the first available solution also provides an environment that does not measure success by the outcome but encourages open-ended experimentation.

563

This environment welcomes testing new ideas and treats failure as a way to gain insights. For instance, in Student 1’s project, iterative making appeared as first coming up with the watery and moist feeling of working with clay. Later, she observed its impact upon the clay form, such as the cracks appearing in certain parts of the braided forms as a result of the clay drying differently. Following these insights, she experimented with the reaction of clay in working with various liquids. In this way, she resisted the pressure of “having something ready to show” the others and concentrated on what was emerging in the process, thus learning much more than she would otherwise have done.

The Skill and Courage of Engaging in Explorative Processes Beyond Disciplinary Norms Although the students were given demonstrations and information about the basics of their materials, we intentionally avoided giving thorough instructions about traditional norms or techniques when working with the material. Rather, the aim was to think through and with the material to develop a personal view on human-material interaction free from disciplinary expectations. Accordingly, without leading the students into a predetermined way of thinking, we encouraged them explore a particular aspect of the material that inspired them the most. When the projects were not framed by the teachers, the students could contextualize the material and the practice in their own ways. As a result of not having a strict frame or normative expectations, the students focused on various aspects of the materials from an angle that they could explain with the knowledge that they already had, and the exploration could continue in self-driven ways. For instance, after watching a video online that he found on his own, Student 2 was able to explain the process of making ceramics using language that was natural to him: physics. After connecting clay throwing to the potter’s wheel and physics notations, he was able to come up with the project idea. Only after building this personal connection via self-driven processes could he start translating different knowledge types into each other. The examples show that the students were able to explore this unfamiliar practice by relying on their disciplinary knowledge. While this approach helped them develop their own sense of the project, it can contribute to the development of the explored practice from a new angle, one that is not only about the creative practice but also about other important aspects, such as environmental impact or physics-based explanations of movements.

The Skill of Adapting to New Situations By lingering in the unknown and relying on previous personal and disciplinary knowledge, the students also developed their personal ways of adapting to new situations. With the freedom to explore aspects that might seem impractical or even irrational, students became able to free themselves from conventional expectations and norms and adapted to unexpected situations to overcome obstacles in creative and idiosyncratic ways. In the course, most students had no experience in working with the proposed materials or design processes in general. By accommodating the frustrations coming from not being in control of the material, due to the lack of experience with it, and the material transformations that occurred throughout the project, students developed their own strategies to cope with unexpected situations. The limitations sometimes also led to innovations, employment of new tools, use of additional materials, and new contexts or use areas. In Student 2’s project, the student struggled to find the necessary technical solutions to create the form that he intended. Starting from his initial attempts, he tested various tools to manage the dryness and size of the clay to maintain its form, from utilizing objects for scaffolding to using a hairdryer.

The Skill of Reflection and Meaning Making Finally, one of the most elemental skills, which is also a prerequisite for conducting interdisciplinary discussion, is the ability to reflect in and on the process and its meanings in an open-minded way with others. Throughout the course, the students gained the skill of reflecting on their processes and making sense of them. Although having a reflective diary was not a typical tool for developing ideas in their own disciplines, the students maintained their notepads and used them effectively by including sketches and images as well as texts. The in-class reflections were also encouraged, and although in the early classes such sharing was a new and unfamiliar experience, towards the end the students were more comfortably sharing their failures and successes. Thus, they gained the skill of learning from failing and experimenting with the materials and their perception towards the process became a more explorative than goal-oriented one. Reflections also facilitated the development of other skills. As students continued reflecting on their processes, they began paying more attention to how their relations and perceptions were changing. Building various relationships through reflections provides space for following personal ways of meaning-making (Aktaş, 2020, p. 90). By reflecting through writing, making and thinking, the students created their own mental and physical space to translate

564

various experiences into each other.

Conclusion The reflections from the students show that the skills gained in such a course may in many ways already be intrinsic to design processes. However, we believe that they can become important skills, especially for developing interdisciplinary collaboration and communication. The abilities that are typical for design processes might be frustrating for professionals from other disciplines, particularly when projects or discussions are about explorative long-term collaborations (Niinimäki, 2018, p. 311). However, our study shows that navigating these explorative and unfamiliar situations assists in developing both patience and an open mind. Developing such self-awareness facilitates the emergence of creative and innovative outputs (Klaassen, 2018, p. 856). Courses like Human-Material Interaction that promote such open-ended, adaptive and reflective approaches can help students become used to transgressing their comfort zones and stepping into the unknown while trying to make sense of new situations. Having students from both the natural sciences, such as materials engineering and computer sciences, as well as humanities, such as arts education, also shows that utilizing crafting and design as platforms can overcome disciplinary boundaries as it provides a shared understanding of concepts to make sense of them from multiple disciplinary backgrounds. These are skills that help the students in transgressing their own disciplinary borders and develop an open mind towards alternative ways of thinking that might even conflict with preconceived ideas in their own discipline. Gaining the necessary skills for iterating and initiating ideas, adapting to new conditions and self-reflecting can enable metacognition on personal knowledge while also communicating this to others. When building a bridge between existing and newly gained knowledge, emotions, multi-sensorial experiences and the surrounding environment support the translation of various discipline-specific domains into each other. The reflections reveal that one way to facilitate interdisciplinary discussion is by motivating people to turn inwards to understand their new experiences and skills via material interaction and to reflect on these openly in a safe environment. These reflective and personal processes in a shared and supportive environment enable translating implicit decisions into articulate ones that show the progression of sensemaking, not only for oneself but also for others. We thus propose to work together in a concrete manner to educate ourselves and each other through concrete tasks that facilitate discussion that are interesting for all participants. Our study shows that interactions with materials through design and making processes can trigger meaning making of the creative processes from both a personal and shared viewpoint that enables students from different disciplines to transfer different knowledge types to each other. To be truly transformational, these processes must be grounded in personal experiences and reflections. When these are opened up from various perspectives in group discussions, the participants' worldview has the opportunity to expand. The findings show that interdisciplinary design courses can train future professionals to better handle insecurities and open-ended processes, work without being overly self-critical, present their own ideas in a concrete form and to share feelings and thoughts in relation to their own work. Additionally, by exercising reflective practices, students can gain experience in philosophical ponderings, participating in and evaluating other’s reflective processes and, perhaps most importantly, learn that there is more than one disciplinary understanding of what the world is like and that we as participants in the world actively shape and affect the world through our interaction with it.

Acknowledgement This work was supported by the Academy of Finland [grant number 331778].

References Aktaş, B.M. (2020). Entangled Fibers: an examination of human-material interaction. Doctoral Dissertation.

Espoo: Aalto University. Aktaş, B. M. & Groth, C. (2020). Studying Material Interactions to Facilitate a Sense of Being with the World. in Boess, S., Cheung, M. and Cain, R. (eds.), Synergy - DRS International Conference 2020, 11-14 August, Held

online. doi:10.21606/drs.2020.229 Augsten, A. & Gekeler, M. (2017) From a master of crafts to a facilitator of innovation. How the increasing

importance of creative collaboration requires new ways of teaching design. The Design Journal, 20, sup1, S1058-S1071, DOI: 10.1080/14606925.2017.1353049

Barile, S., Giacomo, F., Giancarlo, N. and Saviano, M. (2012). Structure and Dynamics of a 'T-Shaped' Knowledge: From Individuals to Cooperating Communities of Practice. Service Science, June 2012, 4(2),

565

161-180. https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.1120.0014 Bowen, S., Durrant, A., Nissen, B., Bowers, J. & Wright, P. (2016). The Value of Designers’ Creative Practice

within Complex Collaborations. Design Studies, 46, 174-198. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.001. Bhömer, M., Tomico, O., Kleinsmann, M., Kuusk, K. & Wensveen, S. (2012). Designing Smart Textile Services

Through Value Networks, Team Mental Models and Shared Ownership. In Proceedings of the Third Service Design and Service Innovation Conference (pp. 53–63). Espoo: Laurea University of Applied Sciences

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.

Brinck, I. & Reddy, V. (2019). Dialogue in the making: emotional engagement with materials. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 19, 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-019-09629-2

Cross, N. (2011). Design thinking: Understanding how designers think and work. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Donetto, S., Pierri, P., Tsianakas, V. & Robert, G. (2015) Experience-based Co-design and Healthcare Improvement: Realizing Participatory Design in the Public Sector, The Design Journal, 18(2), 227-248. DOI: 10.2752/175630615X14212498964312

Dorst, K. & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.

Fereday, J. & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80-92.

Gasparin, M. (2019) Reflections on the epistemology of design: a Simondonian analysis. Reflective Practice, 20(6), 822-833, DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2019.1689941

Groth, C., Mäkelä, M., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Making sense: What can we learn from experts of tactile knowledge? FormAkademisk Journal, 6(2), Art. 2, 1-12.

Groth, C., Pevere, M., Niinimäki, K. & Kääriäinen, P. (2020). Conditions for experiential knowledge exchange in research across the sciences and creative practice. Co-Design, 16 (4). 328-344.

Groth, C., Mäkelä, M. (2016) The knowing body in material exploration. Studies in Material Thinking, 14, article 02.

Hansen, M. & Oetinger, B. (2001). Introducing T-shaped managers: Knowledge management’s next generation. Harvard Business Review, 79 (3), 106 – 165.

Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. London: Routledge Karjalainen, Koria & Salimäki (2009). Educating T-shaped Design, Business and Engineering Professionals.

Proceedings of the 19th CIRP Design Conference - Competitive Design, Cranfield University, 30–31 March, 2009, 555-560.

Klaassen, R. (2018) Interdisciplinary education: a case study, European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(6), 842-859. DOI: 10.1080/03043797.2018.1442417

Kosonen, K. (2018). Finding One's Own Way in Design: Reflections on Narrative Professional Identity. Doctoral Dissertation, Helsinki: Aalto University.

Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998). From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: New product development as knowledge management, Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 1–12.

Makela, M. (2007). Knowing Through Making: The Role of the Artefact in Practice-led Research. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 20(3), 157–163.

Makela, M. (2016). Personal exploration: serendipity and intentionality as altering positions in a creative practice. FormAkademisk Journal. 9(1), 1-12.

Makela, M., & Löytönen, T. (2017). Rethinking materialities in higher education. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16(2), 241-58.

Nasseri, M. & Wilson, S. (2017). A reflection on learning crafts as a practice for self-development. Reflective Practice, 18(2), 1-12 DOI: 10.1080/14623943.2016.1265495

Nimkulrat, N. & Matthews, J. (2017). Ways of Being Strands: Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Using Craft and Mathematics. Design Issues, 33(4), 59-72.

Niinimäki, Kirsi. 2018. YABBA DABBA DOO: Boosting Multidisciplinary Innovation through Design-driven Approach. Proceedings of the 21st DMI: Academic Design Management Conference, Next Wave, 1-2 August 2018. Ravensbourne University, London, UK. https://www.dmi.org/page/ADMC2018Proceedings

Niinimäki, Kirsi. 2019. Renewing technology-driven materials research through an experimental co-design approach. Design Journal, 22 (sup 1), pp. 1775-1785. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1594939

Papanek, V. (1984). Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change, 2nd ed, Thames & Hudson, London. Originally published in 1971.

566

Schön, D. (1983/1991) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.

Bilge Merve Aktaş Aalto University, Finland bilge.aktas@aalto.fi Bilge is a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Design at Aalto University, Finland. In her doctoral research (Aalto University, 2020) she examined human-material interaction from the perspective of material’s agency. She is continuing her research by focusing on material’s formative power and its role in relating to the environment and the world. Her research interests cover topics such as materiality, textile crafts, nonhuman agencies, human-environment relationship and practice-led research.

Camilla Groth University of South-Eastern Norway, Camilla.groth@usn.no Camilla is associate professor of art, design and craft at the USN, Norway. She has a background in ceramic crafts with a PhD from the Aalto University in Finland. Her research interests revolve around experiential and embodied knowledge and interdisciplinary collaboration and knowledge transfer. In her doctoral research, she studied design and craft practice and developed practice-led research methods. She has lately developed teaching and learning strategies in higher education.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Co-Creating a Cross-Material Silk and Porcelain Art Exhibition

Anne Solberg and Ellen Baskår https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.08.153

This paper resides in the field of artistic research and material-based art. The research issue is the co-creation of an art exhibition by two artist-researchers working with diametrically different materials. The research project is structured as a duo-ethnographic approach, with the voice of each participant present. The communication throughout the project was not vocal only, but visual and material. Hence, text and images are intertwined in the paper, both necessary for the communication of the project as a visual and material enterprise. Theoretical perspectives are the dialogue as a poly-vocal enterprise, embodied making and learning, and the role of materials in the art-making. The planned art exhibition proved to be crucial for the direction of development of the participants' personal aesthetic expressions. The co-creation and collaboration process was a vital force throughout the project, enhancing awareness of the other and each artist learning from the other. The research approach forced the artists to give the other and the public access to personal artistic strife and struggle, thus enhancing the transparency that is crucial for a learning process and required in a research project.

Keywords: co-creation, exhibition, material-based art, artistic research, dialogue

Introduction The topic of this paper is a co-creation project resulting in an art exhibition and the artistic achievements and learning processes of this enterprise. The collaborators are two colleagues, Ellen and Anne, both teachers at University of South-Eastern Norway. As a premise from the outset, we decided that the project would focus solely on two materials: silk and porcelain. Ellen’s contribution was silk carpets made with a digital sewing machine. Anne’s contribution was hand-built porcelain boards. The constant factor was the exhibition area: a room with white walls and a glass facade in the foyer at USN campus, Notodden, a traffic zone where students, teachers, and guests passed by and, from time to time, stopped to watch our exhibition. The research project had a multitude of perspectives. First, there was the ultimate goal: an art exhibition with two sets of artworks, which we wanted to be contrasting and independent, yet combined into a harmonious whole. Second, there were the artworks, each of us striving to obtain a personal and original expression. Third, there was the co-creation working process, which we were going to try out for the first time. Fourth, there was the learning aspect: we wanted to strengthen our qualifications in artistic performance, preferably also for transmitting a way of learning to our work at the university afterwards. These were our objectives, interdependent and intertwined, as multiple aspects of one artistic research project. The overall objective was the final result, the art exhibition. Hence, there were the inherent demands of transparency, reliability, structure, and dissemination to our field of study and, hopefully, to a broader public.

Theoretical Perspectives Three main theoretical perspectives are intertwined: first, co-creation and dialogue as working and learning methods; second, experiential knowledge and connoisseurship; and third, the role of materials in material-based art.

568

Dialogue Our literature review identified some previous relevant projects: Arnaud Hendrickx’s PhD project was a collaboration between himself as an architect and an artist as a mediator, with the objective of seeing Hendrickx’s architectural work from a new perspective. The project was communicated to the public through a series of art exhibitions and events (2012). A project by Camilla Groth and Arild Berg was a collaboration between a designer and a craft-person (Groth & Berg, 2018). A number of Finnish collaborative projects in an educational setting have been published, i.e. Härkki, Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, & Hakkarainen, (2016). Our study is different in that we are two collaborating artists and colleagues with equal roles in the project, but working with diametrically different materials. Dialogue was crucial to our project. In a Bakhtinian perspective, our dialogue was based on trust and respect and of discourse by questions and explorations, with no authoritarian influencer or decision-maker (Dysthe, 2006). We wanted both voices to be heard in a poly-vocal approach. Of interest is Bakhtin’s work on Dostojevsky’s poetics, describing Dostojevsky as the founder of ‘the polyphonic novel’. Bakhtin recognised a particular polyphonic artistic thinking, extending beyond the traditional bounds of the novel as a genre. In his view, this makes room for the thinking human consciousness in a dialogic sphere, not subject to artistic assimilation from monological positions (Bakhtin, 1984, pp. 270–271). Referring to Bakhtin’s dialogical pedagogy, Dysthe underscores the importance of multiple voices, allowing a testing of ideas to prevail, as a contrast to harmonising and consensus-driven pedagogy (Dysthe, 2006). We find this perspective appropriate for the dialogue in our study.

Experiential Knowledge and Connoisseurship Four decades ago, Donald Schön argued that universities tended to reject knowledge that included practical competence and professional artistic performance. However, he also observed that professionals of these fields failed to concretise the character of their knowledge (Schön, 1983, pp. vii–viii). At present, this problem is still relevant, and the particular knowledge is now called tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1983); embodied, situated, and enacted forms of cognition (Borgdorff, 2013b, p. 116) and experiential knowledge (Molander, 1993; Sennett, 2009). In a study in the design field, Groth and Mäkelä (2016) recognised bodily experience as an important part of students’ development. Material explorations are close to the lived experience and tend to affect the emotion of the performer. Even before starting with physical material exploration, an imaginary material exploration takes place, based on previous bodily experience of the imagined materials. The authors hold that this experience strengthens the student’s confidence in managing new materials as an extended toolbox for the future (Groth & Mäkelä, 2016, p. 18). In the present project, we recognise that aesthetic quality, our ultimate objective, requires knowledge that is not easily articulated. For this purpose, Fredrik Nilsson and Halina Dunin-Woyseth have found the connoisseurship model of Elliot W. Eisner useful and operative. Connoisseurship is about informed perception and appreciation of nuances in a particular field of practice, while criticism is about disclosure and communication of characteristics to a broader audience (Eisner, 1975b, p. 2–4; Nilsson & Dunin-Woyseth, 2013). In a dialogic process of art-making, we need both. We also recognise Liora Bresler’s comments on the dichotomous view of knowledge/truth versus emotion. Bresler argues that the low regard for the arts in academia stems from a lack of recognition of its affective powers rather than from a lack of recognition of its intellectual properties. Actually, she says, the affective dimensions of other academic disciplines, too, are rarely acknowledged (Bresler, 2005). In our study, we have realised that affective powers have been inherent in our process of art-making, both in our personal work and in our understanding of the other’s, as we strive for aesthetic qualities.

Material-Based Art and the Role of Materials The aesthetic expressivity of the materials is pivotal to our project. The affordances of silk and porcelain, their technical features, and how they respond to our crafting have been decisive in our artworks. Our background is the field of material-based art. In Norway, this has its origins in kunsthåndverk, a movement from the 1970s in which mainly utilitarian artifacts were made in an artist’s studio, avoiding factory mass production. Kunsthåndverk differed from the previous brukskunst (art and craft) movement, which included factory production. Over time, kunsthåndverk has crossed the border from applied art to fine art. In this process, the demand for good craftsmanship has prevailed, and the identity of the artists is still linked to their material field of work, such as wood, metal, textile, and ceramics (Solberg, 2020). Within material-based art, various concepts of ‘new materialisms’ have been discussed, since the turn of the century in particular. Latour’s actor-network theory from the 1980s (Latour, 2005), is followed by the material

569

engagement theory (MET) and the idea that homo faber is the maker of things, while at the same time, as human beings, we are made by them (Ihde & Malafouris, 2019, p. 195). Finding this theory relevant for their project, Groth and Berg discuss whether this perspective means that material can actually be regarded as endowed with the feature of agency (Groth & Berg, 2018, p. 1626). In a similar way, Jane Bennet, using the notions of vibrant matter and lively things, advocates that nonhuman bodies have a vitality as ‘quasi agents of forces’ with their own propensities and vital force. Both humans and non-humans are actants as long as they can produce effects, make a difference, or alter the course of events (Bennett, 2010, p. vii). She recognises a force that cannot be separated from matter. A craftsperson senses this force as a propensity trapped in the matter (Bennett, 2010, p. 56). As a consequence the craftsperson develops a deep understanding of the vitality of a specific material, which leads to a productive collaboration with it. However, Bennet also suggests that there is just one minor step from this view of agency as a vital force, to materiality itself conceived as a creative agent (Bennet, 2010, p. 65). Hence, one may ask whether this implicates a resistance or passivity to human actions or whether material agency can be analysed in isolation from human actions (Böschen et al., 2015, p. 260). As makers of material-based art, we recognise that the technical powers and expressive potential of materials play a decisive role in our performance. The task of the artist is to get a deep understanding of the character and potential of the material as a bearer of vitality and force, rather than agency, searching to keep this vitality and force in the finished artwork.

Methods This paper has an artistic research approach structured as a duo-ethnographic study. The artistic research approach involves gaining knowledge through artistic practice and has affiliations to craft science. The duo-ethnographic structure includes narratives in the form of images and written text from two perspectives, set by two separate voices throughout the project.

Artistic Research On artistic research, Henk Borgdorff argues that:

(…) we can justifiably speak of artistic research (research in the arts) when that artistic practice is not only the result of the research, but also its methodological vehicle, when the research unfolds in and through the acts of creating and performing. (Borgdorff, 2011, p. 46)

Hence, in artistic research, artworks are the results of research. However, one can hardly speak of artistic research in material-based art without a crafting aspect or a component of craft science. Both entail gaining knowledge through practice. In Dunin-Woyseth’s words, the knowledge base should be ‘the intellectual knowledge base of a field of study’ (Dunin-Woyseth, 2005, p. 161). Hence, the knowledge base needs to be developed from inside the discipline for members of the discipline to take control over it. The making aspect, the creative practice component, is vital for gaining knowledge in research in the arts (Solberg, 2017). Three components of artistic research are described by Tone Pernille Østern: Generating knowledge through practice with a transformative character, aiming at creating meaning and change, and an emotional component (Østern, 2017). The latter resembles Liora Bresler’s advocacy of empathic understanding within research, challenging the traditional distinction between the aesthetic and the rational. She argues that this involves deconstruction of the dichotomisation of affect/cognition (Bresler, 2006). In this paper, the concepts of creating meaning, creating change, and awakening emotions are included in our discussions.

Duo-Ethnography Duo-ethnography is a collaborative research methodology with two or more researchers in a dialectic process, juxtaposing narratives for multiple understandings. These understandings are allowed to reside without necessarily merging or concluding. The process is iterative, with a series of alternating presentations and listening to personal stories of the other (Norris et al., 2012, p. 28). The value of this approach rests with the degree of rigour found within the articulated conversations of interself-reflexivity (2012, p. 18). Norris et al. argue that in duo-ethnography, generalisability rests with the reader, not the researcher. Through juxtaposition, duo-ethnographers may provide theses and antitheses, leaving space for the readers to find their own synthesis as an active participant in the meaning making (2012, p. 22). Our ambition is to have both narratives told in a polyvocal dialogue throughout the paper. Each of us must juxtapose her solitary voice with the voice of the other, while at the same time neither of us are claiming to have the ultimate truth. The conversations in this paper are reconstructed texts based on personal notes,

570

sketches, and photographs from both of us. The sequence of our dialogues has not been linear. Of note is that our dialogue is not merely verbal but visual and material. When Norris et al. advocate storytelling for giving access to a broader public outside academia, we argue that our visual exposures can give access to an even wider audience. As teachers at the university, our time for R&D is spread unevenly throughout the year. In the present project, Anne’s R&D time was in winter and spring, while Ellen’s was in late spring and summer. Neither did we work in the same workshop. Hence, Anne’s first experiments with materials were invisible to Ellen, and Ellen’s material practice was invisible to Anne. We had 10 meetings and numerous e-mails and SMS messages during the project period from August 2019 to November 2020. The dialogue included seeing and responding to each other’s artworks. One Zoom meeting was arranged (July 2020) when Ellen was working on her project, and Anne spent her holidays on the seashore. The exhibition was presented in October. There was an opening event, with students and colleagues present, and five separate presentations for students.

The Making Process

The Materials

Figure 1. Silk thread and porcelain boards

Our first meeting was about an idea for a collaborative exhibition, and a choice of gallery. In our second meeting (December 2019), we brought our materials together: silk thread, all in the natural white colour of silk, and two kinds of clay, one powder moulding clay, all natural white, and one plastic clay in slate black (Figure 1). This restraint scale of materials and colour tones constituted the basic scope of expressivity for the entire project. We both found that in spite of the vast differences between these materials, there were tactile and visual similarities between them. In our third meeting (March 2020), we decided to focus on the materials as the major concept of the exhibition. Shapes and motifs were to be subordinate, emerging from the materials. From the outset, each had her own crafting techniques and aesthetic expressions of artworks.

The Crafting Techniques Ellen: In this design process, I have stitched surfaces and shapes using a digital sewing machine. My sharpened attitude from previous textile experiences has led the ideas towards porcelain qualities: smooth, glossy, stiff, matte, and both compact and transparent. Using the same silk thread quality in bobbin thread and upper thread became my path to these qualities.

Figure 2. Right; my first Inspiration, lichens in the mountains. Middle; digital sketches, textile forms intended for gallery wall. Right; thick silk sewing thread bobbin and big cone, compared to ordinary silk sewing thread.

571

My first idea was to stitch organic shapes, inspired by lichen from the Gausta area in Telemark. Large elements can be made by smaller parts combined into larger motifs. The challenge is the joints where the textiles overlap. This requires precision, through work with measurements and division process. The soft textured lichens inspired me to do my first digital sketches (Figure 2). In March 2020, when the coronavirus struck, organic forms reminded me of this virus, and I lost motivation for the lichen forms. A new relatively thick silk thread, ordered from Scotland, helped me think about my textile sheets in a new way. Figure 2, right, illustrates the difference between thick silk thread and the silk thread I normally use. Bobbins usually contain about 120 metres of sewing thread, while self-wound bobbins with this thick silk thread contain about 15 metres. This caused a lot of bobbin changes, which became more important than the extra hours of work, since it affected the textile expression in a positive direction.

Figure 3. Left; observing the digital stitching progress. Middle; frame format. Right; digital stitching first layer on substrate of alginate.

I established my workshop at home, and occupied our family living room from June until the exhibition in October 2020. For developing textile sheets, I used a digital sewing machine with accompanying embroidery unit (Figure 3). In order to handle the embroidery program, I also used computers. Frames limit the size formats, and during this textile project, I mostly used the large frame (20 x 36 cm). For the purpose of winding bobbin thread, I also needed an extra sewing machine. This work could be done occasionally when the digital sewing machine performed stitching and was running smoothly. The silk sheets consisted solely of stitches, while in the sewing process, the stitches had be attached to a substrate (Figure 3, right), which I washed away after the digital stitching was done.

Figure 4. Left; textile sheet, designed in the sewing machines' special software. Middle; thick silk thread used both as upper and bobbin thread, stitched digitally in four layers. Right; detail of textile sheet and stich directions.

The digitally planned design (Figure 4) must be tried out by sewing; testing that stitch density, stitch length, and thread fastening work as planned. Usually I make several adjustments, which can be a laborious and long process. This material together with written notes form a process documentation that can be used in other contexts, as in figure 40 Crane and figure 36 Buck. Based on the digital design, the finished materialised textile sheet is shown in Figure 4. All my assembled and processed lichen shapes were invested into this piece, 19 x 8 x 29 cm. It has four stitched layers and 97,822 stitches and needed 13 hours of sewing. Figure 4, right, shows the detail of the same textile sheet, showing clearly the stitching directions, and also how small shifts in the motif occur when four layers of thread are stitched on top of each other. The sewing process had to take place without long breaks because the organic material started to tighten, shrink, and pull. The expression became unrecognisable with a completely different character than intended. By changing the direction and angle of the stitches, the gloss and colour also changed. In the example above(, the stitches are laid horizontally in the first layer and vertically in the second layer, horizontal in the third layer, and vertical in the fourth layer. By using four layers of stitches, the textile sheet lost its flexible character and could easily be broken in two pieces. Anne: I did not visit Ellen’s workshop at home, so the laborious process of trying out the crafting technique was not clear to me. I tended to think that using a computer-aided sewing machine would make the sewing

572

process easy, or at least rather quick after the design was programmed. I was utterly astonished to learn that Ellen had been working continuously for 14 hours, with small stones in her shoes to prevent her from falling asleep over her sewing machine. However, Ellen had told me that the very idea of her silk project was a multi-layered sewing process, and that she did not at all know whether this would be possible. My joy was great when I heard her very fast steps crossing the floor to my office, telling me that it worked! It could be done!

Figure 5. Hand-built black porcelain with inserted white and gray porcelain patterns. Using a roller to press the inserted clay into the board and a steel tool to clean the surface, making the patterns come forward.

Anne: I used two different techniques to make the porcelain boards. One was hand-building using plastic clay. The other was casting in plaster moulds. Hand-building porcelain boards (Figure 5) proved to be complicated. Square boards (40 x 40 cm), tended to have inner tensions that caused fractures. With every new opening of a kiln, I was breath-taken by excitement: What would meet me? Would the boards be cracked? This was followed by grief when some of the most promising and intriguing works turned out to be all cracked, and went directly to the waste bin. Still, after months of work, I had more than 20 boards without any flaws at all. Some of them had small warps, which I accepted and even applauded. I found that these tokens of hand-making made them unique and created a living expression. Ellen: Anne’s porcelain works are made by hand as tools; the weight of the body, the fast and decisive moves were fascinating and inspiring to watch. Fascination because this way of working gives a personal imprint on the finished product. The small irregularities in the surface reflect the movements of the body and a sincerity that is also a feature of the finished product. Anne’s bodily imprints are a marked part of the expression.

Figure 6. A marbled and kneaded clay lump is cut into thin slices, which are combined and inserted into a porcelain board.

Anne: The hand-built boards have patterns of inserted clay. The inserted fields are made by marbling black and white porcelain, cut into thin slices which were inserted into a still plastic square clay board (Figure 6). In order to obtain vitality and energy in the marbling, I twisted the clay lumps in various ways. The result was that however hard I tried, I could never repeat a pattern or image. The boards are all unique, and can never be replicated. I could not foresee what would occur when I sliced the clay lumps. Each time was an excitement: What was hidden in the lump of clay this time? What I found, was that time and again the abstract patterns proved to be figurative. Strange creatures emerged, walking across the boards when I inserted them into the wet clay. Ellen: In this phase of her working process, Anne took an entire ceramic workshop into her possession, in a period when students were not there. I was overwhelmed by the working tools unpacked from the cases. Tables and benches I knew from before were covered with new boards in a drying process. The new ones were different from what I had seen before. Random and playful human- and animal figures emerged. Anne showed me how the intarsia works were made, moving concentrated and smoothly around the table, with full control of her working tools.

573

Figure 7. Powder clay is diluted in water, then poured into a plaster mould. The sheet of porcelain is taken out of the mould while still plastic.

Anne: In contrast to the hand-building, the making of casted boards was not at all complicated (Figure 7). They hardly ever cracked during firing. They could be made fairly thin, so that when fired, they were translucent, letting the light come through. Ellen: Anne invited to expositions when new boards were fired. They were placed in rows and stables. I had seen her sketches and heard about the process, and I was excited by the recognition. I lifted the boards towards the light, touched the surface, evaluated expressions, and grouped the works into various categories based on their expression. In these brief meetings, the boards were the topic, one at a time. Anne explained her intentions, enthusiastically and informatively, what went well and what went wrong. Together, we searched for the aesthetic expression of every board, structure, colours, and lines. We moved, organised, and grouped them, looking for new expressions that occurred in this process. Neither of us mentioned the exhibition in the Foyer Gallery in October. The exhibition was like a context in the air, far ahead.

Material Contrasts and Integration The two materials, despite their diametrically opposite qualities, also have a striking similarity. From the outset, we tried to combine and integrate them.

Figure 8. Left; linen fibres to be kneaded into the porcelain clay. Middle; sketches of porcelaineous textileness. Right; a porcelain board resembling a textile sheet.

Ellen: Various forms of integration were tried out, important for us, though hardly visible at all for others. Anne was, literally speaking, realising clay and textile integration, mixing linen fibres into the porcelain clay. The linen fibres made the porcelain clay stronger (Figure 8).

574

Figure 9. Left; sketch on paper. Middle; perforated porcelain board. Right; fired porcelain board with inserted wool thread.

Anne: An initial idea of co-operation was a combination of materials in one artwork. Hence, a porcelain board was perforated for inserting silk thread, as an entanglement of silk thread sewed into porcelain (Figure 9). Ellen: It was all very rehearsed, the stirring of porcelain in the bucket, the way the porcelain soup was poured into the plaster moulds. The plaster absorbed the water, and I was surprised by the speed of this process and how fast she had to work. Just a few minutes before the porcelain in the moulds were dry enough, she took the still-plastic porcelain board over to the working bench for the further process. “This board is for you,” she said, and gave me a plaster mould. She asked me to make holes in it for sewing after firing, so that our two materials could be combined. Anne: Ellen is a poet. Her sketch made exactly the right amount of energy in the design. The holes were made in the same kind of dynamic design, while the fired board had the same perforations, but the thread was sewn in a totally different pattern, breaking the strong direction and energy of the sketch, including a poetic, organic element.

Figure 10. Left; lichen form textile front. Middle; lichen form textile back. Right; detail textile lichen form.

Ellen: My experience is that digitally sewn pieces in many ways become too perfect, too clean, too smooth, sterile, and almost static. I missed a fervour in the expression. I have sought to give those expressions a personal imprint. By using relatively thick silk thread, long-awaited irregularities came into their own, so to speak (Figure 10). Due to the frequent changes of the bobbin thread, an overlap of stitches was required. In this way, the stitches needed more space, in areas I did not decide. These small and insignificant irregularities caused by frequent bobbin changes left a personal imprint. The silk sheets consist solely of numerous stitches. Variations in shapes and different directions of density, length, and stitch, layer upon layer with the same type of thick silk thread, both under and upper thread, summarise a great part of my improvisation. The silk thread fascinates me, both its expressions and qualities; organic, loosely wound, flexible, smooth, shiny, dry, a slightly sticky surface, and the strength of the material. I was still working with the digital design inspired by lichen formations on stone. Stone is hard as fired porcelain. I have been collecting lichen formations for years, thinking of large formations on the wall. The lichen form in the photograph (Figure 10) was passed among the public at the opening of the exhibition. It is very fragile and can easily be broken. Due to the sewing technique, the fabric is thick and stiff, resembling the character of porcelain boards.

575

Figure 11. Left; showcase outside the gallery. Right; juxtaposition. The goose and the waves.

Ellen: The goal was a common exhibition, where the participation and contribution of both should make a harmonious, polyvocal expression. Both of us were inspired by the other’s materials, directing our own expressions towards the other. We tried to entangle the materials by combining porcelain boards and silk thread, but we ended up by combining the expressions as a narrative whole. The goose was positioned on strings of silk, in front of the board with the wave structure, whose back side had been covered by a metal sheet (Figure 11). This represents both an assembled unity and the polyvocal character of the project. For this reason, we placed this exposure outside the entrance of the exhibition, as a representation of the exhibition concept. Anne: What intrigued me, was to expose the differences and extremes of our aesthetic, material concepts, while at the same time there had to be some similarities for the juxtaposition of the two opposites to be interesting at all. The inner and deeper coherence of the contrasting aesthetics is what made this exposition vibrant. The silvery board is named ‘Honouring the unfortunate’, as an appropriation of the board that had the misfortune of being cracked in the firing.

Meaning. Representations

Figure 12. Porcelain boards, 35x35 cm. Left; abstract patterns Middle; ‘Migrating birds flying over France’ Right; ‘Dancers’.

Anne: Improvisation of serendipities. The plan was non-figurative boards, with dynamic patterns, enhancing energy and vivacity. However, from time to time figurative elements emerged. In an improvisation process, I combined these shapes into moving images on the board. I tried to break the picture-in-a-frame association by shapes of the inserted clay at the lower edge of the boards (Figure 12). Ellen: When Anne’s abstract shapes emerged in the porcelain boards, I was first and foremost fascinated by the apparently abstract patterns, which, at a closer look, had associations to recognisable human- and animal-like forms. The movement in the motives of the boards reminded me of images in a black-and-white stop motion film. There were comprehensible stories emerging. This triggered the thought of making representative shapes myself.

576

Figure 13. Left; first sketch, textile on silk strings. Right; buck on strings.

Ellen: At some point, we started to consider using more of the gallery space, not only the walls. I started to fasten the silk pieces on long silk threads, allowing them to hang from the roof in the open space. The Buck has a surface sewn with a 22-degree angle in the first layer and a 112-degree angle in the second layer. This was the largest needle-breaker of this project: six needles on the first attempt (Figure 13). The crane and buck were redesigned from a previous textile project, where they had been sewn as a motif on a textile background (Baskår, 2020). The great advance of the digital working method was that the design could be re-used and developed further. Anne: I love the Buck! He is a sturdy one. The figurative forms made a marked contrast to the majority of our artworks, which were abstract forms.

The Exhibition

Figure 14. Left; familiarity of materials: color, structure, and surface quality. In front porcelain boards, in the back silk sheets. Right; silk sheet structure and surface.

Ellen: Usually textile works have a significant front - and backside. In these works, using the same type of upper- and bobbin thread, the expression got two equal sides. I wanted to make this visible for the exhibition audience. For this reason I ordered solid wooden frames with glass on both sides. The frames hung from the ceiling in the room so the textiles could be viewed from both sides (Figure 14). The distance to the wall was short enough to make sharp shadows. The shape and colours of the frames were chosen to match A’s works.

577

Figure 15. Left; hand built porcelain boards, seen through coastal pine tree on strings. Middle; crane on strings in front of textiles in frame with two sided glass. Right; textiles on strings mounted in a showcase.

Figure 16. Black and white porcelain boards, intarsia. Triptych: ”The animal strikes back. The viral bat”.

Figure 17. Porcelain boards in steel showcases. Left; intarsia works. Marbled patterns expose the plasticity of clay, in hard porcelain boards. Right; white, casted porcelain boards with a wave structure, one covered with metal sheet.

Anne: In order to use the entire room, we found that frames and showcases were needed. They were designed and produced for this exhibition. Five steel showcases, made of 20 mm square steel, were designed and produced for the exhibition (Figure 17). The showcases were 180 cm of height, thus making a substantial contribution to the architectural expression of the exhibition. The porcelain boards were mounted in the showcases with steel bolts, all produced for this exhibition, and 0,3 mm cords of spring steel (Figure 18).

578

Figure 18. Details. Left; textile on strings, an L-shaped piece of wood, constructed with holes close together for keeping the strings tidy and hiding the tassels. Middle; steel bolts through holes, cords of spring steel. Right; porcelain boards fastened with bolts at the edges, with no holes in the board.

Discussion Once the art-making and exhibition project is finished, writing is a way of making explicit the tacit, embodied knowledge gained in this project. This is not an easy enterprise. For example, there are emotions evoked. A was moved by the shimmering, vibrant apparition of E’s silk works. E was moved by A’s playful, marbled porcelain boards. Emotions evoked by the aesthetic expressions are hard to verbalise, while still essential to our experience of quality, which was a major objective of our project. The feelings of pleasure when we encounter aesthetic quality respond to Eisner’s connoiseurship model. Embodied recognition of high artistic quality, gained by training, education, and artistic practice, tend to evoke good feelings, and vice versa. These emotions are an integrated part of a qualified evoluation of artworks. Given that connoisseurship is this kind of tacit, embodied knowledge, criticism is a way of verbal communicating this. In a dialogic process of art-making, we need both. Initially, we tried different variants of entangling silk and porcelain into one artwork. Our conclusion was unanimous: This did not succeed. Hence, we decided that the best way of collaboration was to work each on our own items, in two separate paths of co-creating the final result, the exhibition. Surprisingly, we realised that we did not have to do our work at the same time, nor in the same workshop. There were some meetings, but most communication was on e-mail and SMS, including photographs of our recent achievements. We did not always use words at all. The digital communication was visual, while the dialogue on campus was material as well. What emerged was a reciprocal, continuous awareness of the other’s project, and a will to respond to the other’s ideas and aesthetic expressions throughout. A made a series of all white boards in order to match the white silk-works. E made thick, structured silk pieces that responded to the character of porcelain. This collaborative approach was decisive for our project, a force that drew our aesthetic expressions towards one another. Over time, this became an inner and deeper coherence of the contrasting aesthetics, essential to what made this exhibition vibrant. Thus, dialogue has been a major feature of our art-making process throughout. We learned from each other, seeing our own works from the other’s perspective, and commenting the works of one another. We recognise what Bakhtin called a particular polyphonic thinking, like in the polyphonic novel, though in another medium. Our experience from this project is that dialogue is an effective mode of learning. We regard this transferable to teaching, and to further collegial collaboration as well. The exhibition as such and our vocal presentations for students and colleagues were a way of communicating this experience. A number of students contacted us on various issues, referring to the exhibition and our presentations. We told them about the process, the meticulous efforts of developing the craft techniques, our frustrations of failed results, and the pleasure of achieving final results. This underscores another aspect: the vulnerability of transparency. Transparency is crucial to research as such, and to artistic research in particular, because the researcher is investigating her own project. Most of us have a resistance against letting others into our private sphere. Searching for the expressions, the beauty, or the powers of artworks is personal and tend to be in the core of our private space. It really hurts to expose flaws and failures. This is the cost of artistic research, and this is what you have to endure in a co-creation project, too. Our choice of duo-ethnography is related to what Norris et al. describes at the dialectic process of juxtaposing narratives for multiple understandings. Exposing different voices that do not need to be united or concluded, is the basis of our dialogue. However, a number of chapters in this paper are written collectively. The reason why there are no dissonances exposed, is simply that they were not there. We were surprisingly agreed throughout the project. There are two major reasons for that: First, we chose each other as collaboration partners because

579

we were both attracted by the artworks of the other, and because we were colleagues. Second, we decided that the co-creation part of the process was to be the final exhibition, not each artwork as such. This proved utterly fruitful to our art-making, and surely prevented disputes that could be expected if we were to work both on the same items. Still, with contrasting materials and artistic expressions, there was also a strong resemblance and attraction between the artworks. Hence, in this case our polyvocal project also has univocal aspects. In sum, the duo-ethnographical approach of polyvocal research matches our personal dialogic approach. The duo-ethnographic ideal of mutual awareness proved to be crucial to the final exhibition and to our learning process throughout this project.

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Baskår, E. K. (2020). Narrativ strategi: Nettundervisning i kunst og håndverk. FormAkademisk 13(3).

https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.3545 Bennet, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham NC: Duke University Press. Borgdorff, H. (2011). The production of knowledge in artistic research. In M. Biggs & H. Karlsson (Eds.), The

Routledge companion to research in the arts (pp. 44–63). London: Routledge. Borgdorff, H. (2013). Artistic practices and epistemic things. In M. Schwab (Ed.), Experimental systems future

knowledge in artistic research. Leuven: Leuven University Press. Bresler, L. (2005). Review of art practice as research: Inquiry in the visual arts, by Graeme Sullivan. Visual Arts

Research, University of Illinois Press, 31(2), 88–93. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20715387 Bresler, L. (2006). Toward connectedness: Aesthetically based research: Fall, 2006, Vol. 48, No. 1, Arts-based

research in art education (Fall 2006), pp. 52–69. Published by: Studies in Art Education, National Art Education Association, 48(1, Arts-based Research in Art Education), 52–69. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/25475805

Böschen, S., Gläser, J., Meister, M., & Schubert, C. (2015). Introduction: Material agency as a challenge to empirical research. Nature and Culture. https://doi.org/10.3167/nc.2015.100301

Dysthe, O. (2006). Bakhtin og pedagogikken—Kva ein tidlegare ukjend artikkel fortel om Bakhtins pedagogiske praksis. Norsk pedagogisk tidsskrift, 90.

Eisner, E. (1975b). The perceptive eye: Toward the reformation of educational evaluation. Occasional Papers. Stanford Evaluation Consortium. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED128408

Groth, C., & Berg, A. (2018). Co-creation in professional craft practice. Paper presented at the DRS 2018 Catalyst, Limerick.

Groth, C., & Mäkelä, M. (2016). The knowing body in material exploration. Studies in Material Thinking, 14(2), 02–21.

Hendrickx, A. (2012). Substantiating displacement. (Doctoral thesis). RMIT, Melbourne. Härkki, T., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2016). Material knowledge in collaborative designing

and making—A case of wearable sea creatures. Formakademisk, 2016, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1480

Ihde, D., & Malafouris, L. (2019). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology. Dordrecht, 32(2), 195-214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-018-0321-7

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford Unity Press.

Nilsson, F., & Dunin-Woyseth, H. (2013). Doctorateness in design disciplines. Negotiating connoisseurship and criticism in practice-related fields. Formakademisk, Oslo, 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.499

Norris, J., Sawyer, & Lundh. (2012). Duoethnography. New York: Oxford University Press. Polanyi, M. (1983). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Solberg, A. (2017). Developing doctorateness in art, design and architecture. (PhD). University College of

Southeast Norway, Notodden. (15) Solberg, A. (2020). Enigmatic epistemic things: The epistemic role of artworks in artistic research doctorates

FORMakademisk, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.3543 Østern, T. P. (2017). Å forske med kunsten som metodologisk praksis med aesthesis som mandat. NOASP,

Nordic Open Acces Scholarly Publishing, 1(5). https://doi.org/10.23865/jased.v1.982

580

Anne Solberg University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway anne.solberg@usn.no Ellen Baskår University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway ellen.k.baskar@usn.no

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Construction of Curriculum System of Design Education Under the Concept of STEAM

Han Shi, Feng Xue, Jing Pei, Yijing Li, Zhihang Song, Chunli Ma and Shangshang Yang https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.09.137

Both design education and STEAM education pay attention to the cultivation of students' innovative consciousness and practical ability, and they are highly consistent in teaching objectives and educational ideas. Based on the analysis of the relevant educational practice, the current research situation and the basic concepts of design education, this paper puts forward the curriculum design principles of curriculum content and curriculum evaluation for the design education integrated with STEAM. This paper constructs the teaching link of design education under the concept of STEAM from three aspects: teachers' activities, teaching links and students' activities. finally, it discusses the new teaching methods of design education and the future development of design education.

Keywords: STEAM, design education, construction of curriculum system

Introduction Innovation is the driving force for the sustainable development of the country. In order to cultivate innovative talents and enhance national competitiveness, National Science Board published the "Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education" report in 1986, which put forward the concept of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) education for the first time (National Science Board, 1986). However, researchers soon found that while paying attention to students' learning of scientific and technological knowledge, they should also establish a correct concept of scientific and technological application and humanistic literacy. Professor Georgette Yakman of Virginia Tech proposed in 2006 that Art be added to STEM, as a human factor to form STEAM education, which aims to increase students' interest in learning and encourage students to think creatively and critically through art (Yakman, 2019). At the same time, the American government, educational institutions and enterprises have injected a lot of human capital and economic support into the development of STEAM education. At present, the educational concept of STEAM has aroused widespread concern all over the world, and many educational researchers have carried out research on the localization of STEAM according to their own national conditions.

Interpretation of Art in STEAM Many researchers believe that the integration of art into STEM education can effectively improve students' interest in learning and promote the improvement of innovative ability, criticism and imagination. However, there is no consensus on the definition of Art in STEAM. Different countries and different scholars have different understandings of Art in STEAM. In "Using art education to build a stronger workforce", released in 2016, National Art Education Association proposed that art is divided into visual art, media art, architecture, environment and folk art. British National Science Foundation defines Art not only as art and painting, but also as humanities, history, art, design, science and technology, philosophy and social research. The "Art Curriculum Standard for Compulsory Education" issued by the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China in 2011 points out that art integrates dance, comedy, music and other categories, with classic, creative, comprehensive, humanistic, comprehensive and other connotations (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2011).

582

The author believes that the concept of Art in STEAM should have the curriculum value of both "practical" and "aesthetic consciousness". In other words, in the process of teaching, we should practice and innovate through art to ensure the integration of interdisciplinary knowledge and enrich students' aesthetic literacy and ability on the basis of art. Finally, through "learning while doing", we can improve students' interest in learning and promote the absorption and transformation of knowledge in different disciplines. Thus it can be seen that the art discipline in STEAM education should have the following characteristics: first, the cultivation of humanistic quality. Second, the cultivation of practicality and innovation. Third, combine the knowledge of engineering, technology, science, mathematics and other disciplines.

Figure 1. The relationship between STEAM Education and Art. Source: Self-made by the author

Through the above picture, we can find that although traditional arts such as poetry, opera and dance are important parts of people's all-round development, they lack the application of practical, innovative and interdisciplinary knowledge, and have a low degree of integration with the concepts emphasized by STEAM, such as project-based learning and interdisciplinary integration. On the other hand, the design majors such as industrial design, ceramic design and clothing design pay more attention to the cultivation of interdisciplinary, practical application and innovation ability. From the point of view of the combination of disciplines, design is the combination of art and technology. Technology, science and materials have a great impact on design, new materials and new technologies often profoundly change people's design and creation; at the same time, art will also have a counter-effect on science and technology. From the perspective of applied innovation, design education emphasizes innovative thinking and practical application, which is consistent with the educational goal of STEAM education to cultivate students' design thinking and innovative consciousness. To sum up, there is a close relationship between design education and STEAM education in curriculum objectives, teaching concepts, learning models, evaluation methods and so on. However, the combination of design and STEAM education is not a simple mechanical superposition, but should take design as the main line and integrate multi-disciplinary knowledge into practical activities, so as to stimulate students' thinking and application of other knowledge, and finally achieve the educational goal of cultivating students' humanistic and scientific literacy.

A Summary of the Research on the Relationship Between STEAM and Design At present, the research on design in STEAM education is mainly focused on educational concept research, comparative research, educational resources research, curriculum design research and so on. To sum up, it mainly shows the neglect of design education, the reflection of the importance of design education and the cultivation of design thinking.

Neglect of design education Design is often marginalized and its potential is not realized (Bell,2016). In England and Wales, design and technology are ignored in the English baccalaureate curriculum. This marginalization has led to inequalities in education, as reflected in the lack of time for the provision of design courses and the limited sources of funding for in-service training and professional development for teachers in specific disciplines. In today's educational environment, design education is an important way of cognition. Shrewd design educators should remind colleagues, school administrators, parents and other stakeholders that design education is indispensable in the practice of STEAM and the cultivation of students' all-round development.

583

Reflect on the importance of design James believes that design should not be the introduction of STEAM learning, but the end point of interdisciplinary learning, so as to increase the effect of design learning (James,2012). Eisner (Eisner,2002), Hetland and his colleagues (Hetland, L., Winner, E., Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K., 2007) and other art education researchers refuse to use design as a tool to improve students' performance in other subjects. They believe that design and other disciplines can help each other, bringing creativity, beauty and appreciation, a high degree of spatial reasoning, sensory awareness and many other cultural values that are not easy to measure. Paul Thompson, dean of the Royal College of Arts, believes that Art represents design in STEAM, advocating the integration of design thinking into industry and manufacturing, as well as medical and technological research and development.

The cultivation of design thinking The concept of design thinking can be first seen in Simon's book The sciences of the artificial published in 1969. Simon described that an important difference between artificial science and natural science is that artificial science is inseparable from human design and human thinking. In 2019, David Kelly founded the Stanford School of Design and formally introduced the course of design thinking into the field of education (Wang, youmei., Guo, jing., Wan, ping., 2019). Balkad pointed out that design thinking helps to cultivate students' metacognitive skills and improve their STEAM literacy (Balkad,2011). Design thinking can help teachers define their roles, guide teachers to better design and carry out STEAM teaching activities, help teachers better understand the nature of STEM innovative teaching, and pay attention to improving the connotation of students' innovative thinking. To sum up, since the concept of STEAM education was put forward, there has been an upsurge of research on STEAM education all over the world. Britain, Australia, China, Japan and other countries have combined the concept of STEAM with the actual situation of their own countries, and promulgated a series of education policies. In addition, academia has also done a lot of research on the relationship between design and STEAM education, including educational concepts, educational resources, teacher-student relationship and so on, providing a lot of theoretical support for future research.

Research Content and Innovation Design is closely related to human life, and design education is an effective way to cultivate people's innovative literacy. Design education can bring students rich interdisciplinary knowledge, which is very similar to STEAM education, which integrates nature, technology, science and other disciplines. At the same time, both of them have the teaching goal of cultivating people's innovative thinking and practical ability. Therefore, the author puts forward that the discipline of design is more in line with the concept of Art in STEAM. In recent years, some scholars around the world have studied the relationship between design and STEAM education, but there are relatively few studies on the integration of design education and STEAM education and curriculum design of design education. Therefore, this paper focuses on the construction of the curriculum system of design education under the concept of STEAM, and analyzes the curriculum objectives, teaching methods, learning content, teaching evaluation and other contents of the new design education.

The Present Situation of Relevant Educational Practice This chapter mainly through the analysis of the integration of art and design of STEAM education practice, for the further construction of design education curriculum system based on the concept of STEAM to get some enlightenment.

STEAM Educational Practice of Integrated Design

Explorations in art Explorations in Art is a primary school art education textbook published by Davis Publishing Company. Its purpose is to provide STEAM with a humanistic background and to cultivate students' interest in art and STEAM knowledge. At present, Explorations in Art has been used in 36 states in the United States, and it is one of the mainstream STEAM textbooks in the United States. The content of the textbook covers six grades of primary school, each grade includes six units, and each unit contains an integrated STEAM curriculum. Students can explore the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics in creating design works. Students are encouraged to cross discipline boundaries, view the world creatively in a new and open way, and improve their ability to solve practical problems from the perspective of comprehensive application. This teaching concept is mainly reflected in the following aspects: first, STEAM teaching based on design.

584

Second, STEAM courses around big concepts. Third, studio-based STEAM learning. In addition, Explorations in Art takes design and art as the main course content, which provides teachers and students with thousands of works of art resources in recent years, enriches students' horizons, and integrates multi-disciplinary knowledge into the curriculum, so that students are good at thinking. It is a classic work of the integration of art and STEAM education.

Educational practice in schools Every school offering STEAM education in the United States will integrate its own development history, characteristics and advantages to set curriculum goals. Although the form is slightly different, most of them emphasize students' participation and creativity, and exercise students' problem-solving ability and design thinking. For example, Drew Charter School in Atlanta focuses on the development of individual students. The educational goal of the school is to enable students to develop independent thinking and habits of observation, reflection, exploration, expression, production, understanding and participation. Drew Charter School roots STEAM education in students' daily study and strives to fully integrate STEAM topics into core courses and elective courses. In this regard, the school employs professional STEAM teachers to improve materials, technology and equipment, and to provide students with STEAM course learning toolboxes and professional classroom space. Each learning space has tools and materials needed for product design, 3D printing and handicraft production, which are stored in red, black, blue and green toolboxes, which are beautiful and efficient, easy for students to find materials and develop the habit of timely collation and induction. In addition, Drew Charter School has also carried out a series of STEAM educational activities such as STEAM Day, which enable students to understand and apply interdisciplinary knowledge and enhance their teamwork ability through interesting interactive activities, experiments, performances and games. Generally speaking, the STEAM classroom created by, Drew Charter School provides a good environment for students' hands-on production and practical production, and better arouses students' enthusiasm and creativity.

Educational practice outside the school Out-of-school educational institutions play an important role in STEAM education practice and constitute an important part of STEAM education system. The analysis of out-of-school education practice in this section includes three aspects: PLTW (Project Lead to the Way), Change the Equation and STEAM laboratory. 1. "Project Lead to the Way" PLTW is a major provider of STEAM courses in primary, junior high and high schools (Zhong bochang, Zhang lu, 2015) and the largest non-profit STEAM educational institution in the United States. The courses offered by PLTW are innovative and rigorous as a whole, which can not only cultivate students' enthusiasm for learning, but also improve their innovative ability, critical thinking ability and problem-solving ability to a certain extent. At present, more than 4000 schools in the United States offer PLTW courses, and more than 10000 teachers have participated in the advanced training of PLTW. PLTW has established partnerships with more than 100 well-known schools, large charities and leading companies, which have provided huge financial support for the development of PLTW, providing students with state-of-the-art STEAM educational technology, materials and facilities. Recruit teachers and managers with experience in the STEAM field to ensure that STEAM courses and teaching always maintain scientific contact with the real world, and prepare students for further study or employment in STEAM-related fields.

"Change the Equation" A public welfare organization called "Change the Equation" has been jointly established by some American enterprises CEO, which aims to improve the quality of STEAM education, encourage educational reform and encourage young people to learn STEAM knowledge through the business community, and finally achieve the goal of promoting STEAM education in an all-round way. In order to facilitate the promotion of excellent STEAM education cases, "Change the Equation" has created a STEAM lesson database, where STEAM project developers can compare the relationship between existing projects and the projects they are studying in real time, prevent repetitive curriculum design, and maximize project investment benefits. At the same time, due to the continuous updating and improvement of the contents in the database, STEAM educators can find suitable and high-quality STEAM teaching projects for students in the database. At the same time, "Change the Equation" management members have pledged to invest more than US $600 million annually in supporting STEAM education and to provide a large number of STEAM training and learning opportunities, so that students in all states can enjoy the benefits of STEAM education.

585

STEAM Laboratory STEAM labs in the United States have mature experience in the cohesion and application of social forces, the construction and updating of equipment resources, project staffing and training. According to the concept of STEAM, STEAM labs design learning situations based on projects, activities and problems, allowing students to carry out product research, design and development in the course of practical operation, and constantly improve students' STEAM literacy and ability to solve complex problems. According to different nature and different service groups such as students, teachers, families and the public, relatively clear educational goals are set, different project innovation practices are designed, and rich and colorful activities are organized. Labs allow students, teachers and parents to work together to imitate scientists, engineers or artists to design robots, create circuits and make handicrafts, and even explore problems with scientists, engineers and artists. American STEAM laboratory has become an important place for students to innovate, teachers to improve teaching skills, families to integrate into students' learning, and the public to improve their appreciation ability. The representative STEAM laboratories in the United States include the STEAM Laboratory of the Boston Institute of Art and the STEAM Laboratory of the Children's Museum in Manhattan. STEAM education in the United States can be fully developed, on the one hand, because the US government has formulated a series of policies and regulations, on the other hand, many social institutions and enterprises are constantly engaged in STEAM education promotion activities, regard the promotion of STEAM education as their duty, and put a lot of manpower and material resources into STEAM education, such as, Gates Foundation to help students prepare for employment or further study. A total of $1.1 million in STEAM education funding was provided between 2010 and 2012. American Telephone and Telegraph Company has provided about 250 million US dollars for STEAM education, etc.

Enlightenment from Related Practice

Cultivate innovative talents STEAM education advocates learning in practice, cultivating students' practical ability, cultivating students' core accomplishment, critical thinking, innovative ability and problem-solving ability. For design education, the teaching goal is not only to impart subject knowledge, but also to let students know how to use design in life, through design to make the current life and work more scientific.

Solve practical problems The implementation of STEAM education focuses on students' solving practical problems in real life. Similarly, the design education integrated with the concept of STEAM needs to stimulate students' initiative and stimulate their enthusiasm and self-confidence in solving problems. Teachers should guide and encourage students to dare to face practical problems, be good at using interdisciplinary knowledge, solve their own problems through group cooperation, and cultivate students who are unique and innovative in the society.

Strengthen the construction of the contingent of teachers Teachers are the key to the implementation of educational activities, and the training of design teachers should be strengthened through various channels. For example: encourage students who graduate from related fields to enter teaching posts; strengthen in-service teacher training to promote the deepening of design education in practice; support social education institutions to train design teachers.

Improve the compilation of relevant teaching materials Professional teaching materials play a guiding role in curriculum teaching, which is basically accompanied by teachers' preparation and teaching, students' learning, practice and other stages. therefore, complete professional teaching materials is a key step in the development of innovative design education. Innovative design education teaching materials should incorporate multi-disciplinary knowledge into the curriculum content, cooperate with a variety of art, design works and cases, fully mobilize students' learning enthusiasm, and make students in design teaching activities. Enhance the thinking and application of multi-disciplinary knowledge.

Strengthen the cooperation between schools and enterprises In today's society, the creativity and activity of enterprises are even greater than the research within the school. As mentioned earlier, PLTW and other out-of-school STEAM educational institutions provide advanced lessons for the development of STEAM education and apply them to the school STEAM classroom. Innovative design education should pay attention to strengthening the relationship between schools and enterprises, train more enterprises, institutions and companies that research and develop design education lessons, and

586

constantly inject vitality into the development of innovative design education in schools.

STEAM and the Basic Idea of Design Education This chapter mainly discusses the basic concepts of STEAM education and design education, which lays the foundation for putting forward the curriculum system of design education based on STEAM concept.

Basic concept of STEAM education STEAM education aims at students' current learning and future work needs, integrates multi-disciplinary knowledge, and enables students to complete project practice or solve problems encountered in life through teamwork. The main teaching goal is to cultivate students' problem-solving ability and innovative ability.

Project-based learning Project-based learning is a process of carefully designing, exploring and implementing project tasks in order to solve real and responsible problems. Students can imagine, verify, improve, create, and enhance the level of innovation and practice. The content of STEAM education is often based on specific project scenarios and is closely related to people's daily life. Students use their knowledge in science, technology, mathematics and art to creatively solve meaningful problems in the real world. It is helpful for students to explore the objective external world and cultivate a sense of responsibility and team spirit.

Instructional design Instructional design refers to the work plan of educational and teaching activities in the future. In order to better apply teaching theory to teaching practice, it is often necessary to follow certain principles of teaching design in order to achieve good teaching results. In instructional design, STEAM education usually follows the following principles: 1. Principle based on real situation 2. Principle of subjectivity 3. Comprehensive principle 4. The principle of practicality. Principle of self-participation 6. Pay attention to the principle of process 7. Interdisciplinary principle. In addition, STEAM education focuses on self-evaluation, classmate evaluation and teacher evaluation of the learning process and creative results according to students' performance in design activities. In terms of learning evaluation criteria, a wealth of evaluation methods are used to comprehensively evaluate the learning process of learners, such as the degree of understanding of knowledge, the degree of investment in activities, the effect of cooperation and the display of innovative consciousness, innovative thinking and creative products.

Basic Concept of Design Education

Curriculum objectives The general goal of design education is to enable students to participate in design activities individually or collectively, stimulate their creativity, understand the design process and its expression, use various tools and media to express feelings and ideas, and beautify the environment and life. Use the methods of appreciation and criticism to improve the aesthetic ability and understand the unique role of design in cultural life and social development. Through observation, experience, conception, description, shaping, design, production and other teaching activities, we can guide students to pay attention to the natural environment and social life, and cultivate students' emotional attitudes and habits of being close to nature, integrating into society and caring for life. Gradually form their environmental awareness, social awareness and life awareness, so that students acquire a lasting interest in art learning, the formation of basic artistic literacy.

Instructional design Design education emphasizes adhering to the teaching concept of facing all students, actively exploring effective teaching methods, creating a learning atmosphere conducive to stimulating the spirit of innovation, and guiding students to pay attention to the natural environment and social life. Explore lively and interesting teaching methods suitable for students' physical and mental development, cultivate students' healthy and optimistic attitude and persistent learning spirit, and pay attention to each student's performance and development in learning. Create a relaxed learning atmosphere, create problem situations, guide students to think independently, find problems, form creativity, and use design language and multi-media to creatively express and solve problems. However, at present, the curriculum logic of design education mainly takes art and design as the learning object, and the teaching of knowledge of other disciplines is often ignored in the course content, which affects the cultivation of students' practical application ability and hinders the all-round development of students. At

587

the same time, the teaching evaluation content and evaluation subject of design education are not comprehensive enough. Compared with STEAM education, process evaluation and multiple evaluation subjects are neglected, resulting in incomplete and objective evaluation results. These are all problems that need to be considered urgently in design education which integrates the concept of STEAM.

Construction of Design Education Curriculum System Based on STEAM In recent years, studies in the field of brain cognition have shown that design plays an active role in science and mathematics learning. Integrating design into the field of interdisciplinary knowledge not only enables students to explore a single knowledge, but also combines all different learning styles to form more neural pathways (Michelle,2013). In order to better realize the localization of STEAM education, there is an urgent need to strengthen the relationship between design and engineering, science and technology, and to find a design education and teaching model that integrates the concept of STEAM.

Principles of Curriculum Design

Principle of integrity and systematicness Discipline integration curriculum not only includes interdisciplinary knowledge, but also pays attention to establishing the relationship between knowledge points of different disciplines and blurring the boundaries of disciplines. Design education teachers should pay attention to the teaching progress of other disciplines involved in the curriculum, and recognize which knowledge can be reflected in the curriculum, so as to better achieve the effect of curriculum integration and students' learning, reflection and consolidation of other disciplines. At the same time, other disciplines should also consider what knowledge can improve the cultivation of students' design, aesthetic and other humanistic qualities, so as to form a joint force between design and interdisciplinary, so as to better realize the integration of knowledge and the systematic development of courses. If we cannot clearly recognize the teaching progress of multi-disciplinary knowledge, it is easy to cause teachers of different disciplines to omit or repeat the knowledge of other disciplines in the classroom, which will adversely affect students' learning and waste valuable classroom time. Therefore, in the process of curriculum design, teachers of different disciplines should maintain active communication and have clear control over students' learning progress and teaching difficulties. Only in this way can we minimize the repeated narration of interdisciplinary knowledge in science, technology, engineering, programming and other interdisciplinary fields, and achieve the effect of reasonably replenishing the background of interdisciplinary knowledge. In addition, different age groups have different educational goals and curriculum design standards, but there is always an inherent logical relationship between them, such as curriculum content from easy to difficult, from simple to rich. The curriculum design of the new design education should have its inherent logic, the curriculum design of the lower grade should conform to the characteristics of the physical and mental development of the lower grade students, and the curriculum design of the higher grade should be based on what the lower grade has learned. it is a follow-up and in-depth supplement to the content of the lower grade, and a review of what has been learned in the past.

Project-based learning principle The support of STEAM project teaching to independent development is to cultivate students' awareness of active learning in practice. In the process of research-based learning, students adopt reasonable procedures and methods to complete the design work according to the design propositions of the group, and the team members work together to solve problems and gain new experience in the process of questioning, planning, experiment, production, improvement and so on. Teachers guide students to reflect on curriculum experience and transform new growth experience into new knowledge and skills. In addition, to carry out the project, we should pay attention to the authenticity of the design project and design real customers. The dimension of the problem includes not only scientific and technological requirements, but also economic, environmental and social constraints. Students can develop a variety of solutions. This design practice pays attention to the needs of users and customers, uses technical and experimental evidence to make reasonable decisions, and considers technical, social and economic constraints and impacts. Solving problems is more complex and challenging.

Principles of practical application The new design education needs to pay attention to the cultivation of students' practical ability and design thinking. In the process of curriculum design, teachers should adhere to the principle of combining hands-on operation with thinking development. Students are encouraged to initially master the basic skills of design and

588

production through hands-on practice, and to design and create creative works. Students can use general and simple information technology to solve practical problems and serve their study and life. Teachers should encourage students to use interdisciplinary knowledge to analyze and solve problems encountered in activities. In the process of activities, teachers should encourage students to use their hands and brains at the same time, guide them to apply what they have learned, analyze, think about and solve practical problems.

Learner-centered principle The learner-centered classroom model mostly adopts the way of student-led projects. Teachers fully consider the differences of learners and formulate teaching strategies according to different background knowledge, interest preferences, acceptance and thinking habits. I hope that every student can give full play to his or her potential and encourage children to give full play to their imagination and try new ideas. Teaching methods are designed according to different students' learning styles. Students experience the fun of self-discovery and the sense of achievement in solving problems in learning activities, from which they can learn interdisciplinary knowledge.

Content of Courses

The choice of learning topics Design education should take practical problems as the curriculum center, establish curriculum objectives, learning content, evaluation and feedback, and the determination of curriculum theme needs to consider the scientificalness and value of curriculum theme. Teachers need to do preliminary research and analysis, understand local educational resources, and analyze the characteristics of learners, such as students' existing knowledge and experience, knowledge of other subjects in the curriculum, and so on. The course theme of appropriate difficulty is determined according to the students' physical and mental development, learning ability, interest characteristics and so on.

Organization of course content In order to guide the students to adapt to the society, it is suggested to choose the educational content and guide the students to adapt to the society from the perspective of students' growth process, living environment and society. Mobilize the students' existing experience, establish a connection with the curriculum content, through the process of experiencing curriculum activities, transform curriculum knowledge into life knowledge, and solve practical problems.

Curriculum Evaluation Curriculum evaluation is an important index to test students' learning effect. In the traditional classroom, teachers often use a single teaching evaluation method and standard to evaluate students' learning effect, ignoring learners' learning process and individual differences, and limiting the objectivity of the evaluation results. The new curriculum evaluation of design education is based on the objective facts of students' learning, and pays attention to the coordination and unity of evaluation and teaching, especially to strengthen formative evaluation and summative evaluation. We should not only pay attention to students' mastery of design knowledge and skills, but also pay attention to the evaluation of learning ability, learning attitude, emotion and values. Students are encouraged to evaluate their learning progress and assignments by means of self-evaluation, mutual evaluation and teacher evaluation. The result of the evaluation can be a score, rating, or comment, or a combination of comments and ratings. The evaluation of students' homework is not only a full affirmation of students' progress and development, but also a clear direction for students' further development.

Teaching Process This paper constructs the design education and teaching link under the concept of STEAM from three aspects: teachers' activities, teaching links and student activities, which is divided into seven stages: curriculum introduction, task analysis, student grouping, activity exploration, work display, teaching evaluation and curriculum development. First, the stage of curriculum introduction. The teacher analyzes the curriculum objectives and the main points of knowledge learning to make the students clear about the curriculum objectives and design requirements. Second, the stage of task analysis. Teachers are responsible for decomposing curriculum tasks, intuitive demonstration teaching, so that students have a preliminary understanding of the steps of design activities, clear curriculum tasks. Third, the student grouping stage. Teachers create project situations to help students complete the grouping,

589

and group members communicate and discuss with each other and undertake the corresponding division of labor. Fourth, the activity exploration stage. The teacher appropriately guides the students to complete the conception of the design plan and the creation of the design works in the group communication. Fifth, the work display stage. After completing the production of the design works, the group selected commentators to display the works, and the rest of the students visited to evaluate the design works and the effect of the explanation. Sixth, the stage of teaching evaluation. Through the combination of individual evaluation, group evaluation, group evaluation and teacher evaluation, the evaluation content is not only limited to the final design works, but also includes students' learning status, learning process and so on. Seventh, the stage of curriculum development. Teachers lead students to summarize what they have learned, and put forward more expansive thinking in life, science and other aspects, so as to cultivate students' ability to combine theory with practice and think actively about problems.

Figure 2. The Teaching process of Design Education based on the concept of STEAM. Source: Self-made by the author

To sum up, design activities and project situations are used to enhance the interest of the classroom. In the exchange and discussion, activity exploration and other links to gradually improve students' innovation and practical ability. Through the display of works and teaching evaluation, we can cultivate students' expression and aesthetic ability. Through teaching evaluation, teachers can optimize the future teaching links and teaching contents, so as to enable students to form a comprehensive understanding of themselves. finally, improve students' ability to use interdisciplinary knowledge, understand design, think about practical problems and so on.

Discussion The design education under the concept of STEAM is different from the traditional art education. The most

590

important feature of design education based on STEAM concept is the change of learning style. The learning content is connected with the project-based situation, which connects the learning of knowledge with daily practice, and transforms knowledge into learners' inner feelings and into a real understanding of the external world. Design education based on the concept of STEAM provides students with a variety of opportunities suitable for autonomous learning, allowing students to learn autonomous learning and change passive acceptance into active thinking. Fully stimulate students' curiosity and motivation for subject knowledge and develop the habit of lifelong learning. Teachers not only pay attention to students' learning results, but also pay attention to the long-term impact of the learning process and curriculum on students' development. The new design education attaches importance to the connection and connection between disciplines, helps students to understand a discipline from multiple angles, encourages students' ability to identify, analyze, synthesize and integrate knowledge, transcends discipline boundaries and stimulates creativity. The new teaching ideas it provides can promote the healthy development of students' critical thinking, decision-making ability and values, and promote opportunities for cooperation among students to improve the effectiveness of students' understanding of knowledge. The research on design education not only carries the thinking of current educational problems, but also lies in the groundwork and construction of design education in the future. The author believes that the future design education should be closely related to real life. Design will show a trend of diversification and extensiveness in people's daily life, and the public will have a clearer understanding of design education. The design will also continuously improve the aesthetic ability of the public in the way of "home-school cooperation".

References Bell, D. (2016). The reality of STEM education, design and technology teachers’ perceptions: A phenomenon

graphic study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 61–79. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9300-9.

Balkad. (2011). Standards of mathematical practice and STEM. Math-science connector newsletter. Eisner Elliot. (2002). The Arts and the Creation of Mind. Yale University Press. Hetland, L., Winner, E. Veenema, S., & Sheridan, K. (2007). Studio thinking: The real benefits of visual arts

education. New York: Teachers College Press. James W. Bequette & Marjorie Bullitt Bequette. (2012). A Place for Art and Design Education in the STEM

Conversation. Art Education (2). doi:10.1080/00043125.2012.11519167. James Haywood Rolling. (2016).Reinventing the STEAM Engine for Art + Design Education. Art Education(4),.

doi:10.1080/00043125.2016.1176848. Li Wangwei & Xu Xiaodong. (2018). The Art of Integration and the cultivation of Innovation in STEM practice--

Enlightenment from eight STEAM Education cases in the United States. Foreign primary and secondary education, (12),9-17. doi:CNKI:SUN:WGZX.0.2018-12-002.

Michelle H. Land.(2013).Full STEAM Ahead: The Benefits of Integrating the Arts Into STEM. Procedia Computer Science. doi:10.1016/j.procs.2013.09.317.

Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. (18 Dec 2011). Art curriculum standard of compulsory education. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A26/s8001/201112/t20111228_167340.html

National Science Board. (1986). Undergraduate Science, Mathematics and Engineering Education. [EB/OL] Retrieved from https://arteducatorsprod.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/535/ff8bfae5-6b4f-4352b900-4fc1182ad2b1.pdf?1455134278

The Congressional STEAM Caucus. (7 February 2013). Americans for the Arts Action Fund. Retrieved from www.artsactionfund.org/news/entry/ the-congressional-steam-caucus

Wang Youmei, Guo Jing, Wan ping & Zhao Wenzhu. (2019). Design thinking: promoting the Deep Integration of STEM Education and Creator Education. Research on audio-visual education, (03),34-41. doi:10.13811/j.cnki.eer.2019.03.005.

Yakman G. (9 Mar 2019). STE@M Education: An Overview of Creating a Model of Integrative Education[EB/OL]. Retrieved from http://steamedu.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/2008-PATT-Publication-STEAM.pdf.

Zhong Bochang & Zhang Lu. (2015). The emergence and Development of Project Guide (PLTW) Organization and its Enlightenment to China. Educational scientific research, (05),63-69. doi: CNKI:SUN:JYKY.0.2015-05-015.

591

Han Shi Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China 1152752195@qq.com Han Shi received his bachelor's degree in Art from Anyang University in 2017 and his master's degree in design from Zhengzhou University of Light Industry in 2021. He now holds a PhD in architectural theory and design from the University of Camerino in Italy. His research interests include design theory, design culture and design education. Feng Xue Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China simonxuefeng@sina.com Feng Xue received his PhD from Xi'an Academy of Fine Arts and his post-doctoral degree from Henan University. Now he is an associate professor, master tutor and vice president of Art and Design School of Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China. Jing Pei Jingdezhen Ceramic Institute, China 877408807@qq.com Jing Pei graduated from Jingdezhen Ceramic University with a master's degree. She is now teaching in College of Internet Application Technology, Anyang Normal University, China. Yijing Li Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China 906096607@qq.com Master of Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, doctor of University of Wales Trinity Saint Davhttps://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021. Zhihang Song Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China 869192344@qq.com Master candidate in Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China. Chunli Ma Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China 1655181063@qq.com Master candidate in Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China. Shangshang Yang Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China 601495665@qq.com Master candidate in Zhengzhou University of Light Industry, China.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Essential Medications A Co-Created Learning and Design Opportunity

Kate Sellen, Nav Persaud, Stuart Werle, Mariam Al Bess, Nick Goso, Ruslan Hetu, Habiba Soliman, Alyssa Bernado and Norm Umali https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.10.261

The purpose of the Essential Medications project was to design the packaging and branding for CLEAN Meds (Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines), together with a team of doctors, pharmacists, and patients. The project was realized as a co-created experiential learning opportunity through an undergraduate advertising and packaging studio class, and pro-ject-based learning opportunity. The Essential Medication project is a collaboration between the Community Guidance Panel of the CLEAN Meds project and team, at MAP Centre for Urban Solu-tions, at Unity Health and the Health Design Studio at OCAD University with undergraduate pro-grams in graphic design and advertising. Students worked closely with all stakeholders to design a look and tone for the project together with a packaging design, that appealed aesthetically, and paid close attention to issues of implementation, accessibility, stigma, and trust. This case study discusses the structuring of the project and the insights gained from structuring and supporting this co-created learning opportunity as well as insights on adjustments for COVID 19

Keywords: health design; co-design; medication; experiential learning

Introduction Ontario College of Art & Design University has a strength in design education related to medical and health contexts with both an undergraduate emphasis and a full graduate program devoted to health design. In Fall of 2019, the Health Design Studio, a research hub in health design research, was approached with a packaging project for a research initiative providing essential medicines – the CLEAN Meds project. With issues of stigma, community involvement, public health and health system values as factors, the project is an ideal learning opportunity for students in health design. In conversation with program chairs and family medicine researchers it was decided to run the project through two undergraduate programs as a first step. The programs chosen were advertising and a packaging course in the graphic design program. Both running in Winter of 2020, the advertising students’ would be able work on branding and positioning and then hand-off to the packaging students around the mid-term, each class with access the CGP, pharmacist, and family physician as subject matter experts. At the end of the term, several concepts would be chosen from each class to take forward for further development and eventually production over the summer term.

Essential Medications Nearly 2.4 million people in Canada cannot afford to pay for the medications that they have been prescribed. This includes life-saving medication and those essential for managing chronic illness (Morgan et al, 2017). Canada is the only high-income country without universal access to essential medicines despite having a publicly funded health service. This impacts how often and how much medication some patients take, leading to adherence problems and disease management issues (Gupta, et. al, 2018). Adherence issues affect a wide range of people from those with lower incomes, to seniors on multiple medications, to individuals who struggle to afford expensive medicines. Struggling to afford prescriptions and

593

the consequences of not being able to take prescribed medicines impacts many areas of life including the ability to work, social and family life, long-term wellbeing, and causes significant emotional stress (Yaphe, et al, 2019).

Designing for Free Health Services Prior to the development of the collaboration with the Health Design Studio, the CLEAN meds trial found that delivering free medication to patients had significant benefits to their health, medicinal adherence, and quality of life (Persaud, et al, 2020). However, even when providing the service for free there was still a layer of stigma that affected the adoption of the service (Goffman, 1963). Some patients viewed the service as cheap, low quality, and charitable. In experiencing stigma that stems from patients’ interactions with a provider or the healthcare system, patients can feel singled out for not being able to afford care, as if they didn't belong in the healthcare setting. Services that offer free of charge medications and other free services can be associated with stigmatising concepts of poverty and lack of agency, requiring patients to meet specific criteria to access free services. This can be a stigmatising experience (Vaes, 2014). For our students, the challenge was to design within the context of a free medication service while alleviating or at least not contributing to the potential additional stigma of receiving CLEAN Meds. Part of this challenge was packaging the medications, that come in a range of packets, bottles, and blister packs in a way that would secure them in transit, thus avoiding medications arriving slightly damaged or in disarray. Thinking about the future expansion of the service, there was the need to encourage awareness and access to the service - a connected need we refer to as approachability.

Co-Creating Learning To structure the two undergraduate courses, we did not prescribe any specific techniques or process that would be a departure from the regular curriculum for those courses. Instead, we agreed to provide resources to support the specialised content of the project. This would be undertaken in the form of

• access to subject matter expertise for in class presentation, question and answer, and feedback,

• collated resources document with medication packaging design examples, example analogous free medical products, design brief and links to additional resources

• access to CGP feedback twice during the term

• a dedicated research assistant from the master’s program to support coordination, resources, and student questions

The CGP consisted of 12 representatives from across the communities involved in the longer CLEAN Meds trial. The subject matter experts included the CLEAN Meds project lead, Dr Nav Persaud, family physician and MAP researcher, and Norm Umali the lead pharmacist for the project who reviews and fills all prescriptions ready for shipping, and Dr Kate Sellen, director of the Health Design Studio. The outcomes of the two undergraduate design classes would be combined and co-designed over the summer together with the CGP. The table below (Table 1) illustrates the sequence events given the impact of COVID 19 pandemic.

Table 1. Sequence of project activities

Advertising Class

Packaging Class

Activity 01 Resource’s deck Including project overview, design benchmarks, reference brands

-

Activity 02 Introduction to Advertising Students Family physician lead, master’s student

-

Activity 03 Written Q and A Pharmacist /Family physician

-

Activity 04 CGP Feedback Materials were shared plus specific Q and As

Introduction to Packaging Students Resource’s deck

Activity 05 COVID – interrupted advertising handover to packaging

Handover of branding and positioning concepts – delayed significantly

594

Activity 06 Advertising students complete Presentation on medication information design and packaging by project lead plus Q and A

Activity 07 Pharmacist Q and A - 1

Activity 08 Pharmacist Q and A - 2

Combined Student Team

Activity 09 Subject Matter Expert Panel Concept Selection Alternative to CGP Selection due to access issues and COVID

Activity 10 Design Development, packaging development Student team worked together with faculty over the summer to develop final prototypes, revisiting research, feedback, and creating physical prototypes for packaging

Activity 11 Feedback from CGP 1 Significantly delayed, students began to drop-off as Fall term started, subject matter experts were consumed by clinical work

Activity 12 Design Development, packaging final With additional input form faculty final packaging design was developed together with commercial production company

Activity 11 Feedback from CGP 2 Final designs were integrated and reviewed with CGP and subject matter experts

Reflection – Conceptual Tensions The students involved at the undergraduate level were highly motivated and engaged with the both the overall objective of the CLEAN MEds project and the design project. For the advertising students, since this is a public health initiative, applying commercial techniques for a non-commercial outcome was particularly motivating. This provided an opportunity to build on learnings about values in design (Le Dantec, et al, 2009) through the undergraduate classes and into the combined team that chose to stay with the project beyond the class structure as an additional learning opportunity. Values then became central to the development of the concepts as they moved from separate brand, graphic, advertising concepts into combined solutions. This opened a discussion on values in design approaches (Winklet & Spiekermann, 2018). The result is the brand Kanoe (Figure 1). The brand is driven by its five values: equity, accessibility, community, humanity, and quality. Every design choice was tailored with clarity in mind, hoping to make every aspect of the brand as effortless and intuitive as possible. This was well received by the CGP who found the brand visually appealing, easy to understand, and professional.

Figure 1. Final packaging prototype combining branding, stabilization, and information slot.

595

The brand colours were ultimately inspired by the colours of water and the medical industry, resulting in a colour palette consisting of deepening shades of teal. The colour palette was a controversial choice for the core team, who felt that they did not want to perpetuate “healthcare aesthetic” and were disappointed that more activating palettes with orange and light green were not preferred. The members of the CGP found comfort in the colours choosing them as they evoked a sense of health, healing, and cleanliness. Additionally, the CGP responded well to the use of gradients from light to dark teals, evoking a sense of healing and gaining strength. The name Kanoe, was the result of CGP suggestions and the work of the advertising students involved. The name CLEAN Meds although acceptable to the CGP, was viewed as potentially stigmatising by the design faculty. Given the conceptual link between “clean” and stigmatised drug use (Ashford, Borwn, & Curtis, 2019). The use the of “K” then too became the subject of debate. The idea of a misspelling being uncomfortable with the family physician and pharmacist. Again, the CGP’s preference indicated the direction, and this reflects the indigenous spelling of the word canoe. While the students pursued a design informed closely by the CGP, following co-design principles (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), this created difficult tensions for the students. Working within a co-design framework necessitated abandoning new ideas and commercially orientated branding concepts and moving forward with a some-what constrained more traditional aesthetic. In moving from a larger number of concepts from classwork to the smaller team and then finally to a single design, the students grappled with a loss of creative agency as well as an unstructured a fractured timeline due to COVHTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.21606/DRS_LXD2021. The students also recognised that there are big questions that remain due to the low level of wider feedback available and the highly constrained number of patient representatives that they had access to through the constrained co-design process (Tritter & McCallum, 2006), experiencing first hand some of the potential constraints of a co-design approach. How will the wider community react to the newly designed packages and branding? Will the new design have any unforeseen psychological or social impacts especially in addressing stigma? What other factors or future innovations can contribute to making this service as tailored as possible to a wider community?

Reflection – COVID 19 Tensions The COVID-19 pandemic revealed a few tensions resulting from the context of the project and the every-day realities of the CGP. The initial wave interrupted the student’s work at the undergraduate level, made it initially unfeasible to connect with the CGP or our healthcare collaborators. Like many things, the entire project slowed down. Students were adapting their life situations and faculty were pivoting their teaching approach. This included the adoption of online collaboration tools which became essential working spaces for the project and have enabled more effective collaboration and project tracking. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, the team had to adapt the testing and feedback session format. Only a small number of the CGP were reachable, and the healthcare collaborators were not available due to catching up on case-loads due to restricted health services. The changes to the format were largely informed by digital access and equity considerations, where the focus was to ensure that every member of CGP can participate. This was an unexpected and valuable learning opportunity. The experience of testing a physical package using teleconferencing required students to consider in detail how to speak about their design work, how to engage their audience in detailed questions, create tools to allow for more engagement, sending a physical co-design package to CGP members, and manage the session time effectively to ensure all participants were heard.

Reflection – Regulatory Tensions In working on healthcare projects there is sometimes a tension that arises between protocol and bureaucratic regulations, design practice and creativity. This manifests in situations where something that is possible but creative bumps up against the perception of regulatory restrictions. This can happen often with medication related work. For instance, the students spent quite a bit of project time figuring out what was possible to change and what was not – the sustainability of the yellow plastic pill bottle being one area of design inquiry that did not lead anywhere. While this was a great learning opportunity around material choice, it was a frustrating experience to realise that while there were other safe sustainable options for pill bottles the team would not be able to realise a project that used these solutions due to the perception that the yellow pill bottle was embedded in regulatory and system constraints. This can potentially discourage students from seeking out creative solutions and possibly also discourage students from considering design in the health sector as a viable and fulfilling career choice.

596

Insights Several insights on co-created learning resulted from the CLEAN Meds project:

• the use of online whiteboard as a central working space and information /resource hub as an adaptation to COVID 19 restrictions could start as early as first engagement and would be of benefit without COVID restrictions

• co-design with community members should anticipate digital access and equity issues early as a learning opportunity for students

• plan for lack of availability as health collaborators workloads shift

• consider conceptual factors early with students on broader issues facing the health system– such as access and equity

• recognise and discuss dominant paradigms in design in healthcare with students – the aesthetic use of teal and blue hues being one of these

• use tensions in design preferences among stakeholders as a learning opportunity for students

References Ashford, R. D., Brown, A., & Curtis, B. (2019). Expanding language choices to reduce stigma. Health Education. Gupta, S., McColl, M. A., Guilcher, S. J., & Smith, K. (2018). Cost-related nonadherence to prescription

medications in Canada: a scoping review. Patient preference and adherence, 12, 1699. Le Dantec, C. A., Poole, E. S., & Wyche, S. P. (2009, April). Values as lived experience: evolving value sensitive

design in support of value discovery. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1141-1150).

Morgan, S. G., Li, W., Yau, B., & Persaud, N. (2017). Estimated effects of adding universal public coverage of an essential medicines list to existing public drug plans in Canada. CMAJ, 189(8), E295-E302.

Persaud, N., Bedard, M., Boozary, A. S., Glazier, R. H., Gomes, T., Hwang, S. W., ... & Martin, D. (2020). Effect on treatment adherence of distributing essential medicines at no charge: the CLEAN Meds randomized clinical trial. JAMA internal medicine, 180(1), 27-34

Persaud, N., Davidson, M., & Charter, D. (2018). Community members co-designing a trial of medication access. CMAJ, 190(Suppl), S44-S45.

Sanders, E. and P. J. Stappers. 2008. ‘Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design.’ CoDesign 4(1):5–18. Tritter, J. Q., & McCallum, A. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: moving beyond Arnstein.

Health policy, 76(2), 156-168. Vaes K (2014) Product stigmaticity-understanding, measuring and managing product-related stigma. Delft

Academic Press, Delft University of Technology – University of Antwerp, ISBN 978-90-6562-351-5 Winkler, T., & Spiekermann, S. (2018). Twenty years of value sensitive design: a review of methodological

practices in VSD projects. Ethics and Information Technology, 1-5. Yaphe, H., Adekoya, I., Steiner, L., Maraj, D., O'Campo, P., & Persaud, N. (2019). Exploring the experiences of

people in Ontario, Canada who have trouble affording medicines: a qualitative concept mapping study. BMJ open, 9(12), e033933.

Kate Sellen OCAD University, Canada ksellen@faculty.ocadu.ca Associate Professor of Design and Canada Research Chair in Health Design Nav Persaud MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Canada nav.persaud@utoronto.ca Canada Research Chair in Health Justice Stuart Werle OCAD University, Canada swerle@faculty.ocadu.ca Associate Professor of Design

597

Mariam Al Bess OCAD University, Canada mariam.al-bess@student.ocadu.ca Graduate student in Health Design Nick Goso OCAD University, Canada ngoso@faculty.ocadu.ca Associate Professor of Design Ruslan Hetu OCAD University, Canada ruslan.hetu@student.ocadu.ca Graduate student in Health Design Habiba Soliman OCAD University, Canada habiba.soliman@student.ocadu.ca Graduate student in Health Design Alyssa Bernardo OCAD University, Canada alyssa.bernardo@student.ocadu.ca Undergraduate student in Advertising Norm Umali MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Canada umali@rogers.com Staff Pharmacist

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Card-Based Learning Objective Design A Collaborative Workshop to design Learning Objectives and Assessment Strategies

Stefano Perna and Moritz Philip Recke https://doi.org/10.21606/drs_lxd2021.11.145w

The Learning Objective Design workshop introduces participants to a novel approach for designing learning experiences, in particular addressing some of the typical processes of Instructional and Curriculum Design such as the design of Learning Objectives and Assessment strategies. The authors will introduce a Learning Objective Design Board as a practical tool to make the process of defining Learning Objectives and Assessment Strategies for any type of educational experience easier, more creative, collaborative and even playful.

Keywords: learning objectives; collaborative design; card-based design; learning design; instructional design

Workshop Aims The Learning Objective Design workshop introduces participants to a novel approach for designing learning experiences, in particular addressing some of typical processes of Instructional and Curriculum Design such as the design of Learning Objectives and Assessment strategies. The workshop is based on a set of collaborative virtual boards and card decks that facilitate creative and playful collaboration and discussion between educators. The boards and the decks are based on the well-established revised Bloom’s Taxonomy and borrows its structure from established Learning Design theories and methods (Conole 2005, Conole 2013, Hokanson et al. 2015). The widely known Bloom’s Taxonomy, initially published in 1956 (Bloom 1956), provides an established framework for the categorization and description of educational goals or learning outcomes, often called learning objectives. In 2001, the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy was published by a group of researchers form fields of psychology, instruction and curriculum (Anderson & Krathwohl 2001), which is the only revision accredited with widespread acceptation (Forehand 2010). The revised taxonomy introduced verbs and gerunds to emphasize the dynamic nature of learning. As a result, the more granular and action-oriented taxonomy found wide adoption in learning objective design (Kennedy 2006). As a powerful framework, it is used to construct and articulate learning outcomes, that support both educators and learners to understand the pedagogical interchange within their learning environment and enable teachers to “plan and deliver appropriate instruction”, “design valid assessment tasks and strategies” and “ensure that instruction and assessment are aligned with the objectives” (Armstrong 2010). Especially, the action-verbs and focus on learning as a process allow learning objectives to be defined with a learner centric approach, a concept especially relevant in active and problem-based learning and other contemporary modes of structuring learning (Grunert et al. 2008, Perkins 2016, Perkins 2019). The boards and cards designed for the workshop break down the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy concepts and terminology into modular components that could be individually manipulated and combined in different forms, translate complex frameworks into card-decks or board games as a way of bridging the gap between theory and practice (Tahir & Wang 2020). It utilises a collaborative methodology based on cards that have been identified as effective by scholars as artefacts to be used within design practice (Deng et al. 2014, Mora et al. 2017, Lucero et al. 2016, Roy & Warren 2019). Research in the field of learning design is increasingly recognizing the potential of participatory

599

design and co-design practices in education and educational research as a methodological approach to support the definition of goals or pedagogical experience as well as involving different stakeholders in the design process (DiSalvo et al. 2017). In particular, the participatory dimensions of telling through use of storyboards, cards, sticky-notes or voting and making through creating mock-ups, prototypes or models seems suited to fast-paced collaborative workshops as those presented before, thus warranting the use of storyboards and card decks in the Viewpoints (Nicol 2012) workshop or the ABC Learning Design method (Young & Perovich 2016). On these premises the Learning Objective Design workshop is aimed at fostering collaboration and co-creation practices between designers, educators from any discipline, and anyone tasked with designing educational content or programs, ranging from workshops, seminars to entire courses in school or university, in the tradition of collaborative instructional and learning design workshops. The workshop is most relevant in context of the conference track 5 “Co-creation of Interdisciplinary Design Educations” due to its focus on fostering collaborative practices between designers and educators from different disciplines and backgrounds, enabling a process of multidisciplinary co-creation. The methodology adopted in the workshop itself draws upon multiple lines of practices, ranging from instructional design, learning design, card-based methods and collaborative design for education.

Workshop Outline The workshop will be held in a virtual configuration, focussing on remote participation and is open to anyone interested or actively engaged in learning design or instructional design practices. No pre-existing experience in learning objective design is required to participate. Yet, even for experienced learning designers the new methodological approach may provide inspiring insights. The workshop will take 60 minutes including theoretical introduction, practical exercises and discussion. The workshop is structured as follows:

• Introductory Presentation and Theoretical Background (15 Minutes)

• Presentation of the Learning Objective Design Board in Miro (10 minutes)

• Practical Exercises in small working groups (15 minutes)

• Group presentations and discussion (15 minutes)

• Wrap up (5 minutes)

The introductory presentation will present the research project and the authors as well as the theoretical backdrop behind the approach. A brief introduction to Bloom’s Taxonomy as an established theory to articulate learning outcomes is presented. Then methodological inspiration derived from participatory design and card-based design is introduced alongside a demonstration of the Learning Objective Design Deck and its primary function. Then participants will be invited to the collaborative whiteboard solution Miro to collaboratively design exemplary learning objective and assessment strategies for an educational course of their choosing by using the canvas provided in the Learning Objective Design Board (figure 1). All the groups will rejoin afterwards to share and reflect upon results. An interactive discussion will be moderated by the presenters to collect feedback, reflections and actions points to develop this approach further and understand if and how it could be adopted by participant in their practice.

Workshop Minimum and Maximum Number of Participants The workshop should have a minimum number of 4 active participants, to enable groups discussion during the practical part of the workshop. More participants would be divided into subgroups for the practical parts of the workshop to ensure productive collaboration. Based on the virtual workspace and the prepared canvas, the workshop can host a maximum number of 50 participants, divided in 10 groups. The workshop will be held in a virtual configuration, using Miro as a digital whiteboard solution and a video conference tool (e.g. ZOOM or any other solution that provides breakout rooms). Beyond the video conferencing tool, no prior registration for any software is required. Access to the collaborative canvas will be provided with the interactive whiteboard solution MIRO, no prior installation is required. To take full advantage of the practical part of the workshop, participants should join the workshop on a desktop computer and have a modern browser installed on the device. Joining from mobile phones or tablet may limit the ability to interactively collaborate on the whiteboard.

600

Figure 1. Learning Objective Design Board in Miro

Workshop Outcomes Participants will benefit from a brief presentation of the current state of academic research for learning experiences and curriculum design and be introduced to a novel approach for designing learning objectives and assessment strategies, building on the Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy. The technology-mediated and collaborative process presented in the workshop can be adapted and applied in the participant’s practice if desired through the provision of template canvases and boards as a take away. The templates will be provided on Miroverse and can be used with a free Miro account. The authors gain insights on the user experience design of the Learning Objective Design Deck and its transition within a digital collaboration platform that is intended for further improvements of the tool. Participants can also contribute to further developments in the discussion or provide feedback via an online questionnaire that is integrated in the Learning Objective Design Board to rate the user experience, the process of designing learning objectives and assessment strategies as well as provide qualitative feedback for the authors to consider. Insight gained from practical workshops inform future research of the authors to increase the quality of the user experience and solidify the method while extended its functionality towards conceptual alignment of learning outcomes, assessment and learning activities as well as the design of consistent and coherent learning experiences, ranging from individual learning activities to overall courses and study programs.

References Anderson, L. and Krathwohl, D. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of

Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Longman: New York, NY, USA. Armstrong, P. (2010). Bloom’s Taxonomy. Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching. Retrieved April 10, 2021

from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/blooms-taxonomy/ Beetham, H. (2007). An approach to learning activity design, In H. Beetham, & R. Sharpe (eds.), Rethinking

Pedagogy for a Digital Age: Designing and delivering e-learning (pp. 26–40). London: Routledge. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook: The Cognitive Domain. New York: David

McKay. Conole,G., & Fill,K. (2005). A learning design toolkit to create pedagogically effective learning activities, Journal

of Interactive Media in Education, 2005, No. 1. Conole, G. (2013). Designing for learning in an open world. Springer: New York, NY, USA.

601

Deng, Y., Antle, A.N., Neustaedter, C. (2014). Tango cards: A card-based design tool for informing the design of tangible learning games. In Proceedings of the DIS ‘14: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2014, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 695–704. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598601.

DiSalvo, B., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & DiSalvo, C. (2017). Participatory design for learning: Perspectives from practice and research. T Routledge: New York, NY, USA.

Forehand, M., (2010). Bloom's Taxonomy. In M. Orey, ed. Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology. Global Text Project: Zurich, Switzerland. 41–47. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://epltt.coe.uga.edu/.

Grunert O'Brien, J., Millis, B.J., & Cohen, M.W. (2008). The course syllabus: A learning-centered approach (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA.

Hokanson, B., Clinton, G., & Tracey, M. (2015) Design of Learning Experience; Creating the Future of Educational Technology. Springer: New York, NY, USA.

Kennedy, D. (2006). Writing and using learning outcomes: a practical guide. University College Cork. Cork, Ireland.

Laurillard, D. (2012) Teaching as a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology, New York, NY: Routledge.

Lucero, A., Dalsgaard, P., Halskov, K., Buur, J. (2016). Designing with cards. In Markopoulos P., Martens JB., Malins J., Coninx K., Liapis A. (eds.). Collaboration in Creative Design; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 75–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0_5

Mora, S., Gianni, F., Divitini, M. (2017). Tiles: A card-based ideation toolkit for the internet of things. In Proceedings of the DIS ‘17: Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2017, Edinburgh, UK, 587–598. https://doi.org/10.1145/3064663.3064699.

Nicol, D. (2012). Transformational change in teaching and learning: Recasting the educational discourse. Evaluation of the Viewpoints Project at the University of Ulster. Retrieved April 10, 2021 from https://www.reap.ac.uk/TheoryPractice/Principles.aspx.

Perkins, D. (2016). Using Project-Based Learning To Flip Bloom’s Taxonomy For Deeper Learning. Retrieved April 10, 2021 from https://www.teachthought.com/technology/using-project-based-learning-flip-blooms-taxonomy-deeper-learning/.

Perkins, D. (2019). 8 Steps For Teaching Through Project-Based Learning. Retrieved April 10, 2021 from https://www.teachthought.com/technology/8-basic-steps-project-based-learning-get-started/

Roy, R., & Warren, J. P. (2019). Card-based design tools: A review and analysis of 155 card decks for designers and designing. Design Studies, 63, 125-154. https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375476.

Tahir, R. & Wang, A.I. (2020). Transforming a Theoretical Framework to Design Cards: LEAGUE Ideation Toolkit for Game-Based Learning Design. Sustainability, 12(20), 8487. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208487.

Young, C., & Perović, N. (2016). Rapid and creative course design: as easy as ABC. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 228, pp. 390-395.

Stefano Perna University of Naples Federico II, Italy stefano.perna@unina.it Stefano Perna has a PhD in Information and Communication Design, conducted research at intersections of design, new media and humanities at University of Salerno, taught New Technologies for Art at the Academy of Fine Arts of Naples. He is a faculty member of the Apple Developer Academy at University of Naples Federico II.

Moritz Philip Recke University of Naples Federico II, Italy moritzphilip.recke@unina.it Moritz Philip Recke studied Media Technology and Next Media at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, conducted entrepreneurship policy research at UNSW Business School in Sydney and focused on entrepreneurial ecosystems, public policy discourse and sociotechnical imaginaries for his PhD. He is a faculty member of the Apple Developer Academy at University of Naples Federico II.

Author Index

Aktaş, Bilge Merve, 553 Al Bess, Mariam, 592 Alesandro, Mariano, 216 Allende, Natalia, 59, 212 Ashley, Hall, 879 Ata, F. Zeynep, 746 Aulisio, Asja, 529 Aysel, Kardelen, 414 Barbero, Silvia, 529, 807 Baskår, Ellen, 567 Bauer, Birgit, 900 Beniwal, Sucharita, 277 Bennett, Audrey G., 338 Berg, Arild, 476 Bernado, Alyssa, 592 Bohemia, Erik, 3, 50, 1061 Bonde Sørensen, Kirsten, 138 Börekçi, Naz A.G.Z., 3, 30, 322, 380 Bosch, Noora, 68 Brænne, Karen, 222 Bravo, Úrsula, 59, 91 Brewer, Joe, 451 Brosens, Lore, 859 Butoliya, Deepa, 338 Calabi, Daniela Anna, 756 Campanella, Alessandro, 807 Chang, Jui-Feng, 184 Chen, Fan, 459 Chen, Qingxuan, 78 Chew, JiaYing, 489 Christiansen, Line Gad, 280 Chu, Hsiao-Yun, 1072 Clive, Grinyer, 879 Cortés, Catalina, 59, 216 Cruz, Christian, 910 De Francisco Vela, Santiago, 499 de Reuver, Rik, 626 de Sainz-Molestina, Daniela, 358 de Souza Couto, Rita Maria, 294 Denaro, Gianni, 369 Derksen, Gerry, 1044 Detand, Jan, 516 DeVita, Julienne, 660 Dewhirst, Hannah, 451 Digranes, Ingvild, 604 Ding, Meng Yue, 772 Dittenberger, Sandra, 868 Doğan, Fehmi, 737, 746 Donaldson, Christina, 405 Dormor, Catherine, 540 Edwards, Allison, 318 Efilti, Pelin, 934 Eftekhari, Farzaneh, 167

Eglash, Ron B., 338 Emans, Denielle J., 424 Emmanouil, Marina, 516, 859 Fan, Chunhong, 823 Fan, Yun, 1061 Fauske, Laila Belinda, 222 Fausto Medola, 476 Feng, Yi Jia, 772 Fernando, Galdon, 879 Ferrarello, Laura, 540 Ferrulli, Eliana, 807 Fu, Ge, 718 Galli, Francesco, 1044 Gao, Muxing, 432 Gelmez, Koray, 934 Gibson, Michael, 405 Gieben-Gamal, Emma, 307 Glyn-Davies, Adela, 816 Gomez, Gloria, 848 Goretti, Gabriele, 369 Goso, Nick, 592 Graf, Roland, 338 Gray, Colin M., 439, 830 Groth, Camilla, 476, 553 Gudiksen, Sune Klok, 280 Guo, Carol, 100 Güvenir, Can, 414 Guzman-Abello, Laura, 499 Hanrahan, Tara, 315 Hansen, Anne-Marie, 923 Härkki, Tellervo, 68 Hartvik, Juha, 604 Hasdoğan, Gülay, 322, 327, 380 Hee, Lee Chang, 879 Hensel, Daniela, 900 Hetu, Ruslan, 592 Hilton, Clive, 432, 816 Ho, Chun-Heng, 1038 Ho, Meng-xun, 111 Hoftijzer, Jan Willem, 626, 679 Hofverberg, Hanna, 222, 226 Hokanson, Brad, 152 Homlong, Siri, 222 Hou, Shumeng, 78 Howell, Bryan F., 626, 660, 679 Hsiao, Hsu-Chan, 960 Hsiao, Yu-Ting, 960 Hu, Yi Ke, 772 Hughes, Benjamin, 607, 613 Hyland, Peter, 405 Inamura, Tokushu, 910 Ito, Shinichiro, 910 Jackson, Asa R., 660

Jahanbakht, Mohammad, 167 Jiang, Ke, 613 John, Stevens, 879 Johnson, Keesa V., 338 Jones, Derek, 35 Kang, Zhi Hao, 772 Kannegiesser, Ella, 631 Kardar, Yashar, 856 Kashyap, Shantanu, 830 Keane, Linda, 687 Keough, Madeline, 631 Ketterer, Annaka, 631 Klingelfuss, Janey Deng, 948 Klingelfuss, Markus, 948 Koçyıldırım, Dalsu Özgen, 30 Korkut, Fatma, 30, 322, 380 Korsmeyer, Hannah, 277, 318 LaFors, Jeannette, 59 Lahti, Henna, 395 Lanig, Andreas Ken, 800 Laura, Ferrarello, 879 Lee, Henry, 660 Lenaers, Steven, 844 Li, Juan, 111 Li, Lin, 459 Li, Yijing, 581 Li, Zhe, 111 Li, Ziqing, 439 Lin, Xing-Min, 1038 Lin, Yang-Cheng, 196 Liow, Zhengping, 123 Liu, Shuo-fang, 111, 184 Liu, Wei, 439 Liu, Yuan, 756 Lotz, Nicole, 687 Low, Jenn, 338 Lu, Peng, 196 Luo, Shunhua, 823 Lutnæs, Eva, 222, 264 Ma, Chunli, 581 Maivorsdotter, Ninitha, 226 Marinovic, Lukas, 439 Marques Leitão, Renata, 277 Mathew, Deepak John, 789 Maus, Ingvill Gjerdrum, 222, 245 McDonald, Kevin, 439 McMahon, Bree, 1055 Medola, Fausto, 476 Meeks, Victoria, 631 Milovanovic, Julie, 987 Moritsch, Stefan, 868 Muñoz Novoa, Mauricio, 626 Murdoch-Kitt, Kelly M., 424 Nack, Frank, 232 Neubauer, Ruth M., 780 Nielsen, Liv Merete, 3, 45 Nilsson, Elisabet M., 923

Noel, Lesley-Ann, 255, 277 Novoa Muñoz, Mauricio, 679 Nunziante, Pietro, 479 Nyboer, Jody, 152 Octavia, Johannna Renny, 859 Ölmez, Duhan, 737 Omwami, Anniliina, 395 Örnekoğlu-Selçuk, Melis, 516 Owens, Keith, 405 Özçelik, Ayşegül, 856 Paepcke-Hjeltness, Verena, 631, 676 Pan, Lusheng, 1 Pardo Rodríguez, Santiago, 499 Paul, Anderson, 879 Pei, Jing, 581 Pereno, Amina, 529 Perna, Stefano, 479 Persaud, Nav, 592 Petermans, Ann, 689 Pintsuk-Christof, Julia, 868 Porko-Hudd, Mia, 604 Portas, Roberta, 294 Quartier, Katelijn, 996 Radtke, Rebekah, 451 Raes, Annelies, 859 Raschauer, Agnes, 868 Rawlings, Rebekah, 660 Reitan, Janne Beate, 222 Riccò, Dina, 756 Rivera, Maritza, 91 Rocha, Andréia, 338 Rodriguez Diaz, Jose Manuel, 679 Rovera, Fabiana, 529 Rute, Fiadeiro, 879 Sadowska, Noemi, 315 Sarıel, Selen, 1028 Schiller, Ayla, 631 Schmidt, Ingrid, 451 Schouten, Ben, 232 Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, Pirita, 68, 395 Sellen, Kate, 476, 592 Seydioglu, Sarper, 856 Shafieyoun, Zhabiz, 1044 Sharbafi, Farnoosh, 167 Shehab, Saadeddine, 100 Shi, Han, 581 Shieh, Meng-Dar, 960 Slone, Ryan, 1055 Sobel Luttenberg, Ruthie, 212 Solanki, Chaitanya, 789 Solberg, Anne, 567 Soliman, Habiba, 592 Song, Zhihang, 581 Stevens, Ruth, 689 Sun, Lei, 1012 Sypesteyn, Mark, 626 Tamblyn, Rodney, 848

Tatlısu, Enver, 934 Taverna, Andrea, 358 Taylor, Anne P., 703 Tellez, Fabio Andres, 59 ten Brink, Marije, 232 Thoring, Katja, 687 ThoringKatja, 687 Toombs, Austin L., 439 Tüfek, Tuğçe Ecem, 934 Umali, Norm, 592 Vande Zande, Robin, 931 VandeZande, Robin, 38 Vanrie, Jan, 689 Von Lachman, Marianne, 294 Voß, Stefanie, 900 Wang, Ziyuan, 920 Wecht, Christoph H., 780 Wei, Rong, 432 Werle, Stuart, 592 Wilkinson, Andrea, 844 Winchester III, Woodrow W., 277

Wolford, Christopher, 830 Wu, Chang-Tzuoh, 184 Wu, Fan, 196 Xia, Lu-Ting, 1038 Xia, Xiang, 920 XU, Yuanyuan, 1003 Xue, Feng, 581 Yalman-Yıldırım, Zeynep, 327 Yang, Jingrui, 823 Yang, Jing-Yi, 459 Yang, Shangshang, 581 Yazirlıoğlu, Lilyana, 856 Yılmaz, Onur, 934 Yin, Xuejiao, 78 Yu, Jianglong, 1061 Zhang, Wendy, 679 Zhang, Yanfang, 910 Zhang, Yang, 3, 920, 1061 Zhao, Yue, 830 Zheng, Jianpeng, 976 Zhu, Ming, 647

ISBN 978-1-912294-44-2 (electronic) Volume 2