Translational Designers

Reference: Page, R., & John, K. (2019). Commercializing Academic Medical Research: The Role of the Translational Designer. The Design Journal, 22(5), 687-705. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2019.1629776

Abstract: Increasingly universities are seeking to play a more active role in translating their fundamental scientific discoveries into large-scale, practical impact in the world. In the field of medical research, translating discoveries from the bench to the bedside. These processes of research translation are complex and interdisciplinary, involving a combination of research as well as non-research activities that take place both within and outside the traditional boundaries of the university. This complexity leads to many discoveries being ‘lost in translation’. This paper unpacks some of the challenges faced by designers with research translation through a series of case studies from a health care design research lab – Monash University Health Collab. Through these case studies, we highlight the necessary role of the translational designer, a hybrid design practitioner-researcher who brings the strengths of both industrial design practice and design research as a way to help bridge the chasms between research and commercial development.

My notes: I have become quite interested in developing design research methodologies beyond just merely adopting ways of doing things from either science, social studies, humanities, or artistic research. Rowan and Kieran reflect on their extensive experiences working in x-disciplinary projects and offer here valuable ideas that will be of interest to designers who work in similar translation projects from science to product design. But their work is also relevant in the broader context of 'identity formation' for the growing field of 'designerly researchers' and 'researcherly designers' to quote Joyce Yee. I left professional practice in 2000 to pursue philosophical, ethical, and intellectual ideas that advance the field of design, and I am glad that although it has taken 2 decades, there is a clear 'critical mass' today of clever people making these connections. 

Thinking while drawing and drawing to think [video presentation]

Reference: Wallace, N. (2020) Thinking while drawing and drawing to think: Exploring the critical reflective practice of 'reflective doodling'. Design Research Society Conference 2020 Synergy DRS2020, Vol. 1, 204-222. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.187

Video presentation: https://youtu.be/14B7Dp3XebY 

Abstract: This paper attempts to articulate what is typically taci within the process of 'reflective doodling'. By dissecting different types of artefacts created during reflective doodling, the paper demonstrates how this critical reflective practice creates a synergy between design research and design practice. The nuances of reflective doodling are unpacked and its relevance to complex problems is explored through the emergent practice of 'design for transitions'. Discussion reveals the importance of external inputs into the process and explores how the layers of thinking and action embedded in its processes expand the dynamic interplay between research and practice.

My notes: I really enjoyed this paper for the following reasons: it combines a seemingly simple and playful everyday activity that some people tend to dismiss as childish with quite deep and important ideas related to advanced design practices. It's always interesting to see how 'designerly' methods/activities are used to process sophisticated conceptual ideas. I also enjoyed the explicit linkages between practice and research, a topic that deserves more attention to examine 'practice research' more closely as we work to consolidate appropriate methodologies for design research beyond just borrowing from other fields including artistic research, social studies, the humanities, and the sciences. Another reason why I appreciated this paper is that I will be able to use these ideas to rethink one of the assessment items in a course I teach where students have been asked to produce a written essay and a visual essay. This has always puzzled students and the results have been quite mixed. It makes a lot of sense to refine the brief to more specifically guide students in the connection between these essays using reflective doodling.

Sadly, it seems that Niki's PhD thesis is under embargo until 2022:
https://find.library.unisa.edu.au/permalink/f/ihon54/UNISA_ALMA11197619480001831

You can follow her on Twitter: @nikiwallace

Tools to think: writing, sketching, programming, dialogue

Reference: Davis, M. (2013). Research Writing in Design. Design and Culture, 5(1), 7-12.

My notes: Many controversies bubble around the topic of writing and design. It is ironic of course that this brief paper from 2013 by a respected professor in the field has a total of 2 (two) citations until 2020. Some opposition to (academic) writing (and reading) in design comes from a certain resistance to the written text dominating other types of outputs including images, sound, video, etc. To me, this is a straw-man fallacy since it presents an either/or argument. In my own experience, writing has been instrumental from a young age as a tool for thinking. Likewise drawing (not the artistic variety), programming (not the engineering variety), and over the years I have also realised how fundamental is holding a rich dialogue to help me think. In that spirit, I fully agree with Meredith here, we should all read and write more and we should all be teaching more writing including academic writing to design students. But not "just" academic writing as it is taught across academic programmes, we need to work on "designerly" ways of teaching writing.

Of Designers and Researchers

Reference: Yee, J. (2017). The researcherly designer/the designerly researcher. In L. Vaughan (Ed.), Practice-based Design Research (pp. 155-164). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Abstract: A ‘researcherly designer’ is a practising designer trained in research and a ‘designerly researcher’ is a practising researcher trained in design. These terms are used in this chapter to highlight and discuss how design skills contribute to a research practice and similarly how research skills contribute to a design practice. I do this by reflecting primarily on my personal experience through my PhD, my more recent supervision experience of design PhDs, and I ground my situated knowledge with existing literature. I will start by providing a brief background to my practice and discussing how I transitioned from a design practice into a hybrid practice consisting of research, teaching and design. It is worth noting that I have only focused on what I consider to be key skills and attributes, since there are many other skills that benefit both practices

My notes: This book chapter by Joyce Lee is one of the best sources I've come across in the growing literature on "practice-x research" (based, led, oriented, etc). As someone who started as a design professional and then transitioned into an academic researcher, I have had over the years some problems understanding a majority of the people who make claims such as "design methods stand as research methods". One of my core problems with a lot of "practice research" is that it heavily draws from conventional artistic research ideas, which seems to be unquestioned by many in the "art and design" community. I was lucky/unlucky to become a designer in a faculty that didn't include art (or engineering for that matter), so for me to hear people complain about the quant/qual dominance and then blindly adhere to the dogmas of (Western) artistic methods, well doesn't sit well as an argument. This is why I have been more interested in "Research through Design" ideas. But back to Joyce's chapter: a very well-written, insightful and persuasive position which next to Gaver's and Markussen's ideas form the basis of how I approach practice research in all its varieties. For a class on these topics, I assembled this collection of the people that I have learned the most from, so thought it'd be a good image for this post:

Annotated portfolios

Reference: Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. interactions, 19(4), 40-49.

Abstract: [Note that this paper doesn't have an "abstract", so I'm placing here what I consider one its core paragraphs: "We propose the notion of annotated portfolios as a way to communicate design research. In part, we do this to provide an alternative to accounts that suggest for design to become productive as research, it should engage in some sort of theory formation. While what exactly is meant by theory is not always clear, writers usually have in mind some conceptual machinery that can explain and predict. Experiments test theories. While we do not dispute that sometimes a designed artifact and the experience of its use can have an experimental status, we do not believe this is typically the case in the kind of design research we do in HCI. Accordingly, it is moot whether we want to regard annotated portfolios as a contribution to design theory in HCI, if by theory is meant something with explanatory and predictive power."

My comments: A good addition to the ongoing discussions in design research about what constitutes knowledge, what and how is research conducted, and what are its outcomes. This is the type of valuable contributions to more explicitly distinguish between practice and research in a field like design, beyond merely adopting ideas from artistic research and other traditions. We could also learn from fields such as robotics, where "the thing" (artefact) plays a central role in the contribution to the field. My own thoughts around practice-x research (based, led, oriented, through, etc) have evolved significantly in the last four years and now that I'm teaching research methods, these issues have become one of my main concerns. 

Method-making

Reference: Lee, J.-J. (2014). The True Benefits of Designing Design Methods. Artifact, 3(2), 5.1-5.12. https://doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.3951

Abstract: This paper calls for a new way of understanding and using methods in human-centred design. Design researchers have recently been active in developing new types of methods aimed at greatly improving their empathic understanding of people’s holistic experience, and their design imagination. The strong motivation for a new methodology stems from critical reflection on scientific rationalisation of human-centred design, which attempts to pin down the design process and develop abstract user models. Despite this, the design community has shown a tendency to use a conventional, scientific rationalisation when applying a stream of new design methods. In this paper, I analyse misinterpretations of the new design methods, which I call ‘empathic design methods’, and seek a more constructive way of understanding and describing how they actually work, going beyond ‘method-recipe’ convention. By analysing design students’ learning diaries, I investigate what learning is going on in method-making processes and demonstrate how those processes help design students to gather contextual knowledge of a design project and to develop their empathic understanding of users.

My comments: This paper starts by questioning "the field’s conventional conception of how methods are supposed to work in design, that is, methods should be easily reproducible and portable, and guarantee satisfying results under correct operation". The work presented here applies qualitative methods, the data consists of two years worth of weekly individual journal entries by graduate students during a design project. The author is explicit about her "loci of analysis": 

• What expectations and preconceptions do the students have regarding empathic design methods?

• How do students choose and make methods in their project context?
• What challenges do they face when making methods and how do they deal with the challenges?
• How do they evaluate the methods during and after using the methods?

This was cross-checked as follows: "Several analysis sessions were iterated in collaboration with two other tutors from the course. Further, the analysis results were verified by interviewing some of the students who took part in the course." 

Fidnings:

• "the method-making action sequence [...] improved not only the relevance and efficacy of the method, but also students’ understanding of what actually matters for users. [...]  we can consider
  the method-making process as the externalization of a designer’s initial interpretation of users and the realisation of future design opportunities"
  
• "I suggest presenting rich descriptions of as it is – what designers (design students in the case of this paper) actually did with methods in particular circumstances"

Indigenous Worldviews of Creativity

Reference: Sosa, R. (2020). Indigenous Worldviews to Inform Participatory Creativity. presented at the meeting of the Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 2, Manizales, Colombia. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3384772.3385127

Abstract: This focused reflection explores how Mesoamerican worldviews can inform participatory work. Purépecha accounts of creation are examined here to discover insights and entailments that sustain other ways of creating. With this, we wish to formulate deep questions about the core beliefs and views of what design(s) can be in a more inclusive world.

My comments: This is a short paper of mine, belongs to the "Exploratory Papers" category in PDC. No comments except to recommend the proceedings of the conference in the ACM Library, free access.

Decolonizing design

Reference: Ansari, A. (2019). Decolonizing design through the perspectives of cosmological others: arguing for an ontological turn in design research and practice. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 26(2), 16-19.

Abstract: A closer attention to cultural and cosmological difference as the basis for thinking about how we redesign our own modern technological infrastructures may be the way to decolonize design research.

My comment: A short but well-presented reflection on the "decolonial turn" in design. The notion that the differences between ways of designing and ways of being across cultures is "deeper and much more fundamental" is something that resonates with me in particular. Having lived in multiple continents for a number of years, I do have experienced in my life a certain type of illusion about how we think we understand each other, within but especially across cultures. An idea that I am currently working myself is what Ansari points out here on how designers <<perceive and make sense of concepts central to design practice such as the nature of creativity>>. Ansari formulates 3 takeaways:

1. Cultivate an epistemic humility
2. See our own knowledge and perspective as local and [be] open to globalization within another's worldview
3. Show concrete examples of how things could be otherwise

You can follow Ahmed on Medium.com: https://medium.com/@aansari86

Accretion theory of creativity

Reference: Sosa, R. (2019). Accretion theory of ideation: evaluation regimes for ideation stages. Design Science, 5, e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.22

Abstract: This paper presents an exercise on theory building to characterise design ideation. It starts by examining how early ideas are defined and evaluated in the literature. An essentialist view is identified that explains the creativity of a final design solution by the creative qualities of early ideas attributed by external judges. Criteria for a theory of ideation that does not rely on the primacy of essence are enumerated. Advanced professional practice is examined to understand evaluation of early ideas ‘in the wild’. Accretion is then introduced as an analogical model to imaginatively drive definitions and conjectures about idea formation in the co-evolution of problem and design spaces. Vignettes from ideation episodes are used to illustrate an accretion theory of ideation. An accretion theory supports new ways to think about ideation as a complex formation process where creative solutions emerge from the synthesis of a multitude of fragmentary and partial ideas – or ‘ideasimals’. An accretion theory of ideation helps to explain the creative value of a final design solution without relying on early ideas having a creative essence, because the creativity of a solution is viewed as emergent rather than present in early versions. An accretion lens is used to suggest new ideation metrics to study the qualities of idea fragments and the process of idea formation. Definitions and relevant assessment regimes for different stages of ideation are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion on entailments of an accretion theory and next steps for this theory building enterprise.

My comments: This is a recent paper of mine, so no comments to add other than to recommend the rest of the papers in this collection of the Design Science journal themed around the future of design cognition studies, all open access. Do contact me if you find these ideas of interest or want to comment, thank you.

Creative Action: Rethinking dynamic capabilities

Reference: MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Seidl, D. (2015). Rethinking dynamic capabilities from a creative action perspective. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015593274

Abstract: Dynamic capabilities research aims to explain how firms manage to change in order to sustain their competitive advantage. Yet, despite considerable progress, dynamic capabilities theorizing struggles to capture novelty, which lies at the heart of change. We argue that this is caused by inherent limitations of the ways in which human action has been conceptualized: dynamic capabilities theorizing to date is based on rational or normative notions of actions, neither of which account for novelty in action. Hence, we propose that to overcome this impasse dynamic capabilities research needs to incorporate a concept of creative action into its theoretical apparatus. We elaborate on the positioning of creative action relative to existing dynamic capabilities theorizing and outline its implications for future dynamic capabilities research.

My comments: This is a very strong essay that sets to go beyond the rational/normative accounts of human action in regard to creativity. Reading work from across disciplines often leads us to important sources that are very relevant to what we do, yet we had never heard of. This paper introduced me to the work of Hans Joas, in particular his 1996 book "The Creativity of Action", which I now look forward to reading soon as it turns out framed a situationalist view of creativity. The paper by MacLean et al. is also a good model for papers of this type: it presents a clear and well-informed account of the limitations of the current paradigm on dynamic capabilities (DC), and then clearly presents an alternative way of defining these when one considers Emerging intention, Embodied expression, and Interactive identity formation, the three components of creative action. Based on these three ideas, the authors follow lines of inferences that lead to novel ways of understanding DC. The final section on "Implications" is well-presented and includes research questions as well as decisions on research methods. The paper is of a conceptual nature, and its methodology is rhetorics.