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.