The non-participatory patient (or plurality in participation?)

Reference: Sanin, J. (2020). The non-participatory patient. In ServDes.2020 – Tensions, Paradoxes, Plurality. RMIT University, Melbourne Australia. 411-421

Abstract: This paper discusses tensions and paradoxes of codesign paradigms and calls for more plural approaches to participation in order to establish collaborations with non-participatory users. It builds on research experiences in the field of design for wellbeing to challenge assumptions about user participation and introduce the concept of ‘the non-participatory patient’. This conceptual figure is used to represent those users who do not engage with codesign activities, or those who engage, but contribute in ways that contradict expectations of designers and industry partners. It is argued that most service design projects are not able to account for the needs and preferences of non-participatory users, who are most of the time excluded from design processes and outcomes for being considered as disengaged or disobedient. These experiences make evident the need for collaborative tools, techniques and formats beyond those traditionally used in codesign, and able to bring more plurality into service design.

My notes: An advantage from the Covid-19 pandemic is conferences moving online. Organisers are still figuring out how to run online conferences. In 2020, most conferences kept charging very high registration fees and basically hid their content behind paywalls and youtube unlisted videos. We can only hope that moving forward, conference organisers will see the new opportunities of online conferences. Imagine, for example, charging a $10 fee to get the proceedings, live webinars, and a thematic catalogue of pre-recorded presentations. I can imagine hundreds perhaps thousands of students, academics and professional designers joining these events. 

Anyway, moving on to Juan Sanin's ServDes2020 paper, like many other papers of this conference I found it refreshing and insightful. Juan questions some of the most pervasive assumptions behind participatory design calling for adopting the word in plural "participations" to think in more sophisticated and ethical ways about who participates, why, and how.

'Third Objects' & 'Sandboxing' or design researchers reinventing the wheel...

Reference: Mannay, D. (2019). Artefacts, Third Objects, Sandboxing and Figurines in the Doll’s House. The SAGE Handbook of Visual Research Methods, 322. : https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781526417015

Abstract: Rather than exploring technology reliant techniques, this chapter considers the role of objects as a tool of elicitation and a way to engender participatory forms of research where participants can more easily set the agenda and lead the conversation. The chapter explores the usefulness of objects in relation to three distinct approaches. First, it is interested in the artefacts, objects and things that belong to participants: these are items that they own, which are shared with the researcher. Second, there is an exploration of ‘third objects’ that are introduced to the interview space by the researcher to provide a point of focus and to generate discussion. Third, the chapter examines the use of multiple objects and an accompanying backdrop scene (here a sandbox and doll's house), which are provided by researchers for participants to build a representation of an aspect of their lives or to create a scene in response to a specific research question. The chapter draws on a range of empirical examples to illustrate how objects are utilised in the research process, and what can be gained from their introduction as tools of elicitation.

My notes: This handbook has many interesting chapters, but this one in particular I think can help design researchers see how often times their claims of originality are really just evidence of their lack of awareness and appreciation for how other disciplines conduct research. In particular, I've heard *many* design researchers make claims about their use of artefacts and artefact-creation in so-called 'design workshops' used for research purposes. The problem is that they seldom acknowledge the various scholars across social studies and other fields who adapt and apply 'creative methods'. I still believe that 'designerly researchers' (Joyce Lee dixit) have a lot to contribute to these efforts by applying their knowledge and intuitions of the visual, material, and tangible qualities of artefacts and their potential for research activity. All good for those using 'design probes' and 'design workshops' as research methods, except please do your homework and respect non-design researchers who have already been working on these spaces for many years.

Indigenous Philosophies and Design

Reference: Watene, K. (2020). Transforming Global Justice Theorizing: Indigenous Philosophies. In Brooks, T. (Ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice, DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198714354.001.0001

Abstract: Indigenous philosophies are essential to indigenous peoples’ self-determination, and essential to the pursuit and realization of justice for indigenous peoples globally. Given this contention, the absence of indigenous philosophies in mainstream global justice theorizing is problematic for the continued relevance of global justice theorizing today. The aim of this chapter is to think seriously about how to remedy this problem, and to begin to provide some of the solutions for moving forward, focusing particularly on Māori philosophies and Kaupapa Māori theory. More specifically, following a discussion of the importance of indigenous philosophies for global justice, we explore (1) why even the strongest (in intercultural terms) mainstream approach to justice—the capability approach—has so far fallen short, and (2) why indigenous methodologies remain vital to the appropriate articulation and inclusion of indigenous philosophies in justice theorizing. In so doing, the chapter highlights some of the opportunities within, and challenges to, mainstream justice theorizing—and philosophy more generally—for remedying this shortfall.

My notes: Accessible and general discussion that helps inform ways forward to transform design based on indigenous epistemologies. Watene talks specifically about the 'capability approach' but these ideas are easily transferable to design work.

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

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:

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"