Page 1
Aninventivepractice
perspectiveondesigning
LucyKimbell
SubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftheawardofPhDinDesignatLancaster
UniversityinSeptember2013.ExaminedbyvivavoceinDecember2013byDr
DanielaSangiorgi(UniversityofLancaster)andDrThomasBinder(Danish
DesignSchool,Copenhagen).
Declaration
Iconfirmthisdocumentismyownwork,andhasnotbeensubmittedbymein
substantiallythesameformfortheawardofahigherdegreeelsewhere.
Signed
LucyKimbell,16September2013
1
Page 3
Aninventivepracticeperspectiveondesigning
LucyKimbell
PhDinDesign,LancasterUniversity
September2013
Abstract
Twonewfieldsofdesignareemerging.Designforservicesisconcernedwiththe
interactionsbetweenpeopleandorganisations,whiledesigningforsocial
innovationinvolvestheapplicationofdesign-basedapproaches,sometimes
called“designthinking”,toissuessuchasageingandwell-being.Across
contemporarysitesofpractice,teachingandresearch,keyquestionsinclude
understandingtheobjectofdesignanddistinctivewaystoapproachdesignfor
serviceanddesignforsocialinnovation.
Thisstudyaddressesthisbydevelopingaconceptualisationoftherelations
betweenpeopleandthingsindesignforserviceanddesignforsocialinnovation
asunfoldingwithinsociomaterialpractices.Themethodologydeveloped
involvesremixingexistingcasestudieswiththeoreticalconceptsfromScience
andTechnologyStudiesandforginglinkswithresearchwithindesignstudies,
ParticipatoryDesignandComputerSupportedCooperativeWork.Theresultis
toadvanceaninventivepracticeperspectiveondesigningwhichattendstohow
sociomaterialconfigurationsarisethroughtheco-articulationormutual
3
Page 4
elaborationofheterogeneousactorsresultinginnewmeaningsandidentities,
skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesandpropertiesthatemergein
practice.Thisperspectiveofferstwoanalyticalfoci.Thefirst,designs-in-practice,
highlightsthesociomaterialconfigurationsofpeopleandthings.Thesecond,
design-as-practice,isattentivetohowactantscomeintobeingagentialduring
intentionalorunconsciousdesigningthattriestoconfigureparticularkindsof
emergenceinpractice.Fivecharacteristicsofinventivepracticearisethrough
thisremixingofcasesandtheoreticalresearch:intra-action;inventiveness;
ignorance;accountabilities;andtemporalities.
Thecontributionistoopenupnewwaysofunderstandingtheobjectofdesign
andproposehowtocharacterizeapproachestodesignforserviceanddesignfor
socialinnovation.Thisbroadensthenatureofparticipationindesignforservices
andforsocialinnovationandlinksresearchliteratures,whichhavetodatehad
fewintersections.
4
Page 5
Table of Contents
Abstract.................................................................................................................................. 3Publications.......................................................................................................................... 8Listoftables........................................................................................................................10Acknowledgements.........................................................................................................12Chapter1Design’snewpublics................................................................................131.1Introduction.........................................................................................................................131.1.1Snapshotsfromdesignculture............................................................................................131.1.2Widercontexts...........................................................................................................................17
1.2Newfieldsandnewpublics............................................................................................201.3Designforservices............................................................................................................221.3.1Practices,sitesandpublics...................................................................................................241.3.2Researchandpublications....................................................................................................271.3.3Conferencesandseminars....................................................................................................301.3.4Teachingandlearning.............................................................................................................321.3.5Issuesandtensionsincontemporarydesignforservices.......................................34
1.4Designforsocialinnovation..........................................................................................371.4.1Practices,sitesandpublics...................................................................................................391.4.2Researchandpublications....................................................................................................431.4.3Conferencesandseminars....................................................................................................481.4.4Teachingandlearning.............................................................................................................481.4.5Issuesandtensionsincontemporarydesignforsocialinnovation.....................49
1.5Questionsthatmatter......................................................................................................521.6Overview...............................................................................................................................55
Chapter2Methodology...............................................................................................622.1Introduction.........................................................................................................................622.2Researchstrategy..............................................................................................................632.2.1Overviewofstrategies............................................................................................................632.2.2Relevancetothepresentstudy...........................................................................................67
2.3Methods.................................................................................................................................762.3.1Ethnographicparticipantobservation.............................................................................762.3.2Autoethnography......................................................................................................................792.3.4Casestudies.................................................................................................................................80
2.4Limitations...........................................................................................................................82Chapter3 Howdesigninggotmoresocial...........................................................843.1Introduction.........................................................................................................................843.2Designstudies.....................................................................................................................853.2.1Objectsinthestudio................................................................................................................853.2.2Objects,methodsandmilieux..............................................................................................91
3.3User-CentredDesign.........................................................................................................963.3.1Entertheuser.............................................................................................................................963.3.2De-centringtheuser.............................................................................................................100
3.4Ontologicaldesign...........................................................................................................102
5
Page 6
3.5Summary:Expandingdesign’sworlds.....................................................................105Chapter4Encountersbetweendesignandsocialandculturalresearch1084.1Introduction.......................................................................................................................1084.2Somepartialhistories....................................................................................................1104.2.1Workplacestudiesandsystemsdesign........................................................................1124.2.2ParticipatoryDesign.............................................................................................................1174.2.3Activitytheory.........................................................................................................................1204.2.4Ethnographically-informedproductandinteractiondesign...............................122
4.3Challengingencounters.................................................................................................1244.3.1Theroleofsocialandculturaltheories........................................................................1254.3.2Gapsbetweenresearch,designanduse.......................................................................1294.3.3Accountingforandto...........................................................................................................1334.3.4Makingandgatheringrepresentations.........................................................................137
4.4Conclusion..........................................................................................................................140Interstitial........................................................................................................................142Chapter5Designingasinventivepractice......................................................... 2005.1Introduction.......................................................................................................................2005.2Design’sobjects................................................................................................................2025.2.1Designingobjectsordesigningforchange..................................................................2025.2.2Co-articulationofthematerialandthesocial............................................................2075.2.3Remixingdesigns-in-practice...........................................................................................2145.2.4Summary:Changing-object-configurations...............................................................218
5.3Doingdesigning................................................................................................................2205.3.1Reflectivepractices...............................................................................................................2205.3.2Productiveignoranceandexperimentality.................................................................2255.3.3Inventivemethodsandexcess..........................................................................................2325.3.4Summary:Design’signorantexcesses..........................................................................241
5.4Remix:Aninventivepracticeperspectiveondesigning....................................243Chapter6Remixingdesign-as-inventive-practice...........................................2466.1Introduction.......................................................................................................................2466.2Design-as-inventive-practice:Theremix................................................................2486.3Astudyofservicedesign:Towardsintegrated,holisticscenariosandsystems.......................................................................................................................................2586.3.1Servicedesigncasestudy:Structuresandpracticesinprovider-commissioning...................................................................................................................................2606.3.2Servicedesigncasestudy:Inventiveremix................................................................269
6.4Astudyofdesignforsocialinnovation....................................................................2826.4.1Ageingcasestudy:Changingwhatanissueismadeupof..................................2836.4.2Ageingcasestudy:Inventiveremix................................................................................293
6.5Makingtheinventivepracticeperspectiveproductive.....................................301Chapter7Conclusion..................................................................................................3057.1Introduction.......................................................................................................................3057.2Contributions....................................................................................................................3107.3Limitations.........................................................................................................................3187.4Futuredirections.............................................................................................................3217.5Endnote...............................................................................................................................323
Bibliography....................................................................................................................325
6
Page 8
Publications
Includedinthisdissertationarethreepreviouslypublished,solo-authored
papers,reprintedherewithpermissionfromthepublishers:
Kimbell,L.(2011).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part1.DesignandCulture,3(3):
285-306.BergPublishers,animprintofBloomsburyPublishingplc.
Kimbell,L.(2012).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part2.DesignandCulture,4(2):
129-148.BergPublishers,animprintofBloomsburyPublishingplc.
Kimbell,L.(2011)DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigningServices.
InternationalJournalofDesign,5(2):41-52.
8
Page 9
List of figures
Figure1 PhotographfromservicedesignworkshopwithMBAstudentsfromSaïd
BusinessSchooltaughtbytheauthorincollaborationwithMDesServiceDesign
InnovationstudentsfromLondonCollegeofCommunication
Figure2 Photographshowingrelationsbetweendifferentactorsaroundaservice,
aspartofanexploratoryworkshoprelatingtolocalgovernmentservices,
fromtheauthor’sprofessionalservicedesignpractice
Figure3 Simplifiedversionofthepathofinductiveresearch(developedfrom
Blaikie2002)
Figure4 Simplifiedpathofabductiveresearch(developedfromBlaikie2002)
Figure5 FourRoles(theDesigner,theMaker,theUser,theObserver)offering
complementaryperspectivesonlearning-through-designing.From
Roberts(1992)
Figure6 Twoperspectiveswithindesign-as-inventive-practice
Figure7 Storyworldtemplateusedtocreatepersonasorguideinterviewsfrom
KimbellandJulier2012
Figure8 PersonaofoldermanGeorge,derivedfrominterviews,andannotatedin
theworkshop(Reproducedwithpermission)
Figure9 ServiceblueprinttemplatefromKimbellandJulier2012
9
Page 10
List of tables
Table1 Thelogicoffourresearchstrategies.Blaikie,Norman.2002.Designing
SocialResearch.PolityPress.
Table2 TheSevenStagesofAction,adaptedfromNorman(1988:45-46)
Table3 AEIOU-ElementsoftheworldusedatE-Lab(adaptedfromWasson
2000:382)
Table4 Characteristicsofdesign-as-inventive-practice
Table5 Analysisofservicedesigninhealthcarecase,usinganinventivepractice
perspective
Table6 Analysisofcasediscussingdesigninsocialinnovation,usingthe
inventivepracticeperspective
10
Page 11
Acknowledgements
IthankmysupervisorsMonikaBüscherandRachelCooperfortheirsupport,
enthusiasmandcriticalcommentary.IalsothanktheexaminersDaniela
SangiorgiandThomasBinderfortheirthoughtfulcontributions.Iacknowledge
thesupportofmanyfriendsandcolleagueswhohelpedmeshapetheseideas
includingJocelynBailey,AndrewBarry,AnnaBest,SukyBest,KateBlackmon,
SimonBlyth,ChrisSmith,DuncanFairfax,LorraineGamman,GuyJulier,JoeJulier,
KatJungnickel,RonaLee,AnnaLucas,CatMacaulay,NoortjeMarres,SteveNew,
NinaPope,LandéPratt,RafaelRamírez,HelenaReckitt,CameronTonkinwise,
LaureneVaughan,andNinaWakeford.KirstenDowniehelpedimprovedthe
graphicdesign.
IthankVirginiaWoolfforremindingusinARoomofOne’sOwnhowharditisto
findtimeandspacetowrite.IrecognisecontributionsfrommymotherDeirdre
andmydaughterMoya,inhelpingmeunderstandingthelinksbetweenstudying
andliving,andtheformerforlookingafterthelatteronmanyoccasions,soI
couldgetonwithwriting.
Photographsbytheauthorunlessotherwisecredited.
11
Page 13
Chapter 1 Design’s new publics
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Snapshots from design culture
Adesignerdescribeshowherworkevolvedforahospital.Shestarteddoing
graphicandinformationdesign,thinkingabouthowpeoplefoundtheirwayinto
thehospital,thesignage,andhowtheygotinformationandhelp.Butquicklyit
becameclearthattherewasabiggerpicture:theirwholeexperienceofvisitingthe
hospitalandtheirexperienceofandengagementwithhealthcareservices,andthat
startedbeforethey’devenlefttheirhome.
AgroupofMBAstudentsarehunchedroundatable.Theyhavebeenaskedto
createastoryboarddescribinginwordsandphotoshowsomeonemightvolunteer
tocareforanolderpersonviaanewbefriendingservice.Thelecturerbriefsthe
studentstostartbyasking“whatif?”,usinginsightsfromresearchinterviewsand
combiningthemintoanarrativeabouthowthevolunteermightinteractwiththe
olderperson.OneMBAstudentlooksveryalarmedatthisrequest:“Butwecan’t
justmakeitup.”
Adesignervisitsaninformantinhishometointerviewhim.Thisispartofastudy
tounderstand“hardtoreach”patients(whoareunder-representedintheservice)
thatahealthproviderwantstoengagewith.Theinformant’sbehaviourtowards
13
Page 14
hermakesthedesigneranxious.Nooneknowswheresheis.Shefindsherwayout
ofthesituationsafely,butlaterreflectsthatthatherprofessionaltraininghasnot
preparedherfordealingwithsuchsituationsandstartsaddressingthis,in
collaborationwithhercolleaguesandstaff.
Eachofthesevignettesraisesquestionsaboutdesign.Whatisinvolvedin
designingservices,ratherthantheclassicoutputsofmanufacturingsuchas
products,objectsandgoods?Candesign-basedapproachesbeusedsuccessfully
in“designing”socialchange?Aredesignerstheprivilegedcarriersofdesign
practice,orcanothersbeinvolvedtoo?Howdoinsightsfromresearchcombine
withpeople’simaginations,tobecomethebasisofconceptsfornewservicesand
socialchange?Thesequestionslaunchthisdissertationintoafast-movingand
uncomfortableterritory,inwhichdesignersanddesigningoperateinan
expandedfield.
Somedesignersanddesigneducatorsrefertoaquotationfromaninterviewwith
modernistfurnituredesignersCharlesandRayEames,who,whenasked,“What
aretheboundariesofdesign?”replied,“Whataretheboundariesofproblems?”
(Neuhartetal1989).Sometimescalleddesignthinking,thisisavisionof
professionaldesignanddesignerstacklingbigissues,fromchangingpeople’s
behaviours,toreducingcarbonemissionsorimprovinghealthoutcomesfor
particulargroupsofpeople.Indeed,theEames’expansivedescriptionofthe
scopeofdesigninvitesdesignerstotackleanyissue,farremovedfromthe
industrialandconsumerproductswithwhichtheyaremoreusuallyassociated.
Notjustcontentwithtakingoncomplexissueswithwhichotherprofessionsand
14
Page 15
institutionsaretraditionallyassociated,thisversionofdesignclaimsithasa
distinctivecontributiontomake,andsuggeststhatthrough“designthinking”,
designerscanbestmakeit(egBuchanan1992;Brown2009;Martin2009;
BrownandWyatt2011;Cross2011).Designers,itisargued,areparticularly
goodatfocusingonhumanperspectives,throughbeingempatheticand
observingcloselywhatgoesoninpeople’sinteractionswithproductsand
services.Theyfollowaniterativeprocessofproblem-settingandproblem-
solving.Visualmethodshelpmakeideastangibleandshareablewithdiverse
others,includingusersandfront-linestaff.Throughearlyandfrequent
prototyping,ideasareevaluatedandredeveloped.Inthisaccountofdesigning,
design’smaterialpracticesandwaysofapproachingissuesdeployedinthe
particularcontextsofservicesandsocialinnovationcanleadtoverydifferent
andeffectivewaysofreframingissues,identifyingopportunities,generatingand
developingideasandaddressingpeople’sneeds.
Thisambitionfordesignisevidentinthetwofieldsdiscussedinthisresearch,
designforservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.Perhapsnaïve,certainly
ambitious,possiblyarrogantandhubristic,thisisdesigntakinganewplaceon
theworldstage.Contemporarydesignersareinvolvedasdesignersinaddressing
problemssuchasclimatechange,globalpoverty,ageingpopulationsand
worklessness.Theyareinvolvedindesigninginteractionsbetweenpeopleand
organizations,newbusinessmodelsandservicesandsystems.Somewhatat
oddswithothercontemporarydevelopments,suchasDesignArt(egMunari
2009)orcriticaldesign(egDunne1999;Antonelli2008),thesenewfields
foregroundthewiderworldasasitefordesigning.Theyworkforandonbehalf
15
Page 16
ofbanks,airlines,travelproviders,healthcareproviders,non-profits,andcentral
andlocalgovernment,bringingdesignapproachestothedesignofexistingand
newservices.Theymakeclaimsaboutdesigningwithpeople,notforthem,or
involvingpeopleindoingtheirowndesigning.Throughsodoing,newideasfor
servicesandwaysofdoingsocialchangearesupposedlyabletoemerge,through
acreativedesignpracticethatisopentoall.Ontheonehand,contemporary
practitionersarefulfillingthepromiseofearliergenerationsofdesigner-activists
andcritics.Ontheother,therearequestionsaboutwhattheydo,howdistinctive
itreallyis,andwhateffectsdesignerlyexpertisehasonthecommunitiesand
organizationsinwhichtheyareinvolvedandhowitrelatestootherdomainsof
professionalexpertise.Coretothesequestions,istheissueofhowtherelations
betweenpeopleandartefactsareconceptualizedindesigning.
Thisintroductionaimstodothreethings.Firstitsetsthescene,describingthe
emergenceoftwonewformationswithinandalsobeyondthetraditional
concernsofdesign:anemerginginterdisciplinaryfieldcalledservicedesign,and
theapplicationofdesign-basedapproachesordesignthinkingwithinfieldsof
practiceandresearchcurrentlycalledsocialinnovationandsocial
entrepreneurship.Secondly,itreviewsissuesfacingboththosepromoting
servicedesignandtheapplicationofdesigntosocialinnovation,identifyinga
recurringdifficultyindescribingdesign,inparticularquestionsaboutwhatits
objectis,andhowitproceeds.Thisleadstoarticulatingtheresearchquestion
thatthisthesisaimstoanswerandshowswhyitisimportanttoanswerit.The
chapterconcludeswithanoutlineofeachchaptertoorientreaderstowhatlies
ahead.
16
Page 17
1.1.2 Wider contexts
Theshiftofdesigncultureandpracticeintoanexpandedfieldhashappened
withinalargercontext,whichisworthexploringbriefly.Designhistorymakes
clearthatwhatdesignis,andwhatdesignersdo,hasalwaysbeenshapedby
economic,social,politicalandculturalforces(Julier2011).
Theemergenceofservicedesignanddesignforsocialinnovationhavetaken
placeatthesametimeaschangesinthenatureofeconomicandsocialand
culturalsystemsandtechnologies.Researchersinculturalstudiesandsociology
havenotedagreateremphasisonsymbolsandsigns,experiencesand
interactions,anddematerialisationandglobalisation(Lippard1973;Lashand
Urry1994;OngandCollier2005).BoltanskiandChiapello(2005)have
describeda“newspiritofcapitalism”thatcreatesflathierarchiesinnetwork-
basedorganisations,whichgiveakindoffreedomtoworkersatthecostof
certainty.Thrift(2005)rethoughtcapitalismascontinuallyrenewingitselfasit
unfoldsthroughperformativepractices,whichincludeabsorbingitsown
critiques.OtherssuchasLeadbeater(2008)arguedtherehasbeenashiftto
openingupwaysforpeopletoparticipatemoredirectlyindecision-makingand
culturalproduction,oftenenabledbydigitalnetworkedtechnologies.Inshort,
thecontemporaryenvironment,inwhichprofessionaldesignischanging,is
dynamic,unstableandinvolvestheinterweavingofnewculturalpracticesand
technologies.
17
Page 18
Aseconddevelopmentistheongoingdifficultyinaddressingnumerouscomplex
challengesfacingcommunitiesandnations.Manyoftheseissues,suchasaccess
towater,highfoodpricesorageingsocieties,areatonceverylocalandglobalin
character.Peoplewithknowledgeandexpertiseoftendonotagreeonthenature
ofproblems,letalonehowtosolvethem,becauseofcontestedvaluesandways
ofbeingintheworld(FuntowiczandRavetz1993).Theyareexamplesof
“wicked”problems(RittelandWebber1973)requiring“clumsy”solutions
(Rayner2006).Apersistentcontemporarynarrativeisthatbothpolicyand
market-basedsolutionshavefailed.Instead,theseuncertaintiesleadto
opportunitiesfor“social”innovationorentrepreneurship,notjusttechnological
ormarket-basedinnovation,whichrequireanddrivechangesinrelations
betweencitizens,entrepreneursandproviders,andstates(egMulgan2006;
YoungFoundation2012).Intersectionsbetweenprofessionaldesignpractice
andthesedevelopmentsinpolicyincludeworkbytheUKDesignCouncil(eg
CottamandLeadbeater;Cook2011),collaborativeprojectsexploringdesign
approachesinrelationtosustainability(egJégouandManzini2008),aswellas
pan-national,design-ledresponsessuchastheOpenIDEOplatform(IDEO2013).
Buttherearealsolong-standingtraditionsofactivism,involvingdesigners
seekingtotakeoncollectiveissuesespeciallyinrelationtoconsumptionand
climatechange(egJulier2011;Thorpe2012).
Athirddevelopmentshapinganexpandedfieldinprofessionaldesign,isthe
emergenceofacreativeclass.Itsmembersaregloballymobileprofessionals,
whoseexpertiseisregardedasvaluableinrelationtotheseeconomicandsocial
changes.Florida(2002)studiedparticularcitieswithgrowingnumbersof
18
Page 19
musicians,softwareengineers,artists,anddesigners,alongsideothergroups
suchasgaypeople.Hearguedthis“class”isbothaneconomicforce,aswellasa
socio-culturalone,impactingonwaysoflivingandworking.Itisnotsimplythat
someoftheseindividualpeoplehavecreativecapacities.Ratheritisthatasan
identifiablealthoughdiversegroup,thecreativeclasshascomeintoprominence
byofferingresourcesinrespondingproductivelytocontemporaryuncertainties.
Aspeopleskilledinworkingwiththesymbolic,designersarekeyresourcesfor
workingtowardsnewcirculationsofvalue(RavasiandRindova2008).
Finally,anadditionalfactorshapingtheemergenceofnewdesignfieldsisthe
increasingacademicisationofdesign.IntheUK,forexample,manydesign
departmentsanddesignschoolswerereconstitutedwithinuniversitiesfrom
1992onwardsresultingfromchangesinthewayhighereducationwas
organised.Workingwithinorasuniversities,andcompetingforfundsandfor
students,designschoolsarenowexpectedtoproduceknowledgeaboutdesign,
ratherthanjustteachingitthroughstudio-basededucationalpractices.As
researchfundersaimtobetterconnectacademicresearchwithcollective
challenges,sometimescalledMode2knowledge(egNowotnyetal2001),
academicdesignresearchersarecaughtupinrequirementstomaketheirwork
usefulandproductivetosociety.Oneoftheindicatorsofthisisthegrowthinthe
numberofPhDsindesign.Discussionsabout“practice-based”PhDshaveleadto
aconfrontationbetweendesign’spragmaticcharacterandmodesofresearchin
universities,incontrasttothekindsofresearchresultsthatarejudgedreliable
andverifiableasinthenaturalandsomesocialsciences(egRust2007;Biggsand
Büchler2008).Thishasleadtoanxietiesamongdesignersanddesigneducators.
19
Page 20
Aredesignersskilledpractitionerswhohaveuniquecompetencestohelp
corporations,policy-makersandcommunitiesrespondtotheseuncertainties?If
so,someask,whereistheevidencebasetoshowthestrategiccontributions
designcanoffer?
Whilenotacomprehensiveanalysis,thisintroductionhasshownthatthe
expansionofsitesandpublicsinrelationtowhichprofessionaldesignpractice
nowoperateshashappenedinawidercontextofuncertainty,shiftingidentities
forcreativeprofessionals,andanxietiesabouttheroleandimpactof
professionaldesignandchangestohighereducation.
1.2 New fields and new publics
Anyattempttosummarisethedevelopmentofanewfieldisopento
contestation.Nosoonerthanit’swritten,it’salreadyoutofdate.Accesstothe
peopleandorganizationsinvolved,researchdataandpublicationsmaybe
limited.Anyaccountisnecessarilypartialandrequiresdefiningboundaries,
whichconstitutewhatisinandwhatisoutofanarrative.Further,itrequires
somereflexivityabouttheroletheauthorhasinconstructingtheaccountand
wheresheorheislocatedinrelationtothematterssheorhedescribes.This
chapterreviewstwoimportantdevelopmentswithindesignoverthepast
decadeorso.Howevereveniftheseaccountsarelimited,theyoffer
opportunitiestoidentifyrecurringquestionswithinthepracticeofandresearch
aboutdesign,concernedwithwhatisitsnatureandhowitproceeds,locatedata
particularmomentintime.
20
Page 21
Althoughtherearemanylinksbetweenthetwoareas,itmakessenseheretopull
apartthestrandstoallowthemtoemergemoreclearly.Thefirstisan
interdisciplinaryfieldcalleddesignforservices,whichisconcernedwiththe
designofservicesandtheexpertiseandrolesofprofessionaldesigners,
managersandothersindesigningthem.Aconferencewhichincludedthisterm
inthetitlewasheldatNorthumbriaUniversityin2006(Kimbell2011).An
internationalprofessionalnetworkcalledtheServiceDesignNetworkfoundedin
2004reportedithad189membersinOctober2011(ServiceDesignNetwork
2011).Post-graduatecoursesinservicedesignnowexistatLondonCollegeof
Communications(since2010)aswellasotherinstitutions.Thefieldincludes
blogs(suchasHoward(2013)postingsince2007),journalspecialissuesandan
academicbookonservicedesign(MeroniandSangiorgi2011).
Thesecondfieldistheapplicationofdesign-basedapproachesordesignthinking
tosocialinnovationandentrepreneurship,thatis,takingasmattersofconcern
fordesignandfordesigners,issuesconcernedwithageing,chronicdisease,
unemployment,poverty,humanitariandisastersandconflicts,andclimate
change.Termssuchas“socialdesign”(egRawsthorne2013)or“designforsocial
impact”(egDrakeetal2010),arenotusedhere.FollowingtheDESIS(Designfor
SocialInnovationandSustainability)Network’sformulation,thetermusedhere
isdesignforsocialinnovation(DESIS2013).Organizationstryingoutdesign-
basedapproachesinrelationtosuchissuesincludetheUnitedNations,theUK
NationalHealthService,BillandMelindaGatesFoundationandtheDesignforAll
InstituteofIndia.Thesedevelopmentsarediscussedinonlinemagazinessuchas
21
Page 22
DesignObserver(2013)andatconferencesandsymposia,suchastheChanging
theChangeconferenceinTorino(POLIMI2008),aSocialImpactDesignSummit
theCooperHewittMuseuminNewYork(CooperHewitt2012)andseminars
seriessuchasoneco-organizedbytheLondonSchoolofEconomicsandtheUK
DesignCouncil(LondonSchoolofEconomics2011).Althoughthereareasyet
fewpost-graduatecoursesindesignschoolswhollyfocusingondesignforsocial
innovation,theDESISNetworkandotherinstitutionsareactiveininvolving
studentsinprojectstacklingsomeofthesethemes,suchastheDesignMatters
DepartmentatArtCenterPasadena(2013).
InwhatfollowsIdescribeeachoftheseinmoredetail,identifyingkeyactors,
themes,publications,intersectionswithotherfieldsofpractice,educationand
research,anddistinguishimportanttensions.Resourcesusedareoftenonline
includingsocialmediaanddigitalpublications,aswellasorganizationaland
individualblogs,andrecentPhDtheses.Otherresourcesincludepresentations
anddiscussionattheSocialDesignTalksseriesthatIhaveco-organizedin
Londonsinceearly2012(SocialDesignTalks2013).Whatemergesarepictures
ofdynamicfieldsledbypractitioners,butwithstronglinkstoeducational
institutionsteachingdesign,someinterconnectionswithotherprofessional
arenassuchassocialpolicy,andasyetfewacademicpublications.
1.3 Design for services
Oneofthecommonstartingpointsforthosemakingacaseforservicedesignis
thecontributionofservicestonationaleconomies(egMeroniandSangiorgi
22
Page 23
2011).Examplesofservicesasaneconomiccategoryincludeeducation,
entertainment,financialservicessuchasbanking,telecommunications,transport,
aswellaspublicsectoractivitiessuchascaringfortheelderlyorsupporting
thosewithoutwork.Inshort,whatarebundledtogetherunderthetermservices
areextremelyheterogeneousactivitiestouchingnearlyeveryone’sdaytoday
livesindevelopedeconomies,createdanddeliveredbyavarietyoforganizations
(SalterandTether2006).Clearlymanykindsofprofessionaldesignactivityare
alreadyinvolvedincreating,promotinganddeliveringtheseactivities.
Opportunitiestousedesigners’expertiseinthedesignofbankingservices,for
example,couldincludecontributionstomarketingandbranding(egresearching
abank’scustomerbaseandproposingitsvalueandpositioning),visual
communicationdesign(egdesigningabank’ssignage,brochures,andletters),
webandinteractiondesign(egdesigningbankwebsitesandsmartphone
applications),andinteriorarchitecture(egdesigningbankbranches).So
designersofdifferentkindsarealreadyimplicatedinthedesignofservices.But
thepremisebehindservicedesignthatitofferssomethingadditionaland
distinctive,aboveandbeyondtraditionaldesigndisciplines.
Butjustasmanagementresearchersworkingonserviceshavefounditdifficult
toagreewhatservicesare,sotoothosearguingforaspecifickindofdesign
concernedwiththedesignofservices,alsorunintoproblems.Whatfollowsisa
presentationofsomeoftheimportantconceptsthathavearisenwithinservice
design,illuminatedbyexamplesofpractice,researchandteaching.This
overviewoftheemergenceofservicedesignandkeyconceptsinthefielddraws
inpartonwritingbyMager(2004);SacoandGoncalves(2008);Kimbell(2009);
23
Page 24
SecomandiandSnelders(2011);MeroniandSangiorgi(2011);Singleton(2012)
andPolaineetal(2013).Whatthisaimstoshowisthat,farfrombeinga
homogeneouspractice,servicedesignischaracterizedbyfundamentalconflicts,
bothaboutthenatureofdesigningforservices,andhowitproceeds.
1.3.1 Practices, sites and publics
Notwithstandingthedifficultyofdescribingwhatservicesare,andwhatdesign
forservicesmightlooklike,thefieldhasdevelopedatspeedoverthepastdecade
witharecognizableprofessionalpracticeandassociatedinstitutionsandformal
structures.Thissectionpresentssomeoftheexemplarsthatindicateamaturing
specializedfield,inwhichpracticehasprecededtheestablishmentofan
academicfield.
Thesitesandpublicsinvolvingtheactivitiescalledservicedesignincludea
broadmixoforganizationsandpeopleinvolvedinservices,includingmanagers
andemployeesincorporationsandSMEsofferingservices,thoseworkingwithin
publicsectororganizationsandnon-profitprovidersdesigninganddelivering
serviceswithinconsultanciesorin-houseteams,aswellasentrepreneurs
developingnewofferings.Whatisnotcoveredhereisaninterdisciplinaryfield
knownasservicesscience(egMaglioetal2006;SpohrerandMaglio2008).This
includesservicedesignasatopic,buthasitsrootsincomputerscience,
informationsystemsormanagement,ratherthanproduct,graphicorinteraction
design.
24
Page 25
Manyoftheearlypublicdescriptionsofservicedesignarecasestudiesof
projects,whichbringintoviewthefundamentaltensionswithinthefield.For
examplethelateBillMoggridge’sbookandwebsiteDesigningInteractions
(Moggridge2006)includesachapteronservicedesign,withaninterviewwith
FranSamalionisfromconsultancyIDEO,onthedesignofabankingserviceanda
trainservice,examplesofeconomicactivitiestraditionallydescribedasaservice.
AsecondinterviewiswithTakeshiNatsuno,involvedindesigningthe(then)
leadingmobileinterneti-modeserviceinJapan.Bothofthesecanbeseenas
examplesof“pureplay”digitalservices,wherewhatisbeingdesignedisa
technologically-enabledserviceexperience.
Butalongsidethese,Moggridgeincludesaninterviewwithmembersofarguably
thefirstservicedesignconsultancy,livework,sharingtheirprojectwhich
involveddesigningacarsharingservice,Streetcar(nowZipcar).Livework’s
discussionofhowtheybroughtservice-basedapproachestothinkingaboutthe
car–anemblematicoutputofindustrialmanufacturing–isrootedinideasof
serviceecologies(Moggridge2006;Polaineetal2013)andproduct-service
systems(MeroniandSangiorgi2011).Whatbecameclearinlivework’s
discussionwasthatbusinessmodelsneededdesigningtocreatevalueby
arrangingindustrialobjectsinnewways.Forthem,designingservicesisnotjust
aboutdesigningexperiencesdeliveredthroughdigitalartefacts,butinvolves
opportunitiestocreatenewkindsofvaluerelationbycombiningartefactsand
peopleinnewways.Otherindustrialfirmssuchaselectronicsmanufacturer
Samsung(McCullough2012)andcarmanufacturerVolkswagen(DesigntheNew
Business2012)arenowusingservicedesign-basedapproachestocreate
25
Page 26
offeringsthatconfiguremanufacturedartefactssuchascarsandmobility-related
infrastructuresintoservices.
Anexampleofapureserviceprovider(ineconomicterms)thatisintensely
concernedwitharrangingartefactsintoexperiencesforcustomersandusersis
VirginAtlanticAirways(VAA),aBritish-basedairline.Althoughithadastrong
designteaminternally,VAAhasalsoembracedservicedesign.JoeFerry,former
headofdesign,createdanewroleofheadofservicedesigninhisteam,which
broughtanewattentivenesstothedesignoftheexperienceofpassengers,going
beyondthefirm’straditionalattentionpaidtotheinteriorsofitsplanesandits
airportclubrooms(Ferry2009).InVAA’sversionofservicedesigndescribedby
itsformerheadofservicedesign,AngusStruthers,theexpertiseheandhis
colleaguesofferisworkingwiththeoperationsfunctionincludingtheemployees
whoservecustomers,todesignanddeliverparticularkindsofservice
experiencesthroughoutapassenger’scontactwiththeairline(Struthers2009).
Elsewhere,US-baseddesignconsultancyContinuumoffersasoneofitscase
studiesofservicedesignadescriptionofhowthedesignersworkedwith
restaurantchainBertucci’storesearchandcreateanewfoodexperienceoffering,
2ovenslaunchedinonly10monthsin2012.Continuumdescribehowthey
craftedthebrandproposition,serviceexperience,foodconcept,visualidentity,
andenvironmentaldesign–inshortcontributingtothedesignofanewbusiness,
whichhappenstobearestaurantservice.Theconsultancydescribesthisas
follows:“Weworkedcollaborativelyacrossdisciplinesrangingfrommarketing
tooperationstofinance.Thisintegrativeapproachmixedqualitativeand
26
Page 27
quantitativeresearchandfullexperientialandbusinessmodelprototypingin
paralleltoachievesmarttradeoffsateverystageofdevelopment”(Continuum
2013).AswithVAA,thisisanaccountofintegratingdesignstrategicallyintothe
creationofanewventure,withastrongfocusonthecustomerexperienceand
howthislinkstoresourcestodeliverit.
Tosummarise,thetensionbetweenviewingservicesasintangible,and
recognisingthedigitalandmaterialinterfaces,touchpointsorevidence,that
peopleinteractwithaspartofaserviceoffering,isenduring.Ontheonehand,
servicedesignerspayattentiontotheartefactsthatarepartofservices,buton
theother,theyareconcernedwithhowtherelationsbetweenpeopleand
artefactscreatevalueorresultinchange.
1.3.2 Research and publications
Muchofthefirstpublishedwritingondesignforservicesisbypractitioners.
ExamplesareParkerandHeapy’s(2006)discussionofbringingahuman-
centreddesignapproachtothedesignofpublicservicesandpublicationsbythe
aforementionedDesignCouncilREDunit(CottamandLeadbeater2004;Burnset
al2006).OtherbooksonservicedesignincludeThisisServiceDesignThinking
(StickdornandSchneider2010)withanassociatedwebresource(ThisisService
DesignThinking2013).Withveryshortchaptersonfieldsrelatedtothedesign
ofservicesincludingoperations,branding,strategyandsoon,thispublication
positionsservicedesignastheintegrationofthesespecialismstoresearch,
generateandprototypenewofferings.Includingatoolkitofmethodsusedin
27
Page 28
designingservices,thisbookpresentsthedesignofservicesasavalidsitefor
designers’expertise.Polaineetal(2013)describesprojectsbyconsultancy
liveworkanditsapproach.Touchpoint(ServiceDesignNetwork2013d),the
magazineoftheServiceDesignNetwork,combinesshortcasestudiesandessays,
withsomecontributionsbyacademics.Specialissuesofacademicjournalsonthe
topicofservicedesignincludetheInternationalJournalofDesign(2011)andthe
JournalofBehaviour&InformationTechnology(2012).
Oneofthefirstacademicbooksreviewingtheemergenceofthisfieldiseditedby
AnnaMeroniandDanielaSangiorgi(2011).Intheirintroduction,theynotea
paradigmshiftinthefundamentalsofvaluecreationinthecontemporary
economy,drawingonVargoandLusch(2004)andothers.Theyidentifyfour
possibleareasofinterventionintothisfordesign:designinginteractions,
relationsandexperiences(egresearchinguserexperiencestoredesignthem);
designinginteractionstoshapesystemsandorganizations(egworkingwithin
organizationswithinchangemanagementandbusinessmodeling);exploring
newcollaborativeservicemodels(eginvolvingusersandparticipantsinco-
productionofservices);andimaginingfuturedirectionsforservicesystems(eg
usingscenariostoexploresystemchange).Allthis,sayMeroniandSangiorgi,has
implicationsfordesigners.
Theexponentialincreaseininteractivity,connectivityandco-production
ofcurrentofferings(beingsingleartefactsorservicesolutions)requires
designerstoworkinamoreintegrated,collaborativeandsystemicway;
thisdoesn’tnecessarilymeanthatdesignersarecurrentlyequippedwith
28
Page 29
therequiredconceptualframeworksandmethodologiestodoso.(Meroni
andSangiorgi2011:25).
Academicliteratureondesignforserviceissparse.ThePhDthesisoftenclaimed
asthefirstdoctoraldissertationinservicedesignisbyElenaPacentiin1999
(seeSecomandi2012).MorerecentPhDsonthetopicincludethese
contributions:
• Han(2010)examinedhowservicedesignersmanagemultiple
stakeholderinvolvementincomplexprojects,includinghowthey
generatedknowledgeanddisseminatedit.
• Secomandi(2012)proposedthatthepracticeofservicedesign,asa
recentdevelopmentwithinthetraditionofindustrialdesign,maybe
approachedprimarilyasthedesignofinterfacesbetweenservice
providersandclients.
• Singleton(2012)identifiedwithinservicedesignacoreconcern
associatedwithtryingtochangepeople’sbehaviour,whichisdownplayed.
Thesedissertationsonservicedesignarebyresearchersworkingwithindesign
traditions.Incontrastwithdesignfields,forwhichservicedesignisoften
describedassomethingnew,withinmanagementfieldstherehasbeenextensive
researchintothedesignofservicesbutthisisusuallyframedbymanagement
research(egKimbellandSeidel2008;VossandZomerdijk2007;Kimbell2011;
MeroniandSangiorgi2011).AnopenaccesswebresourceServiceDesign
Research(2013)includesinterviewswithresearchersandlistspublications.To
addressthislackofaresearchbase,intheUK,theArtsandHumanitiesResearch
29
Page 30
Councilfundedashort-termresearchnetworkonservicedesign,whichcame
intoexistenceinMarch2013(ServiceDesignResearch2013).
1.3.3 Conferences and seminars
Conferencesaimedprimarilyatdesignresearcherswithpapersandtrackson
servicedesignincludetheDesignResearchSociety(eg2012),International
AssociationofSocietiesofDesignResearch(eg2011),andEuropeanAcademyof
Design(eg2008).Incontrast,althoughconferencesaimedatmanagement
researchersthatfocusonservicesincludeservicedesignasatopic,theyrarely
featureresearchelaboratingdesigners’contributionstoservicedesignor
perspectivesfromacademicdesignresearch.Conferencesfocusingexclusively
onservicedesignandrelatedtopicssuchasserviceinnovationandmanagement
includeServDes,firstheldin2009(ServDes2013)andtheServiceDesign
Network’sannualconferencessince2009(ServiceDesignNetwork2013b).
Oneofthefeaturesofthisareaofdesignpracticeisitsintensesocialityamong
practitioners.Thisisnottosaythatotherdesignfieldsdonotsustain
opportunitiesforsocialinteraction,bothformalandinformal.Evenacursory
visittotheannualSalonefurniturefairheldeachAprilinMilan,forexample,
revealsitasanimportantsiteforthoseconcernedwithproductandfurniture
designtogather.Thoseinvolvedindevelopingandpromotingservicedesign
haveactivelybuiltintotheirfield-buildingopportunitiesforface-to-face
meetingsandcollaboration.Inadditiontoconferences,someparticipantshave
setupopportunitiesforpractitionerstomeetandhavedrinks(ServiceDesign
30
Page 31
Drinks)andtotalk(ServiceDesignThinks)(ServiceDesigning2013)incities
fromAtlantatoGlasgowtoWellington.AnotherexampleistheGlobalService
Jam,heldannuallysince2011.InitiatedbyMarkusHormessandAdamLawrence,
thisinitiativeisbasedonthepropositionofgroupsofpeopleworkingaroundthe
world,inresponsetothesamedesignbrief,toresearchanddesignfromscratch
anewserviceoverthesameweekend.In2013,some3000peopletookpartin
over120citiesaroundtheworld,producingover500projectsinresponsetoa
sharedbrief(GlobalServiceJam2013).
Figure1PhotographfromservicedesignworkshopwithMBAstudentsfromSaïdBusiness
SchooltaughtbytheauthorincollaborationwithstaffandstudentsfromMDesServiceDesign
InnovationfromLondonCollegeofCommunication
31
Page 32
1.3.4 Teaching and learning
Whilethereareinstancesofservicedesignasatopicwithinteachingindesign
schools,forexample,inprojectbriefs(egRSA2012;ServiceDesignNetwork
2013c),thereareasyetfeweducationalprogrammesdevotedtoorfocusing
closelyonthearea.Therearesomeimportantdifferencesinthewaythey
presenthowtheyconceptualisewhatservicedesignis,revealingthelackof
consensusinthisemergingfield.
Someinstitutionshaverenamedexistingcoursestointroduceaspecialismin
services.Forexample,atLondonCollegeofCommunication,Universityofthe
ArtsLondon,aprogrammepreviouslyknownasMDesInnovationandCreativity
wasformallyrenamedasMDesServiceDesignInnovationin2012(seeFigure1).
Thecoursewebsitesaysthecourse“takesamulti-disciplinaryapproachto
designandserviceinnovationanditsstrategicroleinbothprivateandpublic
sectororganisations.Thecourseemphasisesthewiderroleofdesignand
innovationinservicesystemsasavehicleforchangefromasocietal,culturaland
businessperspective”(LondonCollegeofCommunication2013).
RecentlyestablishednewcoursesincludeMAServiceDesignattheRoyalCollege
ofArtinLondonwhichsays,“Ahighlyintegratedapproachtothedesignof
serviceexperiencesandsystemsisrequired,involvingintegrationofmultiple
designdisciplinestocreateasystems-basedsolution.Italsodemandsanimplicit
understandingofthetechnological,commercialandorganisationalcontextto
32
Page 33
assurethesuccessfulconception,developmentanddeploymentofservice
innovation”(RoyalCollegeofArt2012).
DomusAcademyoffersaMasterinServiceandExperienceDesign.“Theaimof
theMasterProgramistodevelopprofessionalskillsforServiceDesignand
Management,withafocusonthequalityoftheoverallcustomerexperienceand
onthedesignofinnovativeserviceideas.Theeducationalobjectiveistoimpart
uponparticipantsalltheconceptualandoperationaltoolsfordesigningand
managingserviceinnovations,suchas,customerexperienceassessmentand
improvement;designofserviceorganizationalprocedures;serviceinterface
design;aswellasenvisioningthefeasibilityandimplementationofnewservice
ideas.”(DomusAcademy2013)
Incontrast,apost-graduatecoursepreviouslyknownastheMasterofDesignat
DuncanofJordanstoneCollegeofArtandDesign,wasrenamedMDesDesignfor
Services(DundeeUniversity2013).CoursedirectorHazelWhite(White2013)
summarizesthecourseasfollows:“Workingwithpeopletounderstandwhatis
difficultandhelpthemimaginewhatwouldmakeiteasier”(White2013:9).This
soundslikeageneralizeddesignthinking,ratherthanafocusonaspecificobject
ofdesignorasdesigneducationrespondingtoaparticularsetoforganizational
opportunities.
Theseshortdescriptionsshowhowdifferentlyservicedesignisconceivedofat
leadingdesignhighereducationinstitutions.Designforserviceischaracterized
anactivitytohelppeopleimaginewhatwouldmakelifeeasier,orassomething
33
Page 34
aimingatsystemicinnovationinorganizations,orassomethingthatistiedtothe
strategicroleofdesigninorganizations,andtechnologies,orassomethingthatis
focusedondesigningexperiences.Thisvarietyenablesdifferentversionsof
designforservicetoco-exist,whichisunsurprisinginanemergentdomain.
1.3.5 Issues and tensions in contemporary design for services
Althoughthisisanecessarilybriefoverviewofafast-changingfield,what
becomesclearisthattherearesomefundamentalandimportanttensionsthat
existinthepractice,researchandteachingofservicedesign.Itisunclear
whetherthusfar,thesetensionshaveheldbackthefield.Certainlycontestation
iscentraltotheemergenceofnewdisciplines,as“boundarywork”bysocial
actorsdescribesandproscribeswhatiscoretoafieldasitsconstructsevolve,
andwhatisoutsideitsscope.Inthefieldofservicedesign,currenttensionsin
thewaythefieldandpracticeareconceptualisedincludethefollowingissues.
• Whatistheobjectofdesignforservices?Ontheonehand,service
designisdescribedasconcernedwithintangiblesandexperiences.Such
accountsofservicedesignoftenborrowthemodeldevelopedin
managementtodefineservices:intangibility,heterogeneity,
inseparability(ofproductionandconsumption)andperishability(IHIP)
(cfVargoandLusch2004;MeroniandSangiorgi2011).Ontheother,the
emphasisisonhowpeopleengagewithartefactsandorganizationseg
userinteractionswithdiversetouchpointsduringacustomer’s
experienceofatrainjourney,asdescribedbySamalionisinMoggridge
34
Page 35
(2006).Someservicedesignadvocatesmaketheclaimthatitisthrough
designingservicesthatthesevariousartefactscanbechoreographedor
arrangedholisticallyandsystemicallyinrelationtooneanother(eg
Mager2004;EvensonandDubberly2010).Hencetimebecomesan
importantvariablefordesigners.Butontheotherhand,suchappealsto
digitalandmaterialservice“evidence”and“touchpoints”revealthat
servicescanencompassnumeroustypesofdesignedthing,includingthe
socialrelationsinwhichtheyaremobilized.Singleton(2012)arguesfor
recognitionthatservicedesignisdirectlyconcernedwithdesigning
humanbehaviour.
• Whatarethedistinctivewaystoapproachdesigningforservices?On
theonehand,someproponentsofservicedesignclaimspecificityand
noveltyinthemethodsusedtodesignservices(egParkerandHeapy
2006;Stickdorn2010;MeroniandSangiorgi2011).Ontheother,on
closerinspection,manyofthesemethodsandtechniquesexistinother
closelyrelatedfieldsorspecialismssuchasinteractiondesign,
participatorydesign,productdesignandbusinessinnovation.Many
organizationsandindividualshavebeendesigningservicesforyears
withoutthehelpofprofessional(service)designers,soit’snot
immediatelyclearwhatanewly-formedgroupingofself-namedservice
designersoffers.Further,itisnotclearwhatdesignprofessionals,
especiallythoseeducatedindesignschooltraditions,offerincomparison
totheworkofotherssuchascustomersorusers,ormanagersand
membersofstaffandotherstakeholdersorbystanders.Ontheonehand,
proponentsofservicedesignaimtostakeoutdesigners’specialist
35
Page 36
knowledgeandexpertiseinthedesignofservices.Butatthesametime
theyemphasizecontributionsbynon-designerswithincollective
participatoryprocessesfromresearchtoanalysisanddesign(eg
StickdornandSchneider2010;MeroniandSangiorgi2011;Polaineetal
2013).
• Isservicedesignanewdisciplineorfieldofpractice,oran
integrationofexistingknowledgeandexpertise?Withouta
commonly-agreeddefinitionofwhatisbeingdesignedwithinservice
design,itishardtoclarifywhetherservicedesignisanewfield.Onthe
onehand,someofthosepromotingitdescribeitasnew(egMager2004)
whereasothers(egMorelli2002;MeroniandSangiorgi2011;Royal
CollegeofArt2013)emphasizeitsemergencefromandrelationtoideas
ofproduct-servicesystems,informationsystems,interactiondesign,and
managementfields.Ontheonehand,it’sasub-disciplineorspecialismof
design,orontheother,it’sawayofthinkingrootedindesignthatcanbe
appliedtoanyobject(egPolaineetal2013).
Thusintheearlystagesoftheformationofservicedesignasanewfieldof
practiceandarenaforteachingandresearch,therearesomeimportant
unresolvedquestions.Thenextsectionwillgoontoexaminedesignforsocial
innovation,whichsharesmanyoftheseissues–andmuchofthepotential.
36
Page 37
Figure2Photographshowingrelationsbetweendifferentactorsaroundaservice,aspartofan
exploratoryworkshoprelatingtolocalgovernmentservices,fromtheauthor’sprofessional
servicedesignpractice
1.4 Design for social innovation
Designforsocialinnovationisevenmorediffusethatdesignforservice,in
severalrespects.Ratherthanemergent,itisperhapsembryonic,andit’seven
lessclearwhatkindofcreature(s)itmightgrowinto.Thissectionwill
summarizeitsgenealogyandtheoreticalconcernsinpracticeandinacademic
research.Thisoverviewdrawsonnumeroussourcesincludingthefollowing:
MargolinandMargolin(2002);BuurandMathews(2008);SandersandStappers
(2008);JégouandManzini(2008);Meroni(2008);Bason(2010);Björgvinsson
etal(2010);Drakeetal(2010);MeroniandSangiorgi(2011);Thorpeand
Gamman(2011);andJulier(2011).Aswithservicedesign,apictureemergesofa
37
Page 38
fast-developingfieldofpractice,littleacademicanalysistodate,andsome
underlyingissues.
AccountsofdesignforsocialimpactorsocialinnovationtypicallyciteVictor
Papanek,whoseDesignfortheRealWorld(Papanek1971/1991)remainsacall
toactionfordesignerswhowanttounderstandtheirroleintheworld.Papanek
“pitssociallyresponsibledesignersagainstacommercialmarketthatthriveson
theproductionofexcessiveanduselessproducts”(MargolinandMargolin2002:
27).MorerecentlyTonyFry(egFry1999;2007;2011)hashighlightedthe
uncriticalpracticesenactedindesignfieldsthatcontinuetosupport
unsustainablefutures.Butthereareothertraditionsthatarepartoftheshift
towardsdesignforsocialinnovation.Theseincludeactivismthroughdesign(eg
Julier2011;DesignHistorySociety2012;Thorpe2012),ParticipatoryDesign
andparticipatoryarchitecture.ParticipatoryDesigndevelopedwithin
workplacesconcernedwithsupportingthedemocraticinvolvementofworkers
whendesigningdigitaltechnologiesinparticularwithinScandinaviabutits
conceptsandmethodshavenowexpandedbeyondthis,toothercontextssuchas
designingparksandlearningenvironmentsandotherchallengessuchas
confrontingdominantgroups(GreenbaumandLoi2012).Withinarchitecture
thereisalsoatraditiongoingbackseveraldecadesofengagingcommunitiesof
participantsintheactivitiesofdesigningthebuiltenvironment(egHamdi2004;
Jonesetal2005).Therearealsoresearchprojectswithindesigninstitutions,
whichshareresonanceswiththeseprojects,butpre-datetheemergenceofthe
termsocialinnovation.OneexampleistheworkoftheDesignAgainstCrime
ResearchCentre,UniversityoftheArts,London(CentralStMartins2013).Other
38
Page 39
recentaccounts,reachingaudiencesnotfamiliarwithdesign,makeacasefor
designmethodsbetterfocusingontheneedsofindividualsfacingchallenges
suchasaccesstocleanwater(egBrownandWyatt2011).
Thecreationandincreasingcirculationoftheterm“socialinnovation”(eg
Mulganetal2006;SocialInnovationExchange2013),haspresentednew
opportunitiesfordesigners.Inadditiontotheneedfordesigningartefactsin
relationtosuchinnovations,thereareopportunitiestobeinvolvedinthe
designingofnewbusinessmodelsandexperiences,toaddresscollectiveand
publicissues(seeFigure2).Itisagainstthisbackdropthatdesignforsocial
innovationhasemergedoverthepastdecade.
1.4.1 Practices, sites and publics
Thesitesandpublicsfortheseactivitiesincludeawiderangeoforganizations,
professionals,projectsandcommunitiesinvolvedindesigningproductsand
servicesrelatingtocollectiveorpublicissues.Theseincludenon-profitand
publicsectororganisations,suchaslocalauthoritiesandcentralgovernment
departments,providersofsocialhousingorservices,majorfoundationsand
internationalandregionalagencies.Incontrasttoestablisheddesignfieldssuch
asproductorgraphicdesign,inwhichtherearerelativelyclearprocessesfor
organizationswantingtohireprofessionaldesigners,theemergenceofdesigners
wantingtoapplytheirexpertisetosocialorcollectiveissueshasleadtonew
formsofengagementbetweensocialactors.Manyoftheexamplesthatfolloware
39
Page 40
fromtheUK,whichisrecognizedasanactiveplayerinthisarena(Manzini
2010b).
Keyplayersincludegovernment-fundedorganizations,whichtakeonrolesas
mediatorsbetweenvariousactorswhowouldnottypicallyworktogetherto
designservicesorproducts.AleadingexamplehereistheUKDesignCouncil,
whichhasinitiatedandledmanyprojectsinhealth,ageing,unemploymentand
localgovernmentservices(Cook2011).Inrecentprojects(DesignCouncil2012)
onewayofworkingissettingupdesignchallengesinpartnershipwitha
governmentdepartmentorotherbody,andcreatingapubliccompetitiontofind
teamsofdesignspecialistsandentrepreneursandtechnologiststoresearch,
designandprototypesolutionsontheground.
Animportantdriverbehindthesekindsofprojectsistheneedtousedesign
methodstoundergopracticalexperimentationatthelocallevel,butsharing
knowledgewithothersandaimingtomakeasolutionscalableandultimately,
self-financing.ForexampleFuturegov,aUK-basedconsultancyorganization
focusingondesigningdigitalservicesfor/withincentralandlocalgovernment,
hasastrongfocusonuserinterfaceandservicedesign.Theirprojectsinclude
Casserole,which“bringslocalcommunitiestogetherarounddelicioushome
cookedfood”madebyneighboursforneighbours(Futuregov2013).Theservice
bringstogetherpeoplewhoarehappytocookanextraportionofdinner
(referredtoas“cooks”),witholderneighbourswhostruggletocookfor
themselves(“diners”).Surroundingthissharingofmealsisalocalfood
community,withmembersexchangingrecipes,sharingcookingtipsand
40
Page 41
participatinginlocalevents.Futuregovdevelopedthisprojectwiththesupport
oftwolocalgovernmentdepartmentsanditwasawardedfundingfromUK
government-fundedbodies.Sohere,althoughFuturegovisimportantagencyin
conceptualisinganddesigningtheservice,theprojectisreliantoncombiningin
newwayspublicsectorcommitments(suchasthelocalgovernmentpartners)
andfinancialresources.
Inadditiontherearesomeexamplesofprocurementbypublicsectorbodies,
specificallywantingtobringdesignapproachesintotheirwork.Aleading
examplehereisthecreationofMindLab,setupin2001acrossthreeDanish
ministriestobringdesign-basedapproachestopublicservicedesign(Bason
2010;Mindlab2011).Anothernationalgovernmentlevelexampleisthe
AustralianCentreforSocialInnovation’sco-designteam,whichuses
ethnographicanddesign-basedapproachestodesignnewsolutionstosocial
challengessuchastroubledfamilies(TACSI2012).Alocalgovernmentexample
ofpublicsectorprocurementisUKconsultancyEngine’sworkwithKentCounty
Council,whichleadtothecreationofachangeprogrammecalledSocial
InnovationforKent,includingworkshops,atoolkitandprojects(SILK2010).But
therearealsoexamplesofentrepreneursrespondingtopublicissuessuchas
ageingsocieties.HereUKagencyParticipleisanexampleofadesign-led
responsethatworkswith,butoutside,ofpublicsectorprovisionforexample
withitsCirclesprojects(Participle2012;Rawsthorne2013).
Otherkeyplayersinthesedevelopmentsareuniversities,providing
opportunitiesforstudentstoworkonprojectswithasocialpurposebysetting
41
Page 42
uprelationshipswithexternalorganizations.AleadingexampleistheDesign
MattersdepartmentatArtCenterPasadena,whichovermorethanadecadehas
initiatedprojectsforstudentsandyoungprofessionalswithUNagenciesand
others.AsecondexampleistheDESISNetwork,co-foundedbyItaliandesign
researcherEzioManzini,whichamongotheractivities,bringstogetherover40
universitiesanddesignschoolstoshareknowledgefromprojectsundertakenby
theirstudentsandundertakeinitiatives.
Therearesomeexamplesofdesignforsocialinnovationthathavereachedfar
beyonddesigncommunitiesandaudiences.ForexampleEmilyPilloton,whoset
upaprojectcalledProjectH,tointroducedesignwithaschoolcurriculumwithin
aruralareaintheUSA,hasreceivedwidespreadmediaattention(Pilloton2009;
Rawsthorn2013).CommentatorBruceNussbaum’sreflectionsonProjectH
sparkedlivelydebatesaboutwhethersuchdesignpractice,initiatedoftenby
outsiders,wascolonial(Nussbaum2010).
Twootherrecentphenomenaofferalternativemodelsthattrytoengagebroader
communitiesasparticipantsindesigninginresponsetocollectiveandpublic
issues.
Thefirstisdesignworkshops,sometimesknownashackathonswithinsoftware
developmentcommunities.Thesebringtogetherpeople,sometimesstrangersto
oneanother,ideallyfromdiversecommunities,groupsandorganizations,togo
throughadesignprocesswithinacompressedtimeframelikeaweekend.There
areexamplesofsuchworkshopsaddressingthebenefitssystem(Futuregov
42
Page 43
2012),andotherswhichusedesignmethodssuchasSocialInnovationCamp(SI
Camp2013).
ThesecondexampleisOpenIDEO(2013),aweb-basedplatform.Thisworksby
findingpartnerssuchascorporatesponsors,governmentagenciesandnon-
profits,whowanttoengageawiderpublicinaddressingachallengeovera
definedperiodoftime.ForexamplewithpartnersOxfam,theplatformposedthe
question“Howmightweimprovematernalhealthwithmobiletechnologiesfor
low-incomecountries?”towhichusersofthewebsiterespondedwith282
inspirations,182concepts,20finalideas,andrealizationofatleastoneofthem
inprogressinColombia.
Therearealsoexamplesofpeoplewhodonotrefertotheirworkasdesign,
appropriatingandadoptingdesignapproachesandexposingthemto
entrepreneursandactivists.Forexamplethegrowingfieldofsocialenterprise
oftenincludesdiscussionofcustomerresearchanduserexperiences.For
exampletheannualSkollWorldForuminSocialEntrepreneurship(2013)held
inOxford,hasincludedsessionsondesignthinking.
1.4.2 Research and publications
Aswithservicedesign,designforsocialinnovationisaheterogeneoustopic.
Therehavebeensofarfewattemptstoprovideanoverviewofresearch
contributions,althoughwithindiscretefieldssuchashealthcareorgraphic
design,thereareactivitiesunderway.Drakeetal(2010)offeranannotated
43
Page 44
bibliography,combiningpractitionerwriting,blogposts,academicpublications
andtoolkits.Muchofthediscussion,andseveralofthecasestudies,inMeroni
andSangiorgi’s(2011)bookondesignforservicescoversocialandpublicsector
issues.Giventherecentarrivalofthetermsocialinnovation,andlackof
academicresearch,itisnotsurprisingthatmuchofthewritingtodate
specificallyondesignforsocialinnovationisbypractitioners(cfYoung
Foundation2012).Howevertherearenumerouscontributionsthatconsiderthe
roleofdesigninrelationtosocialchange,transformationandrelatedmatters.
Withindesignstudies,apaperbyMargolinandMargolin(2002)wasanearly
attempttodescribewhata“socialmodel”fordesignpracticemightlooklike,
distinguishingbetweenthisanda“market”model.“Theprimarypurposeof
designforthemarketiscreatingproductsforsale.Conversely,theforemost
intentofsocialdesignisthesatisfactionofhumanneeds”(Margolinand
Margolin2002:25).IncontrasttoPapanek,whoproposedthatdesignersshould
developwaysofworkingoutsideofthemainstreammarketplace,Margolinand
Margolinproposedthatdesignersinsteadfindalliesinprofessionsrelatedto
health,education,socialwork,aging,andcrimeprevention.
OneofthefirstacademicjournalsinthisareaisCo-Design:InternationalJournal
ofCoCreationinDesignandtheArts(since2005)althoughpapersonrelated
topicshavealsoappearedinotherdesignjournals.Specialissueswithtopics
relatedtodesignforsocialinnovationincludeDesignPhilosophyPapers(DPP
2011and2012).Forexample,SandersandStappers(2008)describeashift
awayfromtraditionaldesigndisciplinesfocusingontheoutputsofspecific
44
Page 45
disciplines(egproductdesignorarchitecture)towardsdesigningforpurposes
(egdesigningforservingordesigningforsustainability).Theythenidentifytwo
specificimplications.Firstly,theroleofdesigners,researchersandusersare
changing.Usersbecomeco-designers,researchersbecomefacilitators,and
designerswillplayrolesinco-designingteamsanddevelopinggenerativetools
forcollectivecreativity(SandersandStappers2008:12-15).
Binderetal(2008)outlinehowParticipatoryDesignmethodsandapproaches
havemovedawayfromtheirrootsinsoftwaredevelopmentandworker
participationintotheworld.“Co-design,participatorydesignapproachesand
participatorymethodsarelessandlessseenasspecialisedpredilectionsand
democracy-orientedmotivations;participation(-s)arealreadyoutthere,
circulatingingeneraldesignpracticeand‘inthewild.”(Binderetal2008:82).
Anexampleofresearchthatdeployssomeoftheseapproaches,isonefundedby
theEuropeanCommission.Basedpartlyinuniversitiesbutoperatingwithstrong
localpartnerships,JégouandManzini(2008)ranatwo-yearprojectwiththe
titleEmergingUserDemandsforSustainableSolutions.Theresearchers
exploredscenariosthatreducedpeople’sneedsforproductsandlivingspace
anddistancestravelled,tolessentheimpactoftheirlivesontheenvironment.
Thescenariosfocusedonlocalcollaboration,mutualassistance,andsharing,and
recognizedhowthisrequiredtime,organization,andflexibility.
Manzini(2007)summarisednewrolesfordesignwithinthesedevelopments.
Firstly,heproposeddesignersstartwithsocialinnovationsinthesenseofthe
45
Page 46
wayspeoplearealreadydoingthingsdifferently.Theirrolesthenincludegiving
visibilitytopromisingcases,highlightinginterestingaspects,buildingscenarios
ofpotentialfutures,andconceivinganddevelopingsystemsofproducts,services
andinformationtoincreasetheirefficiencyandaccessibility.Identifyingarole
fordesignersasfacilitators,Manzinicomments:
[I]npracticethisinvolvesmovingintheoppositedirectionfromthat
morefrequentlytakenbydesigners,i.e.,wherestartingfromatechnical
innovationthedesignerproposesproductsandservicesthataresocially
appreciated.(Manzini2007:15)
Furtherdevelopingsomeoftheseideas,Tonkinwise(2011)andPenin(2012)
describedaprojectledbydesignersatParsonsTheNewSchoolforDesignin
NewYork.Theprojectaimedtofindexamplesoflocalcreativepracticesand
“amplify”these,ratherthanhavingdesignerscomeinandundertakeidea
generation.
Morerecently,Manzini(2010a)summarizedconceptsheandhiscolleagues
workwithasaimingtosupportsmall,local,open,andconnectedcommunities.
Notwithstandingsomechallengestosocialinnovationfromanthropologist
Appadurai(2010),Manzini’sworkremainsinfluential,asishisroleasco-
founderandleaderoftheDESISNetwork.
MeanwhileinSweden,aprojectinthecityofMalmö,alsofundedbythe
EuropeanUnion,hasinvolvedmembersofthelocalcommunityandresearchers
46
Page 47
workingtogethertomobilize,facilitateandconnectheterogeneousparticipants
andmarginalizedgroupstoapproachcomplexurbanchallengescollaboratively
(Björgvinssonetal2010,2012).
Oneoftheearlyacademiceffortstoanalyseadesign-basedcontributiontothe
designofahealthcareserviceisbyBateandRobert(2007).Thenrelatively
unfamiliarwithdesign,theauthorswereinvolvedasparticipant-observersina
projectwithinaNationalHealthServicecancerservice,whileconsultancy
ThinkPublichelpedapplydesign-basedmethodstoexploreopportunitiesfor
improvementandinnovation.Callingthis“experience-baseddesign”,the
researchersemphasisedthecollectivematerialpracticesofthedesigners,which
allowgroupsofpeopleincludingpatientsandstaff,toengagewitheachotherin
newways.JungingerandSangiorgi(2011)showedhowdesignwasawayof
openingupwidertransformationalquestionswithinpublicsectororganisations.
Notwithstandingthescarceacademicresearchondesignforsocialinnovation
anditsimpacts,therearenumeroustoolkitsavailabletohelppeopledoit.Oneof
thefirstpublishedwasIDEOfortheRockefellerFoundation(IDEO2008).
ConsultancyEnginepublishedacarddecktosupportsocialinnovationinKent,
aspartoftheirprojectthere(SILK2010).IDEOalsocreatedatoolkitforhuman
centreddevelopmentfortheBillandMelindaGatesFoundation(IDEO2011).
ConsultancyFrogdesignpublishedaCollectiveActionToolkit(2012).Kimbell
andJulierpublishedtheSocialDesignMethodsMenu(2012).
47
Page 48
1.4.3 Conferences and seminars
Therehave,ofcourse,beenconferencesthatfocusondesign’sroleintheworld
thatpre-datethetermsocialinnovation.ForexampleSandersandStappers
(2008)describea1971conferenceorganizedbyresearchNigelCrossonDesign
Participation.Here,partoftheattentiononparticipationisasaresultofthe
failuresofdesignerstopredictanddesign-outtheadverseeffectsoftheirwork.
“Thereiscertainlyaneedfornewapproachestodesignifwearetoarrestthe
escalatingproblemsoftheman-madeworldandcitizenparticipationindecision
makingcouldpossiblyprovideanecessaryreorientation”(CrosscitedinSanders
andStappers2008:7).
Morerecently,specialistconferencesexploringtheroleofdesigninsocial
innovationincludeaSocialImpactDesignSummittheCooperHewittMuseumin
NewYork(CooperHewitt2012).TheParticipatoryInnovationconferences
(since2011)bringtogetherthosestudyingorinvolvedinbringingparticipants
intoinnovationwork,althoughthisisnotconfinedtosocialinnovation.For
example,theproceedingsfromthe2011conference(Buur2011),gather
theoriesandmethodsacrosssuchacademicfieldsthatdescribehowpeople
outsideanorganisationcancontributetoitsinnovation.
1.4.4 Teaching and learning
Aswithservicedesign,notwithstandingthelackofanextensiveacademic
researchbase,thereareexamplesofteachingdesignstudents,howtogoabout
48
Page 49
designingforsocialinnovation.OneexampleisaMFADesignforSocial
InnovationattheSchoolofVisualArtsinNewYork.Thistwo-yearpost-graduate
programmesaysitpreparesstudents“toapplytheprinciplesandethicsofsocial
innovationasfiltersforunderstandingandasadisciplineforengagingwithand
improvingtheworldthroughdesign.Graduatesoftheprogramwillbemore
thangraphicdesigners,filmmakers,advertisingcreativedirectorsorinteractive
systemsdesigners.Theywillbeallthese,masteringalltheskillsandknowledge
ofhowtoapplythemtohaveapositiveimpactonbusiness,societyandtheir
ownlives”(SchoolofVisualArts2013).AmongthemembersoftheDESIS
Network,severaluniversitiesareinvolvedinsettingprojectsfordesignstudents.
1.4.5 Issues and tensions in contemporary design for social innovation
Aswiththediscussionaboveonservicedesign,thisbriefintroductionto
accountsofdesignforsocialinnovationhashighlightedsomeimportanttensions.
Again,someofthecontestedissuesarearoundthenatureofthisemergingfield
ofpracticeandthenatureofthedesignexpertiseenactedwithinit.
• Whatistheobjectofdesignforsocialinnovation?Ontheonehand,
usingtermslike“social”cansuggestnon-commercialorpublicsector
matters,butontheother,thetermsocialcanmeancollectiveorpublic
issues,inwhichentrepreneursorbusinessescanparticipatebutwith
positivesharedimpacts.Further,thetermsocialalsoappearsamong
providersandusersofonlinecommunity-basednetworkedmedia.
Movingawayfromthedifficultyofselectingaparticularmeaningforthe
49
Page 50
term“social”,therearealsoissuesaboutwhatdesigningforsocial
innovationaimstoachieve.Termssuchassustainability,wellbeing,and
behaviourchangenowappearregularlywithindiscussionsaboutthe
purposestowhichdesignersworktowards.Butaswithservicedesign,it
isdifficulttopinpointwhatitisthatsuchdesigningdesigns.Again,user
experiences(andoftenbehaviours)arewhatdesignersareworkingwith,
includingheterogeneousartefactsandinteractions,butalsosystems,
organizations,policiesandstructures.Ontheonehand,someproponents
ofdesignforsocialimpact(egIDEO2008,2010)describeanapproach
thatis“human-centred”.Ontheother,thoserootedintraditionsof
ParticipatoryDesign(egEhn2008;Björgvinssonetal2010)donotrely
onpre-existingdistinctionsbetweenthehumanandthetechnologicalor
socialandfurther,acknowledgeconflictandagonismamongparticipants
ratherthanclaimingidealisticconsensus.
• Whatarethedistinctivewaystoapproachdesignforsocial
innovation?Manyorganizationsandindividualactivistsand
entrepreneurshavebeendesigningresponsestopublicandcollective
challenges(egproducts,services,projectsandpolicies)foryearswithout
thehelpofprofessionaldesigners,soit’snotimmediatelyclearwhat
designersorthoseadvocatingdesign-basedapproachesbringandwhat
thismightleadto.Furtheritisnotclearhowwhatprofessionalseducated
indesignschooltraditionsoffercomparewiththeparticipationorwork
ofotherssuchascustomersorusers,ormanagersandmembersofstaff
andotherstakeholdersorbystanders.Ontheonehand,designersare
describedaskeyagentswithrolestoplayininitiatingorfacilitating
50
Page 51
change(Manzini2007).Ontheother,designers’knowledgeand
intentionsarenotnecessarilydominantfactorsindesignprojectswhich
arealsoshapedbypowerrelationssuchasaccesstoresources,the
narrativesshapingwhatisenactedindefiningsocialproblemsand
generatingpotentialsolutionstothem.
• Isdesignforsocialinnovationadistinctfieldofpractice,or
should/canpro-socialpurposesbeintegratedintoalldesigning?On
theonehandthereisaclearhistoryofdesignersandactivistsusing
designtoimprovesocialoutcomes(egPapanek1991;Julier2011)so
professionaldesignpracticehasoftenbeenimplicatedinsocialchange.
Ontheother,thedevelopmentofsocialinnovation(egMulgan2006)and
socialentrepreneurship(egSkollWorldForum2013)asnewfieldsof
practiceandresearchoffersopportunitiesandademandfordesign
expertise.
• Howdopower,ethicsandaccountabilityplayoutduringthe
activitiesofdesigning?Ontheonehand,designingforsocialinnovation
ispresentedasattendingexplicitlytothesocial(collective)concernsof
thoseimplicatedinoraffectedindirectlyordirectlybydesigning(eg
JégouandManzini2008).Suchaccountspresentdesignforsocial
innovationbymeetingpeople’sunmetsocialneedsbybeingempathetic,
inclusiveandaccessible(egBrownandWyatt2011).Ontheother,such
idealismistemperedbyrecognizingothernessandtheagonisticnatureof
thesocialworld(egEhn2008;Binderetal2011;diSalvo2012).
51
Page 52
1.5 Questions that matter
Theintroductionstodesignforservicesandforsocialinnovationabovereveala
complexpicture.Theypresentevidenceofdesignersandothersusingdesign-
basedexpertisetocontributetonewandbetterservices,andtopositivechange
inorganizationsandincommunities,butpresentchallengesinunderstanding
thenatureofthisworkanditsimpactandeffects.Tosummarize:
- Inservicesandsocialinnovation,manydifferentkindsofartefactand
designedthingareinvolved.
- Professionaldesignersareinvolvedindesigningavarietyofdesigned
thingsincludingproducts,communications,thebuiltenvironment,digital
interactions,services,policies,andsystemsaswellasinteractions,
behaviours,andstructures.
- Designersoftenworkaspartofmulti-disciplinaryteamswithother
specialists,andalsopeopleaffectedbyorinvolvedinanissuesuchas
residents,orserviceusers,sodesigningisdistributedamongseveral
participants.
- Theboundariesbetweencommissioner/researcher/designer/userand
commissioning/research/design/useareblurred.
- Designers’workisrewardedeconomicallyandinstitutionallyindifferent
waysthroughworkingasconsultants,in-houseemployees,activistsand
entrepreneurs.Designers’expertiseisunclearinsomeofthefieldsin
whichtheyarenowworking,whicharemoretypicallythedomainof
specialistsinmanagement,socialcareorpolicy.
52
Page 53
- Otherprofessionsaredevelopingdesignerlyapproaches,methodsand
skillsraisingquestionsaboutwhatifanythingisdistinctiveabout
designers’expertise.
Inthiscontext,itbecomesmoreimportanttounderstandthenatureofthesocial
andculturalworldsinwhichdesignersorothersparticipateindesignwork.
Thereisashifttowardsdesignersneedingtobetterunderstandthelargersetsof
relationshipsandtrajectorieswithinwhichtheydotheirworkandwithinwhich
theirdesignedthingswillexistandbeusedorengagedwith.Ratherthancalling
thisa“socialworld”or“context”insidewhichdesigntakesplace,thisstudywill
arguethisisbetterthoughtofasareconfiguringsociomaterialworldsthatare
mutuallyconstitutedinpractice.Thetermsociomaterialindicatesthehybrid
natureofsocialphenomenathataremadeupofheterogeneousactors,both
humanandnon-human.Designersandthepeoplewithandforwhomthey
designdonotexist“in”a“context”thatis“outside”ofthem.Rather,through
practice,theyareinvolvedinco-creatingsuchconfigurations.
Thisiswheretheresearchquestionshapingthisstudyislocated:Howcan
designingtherelationsbetweenpeopleandthingsbeconceptualized,indesignfor
servicesanddesignforsocialinnovation?Therestofthischapterdescribeshow
thisdissertationwillanswerthisquestion.Asaresearchquestion,itsounds
rathergrand,asifaimingtodevelopaunifyingtheoryacrosstwodiverse,
dynamicfields.Infact,theintentionismoremodest.Itrecognizesthemany
practicalandconceptuallinkagesbetweenthetwoemergingfieldssketched
above.Itrequirestracingthewaysthatdesignersanddesignresearchhave
53
Page 54
engagedwithsocialandculturalresearch,andhowresearchersworkingwithin
anthropologicalandsociologicaltraditionshaveinturnmobilisedconceptsof
thesocialwithindesigning.Itinvolvestakingaskepticalstance,locatedwithin
andaimingtoinformcontemporaryprofessionaldesignpractice,but
nonethelesstryingtoexploreitsboundaries.Ratherthanaimingtopresentsome
totalizingtheoryfromnowhere,thedissertationaimstoopenupwaysof
thinkingandexplorehowtheseareproductiveatatimewhendesignersare
workingincontextsthatgobeyondconventionalexpectationsofwhattheir
skillsandknowledgearerelevantto.
Drivingthisaretwomotivations,whicharebothorientedtowardspractice.The
firstisthatIamdirectlyinvolvedindesignworkasaconsultingdesignerand
educator,withafocusondesigningforservices,sometimesinthecontextof
publicpolicy.Asareflectivepractitioner(Schön1986)Iwanttodeepenthe
understandingofmyapproaches,methodsandtheireffectsandthosethatI
teachanddisseminateinotherways.AsareflexivepractitionerIwanttobetter
understandhowsuchmethodsareinvolvedinconstitutingorenactingparticular
possibilitiesfordesignworkandmyselfasapractitionerandeducator.The
secondmotivationisthatIwanttocontributetobroaderdiscussionsamong
peersandnetworks.Ibelievetheshifttowardsdesignersworkingonservices
andinrelationtopublicandcollectiveissuesrequiresdesignerstobemore
awareofwhattheirworkdoes,andwhatisinvolvedindoingit,inorderto
supporttheclaimstheymake.
54
Page 55
1.6 Overview
Thischapterhasintroducedtwonewfieldsofdesignpracticeconcernedwith
thedesignofservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.Ithasarguedthatthey
raiseimportantissuesforunderstandingthescopeandroleofdesigning.A
researchquestionwasidentified,whichaskedhowdesigncanbeconceptualized
inthedesignofservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.Thissectiondescribes
therestofthisstudy,whichaims:
- Toreviewliteraturesincomplementaryfieldsthattodatehavenotbeen
broughttogetheroften,includingdesignstudies,ParticipatoryDesignand
ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW)toexaminethe
developmentofideasofthesocialwithindesignandhowsocialand
culturalresearchcanrelatetodesigning.
- Todrawtogetherconceptsdevelopedacrossthreesolo-authored
publicationsandcombinethesewithotherresourceswithinScienceand
TechnologyStudies(STS),tomovetowardsaconceptualisationof
designingtherelationsbetweenpeopleandartefactsinthecontextof
designingforservicesandforsocialinnovation.
- Toapplytheconceptstotwocasestoreviewtheirusefulness.
- Todiscussimplicationsforresearchandforpractice,inparticularwithin
servicedesignanddesignforsocialinnovation.
Followingonfromthischapter,Chapter2describestheresearchstrategytaken
toaddressthequestionposedabove.Thediscussionbeginsbyintroducingthe
55
Page 56
ontologicalandepistemologicalcommitmentsthatunderpintheresearch,
identifyingparticularwaysofunderstandingtheworldandhowknowledgeis
produced.Theseshapethechoiceofanabductiveresearchstrategy(Blaikie
2002).ThisinvolvesrecognisingmylocationinthesociomaterialworldIwishto
understand,andtheaimofunderstandingactors’accountsandconceptsthat
theyusetodescribetheirownactionsandtheactionsofothers.Abductive
researchinvolvesresearcheralternatingbetweenperiodsofimmersioninthe
socialworldandtimespentdoinganalysis.Thewaythisisenactedinthis
dissertation,isbythinkingofthisasaprocessofexperimentalwriting.This
experimentationisnotinformalterms,forexample,inmyuseoflanguage,
grammar,layout,orstyle,whichareentirelyconventionalinacademicterms.
Insteadtheaimhasbeentocontinuallyreworktheanalysis,thinkingofthisasa
kindofremixing.Theapproachtakenistosynthesiseresearchfrompreviously
publishedpapers,toarticulateawayofunderstandingdesignanddesigningthat
addressestheresearchquestion.Thechapterthenintroducesthemethodsused
intheresearchincludingparticipant-observation,casestudies,and
autoethnography.Itconcludeswithareviewofthelimitationsofthisapproach.
Chapter3thenpresentsthefirstpartoftheliteraturereview.Itfocuseson
designstudies,whichisaloosely-boundedfieldofinterdisciplinarystudyin
whichresearchersaimtounderstandanddescribedesign.Aparticularfocusin
thisfieldhasbeentodescribewhatdesignersdointheirprofessionalwork
includinghowtheyapproachproblem-framingandsolving,andthenatureof
designexpertise(egAlexander1971;Archer1979;Buchanan1992;Cross2006).
Thechapterproceedsbydescribingtheexpansionofconceptsfordesignersto
56
Page 57
workwith,inparticularwiththeintroductionof“theuser”throughuser-centred
design(UCD)influencedbypsychologywhichwasabsorbedintoindustrialand
productdesign(egNorman1990).Theargumentproceedsbyreviewing
challengestotheconceptoftheuser,forexampleincriticaldesignpractice.It
thenintroducestheworkofWinogradandFlores(1986),whoseconceptof
ontologicaldesignhighlightstheroleoflanguageinconstitutinginterpretation
andaction.Insummary,thisaccountmovesseeingdesignasprimarily
concernedwithwhatdesignersdoortheobjectstheycreate,toanattentiveness
tousersandwhattheydointhecontextsinwhichtheyencounterdesigned
things,toaconceptualisationofdesigningandusingdesignedthingsas
ontological.
Chapter4offersthesecondpartoftheliteraturereview.Itreviewsresearchover
twodecadeswithinfieldsinwhichtherehasbeenanattempttobringsocialand
culturalresearchmethods,inparticularethnography,intodesigning.Itshows
howtheactiveinvolvementofanthropologistsandsociologistsindesignwork
offeredconceptsthatgobeyond“users”andtheir“contexts”.Thechapter
summarizesimportantcontributionsinParticipatoryDesignandCSCWand
describestheemergenceofdesignanthropology(egHughesetal1992;Suchman
etal1999;Wasson2000;Cefkin2009;EPIC2013).Thischapteridentifiesfour
keytensionsthatemergeintheseliteratures.Theseare:theroleofsocial
theoriesindesigning;gapsbetweenresearch,designanduse;differentwaysof
beingamemberofagrouporproject,andwhoparticipantsandresearchersare
accountableto;andthemakingofrepresentationsaboutthesocialworld.
57
Page 58
Thisisfollowedbyaninterstitial.BetweenChapters4and5,threeofmy
publicationsarepresented.Thesewerepublishedinpeer-reviewedjournals
duringthetimeIwasinvolvedinconductingthisPhDresearch.Twoofthem
focusondesignthinking,andthethirdonservicedesign.Indissertationsitis
morecommontoappendsuchpublicationsbyputtingthemattheendofthe
mainbodyofwork.Includingthesepapersinthemainbodyoftextratherthan
inanappendixmayencouragereaderstoattendtothemintheorderIsuggest
andreadthembeforemovingontoChapter5,inwhichsomeofthearguments
areremixed.Paper1isthefirstpartofastudyintodesignthinking.Itdescribes
itsoriginsindesignstudiesandotherliteratures,andtheneedtore-assessit.
Paper2isthesecondpartofthesamestudy.Itusestheoriesofpracticetooffera
conceptualizationofdesigningthatinvolvestwopairedterms:designs-in-
practice(theeventsandsitesinwhichobjectsareredesignedasdynamic
practicesunfold)anddesign-as-practice(theeventsandsitesofdesign-culture,
whendoingdesigning).Paper3contributestothetopicofservicedesign.It
drawsonliteratureswithinmanagementfieldsandindesignandthenusesthree
casestudiesbasedonmyparticipantobservationof/withpractitionersdoing
servicedesign,toargueforaspecifickindofservicedesign,calleddesigningfor
service.
Chapter5thenremixesconceptsfromthesethreepapersinrelationtosomeof
theissuesintheliteraturesdiscussedearlier,andcombinesthemwithother
research.Thischapterisintwoparts.Thefirstpartaddresseshowtheobjectof
designisconceptualizedandaskswhatisitthatdesignersaredesigningwhen
theydodesigning?Thesecondpartisconcernedwithhowdesignersgoabout
58
Page 59
doingdesigning.Thesearebothlong-standingquestionsinresearchabout
design.Theaimofthischapteristoprovideresourcesthatenhance
understandingaboutdesigningforserviceandforsocialinnovation,bydrawing
uponseveralresearchtraditions.Inparticular,resourcesinScienceand
TechnologyStudiesaremobilized,includingideasofignoranceand
experimentality(egShapinandSchaffer1985;Gross2010),inventiveness(Barry
2001;WakefordandLury2012)andexcess(WakefordandLury2012).In
summary,thischapteroffersawaytore-thinkdesigningasconstitutedthrough
practicinginventivemethods,arisingthroughtheco-articulationormutual
elaborationofheterogeneousactorsresultinginnewmeaningsandidentities,
skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesandproperties.
InChapter6,thisargumentfurtherdevelopsbyelaboratingsomeoftheconcepts
developedinthepreviouschapter.Thischapterlaysoutdesign-as-inventive-
practice,identifyingtwoperspectives,design-as-practiceanddesigns-in-practice.
Itproposesfivecharacteristicsofinventivepractice:intra-action;inventiveness;
ignorance;accountabilities;temporalities.Itarguesthattogethertheyofferan
accountofdesigningunderstoodasa(re)configuringoftherelationsbetween
peopleandthingsthatunfoldinpractice.
Therelevanceoftheseconceptsisthenexploredbyusingthemtorevisittwo
accountsofdesigningpublishedelsewhere.Byrewritingtheseaccountsthrough
theconceptuallensdevelopedinChapter5,thisoffersafurtherremixofboth
theconcepts.ThefirstreportisbyresearchersatLancasterUniversity,exploring
thedesignandcommissioningofclinicalhealthcareservices
59
Page 60
(ImaginationLancaster2011).Asanexampleofservicedesign,thiscasebrings
intoviewsomeoftheconceptualdifficultiesinunderstandingwhatisbeing
designedinhealthservicesandhowtodesignsuchservices.Thesecondcaseis
frommyownprofessionalpractice(Kimbellforthcoming),anexampleofdesign
forsocialinnovation.Itdescribesashortprojecttosupportaproviderofsocial
housingwantingtodesignaserviceforolderpeopleinaLondonlocality.
DiscussingeachcasethroughthelensoftheseconceptsarticulatedinChapter6
helpsilluminatetheirrelevancetocontemporarydesigning.Itisarguedthat
theseconceptsareproductivebecausetheymakeexplicitthecentralityofthe
relationsbetweenpeopleandartefactswithinconfigurationsthatunfoldin
practice,ratherthanthestartingpointbeingorganisations,artefacts,services,
roles,orbehaviours.Theinventivepractiseperspectiveilluminateshow
individualcapacities,skillsandneedsareco-constitutedrelationally.Further,it
setsuptemporalitiesandaccountabilitiesasproblematics,notasmattersthat
aregivenorpre-determined,andbringsmoreclearlyintoviewtheunintended
consequencesofactionasdesignsunfold.
InChapter7,thestudyconcludeswithadiscussionofthecontributionsitoffers
topracticeandresearch.Thisincludesopeningupnewwaysofunderstanding
theobjectofdesignandhowtocharacterizeapproachestodesignforservice
anddesignforsocialinnovation.Further,thisstudybroadensunderstanding
aboutthenatureofparticipationindesignforsocialinnovation.Afurther
contributionistoconnectresearchtraditionsthatdonotyethavemanyshared
pointsofintersection.Thisisfollowedbyfurtherreflectiononthelimitationsof
theapproachusedinthisstudy.
60
Page 61
Thedissertationendsbyidentifyingpossiblefuturedirectionforresearch.These
includewaystounderstandandrenderavailablethediverseagenciesandtheir
mutualaccountabilities,andhowtoidentifythetimeframesoverwhichto
analysehowpracticesunfold.Asecondavenueisunderstandingtheextentto
whichaninventivepracticecanbedevelopedasacollectivecapacity,thatisnot
onlyassociatedwithpeoplewhothinkofthemselvesasdesignersorwhowent
throughadesigneducation.Athirddirectionforresearchisunderstandingand
evaluatingtheimpactofdesign-basedapproacheswithinservicesandsocial
innovation,whenunderstoodascollectiveagencies.
Thisintroductorychapterstartedwithsnapshotsfromcontemporarydesign
culture.Itdemonstratedhowservicedesignanddesignforsocialinnovation
haveattracteddesigners,andthosewhowoulduseapproachessometimescalled
designthinking.Reviewingsomeoftheissuesthathaveemergedthroughthis
expansionofdesignerlypracticeintonewfieldshasleadtotheresearchquestion.
Thisdissertationcrystallizesatimeandplace:aresearcherandeducator
workinginLondonandOxford,intimatelyinvolvedinwhatmaybethe
developmentofnewfieldsthatchallengecontemporarydesignpractice,or
whichmaywhitheranddisappearoverthenextfewyearsasnewformations
emerge,andwhoknowsinpersonmanyofthepeoplewhoseworkhasjustbeen
referencedordescribed.Thereisnopossibilityoffullycapturingthe
complexitiesintheseemergingfields.ButwhatIhavedone,formyselfandI
hopeforothers,isofferawaytoconceptualisedesigningthathelpsaddress
someofthechallengesfacingpracticeandresearch.
61
Page 62
Chapter 2 Methodology
Becauseifmetaphysicsisinteresting,itisasamethod:astravel,asawayof
gettingatnewinsights.BrunoLatour(Latouretal2011:58)
2.1 Introduction
Theaimofthissectionistodescribetheapproachtakeninthisresearchandto
explainwhythiswastheroutefollowed.Methodologyisusuallyviewedasan
understandingof,andreasonsfor,choicestakenforusingparticularmethods,in
theprocessofdoingresearch.Thereisnosetofrulesorrecipesappropriatefor
doingresearch.Thepointofthissection,therefore,istomakeexplicitwhatwas
doneandwhy.Themethodsusedherearenotarbitraryorrandom,butspecific,
toaddresstheissuesoutlinedabove,withinthecontextofadoctoraldissertation,
whichispartofatraininginresearchmethods.Tolaunchthisdiscussion,Iturn
firsttodiscussionsofontologyandepistemologytohelpreaderslocatemy
commitmentstoparticularwaysofunderstandingtheworldandtheproduction
ofknowledgeinfluencingthechoiceofaparticularresearchstrategy.Whatthen
followsisareviewofmethodsrelevanttothetopicsathand,presentingacase
whyspecificoneswerechosentoaddressthequestionsposedabove.The
sectionconcludeswithareviewofthelimitationsoftheapproach.
62
Page 63
2.2 Research strategy
2.2.1 Overview of strategies
Beingaccountableforresearchstrategiesandmethodsorientsresearcherstothe
communitiestheyseektobepartofandtheconversationstheywantto
contributeto.Onestartingpointisthewaysthatresearchersconceptualizethe
worldandwhatitismadeupof(ontology)andhowtheworld,orputanother
way,theobjectofresearch,canbeknown(epistemology).Thediscussionthat
followsusesBlaikie’sDesigningSocialResearch(2002)tohelpdescribethe
underlyingontologicalandepistemologicalcommitmentsthatunderpinresearch,
andtheparticularresearchapproachusedhere.Howeveritdepartsfrom
Blaikie’semphasisonInterpretivism,byseeingthesociomaterialworldas
constitutedthroughtheeverydayactivitiesofactors.
InDesigningSocialResearch,Blaikiepresentsfourdifferentresearchstrategies
fordoingresearch.Hedescribestheseasfouridealorconstructedtypes,each
withaparticularlogic.Table1showsthemainaimsofeach,andexamplesof
howtheyareused.
Inductive Deductive Retroductive Abductive
Aim Toestablish
universal
generalizationsto
Totesttheoriesto
eliminatefalseones
andcorroboratethe
Todiscover
underlying
mechanismsto
Todescribeand
understand
sociallifein
63
Page 64
beusedaspattern
explanations
survivor explainobserved
regularities
termsofsocial
actors’motives
andaccounts
From Accumulate
observationsor
data
Borroworconstructa
theoryandexpressit
asanargument
Documentand
modelaregularity
Discover
everydaylay
concepts,
meaningsand
motives
Produce
generalizations
Deducehypotheses Constructa
hypotheticalmodel
ofamechanism
Producea
technicalaccount
fromlay
accounts
To Usethese‘laws’as
patternstoexplain
further
observations
Testthehypotheses
bymatchingthem
withdata
Findthereal
mechanismby
observationand/or
experiment
Developatheory
andtestit
iteratively
Table1.Thelogicoffourresearchstrategies.Blaikie,Norman.2002.DesigningSocialResearch.
PolityPress.
Briefly,Blaikieoutlinesthesestrategiesandtheirparticularphilosophicaland
theoreticalancestries,anddemonstrateshoweachrequiresmakingontological
assumptionsaboutthenatureofrealityandepistemologicalassumptionsabout
howthatrealitycanbeknown.Theinductivestrategyassumesthattheuniverse
ismadeupofobservableevents.Thetaskoftheresearcheristousehisorher
sensestoproduceandanalysedataaboutthatuniverse.Incontrast,the
deductiveresearchstrategydoesnotrelyonobservationsoftheworld.Likethe
inductivestrategy,itregardsnatureandsociallifeasmadeupofpatternsof
64
Page 65
events,butallobservationsareseenastheory-dependent.Insteadoflookingfor
confirmingevidencetosupportanemerginggeneralizationasininduction,in
thedeductivestrategyaresearcheraimstorefuteexistingtentativetheories.So
researchproceedsbyaprocessofconjectureandrefutation.Boththeinductive
anddeductivestrategiesarewell-establishedwithinthehistoryofscienceand
thesocialsciences.
WhatBlaikiecallstheretroductivestrategyrestsonaconstructivistontology,in
whichsocialrealityisviewedasconstructedthroughtheresourcesofsocial
actors.Ithasarealistepistemology,whichbuildsmodelsofmechanismsand
descriptionsofsocialreality.
Thefourthstrategy,whichBlaikiecallsabductive,beginsbyexploringthrough
everydaylanguageandactivitiestheknowledgethatsocialactorsuseinthe
production,reproductionandinterpretationofthephenomenonunder
investigation.InBlaikie’sversionofabduction,heassociatesthisapproachwith
Interpretivism,whichprivilegesthemeaningsandinterpretationsofpeoplein
theireverydaylives,whichinfluencetheirbehaviour.Theontological
assumptionhereisthatrealityisconstructedbysocialactorsanddoesnotexist
independentlyoutsidetheircollectiveactivities.AsBlaikie(2000:116)putsit:
“Socialrealityisthesymbolicworldofmeaningsandinterpretations.Itisnot
some‘thing’thatmaybeinterpretedindifferentways;itisthoseinterpretations.”
WhileBlaikieemphasizestheinterpretationsthatarepartofthesocialworld,
otherconstructivistapproaches,thatarenotbasedinInterpretivism,emphasize
65
Page 66
everypractices.Forexample,ethnomethodologicalresearchersarguethatsocial
orderingisproducedbyeverydayactivity(egGarfinkel1967).Researchers
workingwithinSTS,whoseworkisdiscussedfurtherinChapter5,exhibit
variationsofthisposition,withtheimportantemphasisbeingonaction,not
interpretation(seeLatourandWoolgar1985;Latour1999;Mol2002,Latour
2005;Barad2007).
Theepistemologicalassumptionoftheabductiveresearchstrategyisthat
knowledgeasderivedfromsharedeverydayconceptsandmeaningsinthe
Interpretiveaccount,orineverydayaction,intheethnomethodologicalaccount.
Butforboth,thetaskoftheresearcheristoenterthesocialworldtounderstand
actors’accountsandconceptsthattheyusetodescribetheirownactionsandthe
actionsofothers.Sotheabductivestrategyisbasedonaconstructivistviewof
socialreality,andthesourceofitsexplanatoryaccountsislocatedtheretoo
(Blaikie2000:120).Anabductiveresearchstrategycanbeusedtoanswer“what”
and“why”questions,concernedwithexploration,descriptionand
understanding(Blaikie2002:124).
Whatthismeansforabductiveresearchisthattheresearcher“assembleslay
accountsofthephenomenoninquestion,withalltheirgapsanddeficiencies,and,
inaniterativemanner,beginstoconstructtheir(sic)ownaccount”(Blaikie
2000:181).Itinvolvestheresearchermovingbetweenperiodsofimmersionin
thesocialworldandtimespentdoinganalysis.“Thisalternatingprocessmeans
thattheoryisgeneratedasanintimatepartoftheresearchprocess;itisnot
inventedatthebeginningnorisitjustproducedattheend”(Blaikie2002:181).
66
Page 67
2.2.2 Relevance to the present study
Asdescribedabove,adeductiveresearchstrategystartswithpatternsofevents,
andsaysthatallobservationsoftheworldaredependentontheory.An
inductiveresearchstrategyrestsofaviewoftheworldthatitismadeupof
observableevents,aboutwhichtheresearcherproducesandanalysesdata.
Neitheroftheseissuitablehere,sincebothrestontheunderlyingontological
positionofRealism–theideathattheworldexistsoutthere,independentlyof
theresearcher.Instead,theresearchundertakenhererestsonaviewofthe
worldasco-constructedbytheactivitiesofsocialactorsandaviewof
epistemologythatseesinterpretationandmeaningasco-constructedbysocial
actors.ThiswillbediscussedfurtherinChapter5.Henceaninductiveor
deductiveresearchstrategywouldbeincompatibleforthisproject,butan
abductiveoneisappropriate.
Tosummarise,theapproachtakenhereispartoftraditionswithinthesocial
sciencesthatrestonthenotionthattheworlddoesnotexist“outthere”
independentlyoftheresearcher,butratherthats/heisactivelyinvolvedin
constructingandinterpretingitthroughaprocessofmutualelaboration.Having
outlinedtheselectedresearchstrategy,thenextmoveistodescribeinmore
detailwhatthismeansforthisstudyandthequestionposedearlierincluding
dataandmethods.Figure3showsatypicalwaythatresearchisconductedin
inductiveresearch.Itfollowsalinearpathinwhichdatacollectionisfollowedby
67
Page 68
analysis,whichisfollowedbywritingup.Thisisasimplifiedmodel.Howeverfor
thepurposesofthisoverviewitmakesavailablethesalientpoints.
Whatdoesthisprocesslooklikeforabductiveresearchinwhichanalysisis
intertwinedwithgrapplingwithdata,andwhichhasadifferentrelationshipto
theory?Figure4offersawaytounderstandhowitcanproceed.Againthisisa
simplisticmodelthatignoresmuchofthedetailsuggestedbyBlaikie(2002)and
oneversionofabductiveresearch,groundedtheory(GlaserandStrauss1967).
Heredataaremutuallyelaboratedwithanalysis,oftenthroughthepracticeof
writing.Clarifyinghowthiskindofresearchproceedsisilluminatedbyan
importantresearcherwithinthesocialsciences,BrunoLatour,whoseworkisan
exemplarofabductiveresearchstrategy,evenifhedoesnotusethatterm.
Figure3Simplifiedversionofthepathofinductiveresearch(developedfromBlaikie2002)
Observation Pattern Generalisation
Reviewoftheory
Revisedtheory
Observation Specificaccounts
68
Figure4Simplifiedpathofabductiveresearch(developedfromBlaikie2002)
Page 69
SpeakingatadebateattheLondonSchoolofEconomicsin2008(Anthem2008),
Latourdescribedhisresearchasbeingunderpinnedbyanexperimental
metaphysics(Latouretal.2011:46).Thissuggeststhatasasocialscientist
Latourseeshisjobasstudyingempiricalcasestorevealhowtheactants
concernedconstructedtheirworldandactedwithinit.ForLatour,inthesocial
sciences,thereisnotrueprotocol(Latouretal.2011:79).
[T]hebigprobleminthesocialsciences(andthesameforphilosophy)is
toinventtheexperimentalprotocolwhichisadjustedtothespecific
recalcitranceofthebeastyouwanttostudy.Butthefactthereisno
generalprincipledoesn’tmeanthatit’s‘everythinggoes.’Onthecontrary,
becausetherearenocriteria,theconstraintsofacasearesoimportant.
(Latouretal.2011:79).
Atthesamedebate,anotherparticipantMichaelWitmoreproposed,andLatour
elaboratedupon,adefinitionofLatour’sworkas“serialredescription”(Latouret
al2011:72).AtfirstglanceLatourmightseemtobeagreeingwithHerbert
Simon’s(1969)statementthatthesciencesareconcernedwithdescribinghow
69
Page 70
thingsare,whichSimoncontrastedtodesignasconcernedwithproposinghow
thingsshouldbe.ButthisdualismisnotwhatLatouristalkingabout.Rather,his
writingisakindofexperimental(re)orderingoftheworld.Referringtohisfield
ofsciencestudies,Latoursaid“Inourfield,writingisourprotocolandwritingis
ourlaboratory,andit’sasdifficulttosetupgoodwritingastosetupagood
laboratory”(Latouretal.2011:80).Increatingandsharingtheirdescriptions
andaccounts,socialscientistsarealsoimplicatedinactivelyconstitutingthe
worldstheystudy,justasmuchasscientistsdo,asworkbyLatourandothers
haveshown.Theirdescriptionsarealsoreconfigurations.Bydrawingtogether
anaccount,forexampleinanessay,asocialscientistisalsoreconfiguring
existingarrangements.
Theimplicationforthisstudyistoconceptualizethisresearchasinvolving
periodsofimmersionindesignpractice(observingothersandmyownpractices
asadesigneranduserofthings),alternatingwithanalysisenactedthroughan
experimentalwritingpractice.Thiswritingisnotexperimentalinformalterms,
forexample,inmyuseoflanguage,authorialvoiceorlayout.Theversionof
experimentationadoptedheredrawsonLatour’ssuggestionthatwritingisa
kindoflaboratoryinwhichIcontinuetotrythingsoutandobservewhatcanbe
triedout.PapersthatIhavewrittenandwhichhavebeenpublishedandarethus
frozenonthepage,cancontinuetobeworkedon.Theformthisdissertation
takes,then,willincludeanattempttosynthesizeideasdevelopedinthree
publishedsolo-authored,peer-reviewedpapers,whicharepresentedbetween
Chapters4and5.ConceptsdevelopedinthemarefurtherdevelopedinChapter
5withreferencetoissuesopenedupinChapter1andfurtherelaborated
70
Page 71
elsewhere.Chapter6thenexplorestheirapplicationtorecentresearchon
servicedesignandsocialinnovation.Themeansfordoingthisisanotherkindof
(re)writing.Theapproachusedhereistotakeanexistingpieceofwriting,oneby
researchersatLancasterUniversity(ImaginationLancaster2011)exploring
whataservicedesignapproachbringstothecommissioningofhealthcare
services,anotheracasestudyIhavewrittenonusingadesign-basedapproach
todesignaserviceconnectedwithageing(Kimbellforthcoming).InChapter6,
eachoftheseissummarized,andthenre-analysedusingtheconceptsdeveloped
inthisdissertation.Onewaytothinkofthisre-writingisasakindofremix.
Toexploretheconceptofremixingfurtherrequiresinquiringintodiscussionsof
theproductionandthecirculationofculture,withinthefieldknownascultural
studies.Heredebatesonthecreation,interpretation,circulation,anduseoftexts
andothermediaartefacts,isalong-standingconcern(egHall1977;duGayetal
1997).HoweverwiththegrowthanddisseminationofICTshavecomenew
culturalpractices,involvingtheproduction,reproduction,modificationand
movementoftexts,images,videos,audioandotherdigitalandanalogueforms.
Jenkins’descriptionofconvergenceculture(Jenkins2008)describeshowthe
intersectionoftechnological,industrial,cultural,andsocialchangeshasresulted
innewkindsofformatandnewwaysofcreatingandexperiencingworks.Such
newformsinvolve“thewidespreadpracticeofbreakingdownandreassembling
culturaltextsacrossthemediaspectrum,fromart,toliterature,tofilm,
animationandmusic”(Barker2012:369).Termssuchassampling,remix,mash-
up,andcutandpastearepartofthesepractices.Theseconceptshighlighthow
theborrowingandrecombiningofdigitalmaterialsproducedbyothersiscentral
71
Page 72
totheseculturalpractices.Forthepurposesofthisdissertation,thewordremix
isusedtorefertothepracticesofbreakingdownandreassemblingculturaltexts.
Thenextsectionshowssomeoftheremixculturesthatexist,whichisfollowed
byadiscussionastowhatremixingmightmeanforacademicwriting.
Theconceptofremixingisanowwell-establishedwayofunderstanding
developmentsinawiderangeofcollectiveworlds.Inmusic,forexample,within
long-standingmusicculturessuchasJamaicandubandNewYorkhiphop,using
audiooriginallyproducedbyotherartistsisafundamentalwayforartiststo
createnewwork.Further,someartistscreatenewworksbycombiningother
people’smusicthroughamash-upoftwoormoregenres(Barker2012).Within
thepracticesofyoungpeoplelisteningtomusic,Julier(2007)hasshownhow
playliststoobecomeculturalformsthatarebothproducedwithinand
productiveofculturalmeaning.Sowithinmusic,remixingandremixescanexist
atthelevelofsnippetsofaudio,wholetracks,orgenres,forbothmusic
producersandalsothosewhore-producemusicintheirconsumptionpractices.
Amongproducersandusersofsoftware,theissueofwhetherpeoplecanre-
write(remix)otherpeople’ssoftwarecodehasleadtoextensivediscussion
abouttheownershipofintellectualproperty(egLessig1999).Forexample
advocatesoffreesoftwaresuchasRichardStallman,presidentoftheFree
SoftwareFoundation,proposedthatdevelopingsoftwareraisedimportant
questionsofownershipandcontrol(GNU2013).Shouldsomeoneusingcode,be
abletomakechangestoit?Here“free”meansnotwithoutbeingpaidfor,but
72
Page 73
ratherbeingopentorewriting.TheCreativeCommonslicensingstructurecame
outofsomeoftheseearlydebates.
Withincontemporaryart,Bourriaud(2002)hasarguedthatartistsuseand
borrow,appropriateandreferenceartefactsandartworksbyothers,inways
similartomusicpractices.Callingthisrelationalaesthetics,Bourriaudhighlights
howsomecontemporaryartistsuseremixingpracticestoconstitutetheirwork
andtoengageaudiences,disruptingtheboundariesbothofartworks,butalso
art’sinstitutionsandstructuresandwaysofvaluingart.
Acrossthesefields,oneoftheissuesthatemergesfrequentlyinrelationtoremix
culturesishowremixingrelatestoregimesofcontrol,inclusionandexclusioni.e.
whohastherightstousedigitalorothermaterialsincreatingnewworks.What
hasbecomeclearisthat,formanyartistsandculturalproducers,actsof
creativityareintimatelyconnectedtobeinginspiredby,using,interpretingor
referencingotherpeople’sworks.Manywritersandartistshaveassertedthe
centralityofborrowingandre-interpretationtotheircreativeproduction,
includingdoingsowithoutconsciousorformalcitation.ForexampleLethem
(2007)pointstothehistoryofsamplingintheatre(egShakespeare),film(eg
Disney),andvisualart(egWarhol)andshowshowcreatingnewartreliesona
commonsfromwhichallcandraw.Lessig(2001)hasshownhowre-usingother
people’smaterialiscloselytiedtocreativity.Butthesecreativepracticesareat
presentinconflictwithlegalregimesofintellectualproperty,especiallywhen
assertedbylargecorporationsthatownmusicorfilmrights.Lessig’sRemix
(2008)arguesthatcopyrightlawshaveceasedtoperformtheiroriginalroleof
73
Page 74
protectingartists'creations,whileallowingthemtobuildonpreviouscreative
works.Instead,hesaysthesystemnowcriminalisestheactionsofmusic-makers
andothersinvolvedincopyinganddistributingdigitalmusic.Thishecallsa
“readonly”(RO)culture.Lessiginsteadproposesa“read-writeculture”(RW)
allowinguserstocreatenewworksasreadilyastheyconsumetheworkof
others.
Eventhislimitedreviewsuggestshowremixingisnowembeddedincultural
practices.Whatmightthismeanforwritingwithinthetraditionsand
requirementsofacademicresearch?Academicpublishingisconvergingwith
otherkindsofpublication,forexamplethroughtheuseofGooglesearchesto
findorcheckreferences,oracademicbloggingandtweeting.Sohowmightthe
conceptofremixbeusefultothinkthroughthere-writingofacase?Inpart
influencedbyDavisetal(2010),thesolutionproposedhereistoacknowledge
someofthesedevelopmentsandworkthemintothewriting,inthreemainareas.
Firstly,itisworthrecognizingthatwritinginthemodeoftheacademyco-exists
withotherformsofproductionandconsumption.Writingthisdissertation,for
example,hasbeenaprocessthatco-existswithothercollectivepracticesIam
partofsuchasbeingaparent,cookingdinner,maintaininganactivepresenceon
Twitter,andwatchingTVseriessuchasGameofThronesthatunfoldoverseveral
months.Recognizingtheremixingwithintheseotherpracticesbegsan
acknowledgementofthecompositionalworkIdoinwritingthisdissertation
(Davisetal2010).Eventhoughtheendofthiswritingprocessisasingledigital
file,containingonlyafewimages,withnoaudioorvideo,andnoopportunities
74
Page 75
fordisplayingorrecordingannotationsbyothers,theresultingartefactcanbe
thoughtofasadigitalre-compositionthatisnetworkedwithotherartefactsand
practiceswithwhichIaminvolved.
Secondly,itinvolvesacknowledgingthespecialcircumstancesofwritinga
dissertationtowardstheawardofPhD.Oneoftheaimsistobejudgedas
contributingto,aswellasbuildingonandmakingreference,otherpeople’s
research.Byfollowreferencingandcitationconventions,thisdissertationcan
reducethelikelihoodofaccusationsofplagiarism.Byconformingtotheliterary
writingpracticesofrelatedPhDdissertationsinthefield(egWilkie2010;
Singleton2012),thispieceofwritingcanfitinwithpeersandcolleagues.So
thereexistsatensionbetweenthenoveltyevidentincreatinganewform,and
thedegreetowhichotherpeople’sworkmustbecitedtolocatethistextasa
validparticipantinresearchdebates.
Thirdly,itrequiresthinkingthroughethicalandlegalquestions.Academic
writingandpublishingexistwithinthe“read-write”cultureproposedbyLessig,
recognizinghowcopying,ownership,citationandnoveltyplayoutwithin
academicresearch.McKee(2008)highlightsissuessuchaswhosestoryisbeing
told;re-presentingthevoicesandperspectivesofotherparticipants;informed
consent;andcopyrightandfairuse.Eachoftheseisdiscussedmorefullybelow
inrelationtothecasesdiscussedinChapter6.Thewiderpointistoemphasize
thattheethicsandlegalissuesassociatedwithremixingarenotaone-time
operation,butneedtobereconsideredwitheachremix.
75
Page 76
So,tosummarize.Theapproachtakenherefollowstraditionswithinacademia,
inparticularSTSandanthropology,aswellaspracticesofremixing,i.e.,
assemblingandrecombiningdigitalandanaloguetextsincontemporarylife,as
discussedinculturalstudies.Thereisnoonerightwaytoundertakeastudy
resultinginadissertation.Buttheargumenthereisthatthinkingofwritingasa
collectiveexperimentalpractice,thatinvolvesiterativeshiftsbetween
interpretationandanalysis,throughpracticesthataremutuallyconstitutedwith
awidearrayofotheractors,isavalidwaytoapproachansweringthequestions
introducedinChapter1.
2.3 Methods
Giventheresearchstrategyoutlinedabove,severalmethodsaremoredirectly
applicabletoansweringthequestionposedearlier.Eachoftheseisreviewedin
turnwithasummaryofwhyitwasused.Thereisalsoabriefdiscussionof
methodswhich,atfirstglance,mighthavebeenusedbutgiventheoverall
researchstrategy,werenot.
2.3.1 Ethnographic participant observation
Ethnographyisaresearchmethodoriginallydevelopedwithinanthropology.It
isalsonowpartoftheresearchtoolkitinsociology,culturalstudiesand
organizationstudiestoo.AsChapter4willshow,ithasspreadwidelywithin
fieldsandprojectsrelatedtodesigning.Inessenceethnographyaimsto
understandanddescribeformsoflife:howaparticularsiteandgroupoperates
76
Page 77
andwhatitmeanstobeamemberofthatgrouporsite(Geertz1973;Clifford
andMarcus1986;Neyland2008;BateandRobert2007).Partoftheimportant
workofethnographyistoidentifyandbringintoview,the“socialsilences”that
anthropologist-turned-journalistGillianTetttalksofinherkeynotetothe
AnthropologyintheWorldConferenceinLondon(Tett2012).
Ethnographiestypicallyproducerichdescriptionsofsociomaterialworlds,
whichmakeavailablehowacultureoperates.Doingethnographicresearch
involvesnegotiatingaccessandcloseengagementwithmembersofthegroup
beingstudied.Ittypicallytakestime.Socialandculturalanthropologistsconsider
immersivefieldworktobeofvalue,iftheyareabletobewithinaresearchsite
formonthsoryears.Incontrast,forethnographersstudyingorworkingfor
organizations,muchshortertimeframesofdaysorweekscanbeappropriate
(Neyland2008;EPIC2012).Ethnographiesareoftenassociatedwithdetailed
fieldworkinonesite,butmulti-siteethnographiescanilluminatehowsitesand
practicesinterconnect(Marcus1995).Tsing(2005)discussesstudiesofthe
Indonesianrainforesttoexplorehowinterconnectionsemergeacrossdifference
sitesandcontexts,whichshethenusestoforegrounduniversalconceptssuchas
suchasprosperity,knowledgeandfreedom.
Themethodmostcloselyassociatedwithethnographyisparticipantobservation
–theapparentlysimpleideaofaresearchergoingoutinto“thefield”toseeand
experiencefirst-handacultureandhowitworks.Thereis,however,nosingular,
authoritativeethnography.Ratherversionsofethnographyhavedevelopedover
thedecadessinceMalinowskiundertookfieldworkintheTrobriandIslandsin
77
Page 78
thePacific,andthendescribedthesocialandculturalworldhefoundthere.
Fromtheseearlyinstantiationassociatedwithcolonialregimes,ethnographyhas
beenrethoughtoveracentury.Geertz(1973)developedtheterm“thick
description”toemphasizewhatethnographersaretryingtocapture,andalso
howtheysharethiswithothers,forexamplethroughdetailedanecdotes.
Animportantpartofethnography,however,isthatitisatheoreticalEndeavour.
Entryintoandparticipationinaparticularsociomaterialworld,anddescriptions
thatresultfromthis,involvesdevelopingananalysisofwhatisgoingonthere.
Nader(2011)pointstothedangerofmisreadingethnographyasmere
description.Instead,shearguesthatethnographyisatheoryofdescription,
whichinvolvesestablishingwhatcanbedescribedandhowtodoit.
Relevanttothefieldsofservicedesignanddesignforsocialinnovationisan
attentivenesstotheparticularcircumstancesofdoingethnographywithin
organizations.Discussionoforganizationalethnography(egNeyland2008);
Cefkin2009)emphasisetheneedtothinkaboutwaysinandwaysoutofastudy,
ethicsandaccountability,andwhoandwhatisbeingstudied,why,andforwho.
Anethnographicapproachisusedintwoofthepapersincludedinthis
dissertation.ThesedescribehowIactedasaparticipantresearcherseeingto
understandanddescribethepracticesofprofessionalswhodescribedtheirwork
asservicedesign.ThesepapersareincludedintheinterstitialbetweenChapters
4and5.
78
Page 79
2.3.2 Autoethnography
Thecrisisofrepresentationinthequalitativesocialsciences(cfDenzin1997;
CliffordandMarcus1986)broughtanewattentiontowhatwasgoingonwhen
ethnographersclaimedtodescribeanotherculture.Thesechallengesmadeit
hardtoignorehowaresearcher’sindividualsubjectivity,identity,practicesand
locatednesswereimplicatedinwritingorotherwisecreatingculture,especially
whenwritingabouttheculturesofothers.Sincethenseveraltraditionshave
emergedwhichrespondtothiscrisis.Theseincludevisualanthropologywhich
challengesthetextualemphasisinacademicanthropologyandreplacesitwith
anefforttoseetheworldanddoresearchvisually(egBanksandMorphy1997;
Pink2007).Incontrastautoethnography(egSpry2001;Russell1999)focuses
onthewriting(orperforming)selfoftheresearcherandhowsheisconstituted
inrelationtothesocialworldssheaccountsfor.
Asamethodofinquiry,autoethnographyfusestheautobiographicimpulseofthe
researcher,withethnographictheoreticalcommitmentstounderstandinghow
anindividual’ssubjectivityisconstitutedinrelationtowidersocial,politicaland
culturalhistoriesandmemories.“Goodautoethnographyisnotsimplya
confessionaltaleofself-renewal;itisaprovocativeweaveofstoryandtheory”
(Spry2001:713).Theconcernsofresearchersworkinginthistraditionareoften
political,withacriticalself-reflexivitythatmakesexplicithowaresearcher's
gender,race,classandotheraspectsofidentityshapetheresearch.Some
researchersemphasizetheimportanceofresistingdominantwaysofbeingand
knowing.ForexampleSpry(2001)hasemphasizedperformativityand
79
Page 80
embodimentinresearchpractices,throughheraffectiveandpoeticintertwining
ofher“personal”storieswithher“research”inascholarlycontextinwhich
performingis“academicallyheretical”(Spry2001:708).SimilarlyMargeryWolf
(1992)recountsthesamesetofeventsinthreeways:asashortstory,an
academicpaperfromajournal,andherfieldnotes.Sheshowshowinstitutional
practicesrenderthesedifferentlyasauthoritativeclaimsabouttheevent.Denzin
(1997)challengestheideathatanyonecantellanyoneelse’sstoryandexamines
claimsmadeaboutauthenticityandhownarrativeauthorityiscreated.Russell
(1999)comparedexperimentalvideoandethnographicfilm,showingindetail
howcreatorsworkinginthesedifferenttraditionsrevealorhidetheir
knowledge,location,orpointofview.
ThisapproachisrelevanttothestudyathandsinceIamactivelyinvolvedasa
practitionerusingdesign-basedapproacheswithinthedesignofservicesand
socialinnovation,aswellasinvolvedinteachingthesameatpost-graduatelevel.
Chapter6includesacasestudyofaprojectinwhichIactedbothasalead
designer,concurrentlywithbeingaresearcherseekingtounderstandthekindof
designingbeingpracticed.
2.3.4 Case studies
Afurthermethodusedinthisstudyisthecase-basedapproach,whichhasalong
historywithinthesocialsciencesandmorerecentoneindesignresearch.Within
thesocialsciences,thishasbeencalled“middle-range”theory,whichfalls
“betweentheminorworkinghypothesisofeverydaylifeandtheall-inclusive
80
Page 81
grandtheories”(GlaserandStrauss1967:33).Individualcasescanproviderich
insightsintounderstandingsocialphenomenabecausetheyaskaresearcherto
immerseherselfindetailinsomething,butdrawondataofmanydifferentkinds.
Findingsfromcasescanhavelimitedvalidityandgeneralisability,althoughthey
doprovidearichandnuancedunderstandingofthephenomenabeingobserved
andcreated(Yin1994).Onestrategyistousemultiplecases,whichincreases
validity.Inthisstudy,paper3usesamulti-caseapproach,todevelopadeeper
understandingofservicedesignandhowpracticesandthemesemerginginthe
threecasesrelatetooneanother.
ThissummaryofsomeofthemethodsusedinthisstudyhelpsexplainhowI
conductedtheresearchthatliesbehindthisdissertation.Inowturntomethods
thatcouldhavebeenusedbutwerenot.
Surveysaresuitableforattemptstoanswergranularquestionssuchas“why”,
“howoften”or“howmany”.Surveystypicallyenableresearcherstoaccessa
largenumberofresearchsubjectsconcurrentlyandtoautomatedatacollection
(egusingdigitalformsforsubjectstofillin)andtosomeextentautomatethe
analysisofdata.Surveysareusuallyassociatedquantitativeresearchalthough
theydonothavetobe(Blaikie2000).Forthesereasonsusingasurveywasnot
appropriatehereastheaimwastoaccessthesociomaterialworldsofthose
workingwithinservicedesign,includingthisresearcher.
Interviewsareanothermethodconsideredbutnotused.Inthestudyonservice
designcitedinPapers2and3,therewerefiveworkshopswhichinvolved
81
Page 82
leadingpractitionersdoingservicedesignpresentingaccountsoftheirworktoa
mixedgroupofdesign,managementandotherresearchers.Insomewaysthese
presentationsresembledsemi-structuredcollectiveinterviews.Astheco-
principalinvestigatorontheproject,Iwasinvolvedinbriefingthedesignersand
facilitatingtheeventsatwhichtheytalkedabouttheirwork,andchairingthe
questionsthatparticipantsaskedinresponse.
2.4 Limitations
Finallyitisimportanttoacknowledgethelimitationsoftheapproachtaken.
Qualitativeresearchmethodologiesarefavouredwhentheresearchaimsto
understandcomplexprocessesandpracticesthatexistfromconnections
betweenobjectsandhumansinsetsofrelations(MarshallandRossman1995).
Theabductiveresearchstrategyandmethodsusedwerethereforeappropriate
inthisstudy,whichaimedtounderstanddynamic,emergingformsofdesign
practice.
Butissuesoflimitedvalidityandgeneralisabilityappearregularlyindiscussions
ofqualitativemethods.Toincreasethevalidityofthedescriptionsofdesign
practiceinthisstudy,participantsweregivenopportunitiestoreadearly
versionsoftheresearch.Further,researcherswhowerenotfamiliarwiththe
researchwereaskedtoviewvideofootage(relatingtoPapers2and3)and
createshortsummaries,whichleadtotriangulatingtheanalysis.Participationin
conferences,seminarsandlectures,includingorganizingtheSocialDesignTalks
seriesinLondonduring2012-2013allowedmetocrosscheckmyemerging
82
Page 83
analysiswithotherresearchersandwithpractitionersinservicedesignand
designforsocialinnovation.Despitethis,thedescriptionsofcontemporary
designingofferedhereremainsonlyapartialaccount.Ratherthanseeingthisas
aweakness,however,theautoethnographicapproachpromptsmetorecognize
myownlocatednesswithinthesefieldsandinthisresearch,whichiswhythere
areoccasionalcommentsaboutmyownrole.
83
Page 84
Chapter 3 How designing got more social
3.1 Introduction
Theintroductorychapterarguedthatdesignersareincreasinglyworkingwithin
anexpandedfield,beyondtheconcernsofindustrialfirmsandtheircustomers,
engagingwithdiversecommunities,forexample,throughsocialinnovationand
thedesignofservices.Thischaptertakesthenextstepandreviewskeydebates
toshedlightonhowdesignprofessionalsunderstandtheworldstheydesign
withinandfor—whatanthropologistswouldcallthe“cosmologies”ofdesign.
Designisacomplexfieldwithtoomanyspecialismsandprofessionstodiscussin
detailorthroughageneraloverview.Butthischapteraimstopresentacoherent
althoughstillselectiveaccount,whichwillofferinsightsintokeycontemporary
debatesandpositiontheargumentwithinthisdissertationinrelationtothem.
Asuitablestartingpointisdesignstudies,whichaimstodescribehow
professionaldesignemergedandtoarticulatemainfeatures,knowledgeand
activitieswithincontemporarypracticeandtheconceptsitmobilizes–suchas
objects,people,designers,andtherelationsbetweenthem.Discussingdesign
studiesalsorequiresdescribinginfluencesondesigneducationinthe19thand
early20thcenturies.Akeydevelopmentthatreshapedunderstandingsofdesign,
wasuser-centreddesign(UCD),atermthatindustrialandtechnology-focussed
productdesignersandresearchersbegantouse,toshifttheirfocusawayfrom
objectstowardstheusersforwhomtheyweredesigningobjects.Therewere
84
Page 85
variouselaborationsof,andresponsestoUCD,someofwhicharereviewedin
thenextchapter.Butthischaptermustacknowledgeontologicaldesign,aterm
introducedbyWinogradandFlores(1986)thatremovedanyconceptual
separationbetweenhumanaction,toolsandtheworldsinwhichtheyexist,and
conceivedofdesignasinterveningintoourwaysofbeingintheworld,andthe
kindsofbeingsthatweare.Thusthechaptertracestheemergenceofthemain
conceptsindesignstudiesandUCDliteratures,andshowshowthesehave
resultedindesignbecomingincreasinglyengagedwithunderstandingmorefully
thesociomaterialworldsofdesign.
3.2 Design studies
3.2.1 Objects in the studio
Designstudiesisaround40yearsoldasafield,nowwithseveralacademic
journalsincludingDesignStudies(founded1979)andDesignIssues(founded
1984),andannualconferenceswhichbringtogetherresearchersconcernedwith
designinabroadsense,includingarchitecture,communications,computer
systems,engineering,fashion,productdesign,interactiondesign,andcraft
designtraditionsfromjewelrytotextiles(Archer1979;Cross2007;Cross2001;
Bayazit2004).ForexampleBuchananandMargolin’s(1995)editedcollectionof
essaysincludestopicsfromproductdesigntocommunicationdesignandthe
roleofdesigninsociety.Similarly,theDesignResearchSocietyfoundedin1966
(2011)saysitpromotesthestudyofandresearchintotheprocessofdesigning
inallitsmanyfields.Thebroadnessofthisdefinitionofdesigncanbetracedto
85
Page 86
earlyattemptstoconceptualisedesignasthethingfillingagapbetweenthe
humanitiesandthesciences,asresearchersbasedindesignschoolstriedto
describedesign’splaceintheworldinawaythatgaveitanewprominence
(Archer1979).
However,althoughitmaybethegoalofsomedesignresearcherstotryto
synthesizethediversityofdesignacrossthesedisparateprofessions,craftsand
intellectualhistoriesintoasinglecategorycalled“design”,thishasnotresulted
inanyclearagreementaboutwhatdesignis,howitmightbeunderstoodandits
basicconcepts,theoriesandmethods(Simonsenetal2010).Forexample
numerouspoststoamailinglistthatdrawstogetherresearchersintheartand
designschooltraditions,aswellassomearchitects,engineersandcomputer
scientists,PhDDesign(2011)hostedbyJISC,illustratequitehowlackingthese
coredefinitionsare.
Inthisstudy,insteadoftryingtomaintainasinglebutunrulydefinitionofdesign,
adistinctionisdrawnbetweendesignastaughtinthestudio-basedtraditionof
manyartanddesignschools1,incontrasttodesignasunderstoodwithin
engineeringdisciplinesorcomputerscience.Thisstilldescribesafragmented
fieldincludingdesignerswhospecialiseingivingphysicalformtomatteraswell
asthoseengagedindesigningintangibleinteractionswithsoftwareandthose
aimingatsocialchange.Asindicatedabove,asingledesigninstitutionmayoffer
1Eventhisloosedefinitionapparentlyignorestheteachingofsayproductdesigninengineeringschoolsorinteractiondesignincomputerscience,orindeedmyowneffortstoteachdesignpracticesonanMBAprogrammeinabusinessschool.Myemphasishereison“design”inthe“artanddesignschool”traditionratherthandesignwithinengineeringorcomputerscience.
86
Page 87
undergraduateandpost-graduateprogrammesinawiderangeoffields.
Moreover,betweenschoolsthatpracticeinthestudiotradition,thereare
importantdifferencestoo.Nonethelessthislimitationofdesigntodesigninthe
artschooltraditionhelpsclarifywherethedebatesaremostvivid,by
highlightingbothaneducationaltraditionandmodeofpractice–situatedinthe
studio,thatforbetterorforworse,keepsdesignasoneoftheartsratherthan
beingamatteroftechnicalcapability.
Tounderstandwhydesignfieldshavebeenslowtodevelopasophisticated
understandingofthesocio-culturalworldsinwhichdesigningtakesplace,itis
worthturningbrieflytodiscussionsofdesigneducation.Itisinthestudio-based
learningenvironmentswhichmanydesignschoolsanduniversitiescontinueto
offerthatwecangainaninsightintowhydesignersthinkabouttheirpractices
astheydo.ThecreationofthefirstformalBritishdesigneducationinstitutionin
themid-19thcenturybyHenryColefocusedonmakingobjectsmoreattractive
(Margolin1995).Exactlyhowattractivenesswasdeterminedwasnotchallenged
orcontested.Objectswerethescopeofdesignandtheirqualitieswereself-
evident.Itwasuptothedesignerandhisorherstandardsandtastes.Later
developmentsindesigneducationalsoresistedenquiringtoodeeplyintothe
socio-culturalcontextinwhichdesignersdidtheirworkandtheirrolesin
shapingconsumptionandproduction.Inanessayondesigneducation,Margolin
(1991)offersananalysisofdifferentinfluentialdesignschoolsintheearly20th
century,andshowshoweachoftheseadvanceddesignpractice,butfailedto
developacoherentconceptualisationofdesignthatacknowledgedthecomplex
87
Page 88
social,politicalandeconomiccontextsinwhichdesignersoperateandinwhich
theirdesignsexist.
ForexamplewhensettinguptheBauhausin1919,WalterGropiushadavision
ofstudentslearningthroughpracticalworkshopswithartistsandtechnicians:
HismodelofdesigneducationwasbasedonaUtopianidealofcommunity
wherelifewassimpleandmarvellousresultswouldcomefroman
intuitiveunderstandingofwhatwastobedone.…[However]Theattempt
todevelopacurriculumfordesignerswasbuiltonthebasisofcraft
ideologiesand[itwasnot]abletoformulateaconceptofdesign
educationthatwouldhavesuccessfullyaddressedthefunctionof
technology,management,andsocialpolicyinthedesignprocess.”
(Margolin1991)
AlthoughthefirstversionoftheBauhausschoolofdesignandfineartsonly
existedfor14years(1919-1933),itsinfluenceiswell-documented(egBergdoll
etal2009).IdeasdevelopedintheBauhauspedagogyspread,forexample,when
itslastdirectorLaszloMoholy-NagyfledNaziGermanyandendedupinChicago,
wherehefoundedtheNewBauhausanditssuccessor,theInstituteofDesign
whichbecamepartoftheIllinoisInstituteofTechnologyin1949(IIT2013).
Inhiscritiqueofdesigneducation,Margolincalledforteachingandlearningto
includeresearchinsociologyandsocialpsychology,togivedesignersamuch
88
Page 89
deeperunderstandingofhow,when,whereandwhypeopleuseandengagewith
objects.
Bylearningtolookinsightfullyatthearrayofdesignedobjects,services,
andtechniquesinsociety,thedesignstudentcanbegintorecognizein
themthemanifestationsofsocialvaluesandpolicies.Indesignwecansee
therepresentationofargumentsabouthowlifeoughttobelived.Design
istheresultofchoices.Whomakesthosechoicesandwhy?Whatviewsof
theworldunderliethemandinwhatwaysdodesignersexpecttomakea
worldviewmanifestintheirwork?(Margolin1991)
Sometwodecadeslater,researchersandeducatorsworkingwithindesign
educationcontinuetoarguethattheeducationofdesignersneedstoincludea
betterunderstandingofthesocial,cultural,andpoliticalenvironmentswhich
shapedesignanduse(egFindeli2001;Collina2009;Wang2010).Fewscholars
workingindesignstudieshavemadeextensiveuseofsocialtheory(Ingrametal
2007).ThesedebatesshowthattheinfluenceofinstitutionssuchastheBauhaus,
andemphasisondesigner’scraftskillsandtheirintuition,withoutafocuson
widersocial,cultural,politicalandeconomicissues,continuestoanimate
designerlycultureintheinstitutionsinwhichdesignistaughtandresearched
andhelpsexplainsomeofthechallengesfacedbydesignersofservicesandthose
workinginrelationtocomplexcollectiveissues.
Anotherwaytounderstandhowtheoriesofdesigndevelopedindesignstudiesis
viathefieldofdesignhistorythatemergedalongsideitandwhoseresearchisin
89
Page 90
dialoguewithit.Here,again,thereexistsatensionbetweenstudyingobjectsand
designersinisolation,andeffortstounderstandthewidersocial,cultural,
politicalcontextinwhichthesecometoexist.Historians’attentivenesstowider
questionsabouthowparticularkindsofexpertise,knowledgeandprofessional
institutionsdevelopedovertimeindifferentsocietieshasprovidedanimportant
largercontextforunderstandinghowdesignerswork(DesignHistorySociety
2011).However,again,thereremainsastrikingvarietyofviewsofwhatdesign
isprimarilyconcernedwithasaprofessionalfield.Somehistorianshave,for
example,focussedonaccountsofauthorshipthattellofindividualdesignersand
theircreativeendeavours(egSparke2010).Othershaveemphasizedtheshifting
perceptionsofobjectsindifferentsocietiesovertimeastastesandfashions
changed(egForty1986)orexploredhowthedesignprofessionorganisedand
developedinresponsetochangingsocialconditions(egJulier2008).As
Buchananremarked,“thehistoryofdesignhistoryisarecordofthedesign
historians’viewsregardingwhattheyconceivetobethesubjectmatterofdesign”
(1992:19).Aswithdesignstudies,thereexistmultipleaccountsofdesignand
increasingengagementwithwidersocialandculturalfactors.Forexample
recentDesignHistorySocietyconferenceshavetakenasthemes“Networksof
Design”(2008)and“DesignActivismandSocialChange”(2011)(DesignHistory
Society2013).
Inshort,eventhisbriefsummaryshowsthatthefieldofdesignstudiesoffers
multiple,competingaccountsofwhatdesignisconcernedwith.Thishelps
explainsomeimportantdifferencesinhowdesignersandresearchersconceive
90
Page 91
oftheworldswhichtheyareinvolvedinmakingmanifestintheirartefactsand
practices.
3.2.2 Objects, methods and milieux
Theideathatdesignisprimarilyaboutmaterialartefactsandtheirformshasa
longlegacyinthetheoryandpracticeofdesign.Aquickglanceatthewebpages
ofdesignschoolsrevealshowcentreddesigneducationremainsaround
particularkindsofartefact,withundergraduatedegreesindesignspecialisedin
differentkindsofdesignedoutput.Thedevelopmentofdesignthinkingoverthe
pastdecade,isoneattempttodepartfromthislegacy,claimingacommoncore
foralldesigners(Kimbell2011).Designeducationhasalsobeenshiftingaway
fromobject-basedprogrammestoproblem-basededucation,andinsomecases
to“post-disciplinary”design.Forexample,ParsonsTheNewSchoolforDesignin
NewYorkbeganofferingtheMFATransdisciplinaryDesignin2010(NewSchool
2013).
HoweverAlexander’s(1971)definitionthatdesignisaboutgivingform,
organizationandordertophysicalthingsremainsanimportantwayto
understandthecentralconcernsofdesignersthatpersisttoday.ForAlexander,
“theultimateobjectofdesignisform”(1971:15).Krippendorff(2006)described
designasgivingmeaningtothings,makingdesigna“human-centred”activityin
contrasttoatechnology-centreddesignfocusingonfunctionality.Incontrastto
thisfocusonartefacts,HerbertSimon(1969)arguedthatdesignwasconcerned
91
Page 92
withintentionalchange.“Everyonedesignswhodevisescoursesofactionaimed
atchangingexistingsituationsintopreferredones”(Simon1969:55).
Asunderstandingaboutdesigndeveloped,theobjectremainedimportantbut
otherentitiesintheworldinwhichdesignersdesignedwereidentified.Bayazit
(2004)describeshowduringthe1960sitbecameevidentthatdesignerscould
notrelysolelyontheirabilitytofocusontheproductasthecentreofadesign
task.Roberts’(1992)modelofdesignmakesexplicitotherswhoplayrolesin
constitutingthatworldincluding,themaker,theuser,andtheobserver(see
Figure1).Producedaspartofastudyintodesigneducation,themodelaimsto
“characterisedesigningasactinginandontheworldandtoshowthatitis
essentiallyconcernedwithmakingvaluejudgementsaboutchangingstatesof
affairs”(Roberts1992).
Figure5FourRoles(theDesigner,theMaker,theUser,theObserver)offeringcomplementary
perspectivesonlearning-through-designing.FromRoberts(1992)
92
Page 93
Anotherperspectiveonthecoreconcernsofdesignwasarticulatedbydesigners
andwriterJohnChrisJones.KnownforhisinfluentialbookDesignMethods(first
publishedin1970),atfirstglanceJonesmightbeseentobeadvocatingdesignas
givingshapeandformtodeterminateobjects.Butinlaterwritings,heclarified
hispositionasfollows:“Westillhavespecializeddesignprofessions,andwestill
havetheoldideathatwhatisbeingdesignedis'objects'.Thedesignerspersistin
actingasif'theythemselvesareobjectsandthepeoplewhoselivesarebeing
shapedbythisobjectiveprocessarebeingtreatedasobjects.Withoutmindsof
theirown.”(Jones1980:347).Otherswritingatasimilartimealsoemphasized
thesystemsinwhichobjectsexist.Forexample,BruceArcherarguedthat
“Designresearchissystematicinquirywhosegoalisknowledgeof,orin,the
embodimentofconfiguration,composition,structure,purpose,value,and
meaninginman-madethingsandsystems”(quotedinBayazit2004:16).
Otherdesignresearchershavealsoexploredhowtheobjectsofdesignrelateto
thewiderworld.ForexampleDilnot(1993)examinedtheobjecttoexplorethe
socialcontextinwhichpurchasesandusetakeplace.UsingMauss’workonthe
giftandScary’sworkondestructionandcreativity,Dilnotdeconstructsthe
mundaneobjectsofdesignandturnsthemintopowerfulactorsthatplay
importantrolesinconstitutingsocialrelations.Thisisanimportantmovethat
reconceptualisestheobjectofdesignastheobject-as-giftandmakesallobjects
inherentlyrelational.“First,objectsembodyaperceptionaboutourcondition
andworktoalleviatetheproblemsthatthistruthaboutourselvescausesus.This
meansthatobjectsfundamentally‘wishuswell.’Butsecond,thismeansthatthe
93
Page 94
object,nomatterwhatitsmundanity,islikeacollectivegift:itisissuedforallof
us,anditsfunctionorworkisgiftlikeinthatitsformembodiesrecognitionof
ourconcreteneedsanddesires…Butthismeansthattomakeandtodesign
somethingistocreatesomethingwhoseendisnotinitselfbutisrather‘in’the
subjectforwhomtheobjectismade(whetherthatsubjectisindividualized,oris
ourselves,collectively,asawhole)”(Dilnot1993:56).
Anotherapproachtounderstandmorethoroughlywhatdesignpractitioners
oftencall“context”istoexaminehowindividualobjectsconnecttothethings
andpeoplearoundthem.Margolin’s(1995)termforthis—theproductmilieu
—highlightstheenvironmentintowhichanynewlydesignedthingentersandto
whichitmustrelate.SimilarlyMargolin(1997)introduced“theuser”asasocial
actorwhodoesnotcometotheproductinavacuum,butinsteadconsidersitin
relationtohisorherownplansandactivities.HoweverMargolin(1997)claimed
therewaslittleinthewayofatheoryofsocialactiontodescribehowpeople
relatetoproducts,whichhesawasanissuefordesign.ThusJones,Dilnot,
Margolinandothershavemovedthefocusofresearchersworkingwithindesign
studiesawayfromtheindividualobjecttowardssocialrelations.
Oneadditionalconceptinthecosmologiesofdesignis,ofcourse,thedesigner
himselforherself.Muchoftheeffortamongresearchershasbeentounderstand
andanalysewhatgoesonduringdesigningbystudyingdesigners,insearchof
“designerlywaysofknowing”(Cross1982;2006)oradistinct“designthinking”
typicallydrawingoncognitivescience(Crossetal1992;Dorst2010;Cross
2010).Designhasbeendescribedasdesignersco-creatingproblemsand
94
Page 95
solutionsinanexploratory,iterativeprocessinwhichproblemsandsolutions
co-evolve(Cross2006;Dorst&Cross2001)incontrasttoengineeringdesignin
whichengineersdesignfunctionsinresponsetoconstraints(Hubka,1982).
Designcanbeseenasproblem-solvinginwhichthedesiredstateofaffairsis
knownattheoutsetandproblemscanbedecomposedintosmallerunitsbefore
beingsolved(Simon1969),orincontrast,problem-solvingisseenasaspecial
caseofdesignwhichisexploratoryandinwhichthedesiredendstatecannotyet
beknown(Hatchuel2001).InaclosereadingofSimon,PandzaandThorpe
(2010)distinguishedbetweendeterministicdesign,inwhichdesigners’agency
isparamountasitistheirdecisionswhichdeterminethenatureandbehaviorof
artifacts;path-dependentdesign,inwhichadaptationandrepetitiondetermine
theprogressofanartifact;andpath-creatingorradicalengineeringdesign,in
whichnoveltyemergesthroughindividualandcollectiveagency.
Thesedescriptionsoftheworldsthatdesignersaredesigninginandfor
generallyadoptaPositiviststancethatseekstodescribewhatgoeson
empiricallywhilemaintainingaseparationbetweenresearcherandworld,and
betweendesignerandtheworldthedesignerisdesigningfor.Adoptingthe
modelofmainstreamcognitivescience,heretheartefactsthatdesignerscreate
areonlyimportantinasmuchastheyshedlightonwhatisgoingoninsidethe
designer’smind.
Thisbriefoverviewofsomeofthecontributionstothefieldofdesignstudieshas
shownthatthereisalong-standingtensionbetweenseeingthecentralconcern
ofdesignersascreatingtheformsofobjects,andseeingdesigners’workas
95
Page 96
concernedwiththesocialrelationsbetweenthingsandpeople.Theunderlying
direction,however,overthepasttwodecades,hasbeenamoveawayfroma
focusonobjectsandtheirforms,towardssetsofrelations,orputanotherway,
attendingtothewidercontextsarounddesignersandthethingstheydesign.One
ofthekeydevelopmentsinvolvedopeningupunderstandingsofthepeoplewho
usedtheendresultsofdesigners’work:thepeoplewenowknowasusers.
3.3 User-Centred Design
3.3.1 Enter the user
Inthissectionthefocusisonthecreationofanewentityinthecosmologiesof
designersthatmarkedasignificantchangeintheunderstandingoftheworlds
designersdesignedwithinandfor,althoughnotwithoutbringingitsown
problems.Theemergenceof“theuser”inthelastquarterofthe20thcentury
markedanimportantdevelopmentinunderstandingsofdesignandsawthe
creationofanewterm:user-centreddesign(UCD)(Margolin1997;Shoveetal
2008;Wilkie2010).InhisreviewofthedevelopmentofUCD,Wilkiesummaries
itscontemporaryformationasfollows:
AlthoughUCD’sprovenanceliesintheapplicationofcognitivescience
withinHCI,itisnowmorecommonlydeployedasacatch-alltermtothe
variousapproachestocomputersystemdesignwheretheneedsand
requirementsofendusersareprioritisedduringthedevelopmentof
computersystems.(Wilkie2010:28).
96
Page 97
Akeyconceptualdistinctionhereisbetween“technology”and“humans”.The
aimofUCDwastomaketechnologymoreusableandusefulforhumans.
OneofthemostimportantcontributionstothisdevelopmentwasDonald
Norman’sbookTheDesignofEverydayThings(Norman1990).Thefirstedition’s
title–ThePsychologyofEverydayThings(1988)–givesaclearindicationofthe
intellectualoriginsofNorman’sworkincognition,withafocusonwhatgoeson
inpeople’sminds,asfaraswecantell.Normanisconcernedtoexplainwhyand
howpeopleact,andwhatthismeansfordesigners.Bypresentingmany
examplesofindustrialproductsthatpeoplefindhardtouseandtheresulting
frustrationthatheandothersexperience,Normanbuildsupanargumentthat
thingsgoingwrongtellusagreatdealaboutwhat’swrongwithprofessional
designpractice.Peopleusingdesignedthingsshouldnotfeelstupidor
inadequatefornotknowinghowtousethem,heargues.Theproblemiswiththe
thingsastheyaredesigned,andthuswiththedesignerswhodesignedthem.
Toimprovehowdesignersdodesign,Normanoffersasetofconceptsthat
providedafocusonhowpeopleusethings,ratherthanwhatdesignerswant
thingstobelike.ForNorman,thestartingpointistheuser’s“goal”whichdrives
aseven-stageprocessshowninTable2.
1Theuserformsagoal2Theuserformsanintentiontoacttoachievethegoal3Theuserspecifiesanaction4Theuserperformstheaction5Theuserperceivesthestateoftheworld6Theuserinterpretsthestateoftheworld7Theuserevaluatestheoutcome
Table 2 The seven stages of action from Normann 1988: 45-46
97
Page 98
AlthoughNormanmakesexplicitinhismodelthatthereissomethingcalled“the
world”inwhichtheuserandhisorhergoalsandactionsexist,theprimary
entitythatdesignersmustconsideris“theuser”.Normanprovidesdesigners
withseveralconceptsthathelpconstructtheuserinsomedetailandprovidethe
basisofuser-centreddesignconceivedofashelpingpeopleachievetasks.These
allpresumablyexistinthemindofthedesignerasheorsheimaginesor
speculatesaboutthemindofthefutureuser(Krippendorff2006).Theyinclude
conceptualmodels(coherentandconsistentmodelsfortheusertounderstand
howasystemordeviceworks);mapping(makingexplicitfortheuserthe
relationshipsbetweenwhatishappeninginsidethesystemthattheusercan
control);feedback(givingtheuserinformationaboutchangesinthesystem);
andvisibility(givingtheuservisualevidenceofthecurrentstateofthesystem).
Norman’sworkhashadahugeimpactondifferentkindsofdesigners.His
researchofferspowerfulconceptsthatallowdesignerstodescribetheworld
aroundanartefactandthesortsofinteractionsapersonmighthaveasthey
engagewithorusethings.ButthespreadofNorman’sworkandthe
developmentofUCDraisequestionsabouttheextenttowhichthat“world”
98
Page 99
aroundtheuserandtheobjectcanbemarkedoffasaseparateobject.Twobrief
examplesillustratethis.
ThefirstexampleishowNorman’suseofthetermaffordanceshasbeenadopted.
Normanintroducedthetermaffordancestodrawattentiontohowparticular
kindsofuseoractivityareenabledbyadesign.Asdescribedbypsychologist
Gibson(1979),affordancesarecluesthatindicatepossibilitiesforaction.For
exampleinproductdesignterms,abuttonaffordspushingwhereasalever
affordspulling.HoweverasNorman(2011)describes,followinghisintroduction
ofthetermintodesign,theideaofaffordanceshasbeenusedwronglybymany
designers.Someofthem,hesays,useaffordancestomeantheintrinsic
propertiesofathing,tosupportdifferentkindsofuserbehaviouroraction.This
missesGibson’sinsight,whichfocusesontherelationshipbetweenathingand
theenvironmentitisin.Normansuggestsclarifyingtheuseoftheideaof
affordances,bymakingadistinctionbetween“perceived”and“actual”
affordances.Hearguesthatdesignersaremostlyconcernedwithperceived
affordancesandauser’sperceptionofwhatactionispossible(Norman2011).
AsecondissueinUCDisthelackofdiscussionaboutwhatmightshapetheuser’s
goalsandhisorherneeds.Wheredotheseneedsandgoalscomefrom?Norman
(1988)describeshowdesignersshouldattendtoanddesignwithin“cultural
constraintsandconventions”butthereislittleheretohelpdesignersunderstand
howwidersocio-culturaldevelopmentsmightinfluenceprofessionalstryingto
determinetheuser’s“needs”(Wasson2000).User-centreddesigndescribes
usersandthesystemsorproductswithwhichtheyinteract,withinaworld.But
99
Page 100
thegazeoftheuser-centreddesignerrestsdeterminedlyon,andcloseto,the
individualuser,neglectingtheactivitiesofthedesigners,researchersorothers
whoareinvolvedinconstructingbothobjectsandusers.
3.3.2 De-centring the user
Alongsidethedevelopmentandinstitutionalizationofuser-centreddesign
withindesignpracticeandeducationwereattemptstoquestionsomeofthe
assumptionsassociatedwithUCDandwhattheymeantfordesign.Thereare
extensivechallengestoUCDfromresearchersworkingwithinsociologyand
anthropologicaltraditions(egWoolgar1991),whichthenextchapterwillcover.
Butwithindesignschoolstherehavealsobeenchallengestothereificationofthe
user.Someofthemostinterestingdevelopmentshaveemergedwithinartand
designschools.Iwillfocusononeexample,originatingintheComputerRelated
DesignresearchstudiooperatingattheRoyalCollegeofArt,London,inthelate
1990sandearly2000s2.ThisunderminesUCD’sproject.Simplystated,UCD
promisesthatifyoustudytheuserandwhatheorsheistryingtodo,anddesign
toaffordthis,thenyou’llproducebetterdesigns.Butthisbegsquestionsabout
theextenttowhichonecanfindoutwhatusersarereallytryingtodoandthen
translatethateffectivelyintodesigns.Thispracticeknownascriticalor
speculativedesignoffersresistancetoUCD’sclaims,byquestioningthefuturesit
isimplicatedindesigning.
2TheComputerRelatedDesignstudioexistedattheRoyalCollegeofArtinvariousformsbetween1990and2005.Note:Itaughtfortwoyearsinthesamedepartment,thennamedInteractionDesign,between2003-2005,whereBillGaverwasthenacolleagueheadinguptheInteractionDesignResearchStudioandTonyDunnewasaseniorresearchfellow.
100
Page 101
Inthefirstarticulationofwhatbecameknownas“criticaldesign”TonyDunne3
(1999)questionedtheidealisationoftheuserandthesmoothtechnological
narrativesinwhichtheyappeared.Thepointofcriticaldesign,accordingtothe
twodesigner-researchersmostlinkedtoit,TonyDunneandFionaRaby,istouse
“speculativedesignproposalstochallengenarrowassumptions,preconceptions
andgivensabouttheroleproductsplayineverydaylife”(Dunne&Raby2011).
Here,valueisplacedonalackofcertaintyandspeculation.Butincriticaldesign,
thereisanover-archingquestiontoo,ofthepurposestowhichnewdesignsand
technologiesareput.Criticaldesigninvitesspeculationaboutthefuture
scenarios,whichdesignersarehelpingbringintoviewintheirwork.
Tosummarise,UCDasdescribedbyNormanintroducedanimportantnewentity
intotheworldsinwhichandforwhichdesignersdodesign:“theuser”and
especiallyhisorhermindwherehisorherneeds,goalsandintentions
apparentlyreside.AsShoveetal(2007)demonstrateintheirstudyofproduct
designers,theuserisnowaneverydaypartoftheconceptualtoolkitformany
designers.HoweverasWilkie(2010)shows,therearemanytypesofuserwithin
designresearch.
EvenasUCDconceptsbecameabsorbedwithinproductandindustrialdesign,
therewerealsoeffortstoqueryitsassumptions.Newmethodssuchascultural
probesdidnotclaimtogetanaccuratepictureofwhatwasinsidetheuser’s
3TonyDunneisprofessorandheadofwhatisnowcalledtheDesignInteractionsDepartmentattheRoyalCollegeofArt.
101
Page 102
mind,butratherservedtoopenupdialogueswithpeopleengagingwiththe
objectsdesignersdesign.DesignerssuchasDunneandRabytookadifferent
approach,thatofcreatingthought-experimentsaboutdesignedfutures,
highlightingsomeofthesocialandethicalimplicationsofparticularpossible
scenarios.Sotheusernowexistsasacipher,standinginforthepersona
designerdesignsfor,butquestionsremainabouthowaccuratelysheorhecan
becapturedandrepresented,andwhetherthegoalsattributedtoheraregoals
worthpursuing.Further,theuseraspresentedinUCDisnotsomeonewhoexists
“overthere”,independentofandavailabletodesigners,butisanentitythat
comesintoviewthroughtheworkofdesigning.Itisthisworkofconstruction
withindesigningthatneedsfurtherexploration.
3.4 Ontological design
Althoughconcernedwiththedesignofcomputer-basedsystems,Understanding
ComputersandCognition:ANewFoundationforDesign(1986)byTerry
WinogradandFernandoFloreshasimplicationsforamuchbroaderrangeof
designedartefacts.WinogradandFloresuseliteraturesonlanguage,philosophy
andcomputersciencetomakeanargumentthatdesignisontological,whichcan
besummarisedasfollows.Designisconcernedwiththelinkbetween
understandingandcreationandassuchitrequiresunderstandingthelinks
betweenlanguageandaction.Centraltotheirargumentisaviewoflanguage
thatseesitasconstitutingunderstandingthroughinterpretation,ratherthan
offeringdescriptionsofanobjectivereality.
102
Page 103
ThisapproachfollowsHeidegger’s(1962)rejectionofthedualismthateither(a)
theobjectivephysicalworldistheprimaryreality;or(b)thesubjectivestance
thataperson’sthoughtsandfeelingsaretheprimaryreality.InHeidegger’s
philosophyitisimpossibleforonetoexistwithouttheother.“Theinterpreter
andtheinterpreteddonotexistindependently:existenceisinterpretation,and
interpretationisexistence”(WinogradandFlores1986:31).Theargumentcan
besummarisedasfollows:
- Ourimplicitbeliefsandassumptionscannotallbemadeexplicit.
- Practicalunderstandingismorefundamentalthandetachedtheoretical
understanding.
- Wedonotrelatetothingsprimarilythroughhavingrepresentationsof
them.
- Meaningisfundamentallysocialandcannotbereducedtothemeaning-
givingactivityofindividualsubjects.
- Weexistintheworldinaconditionof“thrownness”inwhichwecannot
avoidacting.
- Everyrepresentationisaninterpretationandnorepresentationisstable.
- Languageisaction.
WinogradandFloresuseHeidegger’stoolanalysisfromwhichtheyintroduce
threeconcepts:breakdown,readiness-to-handandbeingpresent-at-hand.An
exampleHeideggergivesissomeoneusingahammer,forwhomthehammer
becomesinvisibleandready-to-hand,whendoinghammering.Instead,the
persontakesthehammerforgranted,untilthemomentwhenthereissomekind
ofbreakdown.WinogradandFlorescompareHeidegger’shammerexampleto
103
Page 104
thedesignofcomputersystemsinwhichthenetworkofobjectsconnectedtoa
computeraretakenforgranteduntilthereisabreakdown.“Whatreallyisisnot
definedbyanobjectiveomniscientobserver,norisitdefinedbyanindividual–
thewriterorcomputerdesigner–butratherbyaspaceofpotentialforhuman
concernandaction.”(WinogradandFlores,1986:37;emphasisinoriginal).An
attentivenesstowardsbreakdownprovidesanorientationtowardsthenatureof
theworldandhowweunderstandit,thatisclosertodesignthantoproblem-
solving.“Abreakdownisnotanegativesituationtobeavoided,butasituationof
non-obviousness,inwhichtherecognitionthatsomethingismissingleadsto
unconcealing(generatingthroughourdeclarations)someaspectofthenetwork
oftoolsweareengagedinusing”(WinogradandFlores,1986:165).
Thetoolswemakeandusearepartofthebackgroundwhereweexplorewhatit
istobehuman.Theobjectivefordesignistoanticipateformsofbreakdownand
provideaspaceforpossibilitiesforactionwhentheyoccur.ThusforWinograd
andFlores,designisinessenceontological.Atitscoreitconstitutesan
interventionintowhatitmeanstobehuman,“growingoutofouralready-
existentwaysofbeingintheworld,anddeeplyaffectingthekindsofbeingsthat
weare”(WinogradandFlores,1986:163).
Theimplicationofontologicaldesignforthepresentstudyistosaythatdesign
activityisnotjustconcernedwiththecreationofnewformsbuthasamore
fundamentalcharacter.OntologicaldesigntakesfurtherSchön’sideathatdesign
isconcernedwithworld-makingandpresentsargumentsthat(1)makeit
difficulttoseparatethedesignedartefactsandthepeoplewhousethemfromthe
104
Page 105
worldtheyarein;and(2)challengetheideathatwecanseparateanobjective
physicalrealityfromoursubjectiveinterpretations;and(3)showhowwedonot
relatetothingsprimarilythroughhavingrepresentationsofthem,butinstead
interpretbreakdowns.Theseparationbetweenself/worldevidentindesign
studiesandUCDisnolongermaintained.
3.5 Summary: Expanding design’s worlds
Tosummarize,thisreviewofliteraturesindesignstudiesandUCDhastraced
thedevelopmentofsomeoftheimportantconceptsindesignfieldsandopened
uptheanalyticalconcernsattheheartofthisdissertation.Ihaveshownhow
researchersworkingwithindesignhavetriedtoconceptualizewhatdesignis
concernedwith,notingashifttowardsseeingdesignasrelational,andan
increasingengagementwithotherdisciplinestounderstandthewidersocialand
culturalworld.Overall,thefollowingthemeshelporientthisstudyofwaysto
conceptualisedesigningforservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.
Firstly,thisdiscussionhasnotedexpandingontologiesinresearchaboutdesign.
Althoughsomeresearchersfocusedondesignersandobjectsasbeingcentralto
designing,thissectionhasshownhowthecosmologiesofdesignchangedto
includenewconcepts,suchasusersandtheirtasksorneeds,asresearchershave
triedtoanalysewhatgoesonindesigninganditsimpacts.
Secondly,ithasshownhowknowledgeaboutdesignhasproceededthrough
disciplinarybricolage.Earlyworkwithindesignstudies,oftenundertakenby
researchersworkingwithdesignschoolsorconsultancies,sometimesignored
105
Page 106
otheracademictraditions.Latercontributionshavedrawnonanarrayoffields
includingpsychologyandphilosophy,buttodate,withindesignstudies,there
hasnotbeenextensiveengagementwithresearchinsociologyandanthropology.
Chapter4willoutlinethemajorcontributionsintheencountersbetweendesign
andsociologyandanthropology.
Thirdly,thisreviewhelpsexplainhowtheterm“context”hasservedasauseful
catch-allfor“everythingimportantthatisnottheuserortheobject”.While
researchersrecognisedthatcontextwasimportanttodesign,thisrestedona
realistontologyinwhichtheworldexisted“outthere”–forexample,designers
shouldlearnaboutusersinordertodesignbetterforthem.Incontrast,
ontologicaldesigningrecognisesthatthattheworldsinwhichdesignshave
meaningsarecreatedthroughpractice,andthatbreakdownsrevealhowthe
sociomaterialworldsunfold.
Thisleadsthisargumentawayfromacosmologyofdesigninwhichentitiessuch
asthedesigner,theobject,andtheuserpre-existwithinacontext.Rather,
ontologicaldesignasproposedbyWinogradandFlorespromptsarecognition
thattheseentitiescomeintobeingthroughtheprocessesofdesigningandhow
thingshappeninpractice.Butgiventhelimitedattentionwithindesignstudies
andUCDtraditionstotheoriesofthesocial,perhapsshapedthroughdesign’s
institutionalhistories,itnowseemsimportanttoturntoresearchersworking
withinsociologyandanthropology,toidentityresearchthatcanmore
adequatelydescribethesocialworldsofdesigning.
106
Page 108
Chapter 4 Encounters between design and social and cultural research
4.1 Introduction
Thepreviouschapterpresentedanaccountofhowtheoriesofdesigninthe
designstudiestraditionincreasinglyrequireddescribingsocialrelations.This
chapterchartssomeoftheimportantencountersbetweendesignandthesocial
sciences,inparticularethnography,overthepastcoupleofdecades,mostlysited
withindevelopmentsaroundhumancomputerinteraction(HCI)andsystems
design.Thisextensivebodyofresearchisproductivefortworeasons.Ithaslead
tosomewaysofunderstandingdesigning,thataddresstheweaknessesindesign
studies.Exploringthiscontribution,itishelpfultostartwithabriefhistoryof
thefieldsinwhichresearchershaveexploredtheintersectionsbetween
ethnographyanddesign,methodologicallyandtheoretically.Severalofthe
analyticalconcernsthatemergeacrosstheseliteraturesarethenpulledout.
Inshort,thisisastoryofhowtheoriesofthesocial,andoneresearchmethodin
thesocialsciences,ethnography,travelledbeyondtheconcernsof
anthropologistsandsociologistsworkingwithintheacademy,andenteredinto
theeverydayconversationsofthoseinvolvedindesigningsystemsand
technologiesandthenintoproductandservicedesignandmarketingresearch.
Visitthewebsiteofanymid-tolarge-scaledesignconsultancytoday,and
ethnographyislikelytobeoneoftheofferings,althoughitisoftennotclear
108
Page 109
whethertrainedanthropologistsordesignersaredoingthiswork–orwhether
thismatters.AsWasson(2000)foresawoveradecadeago,ethnographyhasnow
enteredthemainstreamofdesign,whereitispracticedwithinacontextinwhich
thepurposeofethnographyisnotbuildingknowledge,butservingaclient.
Atthetimeofwriting,thesiteswheredesignandethnographyencounterone
anotherincludetheanthro-designmailinglistfoundedbyanthropologist
NathalieHansonin2002.Thislistcurrentlyhasover2400members
(Anthrodesign2013),andcontributionsincludeannouncements,requestsfor
assistanceandadvice,criticaldiscussion,anddetailsofmeet-upsandevents.
Anotherkeycontemporarysitefortheencounterbetweendesignand
ethnographyisthenetworkofpeople,firmsandpracticesassociatedwiththe
annualEthnographicPracticeinIndustryConference(EPIC),undertheaegisof
theAmericanAnthropologicalAssociation(EPIC2013).Heldannuallysince
2005,thisconferenceanditspublishedpeer-reviewedproceedings,hascreated
opportunitiesfordialogueamongdifferentkindsofprofessionalinvolvedin
diverseorganisationswithasharedinterestinwhatdesignandanthropological
approachesbringtooneanother.Participantscomefromlargecorporations,
oftentechnologyfirmssuchasMicrosoft,IntelandYahoo,butalsoconsultancies
includingdesignagenciesinvolvedinproductmarketing,socialinnovation,
policyandmanagementconsultancy.
Recentbooksarealsostakingoutaspecialistfield,exploringwhathappensin
theseprojectsandorganizations.ForexampleCefkin(2009)reviewskey
individualsandfirmsinvolvedinexploringthepotentialandimplicationsof
109
Page 110
doingresearchrootedinanthropologywithincorporatecontexts,ofteninnew
productdevelopmentandinclosecollaborationwithdesignteams.Similarly,in
Clarke(2010),anthropologyisseenascreatingpossibilitiesfordesignpractice
andresearchtorethinkitself.
Thesebriefexamplesshowhowfarethnographyhasspreadbeyondacademic
concernstoaseriesoffieldsandcontextsinwhichethnographicknowledgeis
usedinthecontextofproductandservicedesignandmarketingresearch.In
whatfollowsthediscussionshowshowethnographybecameafavouredmethod,
towhichfirstsystemsdesignersandthenindustrialandproductdesignershave
turnedtobuildknowledgeaboutthe“context”inwhichdesignistakingplace.
Alongsidethis,severaltheoreticalandmethodologicalchallengeshaveemerged.
Insummary,ethnographyappearstooffer“ameansbywhichthecomplexityof
real-worldsettingscouldbeapprehended,andatoolkitoftechniquesfor
studyingtechnology‘inthewild’”(Dourish2006:2).Howeveritremainsa
slipperyconcept–itselfaboundaryobjectmedidatingbetweendifferent
professionals(Wakeford2005).
4.2 Some partial histories
Thefieldsdrawnonhereareassociatedwithconferences,mailinglists,
universityteachingprogrammes,books,journals,blogsandotherkindsof
gathering,bothformalandinformal,involvingprofessionalsandresearchers
fromallovertheworldbutparticularlyEuropeandNorthAmerica,often,butnot
always,workingwithinuniversitydepartmentsandcorporateresearch
110
Page 111
institutes,andthereforesubjecttoinstitutionalanddisciplinarypressuresand
fundingregimesthatshapetheirwork.Thefocuswillbeinparticularon
workplacestudies,ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW),
ParticipatoryDesign(PD).Thiswilldemonstratehowtheexplicitlinkages
betweenethnographyanddesignbecameawell-establishedfeatureofseveral
kindsofprofessionaldesignpractice,increasinglywrittenabout(egCefkin
2009),discussedatspecialistconferences(egEPIC2013)andalsotaughtat
post-graduatelevel4.
Thetheoreticalunderpinningsreferredtobyresearchersworkingwithinthese
fieldsrangefromculturalanthropologytocomputerscienceto
ethnomethodologytoactivitytheoryaswellasScienceandTechnologyStudies,
feminism,culturalstudies,andphilosophy.Thisisquiteacocktailoffields,and
thisaccountisnecessarilyalimitedoverview,whichreducesmuchofeachfield’s
specificityandparticularity.Nonethelesstheaimhereistosynthesisesomeof
theconceptsthatemerged.Thispresentsapictureofhowtheinvolvementof
researcherstrainedinanthropologyandsociology,workinginsupportofor
studyingthedesignofcomputersystems,broughtanimportantnewfocuson
howtoconceptualisethesociomaterialworldsthroughwhichdesigns,usersand
designerscomeintobeing,challengedexistingdescriptionsofdesign,andhelped
reframetheencountersbetweenpeopleanddesignedartefacts.
4Post-graduatecourseslinkingdesignandthesocialsciencesincludetheMScDesignEthnographyatUniversityofDundee;MDesDesignAnthropologyatSwinburneUniversity;MADesign,CultureandMaterialsatUniversityCollegeLondon;MAInteractionResearchatGoldsmiths,UniversityofLondon.
111
Page 112
4.2.1 Workplace studies and systems design
Theemergenceofethnographywithinsystemsdesignhasbeendescribedin
severalessays,journalsandbooks(egHughes1992;Luffetal2000;Wasson
2000;Macaulay2000:Crabtreeetal2001;Hartswoodetal2002;Dourish2006;
Cefkin2009)andPhDtheses(egHalse2008;Wilkie2010;Moll2012;Anderson
2012).Thepioneersofethnographyinsystemsdesignwereoftenworkinginthe
contextofcollaborationswithengineersdesigningcomputer-basedsystemsfor
workplaces5.Althoughthereremainsaquestionabouttowhatextentthese
concepts,methodsandtoolsaredirectlytransferabletoothercontextssuchas
homesandcommunitiesratherthanworkplaces,andtoprojectsthatdonotrely
onthedevelopmentanddisseminationofcapital-intensiveICTs,these
researchershaveproducedpowerfulwaysofconceptualisingdesign,designers,
usersandthesociomaterialworldsinwhichtheycomeintoexistence.The
interdisciplinaryfieldofComputerSupportedCooperativeWork(CSCW)
emergedwithaseriesofconferencesstartingin1986(GrudinandPoltrock
2013).Ibrieflyoutlinesomeofthemaincontributions.
Theemergenceofethnographywithinsystemsdesignwasshapedbytwo
developments.Firstwereanthropologicalandsociologicalstudiesof
organizationalsandcommunitiesnearertohomethantheearly20th
ethnographies(Dourish2006;Wilkie2010).Theseofferedanewwayto
5TherearemultipleoverlapsbetweenHumanComputerInteraction,InformationSystemsandinteractiondesign,concernedindifferentwaystodesignsystemsandinterfacessupportedbyinformationandcommunicationtechnologies(ICT).Sincethedistinctionsbetweenthesefieldsarenotrelevanttomyargument,Iwillgrouptheselooselyundertheterm“systemsdesign”todistinguishtheirconcernsfromindustrialandproductdesign.
112
Page 113
understandthesociallifeofemploymentandorganizations.Secondwasthe
failureofmanytechnologicalsystemstoworkwellandagrowingrealization
thatdesigningsystemsforpeopletocollaborateandrequiredunderstandingin
moredepthhowtheycommunicateandworktogether.Thesedevelopmentslead
totworelatedmoves:newstudiesofworkplaceswhichbroughtintoviewthe
practicesofpeopleworkingtogether(egHeathandLuff1992);andeffortsto
understandhowsuchdescriptionscouldbecomethebasisofrequirementsfor
designs,whichbecameinstitutionalizedinCSCW.Schmidt&Bannon(1992:11)
definedCSCW“asanendeavourtounderstandthenatureandcharacteristicsof
cooperativeworkwiththeobjectiveofdesigningadequatecomputer-based
technologies”.
Thesupposedvalueofethnographyforsystemsdesignerswasitsabilityto
undertakefieldworkaboutthesociallifeofemployeesorfutureusersof
technologies,andanalysetheminwaysthatwereproductivefordesigners.What
fordesignerswasanewmethodtoarticulaterequirementsfordesign,wasfor
socialscientiststrainedinethnography,somethingmorecomplex.
Onthefaceofit,theveryvirtuesofethnographyforsomekindsofsocial
inquiry,suchasitsattentiontothediversityof‘realworld’sociallife,its
activitiesanditssettings,theremittouncoverthatsociallifeas
constitutedinandthroughtheunderstandingsandactivitiesofits
participants,anditsreluctancetopresumemuchaboutthecharacterof
thatlifeinadvanceofinquiry,wouldmakethetaskofinformingsystem
designaverydifficultone.…Theethnographer'staskistogainaccessto
113
Page 114
andknowledgeofthesocialpractices,knowledge,beliefs,attitudesand
activities,etc.,asexhibitedbyparticipantsinsome'naturalsetting',and
topresenttheseintermsofasociologicalaccountofa‘wayoflife'as
organisedbyitsparticipants.”(Hughesetal1993:127)
OneofthemaincontributorstothisfieldisLucySuchmanwhooverseveral
decadeshasbroughtananthropologicalperspectivetothedesignofsystemsand
technologies,throughherworkasaresearcheratXeroxPARCandmorerecently
withinacademia.Suchman’s(1987)influentialstudyofatheuseofa
photocopyingmachineshowedhowhumanactionisconstantlyconstructedand
reconstructedthroughdynamicinterplaybetweensocialactors.Insteadofa
modeofplanningwhatactiontotake,Suchmaninsteadshowedhowhuman
actioninrelationtointeractingwithamachineunfoldedthroughmultiple
encountersthatweresituatedineverydaylifeandpracticalactivities.Suchman
showedhowusageislocalandcontingent,ratherthangeneralandunvarying,
whichsuggestedthattheconventionaldistinctionbetween“human”and
“technology”wasnotuseful.Instead,thehuman-technologicalinteractions
emergedinpractice.
Otherresearchalsodevelopedtheseideas.Forexample,aclosestudyofthe
organizationofworkinvolvedinairtrafficcontrolrevealedthepowerand
limitationsofcarefuldescriptive,interpretiveethnographicresearch(Hugheset
al1992).Theyarguethat“howthesettingisunderstoodbyandthroughthese
understandings,sociallyorganisedbytheparticipants,isnotpresumedin
advanceofinquiry,butisthetaskoftheethnographertodiscover”.(Hughesetal
114
Page 115
1993:126).Anotherimportantstrandofthisworkwasthegrowing
acknowledgementoftheembodiednatureofsuchinteractions.Forexample
Dourish(2001)arguedforanunderstandingofsituatedpracticeasembodied
encountersbetweenhumansandtechnologies.
Suchmanandcolleagues(Blombergetal1996;Suchmanetal1999;Suchman
2002b)developedwhattheycalleda“work-orienteddesignpractice”inthe
designoftechnologyatXerox.Thestartingpointwastherecognitionthat
“systemsdevelopmentisnotthecreationofdiscrete,intrinsicallymeaningful
objects,buttheculturalproductionofnewformsofpractice”(Suchmanetal
1999:404).Thusresearchanddesignmustinvolveresearchers,technologists
anddesigners,andworkers.
Exploringrelationsofproductionandrelationsofuse,Suchmanproposeda
feministapproachtotechnologydesignthatinvolvedreflexivelyacknowledging
researchers’ownrolesasmembersofasocialworld:
1. Recognizingthevariousformsofvisibleandinvisibleworkthatmakeup
theproduction/useoftechnicalsystems,locatingourselveswithinthat
extendedwebofconnections,andtakingresponsibilityforour
participation;
2. Understandingtechnologyuseastherecontextualizationoftechnologies
designedatgreaterorlesserdistancesinsomelocalsiteofpractice;
3. Acknowledgingandacceptingthelimitedpowerofanyactorsorartefacts
tocontroltechnologyproduction/use;
115
Page 116
4. Establishingnewbasesfortechnologyintegration,notinuniversal
languages,butinpartialtranslations;
5. Valuingheterogeneityintechnicalsystems,achievedthroughpracticesof
artfulintegration,overhomogeneityanddomination.(Suchman2002a:
101)
Suchmanproposesaskilfulintegrationofbothethnographicperspectives,that
seedesignsasconstitutedinpractice,andtherolesofdesignersandresearchers
aswellasusersinmutuallyperformingthem.
Onethingtohighlightwithinthistraditionisthattheethnographypracticed
herewasinfluencedbyethnomethodology,inparticulartheemphasison
attendingtotheaccountsbywhichmembersofaworldorcommunitymake
presenttheirworldbyfocussingonthedetailedorganisationofactivities
(Garfinkel1967).Theethnomethodologicalinsightisthatsocialorderingis
producedbyeverydayactivity,thatis,throughpeopleandthingsinterrelating
withoneanother,inspecificcircumstances.Viewedthroughthisanalyticallens,
thedesignproblemisnotsomuchconcernedwiththecreationofnew
technologicalartefactsasitiswiththeireffectiveconfigurationandintegration
withinworkpractices.Thustheworkofsystemsdesignersandthoseworking
alongsidethemsuchassociologistsoranthropologistsisnotsomuchconcerned
withdesigninganewartefact,butbringingintobeingnewworldsinwhichsocial
organisationandworkpracticesarereconfiguredandaccomplishedinpractice
(Hartswoodetal2002).
116
Page 117
Inshort,workplacestudiesandCSCWofferedaconceptualisationofthesocial
relationsindesigningasinvolvingmultipleactors,notloneusersasinUCD,who
weresituatedwithinaspecific,localplaceinwhichtheyweremutually
interdependentwithothersasdesignunfoldsinpractice.Arguablyethnography
wasprimarilyusedtomakerepresentationsofwork.Buthowsuchstudiesof
workplacesandexistingpracticescouldshapeordetermineparticulardesigns,
becameanissuethatrequiredotherresources.
4.2.2 Participatory Design
Emergingataroundthesametime,afieldnowknownasParticipatoryDesign
developedfromdifferentstartingpoints.AsinCSCW,researchersanddesigners
workingwithinPDwereusuallyinvolvedindesigningorstudyingsystemsfor
organisations.HowevertheemphasisinPDwasmoretodowithcreating
opportunitiesforfutureusersofanewdesigntobeengagedindesigningit,
underpinnedbyaScandinaviancommitmenttodemocraticidealsandfor
workersnottobedeskilledintheworkplaceasnewtechnologieswere
introduced(Ehn1988;GreenbaumandKyng1991;KensingandBlomberg1998).
WhatbecamethefieldofPDwasinfluencedbyearlierprojectswithinthe
“CollectiveResource”approach(EhnandKing1987),whichinvolvedworking
withunionsandworkersandresearcherstotryoutnewideastogetheron
practicalinitiatives.Thiscommitmenttoengagingmembersoftheworkplace
wasalsoinfluencedbyrelateddevelopmentsincludingtheBritish“socio-
technical”approachinwhichsocialscientistsfromtheTavistockInstituteof
HumanRelationshighlightedhowthevaluesandbeliefsofemployeesin
117
Page 118
industrialworkplacesinteractedwithorganizationaleffectiveness(egEmeryet
al1976).ResearcherswithinPDaimedtodeveloptheprinciplesandpracticesto
enableactivestakeholderparticipationinthedesignofsoftwareandtools,but
alsobusinessesandsocialinstitutionsinwhichtechnologiesareembedded
(RobertsonandSimonsen2012).AswithCSCW,contributorstoPDcamefrom
differentfieldsincludingdesign,computerscience,andthesocialsciences.Afirst
conferencewiththistitlewasheldin1990(KensingandBlomberg1998).
Aninfluentialresearcherinthisfield,PelleEhn(1988;2008)usedWittgenstein’s
languagegamestodescribewhatgoesonindesignanduse.Heunderstands
designasaprocessofcreatingnewlanguagegamesthathaveafamily
resemblancetothelanguagegamesofusersanddesigners.Adesigner’sjobisto
setupthesenewlanguagegames.Ehn’sviewoftheworldofdesignisfocussed
onthedesignerandtheuser,whoparticipateintheselanguagegames,andthe
artefactstheycreateandusesuchaslo-techprototypesandmodels.Thisuseris
basedonaquitedifferentanalysistotheuserattheheartofuser-centreddesign.
Ehn(2003)describesashifttoparticipationbecomingafundamental
epistemologicalcategory;designisseenasalearningprocessinwhichdesigners
anduserslearnfromeachother.ThustheuserinParticipatoryDesignisan
activeentitywhoparticipatesinconstitutingdesigns,bothbybeinginvolvedat
projecttime(designforuse)andduringusetime(designforuseafterdesign).
AswithCSCW,oneofthechallengesinsuchdesignworkistoenvisionhowa
newsystemwouldactuallybeusedinpractice,whenitdidnotyetexist.
MethodologicallyPDdevelopedacommitmenttoongoingcollaborative
118
Page 119
prototyping,nottotestadesign,butrathertohelptriggerorconstitutethe
languagegamesordesigngames(Binderetal2011)throughwhichexistinguse
practicescanbeunderstoodandfutureusepracticescanbebroughtintoview.
Suchlow-techprototypingcouldbedoneveryearlyoninaprojectasawayto
involveparticipantsinadesignprocess.ForexampleEhnandKyng’s(1991)
descriptionofthedesignofsoftwareforgraphicdesignersworkinginthe
newspaperindustryincludedcardboardmockupsofcomputersand
visualizationsofsoftwareuserinterfaces.
GraduallyresearchersworkingwithinCSCWandPDbegantoexplorewhatwas
sharedacrossthesetwofields,andseveralpublishedinboth.Forexample
KensingandBlomberg(1998)reviewedPDasamaturingfieldandidentifiedthe
coreissuesanimatingitasthepoliticsofdesign;thenatureofparticipation,and
methodsandtechniquesfordoingdesigning.KensingandBlombergreviewed
interconnectionsanddifferencesbetweenPDandCSCW,giventhatbothwere
concernedwithdesigningtechnicalandorganizationalsystemsthatwere
informedbyandresponsivetoeverydayworkpractices.Thedifferencesthey
identifiedincludedanemphasisonunderstandinganddesigningfor
collaborativeworkinCSCW,incontrasttoanemphasisoncollaborativedesign
inPD;andacommitmentwithinPDtoexplicitorganizationalandpolitical
changeagendarootedinworkers’rights.Hartswoodetal(2002)proposedthe
conceptofcorealization,asawaytohelpbridgethegapbetweenunderstanding
usepracticesanddoingdesigning.
119
Page 120
Morerecently,researchersworkingwithinPDhavebeenusingtheseconcepts
withinthedesignofcommunitybasedprojects,inwhichacomputer-based
systemmayormaynotbepartofthefuturepractices,andwherethe“system”is
perhapsbetterdescribedasaplace-basedsocialworldwithintersectionswith
publicservices.ForexampleHillgrenetal(2011)describetheirinvolvementin
“livinglabs”inthecityofMalmöwhichinvolvedthemunicipality,businesses,
thirdsectororganizationsaswellasresidentsanddesignerstoaddresslocal
concernsthroughcollectiveprototypingofissues.
Inshort,thefieldofPDstartedwithapoliticalcommitmenttoworkers’rightsin
organizations,whichhasexpandedtoamoregeneraldesiretoinvolvepeoplein
thedesignofnewtechnologiesbyrethinkingthisasdesigningnew
sociotechnicalsytems,whileattendingtotheorganizationsandpoliciesshaping
howtheyliveandwork.PDhasdevelopedstrong,practicallyorientedmethods
andtechniquesthatenablesuchparticipation,andconceptualizessuch
participationas“designgames”.Theemphasisonparticipationleadstoa
realisationthatnothingcaneverbefullydeterminedbydesign,butparticular
practicescanbedesignedfor.HoweveratensionthatexiststooinCSCWisalso
evidentinPD,abouthowtomakepresenttheimplicationsoffuturedesignsin
meaningfulways,orputanotherway,howtojoinupdesignanduse.
4.2.3 Activity theory
Anothertraditionwithinthesocialsciences,althoughwithdifferentroots,has
alsobeenengagedwithproductivelywithinsoftwareandsystemsdesign.It
120
Page 121
offersseveralconcepts,whichhavebeentakenupwithinthedesignofhuman-
computerinteractionwhichstartwiththepremiseofcollectiveaction.Activity
theorydevelopedfromearly20thcenturypsychologistsworkingintheformer
SovietUnionwhowereconcernedtodescribehowchildrenlearnwithan
emphasisonunderstandingthiswithintheirwholeenvironment,notjustwhat
wasgoingoninchildren’sminds(EngeströmandMiddleton1996;Wasson
2000;KaptelininandNardi2006).Keyconceptsincludethehierarchical
structureofactivity;object-orientedness;internalisationandexternalisation;
mediation;anddevelopment.Inactivitytheory,theunitofanalysisistheentire
activity,whichisdistributedacrosspossiblyseveralpeople,technologiesand
artefacts.
Activitytheoryworksonseverallevelswithinsoftwaredesign(Redmiles2002).
Itoffersawaytodescribetasksandactivitiesatabasiclevel.Itdescribesthe
socialorganizationofusers,stakeholdersandothersinadesignproject.Ithasa
strongfocusontheobjectivesofusers(likeUCD’stasks).Aswithresearchers
workingwithinactornetworktheory,thosedescribingactivitysystemsinvestin
makingdetailed,closeobservationsoftheworkplace(egEngeströmand
Middleton1996).Thesedescriptionsviewmaterialartefactsasplayingrolesin
constitutingtheseactivities.Mapsofactivitysystemscanprovideawayto
analyseasystemandengageparticipantsinredesigningit(SangiorgiandClark
2004).
Activitytheoryandethnographyarenotdirectlycomparable.Ethnographyisa
researchmethod,thatstartswithsituatedobservationandanalysisofa
121
Page 122
sociomaterialworld.Incontrastactivitytheorystartswithatheoryofthatworld
tounderstandhowactiontakesplace.Asastrandofpsychology,theformeris
moreconcernedwiththedevelopmentofindividualconsciousnessand
intentions,incontrasttoethnography’semphasisoncollectivemeaning,social
practices,andthesocialityofworld-making.Andwhereasethnographicaccounts
arealwaysspecifictooneorveryfewdetailedcases,activitytheoryoffersaset
ofcoreconcepts,whichresearchersseektodeployinaresearchcontext(Nardi
1996a).Finally,activitytheory,withitsemphasisontheimportanceofmotive
andconsciousness,whichbelongonlytohumans,seesartefactsandpeopleas
exhibitingdifferentkindsofagency.Incontrast,withinSTS-informed
ethnography,humansandnon-humansareconsideredsymmetrically,andin
ethnomethodologically-informedethnography,categoriesofhumanor
technologyarenotconsideredaspre-existing,butareunderstoodasconstituted
inpractice.
4.2.4 Ethnographically-informed product and interaction design
Oneofthefirstoverviewsoftheadoptionofethnographywithinindustrialand
digitaldesignpracticeisbyChristinaWasson(2000),ananthropologistwho
workedattheUSconsultancyE-Labinthelate1990s.WassondescribesE-Labas
oneofthefirstfirmsinvolvedinforginganewkindofdesignpracticewithteams
equallymadeupofdesignersandanthropologists.Thefirmwasfromtheoutset
concernedwithunderstandingandmakingmanifestaccountsofthe
sociomaterialworld,andusingthesewithindesigning.
122
Page 123
Wasson’saccountofE-Labdescribestheemergenceofethnographyasa
resourceforindustrialdesign.Sheoffersdetailabouthowadesignconsultancy
beganexplicitlytodescribe,analyseanddesignforaworldinwhichthereare
diverseactors.Forexample,shedescribesthefirm’sAEIOUframeworkas“a
heuristicdevicetohelpinterpretobservations.Itwasusedbothtocodedataand
todevelopthebuildingblocksofthemodelsthatwouldultimatelyaddressthe
client’sissues”(Wasson2000:382).Table3showsthecomponentsoftheAEIOU
frameworkdevelopedatE-Lab.
Table3AEIOU-ElementsoftheworldusedatE-Lab(adaptedfromWasson2000:382).
Element Definition
Actions Goaldirectedsetsofactions–thingspeoplewanttoaccomplish
Environments Theentirearenawherethingstakeplace
Interactions Betweenapersonandsomeoneorsomethingelse;thebuildingblocksof
activities
Objects Buildingblocksoftheenvironment,sometimesputtocomplexor
unintendeduses,changingtheirfunction,meaningandcontext
Users Consumers–peopleprovidingbehaviours,preferencesandneeds
123
Page 124
Arguably,itwasthesuccessofanthropologistsandsociologistsusing
ethnographyinsystemsdesignandHCIthatleadtoitsadoptionwithin
industrialandproductdesignconsultanciesandfirms.Ethnographicpractices
spreadthroughconferencesandothermeetings,aswellasjournalpapers.For
exampleSalvadoretal(1999)describedtheiruseofethnographicresearchin
thedesignoffutureproductsandservicesinglobalmarketplaces.Molotch
(2003)developedananthropologyofconsumptionthatrevealedhowproducts
existas“lash-ups”ofmultiplesocialactorsandhowdesignpracticesplayinto
creatingthese.BateandRobert(2007)describetheapplicationofwhattheycall
“experiencebaseddesign”incancerserviceswithintheUKNationalHealth
Service.Shoveetal(2008)linkedtheoriesofconsumptionandproductdesign,
andproposedpractice-orientedproductdesign.Morerecently,theemerging
fieldofservicedesign(Kimbell2009;Stickdorn2010;MeroniandSangiorgi
2011)takesasacentralpropositiondevelopinganunderstandingofusers’
practicesandusesthistoinformdesign.Practitionersworkingonthedesignof
publicservicesalsoroutinelydeployethnographyasameanstolegitimatetheir
designproposals(egCottametal2006;ParkerandHeapy2006).
4.3 Challenging encounters
Thusfar,thisaccountoftheexpansionofethnographyintodesignhaspresented
fewwrinkles.Ittellsoftheincorporationofanapproachandsetofmethodsinto
systems,productanddigitaldesignthatledtoimportantchanges,leadingtoa
shiftindesigners’cosmologiesandchangesinprofessionalpracticeasteamsof
designers(atleastintheory)includedanthropologistsandtheirtheoretical
124
Page 125
commitments,accountabilities,andmodesofpractice,intodesignprojectsas
havingsomethingtocontribute–evenifwhattheydidcontributewasthen
marginalisedthroughdominantrationalitieswithinorganisationsandprojects.
Viewedthroughthelensesofthesocialsciences,thenaïveconceptionsofthe
worldofdesignwithindesignstudiesanduser-centreddesignwerenolonger
tenable.Designwasnot“user”-centred,butthoseinvolvedindesignhadaricher
understandingofdesignasacollective,situated,emergentactivityinvolving
manyactors.
Butthegrowingimportanceof,andintersectionsbetween,ethnographyandPD
asawaytodesignnewsystems,hasnotbeenanentirelysmoothtrajectory.For
adiscussionabouttheimplicationsoftheencountersbetweendesignand
ethnographyitishelpfultoturntoPaulDourish’s(2006)paperdiscussingthe
implicationsofethnographicresearchfordesign.Whilethereareseveralothers
whohavealsostoodbacktoreflectontheseintersections(egMogensen1991;
Hughes1993;Shapiro1994;Suchmanetal1999;Hartswoodetal2002),
Dourish’s(2006)tightly-arguedlayingoutoftheseissuesisextremelyuseful.To
thisisaddedmorerecentcontributionsincludingresearchinPhDthesesby
JoachimHalse(2008),AlexWilkie(2010),JonasMoll(2012)andTariqAndersen
(2012).
4.3.1 The role of social and cultural theories
Oneofthenoticeabledifferencesthatemergesintheencountersbetweendesign
disciplines,andthoserootedinthesocialsciences,istheroleoftheory:concepts,
125
Page 126
frameworks,modelsandtheunderlyingepistemologiesandontologies,which
shapeapproachestoresearch,analysisandaction.Theinstitutionalhistoriesand
siteswithinwhichethnographyanddesignhavedevelopedmightleadusto
summarizethatuntilrecently,designfieldsoperatedwithhiddentheoriesofthe
socialworldinwhichdesigningtakesplace,whereasforthosetrainedin
sociologyandanthropology,notonlyaretheoriesofthesocialworldexplicitand
contestedbuttheyarealsoprimary,thatis,theoriesprecederesearchandaction.
Thissectionshowsthatthiscomparisonisoverlysimplistic.ButlikeAnderson
(1994),Dourish(2006)andothers,theargumentmadehereisthatuntilrecently,
theoriesofthesocialworldhaveremainedmarginalindesignprojects,missing
whatethnographycanbringtothem.
Ifwereturntothereasonsthatethnographywastakenupinsystemsdesign,we
findaccountsthatsystemsdesignersbecameincreasinglyconcernedto
understandtheworkplacestheyweredesigningfor.Inanearlyreviewof
ethnographyinsystemsdesign,Hughesetal(1993)describethebenefitsof
incorporatingtheapproachwithreferencetodesigningforfutureformsofair
trafficcontrol.
[T]heethnographicportraitoftheactivitiesaspartofasociallyorganised
settingavoidssomeofthepitfallsintreatingtasksasdiscrete,isolated
chunksofbehaviourasiftheywererepresentationsordescriptionsof
howtheworkanditstasksisactuallydone.Identifyingtheskills,how
theyaredeployed,howworkactivitiesaresequencedandhowtheyare
madetoconnectaccountablyandrecognisablyas'controllingactivities'is
126
Page 127
importanttoanyaspirationtoblendingsystemswithworkingpractices.
Thesensitivitytotheplaceactivitieshavewithinthetotalityofactivities
thatconstitutecontrollingworkhighlightstheirinterdependenciesin
waysthatarenotalwaysobvious.(Hughesetal1993:136-137).
Inshort,viafieldwork,systemsdesignersaccessedricherpicturesofthesocial
worldsinwhichtheirfuturedesignswouldbeused,butthatdoesnotmeanthey
wantedaside-orderofsocialtheoryalongside.
Butthisemphasisondata-gatheringfromthefieldasaresourcefordesign,
missesmuchthatisofvalueintheethnographicproject.Asanthropologist
SuzanneKuechlerputsit(Kuechler,personalcommunication),ethnographyis
firstlyatheoreticalactivitythatproceedsbyrepeatedlyasking“whatdifference
does[theobjectofstudy]make?”
ForDourish(2006),thevalueofethnographyisnotthedataproducedby
fieldworkbutinthemodelsitprovidesandthewaysofthinkingthatitsupports.
Hemakesadistinctionbetweenthe“scenicfieldwork”thatsometimespassesas
ethnography,whichtakestheformofdescriptionsof“moments”describingwhat
happened.Incontrast,heargues,whatethnographydoesisprovidemodelsfor
understandingsocialsettings–notsimplyaccountsofwhathappened,butthe
explanatoryframebywhichthisaccountcanbeorganizedandthenarrativethat
connectshistoricalmoments.Theimpactisoftendiffuse,hesays,but
nonethelessimportant,providingnewwaystoimaginetherelationbetween
127
Page 128
peopleandtechnology,notjusthelpingdesignbettertechnologies.Similarlyfor
Halse(2008)thevalueofethnographyisthatitdecentresfamiliarrationalities.
Thispictureiscomplicatedbytheinfluenceofethnomethodologyamongsome
socialscientistsworkingonthedesignofsystems(egSuchman1987).Macaulay
etal(2000)arguethatevenwithinethnography,thereisconsiderabledebate
abouthowimportanttheoryisbecauseoftheinfluenceofethnomethodology.It
wasGarfinkel(1967)whoarguedthatresearchersshouldaccountforhuman
activitypurelyassocialaction,
thatis,totreatthedescribablepropertiesofactivitiesinasocialsettingas
the'outcomes','accomplishments',or'achievements'ofthose
participatinginitusingtheirpracticalcommonsense,mundane
knowledgeofhowtheworkanditsactivitiesareorganised(Hughesetal
1993:130).
Thisapproachtounderstandinghumanbehaviourbycareful,closeobservation
oftheworldclaimsthatdescriptionisnottheprecursortoanalysis,butthe
analysisitself.Fortheseresearchers,analyticalframeworkscanobscurerather
thanrevealconcretelivedexperience.Whatmattersisaccountsthatdescribe
howasocialworldisarticulatedinpractice,withoutreferencetopre-existing
theories.Thisisnotjustwhatpeoplesayaboutwhattheydo,butrich
descriptionsofthesocio-technologicalorganisationoflivedpractice.Asan
analyticalorientation,ethnomethodologically-informeddesigninghighlightsa
128
Page 129
needtodesigntosupportemergent,futureformsofsocio-technological
organisationinpractice.
Tosummarize,twoormoredecadesofusingethnographyinthedesignof
systemshasleadtoanunderstanding,thatusingthisapproachisofvalueinthe
designofnewthingsunderstoodascollectivesociotechnicalpractices.Onthe
onehand,ethnographershavehighlightedthenatureofthesocialworldsfor
designersandproducedtheoriesofwhatisgoingon.Ontheother,
ethnomethodologistshaveemphasizedthatallsitesofsocialactionarelocaland
situatedaccomplishments,andhowdesignshouldbeopentotheunfoldingof
futurepractices.Howeverethnography-as-data-gatheringcanmisssomeofthe
importantbackgroundinwhichethnographicpracticetakesplace–a
questioningaboutlivedpractice,howitismadeupandwhatmatterstowhoand
why.
4.3.2 Gaps between research, design and use
AtensionthatemergesinCSCWandPDliteraturesisbetweenunderstandinga
worldandinterveninginit(Halse2008).Thisplaysoutacrosstheresearchin
variousways,partlyinresponsetothedifferenttraditionswithinthesocial
sciencesandindesignandengineering.Althoughthisisaconceptualdistinction,
itoftenplaysoutasatemporaldistinctionwhenresearchaboutusersisfollowed
bydesigning,andisthenfollowedbyseeingwhathappenswhendesignsare
instantiatedinpractice.
129
Page 130
AsCSCWandPDliteratureshaveemerged,cross-fertilisedoneanotherand
intersectedwithotherfields,thishasleadtotheemergenceofconceptswhich
differentkindsofresearcheranddesignerpayattentiontomorethanothers.
Thesedivideupasresearch(understandingcurrentusepractices),design
(exploringandproposingfutureusepractices),anduse(practicesthatexist
followingthereleaseofadesignintoasocialworld,whichmayalsobestudied).
Clearlythesearenotpre-existingdomainsortemporalphasesbutratheractas
placeholdersservingtoholdtheattentionofdifferentcommunities.Withinthese
distinctions,then,traditionally,researchaboutuseisthedomainofspecialist
(social)researcherswhohavemethodstounderstandpractices,whereasdesign
isthefocusofdesigners.Inresponsetothesespecialisations,however
contingent,bothdesignandethnographyareinvokedasbridgesbetweenthese
domains.
Ontheonehand,designisseentobridgethegapbetweencurrentandfuture
uses.InCSCWethnographershelpeddesignersunderstandthat
the‘designproblem’isnotsomuchconcernedwiththecreationofnew
technicalartefactsasitiswiththeireffectiveconfigurationand
integrationwithworkpractices.Thekeyissueforare-specifiedITdesign
anddevelopmentpracticeisthereforenotonly‘design’,butalso‘use’
(Hartswoodetal2002:12).
130
Page 131
Ontheotherhand,inworkplacestudies,ethnographywasseenasbridgingthe
gapbetweencurrentusepracticesanddesign(Dourish2006).Hughesetal
(1993)describewhy.
Usersoftenfinditdifficulttoarticulatewhatitistheyknowsincethe
knowledgethatentersintotheskilfulexecutionofworkingpracticesis
noteasilysummarisedaslistsofdecontextualisedpropositions,bethey
formallyspecifiableortacit,butishighlylocalisedandamatterof
constantenquiryanddiscovery.…Itisnotthatuserscannottalkabout
whatitistheyknow,howthingsaredone,butitneedsbringingoutand
directingtowardtheconcernsofthedesignitself.Inthisrespect,the
ethnographycanserveasanotherbridgebetweentheusersandthe
designers.(Hughesetal1993:138)
Attemptstobridgethese“gaps”havecontinuedtopreoccupyresearchers.PD
wasinitiallypreoccupiedwithdesigningforusebeforeuse,thatis,tryingto
anticipateorenvisionhowpeoplewouldusethings,duringthedesignphaseofa
project(Redstrom2008).
ResearcherswhotriedtocombineaspectsofPDandCSCWbegantobreakdown
thesedistinctions.ForexampleHartswoodetal(2002)proposedaprincipled
recombinationofthetwofieldsas“co-realization”,whichinvolvedresearchers
becomingmorelikedesignersandviceversaandworkingtogetherthroughouta
project.“Itrequiresthatweasdesignersengageintheunfoldingperformanceof
[users’]workaswell,co-developingacomplexalignmentamongorganisational
131
Page 132
concerns,unfoldingtrajectoriesofaction,andnewtechnologicalpossibilities.”
(Hartswoodetal2002:13).Ehn(2008)madeadistinctionbetween
conventionalPDfocussingondesignatprojecttime,andwhathecalled“meta-
design”,akindofdesignthatfocussedonthekindofdesigningthathappens
afterdesignprojectsareover(orwhatCSCWethnographerswouldcallresearch
intouse).
Otherresearcherstoohavechallengedwhetherthesegaps,andtheunderlying
specialistdomainstheyexistbetween,needexist.Halseconsiderit“acentral
principletoimposeestrangedviewsonlocalpractice,inordertocreate
openingsfordesign”(Halse2008:30).Heproposesaroleforwhathecalls
“designanthropology”thatiscommittedtotheperformativeactofarticulating
possiblealternativerealitiesfromtheveryoutsetofaninquiry(Halse2008:
195).Elswhere,Andersen(2012)notesthatsocialscientistssuchasthose
workingwithinSTSrejectdichotomiesbetweendescriptionandintervention.
Insummary,manyCSCWandPDresearchershavemadedistinctionsbetween
doingresearchaboutuse,anddesigning,andfoundwaystobridgegapsbetween
researchanddesign.Someresearchers,however,havetriedtobypassthese
distinctionsbyseeinguseasunfoldingandbydeployingideasofperformance.
Theunderlyingdistinctionbetweenunderstandingtheworldandintervening
intoisnolongermaintainedincontemporaryresearch.Forexample,in
ethnographiesofdiagnosticwork,diagnosisandtreatmentareintertwined.
132
Page 133
4.3.3 Accounting for and to
Thusfar,thisnarrativehasglossedoversomethingimportant:theincorporation
ofanintellectualprojectcommittedtoempiricalexplorationofselfandworldin
diversecultureswithacommitmenttoreflexivity,byaprofessionalpracticetied
to,andlargelydependenton,themovementofglobalcapital.Thediscussionof
CSCWandPDhasfocussedrathernarrowlyontheincorporationofethnographic
approachesinthedesignofnewinformationandcommunicationstechnologies,
butignoredthewiderimplicationsofthesedevelopments.Cefkin(2009)and
earlierWasson(2000)andMacaulay(2000),allpointtothequestionsthat
emergewhenanthropologists,eventhosewillingtoworkinappliedcontexts,
findthemselveshiredbycompaniesinvolvedindesigninganddelivering
productsandservicesthatmaynotservesocietieswell,noworinthefuture.But
thereisalargerissueatplayhere,beyondpersonalethicalcodes,thatneeds
closerinspection:howPDandCSCWhaveexploredaccountabilityandpower.
PD’scommitmenttoinvolvingworkersinthedesignofnewsystemsmarksitout
asexplicitlypoliticalfromtheoutset.Thebasicideahereisthatprocessesto
designfuturesystemsshouldinvolvethosewhowillbeaffectedbythem.
ResearchersinPDdevelopedconceptsandmethodsthattrytoputdesignersand
usersonanequalfooting,atleasttheoretically,bothasparticipantsinlanguage
games.ForexamplePDresearchersdevelopedmethodstoinvolveparticipants
inprototypingandpracticalworkshops,whichrenderbothdesignersand
workersashavingdifferentkindsofexpertisethatneedtobebroughttogether
todesignthenewsystem.MorerecentlyotherresearchersinPDhavestartedto
133
Page 134
focusonthepracticalitiesthatmakesuchworkshopspossible–themessages,
personalinteractions,posters,phonecallsandotherwaysthatparticipantsare
enrolledinandbecomeavailablefordesignwork(egAndersen2012;Moll2012).
AnotherrecentdevelopmentistheuseofresourceswithinActorNetwork
TheorywithinPD,specificallytheideaofnon-humanagentsinco-constituting
thesocio-materialworld.ForexampleLatour’s(2005)descriptionofassemblies
orhybridsofpeopleandthings,throughwhich“mattersofconcern”are
constitutedaroundissues,hasleadtoacknowledgingthecollectivesthatPD
designswithandfor(egEhn2008;Binderetal2011).
WithinCSCW,thereislessofanexplicitfocusonthepoliticsofinvolvement.
Instead,therearetwotheoreticaldriversthatshapehowresearchersthink
aboutandpracticallyengagepeopleintheirwork.Firstly,anthropology’slong-
standingpost-colonialcommitmenttoreflexivelyaskingwherearesearcher
standsinrelationtohisorherworkmeansthatethnographers(should)have
someawarenessoftheirowncommitmentsinproducinganalysis(egAnderson
1992)orasSuchman(2002)putsit,theirlocatedness.Secondly,theinfluenceof
ethnomethodologyemphasizesthatallaremembersofasocialworld.For
ethnomethodologists,forwhomworkersandusersanddesignersareall
membersofasocialworld,thetheoreticaldriveistodescriberichlytheever-
changing,yetrecognisable,productionofsocialordersinandthroughpeople’s
everydaypractices,ratherthanreducingsuchlivedpracticethroughabstract
theoreticalmodels.
134
Page 135
Thusfar,theseapproacheshaveservedforprojectswithinstable,structured,
oftenhierarchical,organizations.Butwiththeincorporationofparticipatory
approachesandethnographyintodesignforserviceandforsocialinnovation,
andinrelationtocomplexcontestedissuessuchasclimatechange,it’snotclear
howmobiletheseconceptsandmethodsarewhenprojectsinvolvemultiple
organizationalactorsandkindsofexpertise.Thereareatleastthreesitesof
potentialconflict.Firstly,increasingthenumberandkindofstakeholdersbegs
thequestionofwhichstakeholdersaretobeattendedtoandinvolved,andwhich
aretobesidelined?Andersen’s(2012)andMoll’s(2012)descriptionsoftheir
effortstosignupmedicalstaffandpeoplewithheartconditionstoparticipatein
atrial,showshowharditistogetpeopletoparticipate,andthepracticalities
involvedtomakeprototypingwork.Butwitheveryinclusionofawilling
participant,whoisnotincluded?Howdomethodsthatinvolvetheactive
participationofsomestakeholdersexcludeothers?Andtowhateffect?Itisnot
possibletoinvolveallmembersinadesignactivity,whichhighlightsthe
boundaryworkdonewhensomemembersofasocialworldareinvolved,and
othersarenot.
AsecondissueisthepowerrelationsbetweendisciplinesasDourish(2006)has
suggested.Dourishsaystherearethreeissuesincommonstructuringof
ethnographyasbeinganactivitythatcreates“implicationsfordesign”.Firstly,
hesaysthatseeingdesignastheend-resultofanethnographicinquiry,
constructsdesignersasgatekeepersforresearch.Secondly,itputsethnography
outsidethedesignprocess.Thirdly,thisviewputsthepeoplethatethnographers
135
Page 136
studyoutsidethedesignprocesstoo.Soaddingmoreanddifferentparticipants
andtheirperspectivesintoprojects,islikelytocomplicatethisfurther.
Athirdissueisthetemporalitiesinplayduringdesigningatprojecttime,andin
theunfoldingofusepractices.Futureimpactsareusuallyratherbadly
understood.Despitegoodintentions,thedesignsofproductsandservicescan
leadtounknownconsequences,bothpositiveandnegative,thatplayoutover
years,orpossiblygenerations.Thisraisesthequestionofoverwhichtimeframes
aprojectanditsaftereffectsshouldbethoughtabout.Ifteamsdesigninganew
systemthinkofthemselvesandtheusersasinvolvedincollectively
understandinguse,overhowlongshouldtheydothis?Onemonth,oneyear,one
decade,acentury?Orseveralcenturies?
Tosummarize,researchersworkinginPDandsystemsdesignhavetriedto
involvepeopleasactiveparticipantsindesign,notjustthinkingofthemas
“users”.Designersworkingwithintheseorientationshavebecomeawareoftheir
ownroleandlocatednessinresearchanddesignwork.Butasdesignhasmoved
intoanexpandedfieldincludingintothedesignofservicesandsocialinnovation,
thishasleadtoexpandingthenumbersandkindsofparticipantstobeinvolved.
Theimpossibilityofinvolvingallactorswhoaremembersofasociomaterial
world,andthedifferenttemporalitiesoverwhichprojectsanddesignscanbe
analysed,challengetheclaimthatdesigningcaneverbefullyorsufficiently
accountable.Further,thescopeandscale,distributednessandunevennessof
unintendedconsequencesontheseactors,presentcomplexchallengesfor
researchandpractice.
136
Page 137
4.3.4 Making and gathering representations
AnearlyfocusinbothCSCWandPDwashowtorepresenttheworldsofusers,in
waysthatmakethemavailabletodesignersandtousers.Numerouspapers,
presentations,booksandseminarshaveofferedexamplesofhowdatacanbe
capturedorcreatedaboutwhatgoesoninasocialworldincludingarangeof
methodsandmediaincludinginterviews,participantobservation,photography,
scenarios,videoandcollaborativeworkshops(egEhn1988;Binder1999;Gaver
etal1999;Buuretal2000;Kensing2003;Loi2007;Binder2007;Sanders2010;
Wilike2010;Andersen2012).Whilesomeresearchershavefocusedonmethods
andmediaforproducingartefactsthatsomehowmakeavailabletheworldsof
others,attentionhasalsobeenpaidtowhatsuchartefactsdowhenintroduced
intopractices.
WithinCSCW,anthropologicalandethnomethodologicaltraditionsgave
researchersanawarenessofthetensionsinherentinmakingrepresentationsof
others(cfCliffordandMarcus1986).Influencedbythatreflexivity,CSCW
researchersdiscussedbothhowtoconveyfieldresultstoengineeringteams(eg
Hughesetal2000)butalsotothinkthroughwhatwashappeninginsodoing.As
Suchman(2002b)putsit,designworkshouldbecomelocatedratherthandesign
fromnowhere.LeighStar’sterm“boundaryobjects”(StarandGriesemer1989)
showedhowartefactshaddifferentmeaningsfordifferentgroupsworking
together.Thisrejectedfixedmeaningsinherentinanartefact,butrather
highlightedthesocialprocessesthroughwhichtheycametobeusefulfor
137
Page 138
differentusers.Dourish(2006)pointstothelimitationsofconceivingof
ethnographersasproducersofscenicdescriptionsthatsupply“implicationsfor
design”todesigners.Insteadhearguesthattheencountersbetween
ethnographyanddesigncanservetohelpshaperesearchanddecidewhatnotto
design,asmuchasuncoveringpossibilitiesandlimitationsofparticulardesign
opportunities.
WithinPD,researchersresistedtheideaofsanitisedrepresentationsandinstead
developedmethodsandskillsincollectiveprototypingthatinstantiatedthe
futureusesituations.Forexampleinco-designworkshops,userswereinvolved
incollectiveactsofsketchingormakingorbricolage.HoweverunlikeinCSCW,
wherethevalidityandreliabilityofrepresentationswasthoughtaboutamatter
ofconcernmethodologically,inPD,representationsareusefulinhowtheydon’t
fullywork.Kyng(1995:48)explains:“Mostrepresentationalartefactsworkso
wellnotbecausetheymirrorthatwhichisrepresented,butbecausetheydonot;
thatis,therepresentationcapturesafewintentionallyselectedqualitiesofthat
whichisrepresentedandnothingmore.”ThewayIunderstandthisechoes
WinogradandFlores’useofHeidegger’sideaofhowthingscomeintoview
throughbreakdown,whentheyarenotready-to-hand.Bycreating
representationsthatprovokebreakdowns-in-use,researchersanddesignerscan
accesstheworldsofthepeopletheyaredesigningwithandfor.
Recentdevelopmentshavesuggestednewdirectionsthatthinkdifferentlyabout
representationsindesignwork.OnewayofaddressingthisisHalse’s(Halse
2008;HalseandClark2008)useofperformativityinSTSandinperformance
138
Page 139
theory.Andersen(2012)developedanapproachthattackledsomeofthese
challengesbycombingPDwithresourcesinSTSsuchasLaw’s(2004)workon
methodassemblages,toargueforprototypingassembliesorcollectivesofpeople
andthingsasongoingperformances.Throughdescribingaresearchproject
involvingthedesignofweb-basedpersonalhealthrecordsforcardiacpatients
andhealthprofessionalstouse,Andersendefinesprototypingacollectiveas
performingsocio-technicalarrangements.
Theobjectofdesignandresearchisnottomakeaprototypethatisuseful
toitsusersortomakeanaccountofwhattheproblemis–itisbothatthe
sametime,becauseausefulprototypecanonlybeusefulifitisusedand
makinganaccountofwhattheproblemiscanonlybemadeby
interventionandattemptsatsolvingit.(Andersen2012:109)
Developinginadifferentdirection,Ehn(2008)andHillgrenetal(2011)have
suggestedcarryingoutprototypingasawayofgeneratingagonisticspaces
“wheredifferentstakeholdersdonotnecessarilyreachaconsensusbutrather
createanarenathatrevealsdilemmasandmakesthemmoretangible”(Hillgren
etal2011).
Insummary,therepresentationsandartefactscreatedduringadesignprocess
arenotsimplyneutralcarriersofinformationormeaning,tobedeployedin
designorexistingoutsideofit.Ontheonehand,theynecessarilyshapeand
revealperspectives,dependingonwhereresearchers,designersandothersare
located.Ontheother,interactionswithartefactsinpracticecanoffer
139
Page 140
opportunitiestobringintoviewasociomaterialworld,whenthingsgowrongor
unexpectedly.Anotherwayofthinkingaboutrepresentations,however,sees
themasperformedorunfoldingwithinsocialpracticesthatareagonistic,not
consensual.
4.4 Conclusion
Toconclude,thischapterhassummarized–andnecessarilysimplified–over
twodecadesofworkrepresentingimportantencountersbetweendesignand
sociologyandanthropology,inparticularinrelationtosystemsdesignandHCI.
Thefieldsdescribedabovedevelopedseveralwaysofunderstandingandmaking
availablethesociomaterialworldsthatcomeintobeingduringdesigning.The
activeinvolvementofanthropologistsandsociologistssignificantlyexpandedthe
conceptualpossibilitiesfordesignersforwhomconceptssuchasindividual
“users”andtheir“context”werenowclearlyinsufficient.Althoughinsomecases
thesamewordisusedasinotherconceptualisations–“designer”and“user”
beingtwoimportantones–intheseencountersbetweendesignandsocialand
culturalresearchinCSCWandPD,theymeansomethingdifferent.Insteadofan
individualwhohasgoalsandneedsandperformstasks,forwhichthedesigner
designssystemsandinteractions,usersandtheirneedsemergeinacollective,
situatedactivity.Aperson’sengagementwithdesignedthingsisembodiedand
notnecessarilyavailablediscursively.Andadesignerisnotoutsideofthis,
lookingintosome“context”butdefinitelyproducedbyandlocatedsomewhere
withintheactivity,makingobservations,interventionsandjudgements,and
140
Page 141
beingshapedtoobyhisorherinteractionswiththeseusersandartefactsina
processofmutualelaboration.
Inshort,theencountersbetweendesignandsocialandculturalresearchhave
expandedtheentitiesandinterrelationshipsthatdesignersneedtotakeaccount
of.Inadditiontheyrequireanewattentiontotemporality,forexample,inthe
distinctionbetweenprojecttimeandusetime,orbetweenunderstandingand
intervention.Theyposeimportantchallengesabouthandlingtheunintended
consequencesofdesigning.Atbest,thecollisionsbetweenconceptsandtheories
andmethodsfromanthropologyandrelateddisciplineswithdesign,canexpand
thepossibilitiesforunderstandingnewdesigns,usersandpractices,andthe
waystheycomeintobeing.Further,thelegacyofanthropology’sattentivenessto
differenceandlocatednessraiseschallengesfordesignersabouttheirtheoretical
commitmentsastheydodesignwork.Addingreflexivitytodesignwork,social
researchershavehighlightedtheimportanceofhavingtheoriesofthe
sociomaterialworldandhowknowledgeofitcanbecreatedandmadesenseof,
andhowthesepracticallyimpactondesigning.
141
Page 142
Interstitial
Theopeningchapterarguedthatdesignisoperatinginanexpandedfield,in
particularinrelationtoservicesandsocialinnovation.Onewayofthinking
aboutthisistoseedesign,thedisciplineandpractice,asoperatingbetween
traditionalobject-baseddesign,implicatedwithinthestrategiesofdesigners,
engineers,managersandentrepreneurs,andthroughwhatemergesasdesigns-
in-use“inthewild”inpeople’sday-to-daylives.
Thisdissertationnowshiftstowardsreviewingsomeoftheissuesthatemerge
fromthis.Inparticularitopensupsomeofthehistoryandcontemporary
practicesassociatedwiththeterms“designthinking”and“servicedesign”by
researchdescribedinthreesolo-authoredpaperspublishedinpeer-reviewed
journalsduringtheperiodofundertakingthisstudy.Thepapersbringintoview
recentdebatesaboutdesignthinkingandsuggestnewwaysofunderstanding
howdesigninginthecontextofservicestakesplace,throughanethnographic
studyofservicedesignpractitioners.
Byreadingthesepapersinthesuggestedorder,locatedhereaftertheliterature
review,ratherthaninanappendix,readersareinvitedtogainadeeper
understandingabouthowcontemporarydesignisbeingmobilized.Theconcepts
discussedinthesepapersarethenfurtherelaboratedandremixedinthe
followingtwochapters,movingtowardsanovelwayofconceivingofthe
relationsbetweenpeopleandthings,indesignforservicesanddesignforsocial
142
Page 143
innovation.Insomeplaces,directquotationsfromthesethreepaperswillbe
used,whichareclearlymarkedtypographically.Thishelpsreaderschartthe
developmentoftheargument,inparticularwheretheauthor’scontributions
fromthesepapersarerecombinedwiththeworkofothers.
Paper1,thefirstofaseriesoftwo,providesareviewofliteraturesthathave
attemptedtodescribewhatisdistinctiveaboutadesignerlyapproach,atatime
whenmanagementpractitioners,educatorsandothersareturningtodesign
thinkingashavingsomethingtoofferthem.Itreviewstheoriginsoftheterm
designthinkingandfindsthreeaccounts:acognitivestyle,ageneraltheoryof
design,andanorganizationalresource.Thepapersuggeststhatthereareatleast
threeproblemswiththeseversions:amergingofthinkinganddoing,that
ignoreshistoricalandculturaldifferencesbetweendifferentkindsofdesigners,
andwhichprivilegesthedesignerasthemainagentindesigning.
Paper2,whichcontinuesfromthefirst,introducesapairofconcepts,design-as-
practiceanddesigns-in-practice,asawaytorethinkdesigning.Combining
researchinanthropologyandSTS,thisconceptualizationhelpsresearcherssee
designingasasituatedaccomplishment,involvingdiverseactors,includingnon-
humanones,resultinginade-centringofthedesignerasthemainagentin
design.Thisviewofdesigningrecognizesthecontingentpracticesthroughwhich
designscomeintomattering.
Movingfromageneralaccountofdesigning,toanemergentnichepractice,
Paper3offerswaystounderstandthefieldofservicedesign.Combiningdesign
143
Page 144
andmanagementliteratures,itoutlinesdifferentwaysofthinkingaboutservices
andaboutdesign.Itthenusesanethnographicstudyofconsultanciespracticing
servicedesign,toprovidemoredetailaboutdesigningforservice,thatis,an
exploratoryapproachtodoingdesigning,inwhichservicesareseenassocialand
materialconfigurationswhichcreatevalueinpractice.
Together,thesepapersoutlinesomeofthedifficultiesinresearchaboutdesign
anddesigning,andsuggestsomewaysforwardthathelpaddresslong-standing
conceptualchallenges.Theyhelpreadersunderstandhowdesignforserviceand
designforsocialinnovationhaveemergedoverthepastdecade,whyitishardto
describetheobjectofdesignwithinthem,andwhatcharacterizesadistinctive
designerlyapproach.
Paper1
Kimbell,L.(2011).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part1.DesignandCulture,3(3),
285-306.BergPublishers,animprintofBloomsburyPublishingplc.
Paper2
Kimbell,L.(2012).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part2.DesignandCulture,4(2),
129-148.BergPublishers,animprintofBloomsburyPublishingplc.
Paper3
Kimbell,L.(2011)DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigningServices.
InternationalJournalofDesign,5(2),41-52.
144
Page 145
REPRINTS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHERS
PHOTOCOPYING PERMITTED BY LICENSE ONLY
© BERG 2011PRINTED IN THE UK
DESIGN AND CULTURE VOLUME 3, ISSUE 3PP 285–306
28
5
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
D
OI:
10.2
752/
1754
7081
1X13
0711
6652
5216
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
Lucy Kimbell
ABSTRACT The term design thinking has gained attention over the past decade in a wide range of contexts beyond the traditional preoccupations of designers. The main idea is that the ways professional designers problem-solve is of value to firms trying to innovate and to societies trying to make change happen. This paper reviews the origins of the term design thinking in research about designers and its adoption by management educators and consultancies within a dynamic, global mediatized economy. Three main accounts are identified: design thinking as a cognitive style, as a general theory of design, and as a resource for organizations. The paper argues there are several issues that undermine the claims made for design thinking. The first is how many of these accounts rely on a dualism between thinking and knowing, and acting in the world. Second, a generalized design thinking ignores the diversity of designers’
Lucy Kimbell is Associate Fellow, Saïd Business School, University of
Oxford and Director of consultancy Fieldstudio, London. She has taught
design practices to MBA students since 2005,
having previously taught interaction design at
the Royal College of Art, London. Her main focus is
designing services in the context of public policy. [email protected]
145
Page 146
28
6
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
practices and institutions which are historically situated. The third is how design thinking rests on theories of design that privilege the designer as the main agent in designing. Instead the paper proposes that attending to the situated, embodied routines of designers and others offers a useful way to rethink design thinking.
KEYWORDS: design thinking, practices, designers, innovation, organization design
IntroductionProfessional design is now operating within an expanded and in-creasingly complex field. Some design professionals take solving complex social issues as their domain, often but not always working in close collaboration with specialists in public services from health-care to those working with disadvantaged families to policing. Other designers and their ways of working are welcomed into business schools to teach the next generation of managers and leaders. Concepts and language that used to be associated with designers now enter other specialist areas: policymakers are told that public services should be more user-centered (Parker and Heapy 2006); businesses engage with customers by offering new meanings for things (Verganti 2009); the US Army is considering the role of design in warfare (School of Advanced Military Studies n.d.). Professional design, in particular design as practiced within the studio-based tra-dition of many art schools, is taking a new place on the world stage.
For design firms working for global clients in relentless pursuit of new markets, new offerings, and new kinds of value creation, design itself is being remade (Tonkinwise 2010). Design as design thinking should provide more than mere design. And yet, this re-assembling of some of the approaches, knowledge, and practices of profes-sional designers, first within academic design research, and then within business schools and consultancies, has not brought a happy synthesis. Indeed, industry observers are beginning to question its most fundamental assumptions. Working within different contexts and at different speeds, from the slow pace of academia to the fast-moving worlds of consultancy and blogging, some of its key proponents are beginning to question design thinking, even calling it a “failed experiment” (Nussbaum 2011).
While much of this critical discussion is beginning to take shape outside design circles, this article will examine design thinking from within. Now, at a time when design and designers are working in challenging new contexts, we must engage in discussions about the place of professional design in the world. If we explore design thinking by using theories of practice, we may better understand designers’ work within the social worlds in which it takes place.
146
Page 147
28
7
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
Rather than viewing design thinking as a disembodied and ahistori-cal cognitive style, we must clarify its function. Design thinking may have failed; instead we should understand design as a situated, contingent set of practices carried by professional designers and those who engage with designers’ activities.
Asking What If: The Designer as Cultural InterpreterWhen design thinking emerged more than a decade ago, it offered a response to the ebbs and flows of a global, mediatized economy of signs and artifacts; in this context, professional designers play increasingly important roles, less as makers of forms and more as cultural intermediaries (Julier 2008) or as the “glue” in multidisci-plinary teams (Kelley and VanPatter 2005). They are interpreters of changes in culture who then create new kinds of cultural form. Some designers have always seen design as playing important roles socially and politically as well as economically – William Morris, the Arts and Crafts movement, and Italian groups such as Superstudio and Archizoom are examples (Julier 2011); what is distinctive about the development of design thinking is its adoption within managerial-ist discourse, in particular business schools, over the past decade.
In just the last five years, the term is more and more ubiquitous. It found its way into conversations at Davos, the annual meeting of politicians and senior executives from global firms (IDEO 2006); at TED (TED 2009), a conference series that attracts leading figures in business, technology, and entertainment; and into the pages of the Harvard Business Review, an influential (although not peer-reviewed) academic journal (Brown 2008). Design thinking and the designers who say they practice it are associated with having a human-centered approach to problem solving, in contrast to being technology- or organization-centered. They are seen as using an iterative process that moves from generating insights about end users, to idea generation and testing, to implementation. Their visual artifacts and prototypes help multidisciplinary teams work together. They ask “what if?” questions to imagine future scenarios rather than accepting the way things are done now. With their creative ways of solving problems, the argument goes, designers can turn their hands to nearly anything. Design is now central to innovation and since organizations1 are under pressure to maintain or grow market share, or if in the public sector, increase user satisfaction and effectiveness, then designers and their thinking have something important to offer.2
The Creative Class and the “New Spirit” of CapitalismTo understand this move requires attending to wider developments over the last few decades that have been shaping what goes on within and between societies, organizations of different kinds, and political institutions. To address these topics fully would require more space than is available but I want here to highlight particular themes.
147
Page 148
28
8
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
The first is a view of capitalism which sees it as unstable, fluid, and dynamic (Lash and Urry 1994; Thrift 2005). Boltanski and Chiapello’s description (2005) of a “new spirit” of capitalism cap-tures some of the energy in the shift from hierarchies to networks and from bureaucratic discipline to team-work and multi-skilling, as capitalism absorbed its critiques and remade itself as offering managers both autonomy and security. A second theme shaping the product-saturated developed world is the importance of the economy of signs that ignore state borders and in which the value of a commodity cannot be separated from its symbolic value (Lash and Urry 1994). A sophisticated effort to engage diverse audiences or stakeholders in establishing the meaning of these signs marks out those commercial firms which at some level understand this (Verganti 2009). A third theme is the rise of what Florida (2002) calls the creative class, for whom work and professional identities are caught up in creating meaningful new forms. For Florida the word “creative” is not just reserved for designers, musicians, and visual artists but also computer programmers and opinion-makers such as columnists. These professionals find meaning in work which is characterized by flexibility, autonomy, and creativity and which blurs their professional and personal lives, as they move across national borders without being anchored to industrial modes of production and consumption.
A fourth theme is the ongoing, but recently re-energized, ques-tioning about the role of business schools and their place in the world as centers of research and education (Harvard Business Review 2009). As the global financial and economic crisis of 2008 showed, neither MBAs nor their professors have all the answers. On the contrary, some of the practices associated with the world of high finance and its emblematic product, the derivative, carry with them important and yet unanswered questions about governance, accountability, and values. Interest within business schools in how designers go about engaging with problems pre-dates the crisis (e.g. Boland and Collopy 2004) but rests on the idea that established ways of thinking about managing and organizing are not adequate to deal with a fluid business environment (Tsoukas and Chia 2002), let alone any number of global challenges from climate change, to resource inequality, to peak oil. What this has meant for managers and policy-makers is that the urgent quest for innovation and novelty has new resources – a creative class who have a privileged place within contemporary capitalism.
Understanding Design ThinkingEven on a cursory inspection, just what design thinking is supposed to be is not well understood, either by the public or those who claim to practice it. As Rylander (2009) points out, it’s hard enough under-standing design and thinking, let alone design thinking. So it is not a surprise that those who support its application to business or more
148
Page 149
28
9
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
broadly to public services or social problems, have trouble articulat-ing what it is, whether all designers can do it, whether it is something new or just a different name for what good designers have always done, and why it might be a good thing that non-designers can learn it and do it too – or perhaps they do it already. Decoupled from any one field or discipline of design, design thinking is meant to encom-pass everything good about designerly practices. Given the reach and appeal of these claims, it is time to explore the origins of design thinking. Above all, we must examine what it is and understand how it is being mobilized within contemporary conversations about change and innovation.
In this study three things come into view. Firstly that accounts of design thinking often rest on a dualism that makes a distinction between “thinking” and “doing” and between designers and the worlds they do design in, rather than acknowledging the situated, embodied work of design thinking in practice. Secondly, attending to the diversity of designers’ practices and the institutions in which they work makes it questionable to generalize about a unified design thinking exhibited across all of them. Thirdly, descriptions of design thinking rest on sometimes contradictory views about the nature of design and, for all the claims about being “user-centered,” still emphasize the designer as the main agent within design.
Design and Its ProblemsNo doubt thinking has always been part of the work that designers do, but the term design thinking that became prominent over the past five years emphasizes the intangible work done by designers. Several recent studies (Badke-Schaub et al. 2010; Cross 2010; Dorst 2010; Tonkinwise 2010) highlight how recent popular ac-counts of design thinking ignore the extensive research on design-ers’ ways of working over previous decades since the first Design Thinking Research Symposium in 1991 (Cross et al. 1992), let alone earlier events such as the Conference on Design Methods of 1962 (Jones and Thornley 1963). Although much of the recent public pre-sentation of design thinking is tied to one design consultancy, IDEO (Brown 2008; Brown 2009; Brown and Wyatt 2010), the history of design thinking is more complex. In this section I will outline some of the main contributions and then summarize these into three broad positions in Table 1. Although any such synthesis reduces diverse re-search into overly simplistic categories, it can advance understand-ing by making clearer different approaches and their implications.
A stream of research originating in the 1960s focuses on how designers do designing. What began as the design methods move-ment (Jones 1970; Buchanan and Margolin 1995) gradually shifted towards investigations into design thinking (Cross 1982); research-ers sought to understand the processes and methods by which (successful) designers went about design activity. This exploration also lead them to study the nature of design problems in more depth.
149
Page 150
29
0
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
But to understand how design thinking emerged, we must go back a little earlier to understand how design itself was understood at this time.
Design’s Fragmented CoreTo this day, design remains a fragmented discipline. When in 1971 Christopher Alexander argued that design is about giving form, or-ganization, and order to physical things, he acknowledged an entire school of thought. For Alexander, “the ultimate object of design is form” (1971: 15). The idea that form is a physical arrangement remains a dominant view of what designers do: they make things. Visitors to professional design studios are likely to note a disorderly arrangement of objects on work surfaces, walls, and floors. Such clutter reminds us how professional design still involves doing things with and to objects, even for those designers who see their work as designing intangible services or experiences (Figure 1).
Writing contemporaneously with Alexander, Herbert Simon was also trying to understand and describe design. Having already made contributions to economics and organization theory, Simon turned his attention to the organization – or in his terminology, “design” – of human action in the realm of the artificial. In The Sciences of the Artificial (1969) Simon identifies design as the knowledge that is in the domain of professions such as engineering, management, or medicine.3 He believed that these fields all concern “what ought to be” and contrast with the sciences, which are concerned with “what is.” He saw design as a rational set of procedures that respond to
Figure 1 View of teaching studio at the Royal College of Art, London, during a visit by the
author and her MBA class. Photograph: Lucy Kimbell.
150
Page 151
29
1
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
a well-defined problem; solving this problem involves decomposing systems as well as searching for and choosing alternatives. He argued that his approach worked for ill-defined problems too (Simon 1973). Simon assumes that it is possible to determine a desired state of affairs and thus, he writes, “problem solving requires con-tinual translation between the state and process descriptions of the same complex reality” (Simon 1969: 112). Although Simon was also concerned with form in the sense of the boundaries between internal and external worlds, artifacts did not feature strongly in his view.
The tension between these two conceptions of design remains evident today and informs the discussion about design thinking. On the one hand, following Alexander’s thesis, designers give form to things; they are privileged makers whose work is centrally concerned with materiality. This is the tradition of craft and professional design fields that create specific kinds of objects, from furniture, to build-ings, to clothing. Simon, on the other hand, suggests that designers’ work is abstract; their job is to create a desired state of affairs. This way of thinking about design is the core of all professions, not just the work of engineers and designers of artifacts.
Both Alexander and Simon were concerned with describing what design is, and how to do it, but neither emphasized design thinking. Similarly while Jones’s (1970) work on design methods emphasized the importance of changing how a problem was thought about in order to develop a new solution, it was only later that the term design thinking emerged. Peter Rowe’s Design Thinking, originally published in 1987, provides one of the earliest discussions of the concept. Based on Rowe’s teaching of architects and urban plan-ners, the book offers both case studies and discussion about the “procedural aspects of design thinking,” including descriptions of the design process, and then introduces generalized principles. Two main ideas emerge. Rowe argues that design professionals have an episodic way of approaching their work; they rely on hunches and presuppositions, not just facts. But he also argues that the nature of the problem-solving process itself shapes the solution. For Rowe, discussions about how designers actually design are necessarily shaped by wider conversations about the nature of architecture it-self. “We need to move directly into the realm of normative discourse about what constitutes architecture and urban design in order to clarify the inherent nature of the enterprise and the direction in which procedures are inclined” (Rowe [1987] 1998: 37). Although Rowe is rarely cited in more recent texts, these topics frequently reappear in subsequent literature.
Researchers working in several fields, including engineering, architecture, and product design, continued to study how designers think and what they know as they solve problems. Key contribu-tors include Nigel Cross, although he generally prefers to use the phrase “designerly ways of knowing.”4 Cross sees designers’ mode of problem solving as solution-focused as they tackle ill-defined
151
Page 152
29
2
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
problems and situates this within a larger argument about design as a coherent discipline of study distinct from the sciences and the humanities (1982; 2001; 2006). Donald Schön introduced the idea of framing and making moves when problem solving during profes-sionals’ reflection-in-action (Schön 1983). Bryan Lawson, on the other hand, studied the practice of designing in a context of multiple constraints (Lawson 1997). Nigel Cross and Kees Dorst developed the idea that problems and solutions co-evolve (Dorst and Cross 2001), and Cross suggested that designers treat all problems as ill-defined, even if they are not (Cross 2006). Attempting to explain designers’ tendencies to generate new solutions, many researchers have emphasized abductive reasoning (Cross 1982; Dorst 2010). Dorst (2006) noted that since a designer’s understanding of a prob-lem shifts during a design process, other concepts might be better employed, suggesting instead that designers construct designs that transcend or connect paradoxes. Burnette (2009) describes different kinds of thinking within a design process. One focus has been to discern different levels of expertise among designers, from novices to visionaries (Lawson and Dorst 2009), although without much reference to sociological work on professions and institutions. In short, while there has been a sustained effort to understand and describe what professional designers do in their design work, this has not yet generated a definitive or historically-informed account of design thinking, nor any explanation for why they might have a particular cognitive style.
While this body of research focused on designers and what they think and do, others continued to take forward work defining the field of design. Buchanan’s (1992) paper “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking” shifted design theory away from its legacy in craft and industrial production towards a more generalized “design think-ing.” This concept, Buchanan argues, could be applied to nearly anything, whether a tangible object or intangible system. Drawing on Pragmatist philosopher John Dewey, Buchanan sees design as a liberal art, uniquely well-placed to serve the needs of a technological culture in which many kinds of things are designed, and human problems are complex. For Buchanan, design problems are indeter-minate or wicked problems (Rittel and Webber 1973). The designer brings a unique way of looking at problems and finding solutions. He describes four orders of design which approximate the artifacts that design practitioners tend to work on: signs, things, actions, and thoughts. This version of design thinking is less concerned with individual designers and how they design, but rather seeks to define design’s role in the world. Similarly, Rylander (2009) also compares design thinking to a Pragmatist inquiry and concludes that Dewey’s work on aesthetic experience provides a useful way to explore designers’ special skills and examine the claims made for them in more detail.
152
Page 153
29
3
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
Design Thinking: De-politicizing Managerial PracticeThe books and papers that have done most to popularize the idea of design thinking mostly ignore this literature. While the term design thinking originated with academics who conducted research within design disciplines, today the phrase most often situates design thinking in terms of the challenges facing organizations, especially businesses (Figure 2). Concern with design’s place in the world and thus with larger social or political questions is lost when de-sign is mobilized within a managerialist framework. As Sam Ladner (2009) puts it: “Design is attractive to management because it is a de-politicized version of the well known socio-cultural critique of managerial practices.”
Two main proponents have recently reconfigured design think-ing. Tim Brown leads one of the world’s most influential design consultancies, IDEO, and is the author of Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation (2009). The other, Roger Martin, is Dean of the Rotman School of Management in Toronto, with a background in management con-sulting, whose book is titled The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage (2009). Although each describes design thinking somewhat differently, both explore its role within organizations. Their work can be seen as part of a growing in-terest in design in management academia including multiple journal special issues (e.g. Bate 2007; Jelinek et al. 2008), tracks at major conferences (e.g. EURAM 2009; Academy of Management 2010;
Figure 2 MBA students using design approaches during an entrepreneurship workshop
led by the author in a lecture theater at Saïd Business School. Photograph: Lucy Kimbell.
153
Page 154
29
4
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
EGOS 2010), scholarly workshops (e.g. Case Western Reserve University 2010), and experiments in teaching design to MBAs and executives including at the Fox School of Business (Temple University 2011); the Rotman School of Management (University of Toronto 2011); Saïd Business School (Kimbell 2011); and the Weatherhead School of Management (Case Western Reserve University 2011).
Presented as a way to balance organizational tensions between exploration and exploitation (Martin 2009) or as a loosely-structured organizational process that stimulates innovation (Brown 2009), these accounts of design thinking do not draw extensively on re-search in either design studies or management and organization studies. Despite the lack of a wider research base, books by Tim Brown and Roger Martin widely disseminate an idea of design think-ing that is gaining legitimacy among designers, organizations, and government bodies. In the UK, for example, the government-funded national Design Council argues that design thinking plays a key role in innovation (Design Council 2009). In Denmark, a cross-ministerial innovation unit called MindLab uses a form of design thinking to combine design-centered and social science approaches to create new solutions for society (MindLab 2009).
Brown’s accounts of design thinking present the concept as an answer to challenges facing organizations wanting to innovate but also societies grappling with complex public issues. Brown has published widely. In addition to Change by Design (2009), his writings include an essay in the Harvard Business Review (2008), and the Stanford Social Innovation Review (Brown and Wyatt 2010), as well as his blog on the topic (Brown 2011). To some extent these echo earlier publications by designers from IDEO such as David Kelley (2001). While Brown never claims that his contributions are academic, he nonetheless rehearses many of the findings from research, for example seeing design thinking as a fundamentally exploratory process (Brown 2009: 17). Design thinkers know there is no right answer to a problem. Rather, he argues, through following the non-linear, iterative design process that he calls inspiration, ideation, and implementation, the design process can convert prob-lems into opportunities.
Brown places particular emphasis on design thinking as a human-centered activity (Brown, 2009: 115). Underpinning this approach is the idea of empathy: designers are perceived as being willing and able to understand and interpret the perspectives of end users and the problems they face. In doing so, Brown suggests, they more or less feel their way through to a new solution. According to Brown, a successful design outcome exists at the intersection of three concerns: what is desirable from the users’ perspective, what is technically feasible, and what is commercially viable for the organiza-tion (Brown 2009). In so doing, this approach introduces a key, if often ignored, paradox. On the one hand, designers are positioned
154
Page 155
29
5
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
as key interpreters of what end users “need.” They are expected to do this by using ethnographically-inspired techniques that help them understand the user’s perspectives and situated actions. On the other hand, in practice this process shows little of the reflexivity of the social science traditions. In contrast to much contemporary design practice and education, social scientists are trained to ques-tion what theoretical, political, or other commitments they bring to their work and how these shape their research findings. Construed in this way, design thinking fails to reference wider theories of the social and misses opportunities to illuminate the context into which the designer is intervening.
In The Design of Business (2009), Roger Martin presents a dif-ferent way of thinking about design thinking.5 Martin argues that design thinking gives business a competitive advantage. In contrast to Brown, who does describe what professional designers do and make and what they are attentive to, Martin focuses on methods used by successful managers he interviewed and examines how firms as a whole function. His version of design thinking deals less with individual cognitive styles and doesn’t present sets of material practices; rather, he focuses on systems of organization. In this way he echoes arguments put forward by others teaching and research-ing in a business school context (e.g. Boland and Collopy 2004). Design thinking as practiced by good designers, Martin says, has something important to offer managers, enabling them to shift from choosing between alternatives to helping them generate entirely new concepts. Martin sees design thinking as combining abductive, as well as inductive and deductive, reasoning. This is particularly of value to businesses tackling the well-established challenge of focus-ing on either exploitation or exploration (cf. March 1991). Those that have mastered questions of scale and routinization by developing capabilities to produce and distribute lots of the same things, at the right quality and cost, are not so able to innovate. Finding a better balance between exploration and exploitation, and between abduc-tive as well as inductive and deductive reasoning, is what Martin calls design thinking.
Other researchers have begun to study design thinking and are extending this argument further. Robert Bauer and Ward Eagan (2008) also site their discussion of design within a larger critique of what goes on within many organizations. For Bauer and Eagan analytical thinking is part of, and not the opposite of, design think-ing. Reviewing and synthesizing much of the research on design thinking, they insist that the subject cannot be reduced to aesthetic judgments or cognitive reasoning; instead, they perceive several epistemic modes that come into play at different points in a design process. Although analytical thinking provides the epistemic un-derpinning of capital, they believe that design thinking represents the epistemology of creative work. Like Martin and Brown, Bauer and Eagan then offer design thinking as an organizational resource
155
Page 156
29
6
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
to make up for some of the shortcomings of management and its over-reliance on analysis.
More recent discussions of design thinking have followed this trend, locating designers’ knowledge and thinking within the con-texts in which they work. For example Robin Adams et al. (2010) study what it means to be a design professional and how designers become professionals. Their analysis avoided dualisms that separate cognition and action; instead they propose a framework in which knowledge and skills are embedded in an embodied understanding of practice. Their findings deflate simplified versions of design think-ing and instead highlight differences in knowing, acting, and being among designers.
Comparing Approaches to Design ThinkingTo summarize, design thinking has been used to characterize what individual designers know, and how they approach and make sense of their own work, as well as how they actually do it. In addition to describing the practices of designers, the term also offers a theory of design that extends Herbert Simon’s ideas. In this context, design does not give form to things; instead, it concerns action and the artificial. More recently, the term has been mobilized with some suc-cess by design consultancies, management educators, and other scholars. In this context it suggests an approach to business or even social innovation. (See Table 1.)
Given the diversity of these approaches, there is still no clear de-scription of design thinking. On what principles is it based? How dif-ferent is it to other kinds of professional knowledge? Do all designers exhibit it? What are its effects within the worlds where design takes place? How can it be taught? Further, these descriptions present several issues which need to be addressed by researchers studying professional designers, as well as the managers and educators who apply these practices within social innovation or management education. In the next section I identify three such issues and then suggest how design thinking might be reconsidered.
Acknowledging the Cultures of DesignMany studies in design thinking replicate a dualism within research fields; they reflect important differences in the underlying ways the world is understood and what can be known about it. Researchers who focus on the individual designer and his or her cognitive style rarely study the world within which the designer works (cf. Bourdieu 1977). Such researchers usually cultivate objective rather than sub-jective knowledge; moreover, their research assumes there are clear boundaries between the designer and the world s/he is in; further, the researcher is construed as remaining outside this world. These studies describe what designers do and trace how their thinking de-velops in the course of a project, but they often ignore key aspects of the designer’s world. For example, several studies of design thinking
156
Page 157
29
7
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
as a cognitive style rely on protocol analysis based on recording and then analyzing what designers say about what they are doing. This is usually monitored during an artificial exercise in which the designers are given a problem to solve. While these studies may produce interesting findings, this approach sometimes presents a version of design thinking as a simple form of information processing with inputs and outputs (e.g. Badke-Schaub et al. 2010). Alternately, design thinking can be presented as a process that is supposedly applied to an organization (e.g. Brown 2009), though this approach never clarifies how easy it is to import it from one context to another.
In contrast, some ethnographic accounts of design thinking do not make distinctions between designer and world, or between re-searcher and object of study and produce “thick description”(Geertz 1973) of what goes on during designing. These accounts attend to the situated, embodied ways that designers go about their work and the artifacts they engage with and make (e.g. Bucciarelli 1994; Henderson 1999). Given extensive research in design fields (e.g. Winograd and Flores 1986; Suchman 1987; Ehn 1988; Ehn 2008), not to mention sociology, anthropology, and organization studies,
Table 1 Different ways of describing design thinking.
Design thinking as a cognitive style
Design thinking as a general theory of design
Design thinking as an organizational resource
Key texts Cross 1982; Schön 1983; Rowe [1987] 1998; Lawson 1997; Cross 2006; Dorst 2006
Buchanan 1992 Dunne and Martin 2006; Bauer and Eagan 2008; Brown 2009; Martin 2009
Focus Individual designers, especially experts
Design as a field or discipline
Businesses and other organizations in need of innovation
Design’s purpose Problem solving Taming wicked problems
Innovation
Key concepts Design ability as a form of intelligence; reflection-in-action, abductive thinking
Design has no special subject matter of its own
Visualization, prototyping, empathy, integrative thinking, abductive thinking
Nature of design problems
Design problems are ill-structured, problem and solution co-evolve
Design problems are wicked problems
Organizational problems are design problems
Sites of design expertise and activity
Traditional design disciplines
Four orders of design Any context from healthcare to access to clean water (Brown and Wyatt 2010)
Source: Lucy Kimbell
157
Page 158
29
8
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
in which embodiment and being in the world are perceived as a condition of knowing and action, it seems reasonable to explore how this approach might describe and explain designers’ approaches to their work and the nature of design thinking. Drawing on Dewey, Buchanan (1992) and Rylander (2009) do not rely on this separation between knowing and world; instead, they offer an understanding of the act of designing by studying designers in the world. However, they do not share the close attentiveness paid to the role of artifacts found in material culture approaches influenced by anthropology, nor do they situate their accounts of design within larger historical frameworks. A future direction for research into designers’ thinking and knowing, therefore, could take as a starting point practitioners’ being in the world and their relation to other social actors including artifacts and other social practices and institutions. To understand what happens in designing, it remains important to explore how political, socio-cultural, and economic developments have shaped design practice over time.
Without extensive comparative data, we may wonder how useful it is to generalize across design fields as different as, say, architec-ture and computer science. Much of the work on design thinking has tried to generalize what designers do, think, and know, implying that this is different to what non-designers do (Cross 1982; Buchanan 1992). The recent interest in design within management may de-stabilize the idea of designerly ways of knowing. Some studies, for example, suggest that medics exhibit qualities associated with design thinking. Such assertions implicitly undermine design’s claim to uniqueness (Cross 2010). Although research accounts typically specify what type of design professional has been studied and identify their level of expertise, popular efforts to understand design thinking rarely make clear which design field is being discussed. Much academic research on design thinking ignores the particular context of knowledge-intensive consultancy and its place within a fluid and dynamic economy; this environment demands that design-ers manage and account for their work in particular ways (e.g. Julier and Moor 2009). But a recent shift in studies of design acknowledges the field’s cultural and sociological basis. The move from a visual to a cultural perspective in design history (e.g. Julier 2008) as well as the field’s growing focus on practices and consumption (e.g. Shove et al. 2007; Crewe et al. 2009) both recognize this change.
This approach might usefully be introduced in studies of design thinking too. Instead of focusing on individual designers and their cognitive styles, or on a methodology that can be applied in orga-nizations, work on design thinking could attend to the cultures of design. In several professions and disciplines practitioners refer to themselves as designers and they conceive of their work as design. Rooted in distinct educational traditions that legitimize students and practitioners in different ways, these approaches are shaped by national and regional influences over time. In the UK, for example,
158
Page 159
29
9
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
architecture and engineering have strong professional bodies and authorizing procedures. These can be contrasted with design pro-fessions based in art schools. Here, product, communication, and fashion design, for instance, are typically taught without the need for extensive professional accreditation and with limited domain-specific bodies of knowledge (Wang and Ilhan 2009). Engineering is often linked with formal theories of design, but fails to account for the generation of creative ideas (Hatchuel and Weil 2009). Nevertheless, engineering designers have an identifiable visual and material culture (Bucciarelli 1994; Henderson 1999). Emerging fields such as service design (e.g. Meroni and Sangiorgi, forthcoming) often sit uncomfort-ably between academic and professional boundaries, concerned as they are, not just with the design of objects but also systems, processes, and social arrangements. In this context, several dif-ferent types of professionals do design work, not just “designers” (Figure 3). Acknowledging the cultures of designers and understand-ing the different kinds of practices that have developed within various institutional arrangements would help publics and scholars alike better understand and employ design thinking. Such clarifications would also allow researchers to identify if indeed a particular kind of knowledge practice can be shared across all design fields.
As Rowe points out ([1987] 1998), describing how designers do design, how they think, and what they know forces us to examine our assumptions about what constitutes design; it forces us to de-fine design itself. Not surprisingly, many accounts of design thinking identify the designer as the main agent in design; these approaches
Figure 3 Bringing an attentiveness to material artifacts and the experience of services in practice during a workshop for managers of public services led by the author.
Photograph: Lucy Kimbell.
159
Page 160
30
0
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
also explore individual cognitive styles, although some versions also reflect the influence of stakeholders other than the user or customer (e.g. Bauer and Eagan 2008). Even when design thinking involves designers having empathy with users, the designer (or manager practicing design thinking) is presented as an agent of change within an organization or project. This perception starkly contrasts with extensive work in fields such as anthropology, sociology, and consumption studies. In the latter context, users, stakeholders, and consumers of designed things all act in ways that can challenge or disrupt the intentions of designers. For example, Lucy Suchman (1987) showed how people using photocopiers ignored the plans of designers, by not following instructions displayed on the top of the machine fully and therefore being unable to use the copier, which did not know they had made a mistake. Combining consumption theory with studies of science and technology, Elizabeth Shove et al. (2007) argue that innovation in products often requires innovation in practices. Suchman, Shove, and other researchers have rethought design, presenting it as a distributed social accomplishment within which artifacts and other humans play important roles; they help constitute the meaning and effects of a design. In contrast, ac-counts of design thinking continue to privilege the designer, however empathetic, as the main agent in design. But such ideas may limit research, education, or practice. Like anyone else, designers can be attentive to some things, and not others. We must acknowledge that design practice is shaped by designers’ own theoretical and political commitments (Fry 2009); we must make such knowledge part of practice and research analysis.
Is Design Special?This essay assumes that designs, knowledge, and research are constituted in practice. As studies of design practice are gathering pace (e.g. Suchman 1987; Ehn 1988; Julier 2007; Shove et al. 2007; Ehn 2008; Fry 2009; Tonkinwise 2010), the field is increasingly positioned as part of a wider turn within contemporary theory (e.g. Schatzki 2001). But design thinking has captured the imagination of practitioners and educators in a range of fields; this widespread interest leads to a discussion of design based more on anecdotes and claims than theoretically or empirically robust arguments. These accounts of design thinking rely on descriptions of designers’ do-ings and sayings, the things they make, what they know, and how they act in the world. By focusing on situated, embodied material practices, rather than a generalized “design thinking,” we may shift the conversation away from questions of individual cognition or organizational innovation. Instead, design becomes a set of routines that emerge in context. Such explorations help clarify designers’ material practices. They also force us to decide if design is a special way of engaging with and acting on the world, unique to designers, or shared by others such as managers too.6
160
Page 161
30
1
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
Although this body of research is based on a range of theoretical orientations, it raises important issues. Firstly, accounts of design thinking often make a distinction between thinking and action and between the designer and the context in which they are designing; secondly, they propose that there is something shared by all design-ers while not acknowledging important differences in how design professions and their institutions have emerged; and thirdly, they emphasize designers as the main agents in design. Instead, an al-ternative approach is proposed. This alternative draws on extensive work in anthropology, sociology, history, and science and technology studies. Moreover, these attend to the routine practices of those in-volved in design; they include not just designers, but also known and unknown users and other stakeholders. Design thinking is hardly the “failure” described by commentators like Bruce Nussbaum (2011): the practices of designers play important roles in constituting the contemporary world, whether or not “design thinking” is the right term for this. Design thinking does, however, remain undertheorized and understudied; indeed, the critical rethinking of design thinking has only just begun.
AcknowledgmentsVersions of this paper were presented at the European Academy of Management conference, Liverpool, May 2009, and at the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change conference, Manchester, September 2009 in a panel I co-organized with Laurene Vaughan and Nina Wakeford. The paper was improved with feedback from the editor and anonymous reviewers and through discussions with Simon Blyth, Fred Collopy, Anne-Laure Fayard, Tony Fry, Armand Hatchuel, Philip Hill, Guy Julier, Steve New, Ken Starkey, and Cameron Tonkinwise.
Notes1. The term organization is used here to refer to formally and infor-
mally constituted entities that come together to work on a shared purpose, rather than being confined to businesses.
2. It is beyond the scope of the paper to explore claims that designers have an entirely distinct way of working in comparison to other professionals, let alone to assess whether applying a design approach leads to increased effectiveness and efficiency and “more” innovation, and hence to organizational value. Asking such a question is of course already framed by assumptions about how value is thought about and assessed.
3. Simon’s views developed over the three editions of The Sciences of the Artificial and his work remains open to a diversity of interpretation. A recent paper in the field of management, for example, identified three main approaches to design in Simon’s work (Pandza and Thorpe 2010) whereas for Hatchuel (2001), Simon’s version of design is best thought of as problem solving.
161
Page 162
30
2
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
4. A book with the title Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work by Nigel Cross is now available from Berg.
5. Although there are closer links to Brown’s version of design thinking as discussed in Dunne and Martin’s (2006) study of busi-ness education.
6. I should draw attention to my own stake in this conversation: I teach in a business school. While it is somewhat overshadowed by the rather older university of which it is a department, as a young school founded in 1996 it has tried to chart a path that offers a vision of management education that draws on several disciplines and on critical discussion, including among its special-isms science and technology studies. Having come from an art and design practice background, I have taught a version of design and design management to MBA students since 2005. My MBA elective is taken by up to 50 students a year, giving them a brief exposure to the material practices of design, opportunities to collaborate with designers, and an orientation to the artifacts and arrangements within organizations as sites for design inquiries, idea generation, and intervention. In developing my curriculum, I try to help students make sense for themselves of the claims made for design thinking, while at the same time encouraging them to explore the possibilities and limits of design’s material practices and cultures to the projects, organizations, and ventures in which they work. See my teaching blog at Kimbell (2011).
ReferencesAcademy of Management. 2010. Annual Meeting Program. Available
online: http://program.aomonline.org/2010/pdf/AOM_2010_Annual_Meeting_Program.pdf (accessed May 24, 2011).
Adams, R., S. Daly, L. Mann, and G. Dall’Alba. 2010. “Being a Professional: Three Perspectives on Design Thinking, Acting and Being.” Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney, October 19–20: 11–24.
Alexander, C. 1971. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Badke-Schaub, P., N. Roozenburg, and C. Cardoso. 2010. “Design Thinking: A Paradigm on Its Way from Dilution to Meaning-lessness?” Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney, October 19–20: 39–49.
Bate, R. 2007. “Bringing the Design Sciences to Organization Development and Change.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 43(8): 8–11.
Bauer, R. and W. Eagan. 2008. “Design Thinking: Epistemic Plurality in Management and Organization.” Aesthesis, 2(3): 64–74.
Boland, R. and F. Collopy. 2004. “Design Matters for Management.” In R. Boland and F. Collopy (eds), Managing as Designing, pp. 3–18. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
162
Page 163
30
3
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
Boltanski, L. and E. Chiapello. [1999] 2005. The New Spirit of Capitalism. London: Verso.
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, T. 2008. “Design Thinking.” Harvard Business Review, June: 84–92.
Brown. T. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Brown, T. 2011. “Design Thinking.” Blog, available online: http://designthinking.ideo.com/ (accessed April 13, 2011).
Brown, T. and J. Wyatt. 2010. “Design Thinking and Social Innovation.” Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter: 30–5.
Bucciarelli, L. 1994. Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Buchanan, R. 1992. “Wicked Problems in Design Thinking.” Design Issues, 8(2): 5–21.
Buchanan, R. and V. Margolin (eds). 1995. Discovering Design: Explorations in Design Studies. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Burnette, C. 2009. “A Theory of Design Thinking.” Paper prepared in response to the Torquay Conference on Design Thinking, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne. November 1, 2009. Available online: http://independent.academia.edu/CharlesBurnette/Papers/136254/A_Theory_of_Design_Thinking (accessed March 6, 2011).
Case Western Reserve University. 2010. “Convergence: Managing + Designing.” Weatherhead School of Management. June 18 & 19. Available online: http://design.case.edu/convergence/ (accessed April 14, 2011).
Case Western Reserve University. 2011. “Manage by Designing.” Available online: http://design.case.edu/ (accessed April 17, 2011).
Crewe, L., N. Gregson, and A. Metcalfe. 2009. “The Screen and the Drum: On Form, Function, Fit and Failure in Contemporary Home Consumption.” Design and Culture, 1(3): 307–28.
Cross, N. 1982. “Designerly Ways of Knowing.” Design Studies, 3(4): 221–7.
Cross, N. 2001. “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science.” Design Issues, 17(3): 49–55.
Cross, N. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Berlin: Springer.Cross, N. 2010. “Design Thinking as a Form of Intelligence.” Proceed
ings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney, October 19–20, 99–105.
Cross N., K. Dorst, and N. Roozenburg (eds). 1992. Research in Design Thinking. Delft: Delft University Press.
Design Council. 2009. “Innovation: The Essentials of Innovation.” Available online: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/About-Design/Business-Essentials/Innovation/ (accessed August 18, 2009).
163
Page 164
30
4
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
Dorst, K. 2006. “Design Problems and Design Paradoxes.” Design Issues, 22(3): 4–14.
Dorst, K. 2010. “The Nature of Design Thinking.” Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney, October 19–20, 131–9.
Dorst, K. and N. Cross. 2001. “Creativity in the Design Process: Co-evolution of Problem–Solution.” Design Studies, 22(5): 425–37.
Dunne, D. and R. Martin. 2006. “Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion.” Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(4): 512–23.
EGOS. 2010. Conference of the European Group for Organization Studies. June 28–July 3, Faculdade de Economia, Universidade Nova de Lisboa. Lisbon, Portugal. Sub-theme 32: “Design-Driven Innovation: Linguistic, Semantic and Symbolic Innovations vs. Technological and Functional Innovations.” Available online: http://www.egosnet.org (accessed February 18, 2010).
Ehn, P. 1988. WorkOriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ehn, P. 2008. “Participation in Design Things.” PDC ’08 Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design, Bloomington, Indiana, USA, October 1–4.
EURAM. 2009. European Academy of Management annual conference. Available online: http://www.euram2009.org/r/default.asp?iId=MKEFI (accessed March 26, 2009).
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Fry, T. 2009. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Oxford: Berg.
Geertz, C. 1973. “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture.” In C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays, pp. 3–30. New York: Basic Books.
Harvard Business Review. 2009. “How to Fix Business Schools.” Available online: http://blogs.hbr.org/how-to-fix-business-schools/ (accessed April 13, 2011).
Hatchuel, A. 2001. “Towards Design Theory and Expandable Rationality: The Unfinished Programme of Herbert Simon.” Journal of Management and Governance, 5(3–4): 260–73.
Hatchuel, A. and B. Weil. 2009. “C-K Theory: An Advanced Formulation.” Research in Engineering Design, 19(4): 181–92.
Henderson, K. 1999. Online and On paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
IDEO. 2006. “Tim Brown and IDEO Visit the Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum.” Available online: http://www.ideo.com/news/archive/2006/01/ (accessed April 13, 2011).
Jelinek, M., G. Romme, and R. Boland. 2008. “Introduction to the Special Issue: Organization Studies as a Science for Design:
164
Page 165
30
5
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I
Creating Collaborative Artifacts and Research.” Organization Studies, 29(3): 317–29.
Jones, J.C. 1970. Design Methods. Chichester: Wiley.Jones, J.C. and D.G. Thornley (eds). 1963. Conference on Design
Methods. Volume 1. Oxford: Pergamon.Julier, G. 2007. “Design Practice Within a Theory of Practice.” Design
Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 1(2): 43–50.Julier, G. 2008. The Culture of Design. 2nd edition. London: Sage.Julier, G. 2011. “Political Economies of Design Activism and the
Public Sector.” Paper presented at Nordic Design Research Conference, Helsinki.
Julier, G. and L. Moor (eds). 2009. Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice. Oxford: Berg.
Kelley, D. and G. VanPatter. 2005. Design as Glue: Understanding the Stanford dschool. NextDesign Leadership Institute.
Kelley, T. 2001. The Art of Innovation. London: Profile.Kimbell, L. 2011. MBA Elective in Designing Better Futures. Available
online: http://www.designingbetterfutures.wordpress.com/ (accessed April 16, 2011).
Ladner, S. 2009. “Design Thinking’s Big Problem.” Blog post. Available online: http://copernicusconsulting.net/design-thinkings-big-problem/ (accessed April 13, 2011).
Lash, S. and J. Urry. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Lawson, B. 1997. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. 3rd edition. London: Architectural Press.
Lawson, B. and K. Dorst. 2009. Design Expertise. Oxford: Architectural Press.
March, J. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.” Organization Science, 2(1): 71–87.
Martin, R. 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge MA: Harvard Business Press.
Meroni, A. and D. Sangiorgi. n.d. (forthcoming). Design for Services. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.
MindLab. 2009. About MindLab. Available online: http://www.mind-lab.dk/assets/116/ml_folder_eng.pdf (accessed April 15, 2011).
Nussbaum, B. 2011. “Design Thinking is a Failed Experiment: So What’s Next?” Fast Company blog. Available online: http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/beyond-design-thinking (accessed April 13, 2011).
Pandza, K. and R. Thorpe. 2010. “Management as Design, but What Kind of Design? An Appraisal of the Design Science Analogy for Management.” British Journal of Management, 21(1): 171–86.
Parker, S. and J. Heapy. 2006. The Journey to the Interface: How Public Service Design Can Connect Users to Reform. London: Demos.
165
Page 166
30
6
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
Rittel, H. and M. Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy Sciences, 4: 155–69.
Rowe, P. [1987] 1998. Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Rylander, A. 2009. “Exploring Design Thinking as Pragmatist Inquiry.”
Paper presented at the 25th EGOS Colloquium, Barcelona, Spain, July 2–4.
Schatzki, T.R. 2001. “Practice Theory.” In T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Con temporary Theory. London: Routledge.
Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
School of Advanced Military Studies. n.d. Art of Design. Student Text. Version 2.0. Available online: http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/events/sams/ArtofDesign_v2.pdf (accessed November 11, 2010).
Shove, E., M. Watson, M. Hand, and J. Ingram. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.
Simon, H.A. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Simon, H.A. 1973. “The Structure of Ill Structured Problems.” Artificial Intelligence, 4: 181–201.
Suchman, L.1987. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TED. 2009. “Tim Brown Urges Designers to Think Big.” Talk at TED Conference, Oxford, July. Available online: http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_urges_designers_to_think_big.html (accessed April 13, 2011).
Temple University. 2011. Center for Design and Innovation. Available online: http://design.temple.edu/ (accessed April 16, 2011).
Thrift, N. 2005. Knowing Capitalism. London: Sage.Tonkinwise, C. 2010. “A Taste for Practices: Unrepressing Style
in Design Thinking.” Proceedings of the 8th Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS8), Sydney, October 19–20: 381–8.
Tsoukas, H. and R. Chia. 2002. “On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change.” Organization Science, 13(5): 567–82.
University of Toronto. 2011. “Business Design.” Available online: http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/businessdesign/default.aspx (accessed April 16, 2011).
Verganti. R. 2009. Designdriven Innovation: Changing the Rules by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.
Wang, D. and A. Ilhan. 2009. “Holding Creativity Together: A Sociological Theory of the Design Professions.” Design Issues, 25(1): 5–21.
Winograd, T. and F. Flores. 1986. Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
166
Page 167
REPRINTS AVAILABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE PUBLISHERS
PHOTOCOPYING PERMITTED BY LICENSE ONLY
© BERG 2012PRINTED IN THE UK
DESIGN AND CULTURE VOLUME 4, ISSUE 2PP 129–148
12
9
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
D
OI:
10.2
752/
1754
7081
2X13
2819
4897
5413
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
Lucy Kimbell
ABSTRACT This paper uses resources from anthropology and science and technology studies to propose understanding design expertise and activity as constituted materially and discursively in practice. Introducing a pair of concepts – design-as-practice and designs-in-practice – as an analytical device for discussing design solves a number of problems facing researchers working in design studies. First, it helps researchers see design as a situated, local accomplishment involving diverse and multiple actors. Second, it acknowledges the roles of objects in constituting practices. Third, it de-centers the designer as the main agent in designing. This approach moves away from a disembodied, ahistorical design thinking to a situated, contingent set of practices carried by professional designers and those who engage with designs, which recognizes the materiality of designed things and the material and discursive practices through which they come to matter.
Lucy Kimbell is Associate Fellow, Saïd Business School, University of Oxford and Head of Social Design at the
Young Foundation, London. She has taught
design practices to MBA students since 2005,
having previously taught interaction design at
the Royal College of Art, London. Her main focus is
designing services in the context of public policy. [email protected]
167
Page 168
13
0
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
KEYWORDS: design thinking, practices, designers, innovation, organization design
IntroductionAccounts of design thinking often hinge on descriptions of the ways designers do things. Researchers do not have direct access to what goes on in designers’ minds, so they are left with what they believe is going on as they seek to describe and explain designers’ think-ing. One striking story comes from management researchers Dick Boland and Fred Collopy (2004), reflecting on their experience of working with architects from Frank Gehry’s firm designing the new building for their business school. Having spent two days with the architects revising the arrangement of space in the new building, Boland and Collopy describe how the project lead Matt Fineout tears up the plans they have just agreed on. He suggests they start again, now they know they can solve the problem (Boland and Collopy 2004: 5).
Even in this short description, Boland and Collopy draw our attention to practice: the architects’ tacit and embodied knowledge, their bodily and mental activities, what structures their professional work and makes particular behaviors possible, and how it feels. These ways of working startle the management professors, since tearing up plans is not part of the routines within their work culture. Boland and Collopy’s account draws attention to the embodied, shared experience of working around a table on sheets of onionskin, making marks, and discussing how the building should be designed. Reading it, one can feel the authors’ visceral response to seeing the architect destroy what they have all just created together. For this architect, design is not simply problem solving since in this story, he tears up a viable solution. For Boland and Collopy, this experience helps them identify a distinctive “design attitude” to describe how designers do not just choose between alternatives, but generate entirely new concepts. But this account also captures the material and discursive practices in contemporary design professions. It may be possible to identify a distinctive kind of “design thinking.” But perhaps more interestingly, we might attend to the material and discursive practices in which designers of particular kinds do, know, and say particular things and how they come to do, know, and say these things but not others. In so doing we might develop a richer understanding of professional design and its effects.
At a time when the term design thinking has become more com-mon outside of professional design, in particular within management fields (Brown 2009; Martin 2009; Kimbell 2011), this paper explores what theories of practice can bring to understanding professional designers and the cultures in which they have expertise. The main contribution is to propose a new analytical device for discussing
168
Page 169
13
1
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
design based in theories of practice. It conceives of design activity as linking both what designers do, know, and say, with what end-users and other stakeholders do, know, and say, acknowledging the materials and objects involved in practices and at the same time attending to the discursive practices that make possible particular ways of doing, knowing, and saying. A decade after Victor Margolin’s (2002) call for studies of design as a cultural practice, the paper’s distinctive feature is to propose shifting the level of analysis in re-search away from individuals to practices, conceived of as a nexus of minds, bodies, things, and the institutional arrangements within which designs and their users are constituted (Reckwitz 2002).
First I review research influenced by anthropology, science and technology studies, and philosophy that views the world in terms of practices. Drawing on the work of Wanda Orlikowski (2000), Theodore Schatzki (Schatzki et al. 2001), Andreas Reckwitz (2002), Mark Hartswood et al. (2002), Lucy Suchman (2003), Elizabeth Shove (Shove 2011; Shove and Pantzar 2005), Karen Barad (2007), Tony Fry (2007, 2009), and others, I identify concepts that help illumi-nate the material and discursive practices within which professional design is constituted. I then propose a new way of conceiving of design activity. This highlights the practices that constitute designs, designers’ work, and their expertise. I introduce a pair of concepts to describe designing: design-as-practice and designs-in-practice.
This pair of concepts solves a number of problems facing researchers analyzing design activity. These include maintaining dualisms between thinking and doing; ignoring the particular contin-gencies that shape the emergence of design practices; and relying predominantly on the agency of designers to understand design even though other factors, such as non-human actors, are involved in constituting practices (Barad 2007; Harman 2009). I then briefly il-lustrate the two concepts using research from an ethnographic study of professional designers. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications for researchers and educators with an interest in design and designers, and limitations of the approach.
Although the term design thinking may be moving on from its time in the spotlight according to some commentators (e.g. Walters 2011), there remains an important task: to describe and explain doing and knowing within design and the particular expertise of de-sign professionals (e.g. Cross 2004, 2006; Lawson and Dorst 2009). We need to understand what effects designers can have within the different projects, organizations, and communities within which they work. The paper’s contribution is to use theories of practice in order to advance understanding about designers’ work, moving away from a disembodied, ahistorical design thinking to a situated, contingent set of practices carried by professional designers and those who engage with designs, which recognizes the materiality of designed things and how they come to matter.
169
Page 170
13
2
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
Reconfiguring the World in PracticeTheories of practice (e.g. Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1984; Schatzki et al. 2001; Reckwitz 2002; Shove and Pantzar 2005; Warde 2005) draw on the attention paid in anthropology and sociology to what people do in their embodied, often mundane, situated interactions with other people and with things. Practice theories shift the unit of analysis away from a micro level (individuals) or a macro one (organ-izations or groups and their norms) to an indeterminate level at a nexus of minds, bodies, objects, discourses, knowledge, structures/processes, and agency, which together constitute practices that are carried by individuals (Reckwitz 2002). Examples of this perspective outside of anthropology and sociology include studying technology use (e.g. Orlikowski 2000; Barley and Kunda 2001); organizational strategy (e.g. Whittington 1996); knowledge in organizations (e.g. Brown and Duguid 2001); product development (e.g. Carlile 2002); service innovation (e.g. Dougherty 2004); and design (e.g. Du Gay et al. 1997; Shove et al. 2007; Balsamo 2011).
Core concepts in theories of practice include bodies, minds, things, knowledge, discourse, structure/process, and agency (Reckwitz 2002). For example, Elizabeth Shove and Mika Pantzar (2005) describe the practice of Nordic walking as an interweaving of competence and skills (how to do Nordic walking), symbolic mean-ing and images (what it means to do it), and equipment (the material stuff that is part of doing it). While theories of practice may vary, there are, however, two important common ideas. Firstly, practices cannot be considered by taking any one of these elements in isolation (Reckwitz 2002; Shove 2011). Secondly, practices are understood to be produced dynamically through the interplay of these diverse elements in relation to one another (Shove and Pantzar 2005; Barad 2007). Or, as Carsten Østerlund and Paul Carlile (2005: 92) put it, “subjects, social groups, networks, or even artifacts develop their properties only in relation to other subjects, social groups, or networks.”
The variety of approaches within this theoretical orientation means that practice perspectives are not necessarily coherent with one another (Reckwitz 2002). For example, Østerlund and Carlile (2005) identify seven distinct attributes within practice theories, including delineating the differences between the entities being studied, or specifying the empirical practices presented by a particular theory. For the purposes of this discussion on design thinking, this paper follows Reckwitz in his definition of an ideal type of practice theory in which practice is understood as “a routinized type of behavior which consists of several elements, interconnected to one another: forms of bodily activities, forms of mental activities, ‘things’ and their use, a background knowledge in the form of understanding, know-how, states of emotion and motivational knowledge” (Reckwitz 2002: 249). Here I will emphasize four aspects of practice theory.
170
Page 171
13
3
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
The first highlights how practices are understood as “(re)configur-ings of the world through which the determination of boundaries, properties, and meanings is differentially enacted” (Barad 2007: 148). A practice is a dynamic, local accomplishment in which multiple and different kinds of actor are woven together in “artful integrations” (Suchman 1994). For Karen Barad (2007: 152), “the material and the discursive are mutually implicated in the dynamics of intra-activity.” This approach avoids established dualisms between subject/object, nature/culture, and body/mind. Instead, for Barad, the primary onto-logical unit is “phenomena,” which she defines as “produced through complex agential intra-actions of multiple, material-discursive prac-tices or apparatuses of bodily production” (Barad 2007: 140). In this way of thinking about what makes up the world (ontology) and how we can know it (epistemology), Barad and others start from a position in which it is through practice that the sociomaterial world is constituted. Practice theory offers a way to see design activity as distributed across a number of different people and artifacts that together enact designing and designs.
A second aspect is how structures – such as designs – are constituted in practice, as described in numerous studies of technol-ogy design and development (e.g. Suchman 1987; Hutchins 1995; Barley and Kunda 2001) but also media (e.g. Hall [1977] 1992). In her study of the use of Lotus Notes software, for example, Wanda Orlikowski (2000) showed how technologies are constituted in differ-ent ways by users’ practices. She found that, as they interact with a technology in their ongoing practices, people enact structures which shape the emergent and situated use of that technology. She found that “technology-in-practice” can vary considerably in the ways structures are routinely encoded. “When people use a technology, they draw on the properties comprising the technological artifact, those provided by its constituent materiality, those inscribed by the designers, and those added on through previous interactions” (410). The contribution of this study was to show that structure is not located in organizations, or in technology, but is enacted by users in practice.
The third aspect of practice theory on which I will draw is the attention paid to the role of objects in constituting practices, echoing work by scholars attending to the materiality, matter, and objects in a range of disciplines. Key contributions include anthropology (e.g. Appadurai 1986; Gell 1998; Miller 2010), studies of science and technology (e.g. Latour 2005; Barad 2007), and philosophy (e.g. Harman 2009). As Reckwitz describes: “For practice theory, objects are necessary components of many practices – just as indispensable as bodily and mental activities. Carrying out a practice very often means using particular things in a certain way” (Reckwitz 2002: 252). Paying attention to objects, be they objects in the natural world, instruments, or objects produced within a knowledge practice is for Karin Knorr Cetina (2001) a way of making a distinction between a
171
Page 172
13
4
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
definition of practice as rule-based routines or embodied skills, and a notion of practice that is “more dynamic, creative and constructive” (187).
The fourth aspect of practice theory I emphasize is knowledge. The particular contribution of the practice perspective is to avoid the alternatives presented in theories that focus exclusively on what goes on in people’s minds, or at the level of social norms, or understood through analysis of language, for example. In theories of practice, knowledge is a social accomplishment situated in the ongoing rou-tines of bodily and mental activities. As Schatzki explains:
The prioritization of practices over mind brings with it a transformed conception of knowledge. As indicated, know-ledge (and truth) are no longer automatically self-transparent possessions of minds. Rather, knowledge and truth, including scientific versions, are mediated both by interactions between people and by arrangements in the world. Often, consequently, knowledge is no longer even the property of individuals, but instead a feature of groups, together with their material setups. (Schatzki 2001: 12)
In this brief overview, I have tried to show that theories of practice offer resources to those studying designers and their work, or what some designers and researchers call design thinking. Understanding the sociomaterial world as dynamic and constituted in practice enables us to move away from some of the difficulties presented in accounts of design thinking. It may also offer us a way to enrich our understanding of what designers do, know, and say and the effects that designers and designs have in the world.
Design-as-practice and Designs-in-practiceThe paper now offers an alternative way of conceiving of design activity. I believe the attempt to try to find a new way of thinking about professional design is pressing, at a time when educators, re-searchers, and professionals within management and other fields are increasingly mobilizing design in their work (Kimbell 2011). I propose a pair of concepts as an analytical device, which draw on literatures in sociology and science and technology studies as well as design studies. To use terminology from design, readers are invited to see this pair of concepts as a sketch. As such, the ideas that follow are understood as tentative, and suggestive, but nonetheless may offer important new ways to change how professional design is conceived of.
The first concept is perhaps an obvious move, to conceive of design-as-practice. Descriptions of design thinking often rely on accounts of what designers do in their embodied, situated routines, and cannot be completed without reference to the artifacts they use, make, and work with and which are involved in mutually constituting
172
Page 173
13
5
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
what design is. So how does it make sense not to explore the resources offered by practice theory? Design-as-practice mobilizes a way of thinking about the work of designing that acknowledges that design practices are habitual, possibly rule-governed, often routinized, conscious or unconscious, and that they are embodied and situated.1 What designers know, do, and say is constituted by and co-constitutes what is possible for designers to do, know, and say (and what is not possible for them in particular places and at particular times). An attentiveness to practice orients the researcher to how knowing, doing, and saying constitute and are constituted in relation to other elements of a practice. Further, what designers do, know, and say is contingent and has changed over time, nor are the doing, knowing, and saying constituted through practice the same everywhere (Margolin 2002). Design-as-practice cannot conceive of designing (the verb) without the artifacts that are created and used by the bodies and minds of people doing designing. This way of thinking of design sees it as a situated and distributed unfolding in which a number of people, and their knowing, doing, and saying, and a number of things, are implicated.
This moves the unit of analysis away from oppositions between individual skill or knowing (e.g. Schön 1988; Cross 2006), or or-ganizational competence (e.g. Bauer and Egan 2008), to a set of material and discursive practices which are enacted during design activity. Design-as-practice avoids the contradictory accounts of design that see it as a rational problem-solving activity (e.g. Simon 1996) or as something concerned with generating new ideas (e.g. Boland and Collopy 2004) or creating meanings (e.g. Krippendorff 2006; Verganti 2009). It acknowledges the work done by profes-sional designers in these practices, but also opens up design to others, such as managers and employees in organizations, and also customers, end-users and others who, through their practices, also take part in design.
The second concept is designs-in-practice. Designing is already understood to be a thoroughly social process (e.g. Schön 1988; Bucciarelli 1994). Like Orlikowski’s (2000) technologies-in-practice, this term acknowledges the emergent nature of design outcomes as they are enacted in practice. It takes the plural noun form of “design,” which can mean the outputs created during a process of designing, such as blueprints, models, specifications, and what is finally assembled in products and services. The term designs-in-practice draws attention to the impossibility of there being a singular design. But it is not sufficient to study what the designers and others involved in the designing process think and say and do. Drawing on practice-oriented consumption theory (e.g. Shove and Pantzar 2005; Warde 2005; Ingram et al. 2007; Shove et al. 2007), the concept of designs-in-practice foregrounds the incomplete nature of the process and outcomes of designing (Garud et al. 2008). When the designers have finished their work, and the engineers and
173
Page 174
13
6
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
manufacturers have finished theirs, and the marketers and retailers have finished theirs, and the customer or end-user has bought a product or started using a service artifact, the activity of designing is still not over. Through engagement with a product or service over time and space, the user or stakeholder continues to be involved in constituting what a design is. Designs (the noun) are constituted in relation to professional designers, customers, and identifiable, known end-users as well as other people who are not known, but also to other elements of practice such as knowledge, feelings, and symbolic structures.
There are other examples of a pair of concepts that make a distinction between the designing done primarily by professional designers and that done by end-users or customers. Within the field of Participatory Design, for example, Pelle Ehn has summarized the distinction between “design for use before use” at project time and “design after design” at use time (Ehn 2008). He proposes creating infrastructures that are flexible and open for design after design and unforeseen appropriation. Similarly, writing about digital design, Botero et al. (2010) describe a continuum between creation and design-in-use. They argue that designers can develop strategies that support different kinds of design-in-use, specifically reinterpretation, adaptation, and reinvention.
What the conceptualization offered here does that is different is as follows. Firstly, it is not primarily focused on what designers or others do, but rather conceives of designs, and designers’ own working, as constituted relationally through the intra-action (Barad 2007) of several elements. Secondly, it asks how such intra-action results in specific configurations, constituting particular kinds of designs, subjects, and knowledge, and excluding others. Thirdly, it uses these ideas to discuss the design of any designed entity, not just digital configurations where ideas of appropriation are relatively easy to identify, for example in the reuse of digital code or the creation of hashtags in Twitter (cf. Botero et al. 2010).
Exploring the Practice ApproachA brief illustration demonstrates how this analytical device might be used. It draws on an ethnography I conducted during a study of professional service designers (Kimbell 2009).2 The aim of this research was to identify the ways that designers educated in the studio-practice tradition approached designing for service. I stud-ied service designers working for a few days over several months on a short project for a science enterprise offering a service. The designers’ goal was to help the organization redesign its smoking cessation support service, then being trialed in UK pharmacies, free to individuals giving up smoking through the National Health Service. The service included genetic testing of the person trying to give up smoking, based on research that showed that genetic factors influ-ence which nicotine replacement therapies are suitable for particular
174
Page 175
13
7
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
individuals. I describe two scenes from this research, in which I was participant-observer. These activities were also filmed on video to which I had access.
Designs-in-practiceI accompanied two of the designers when they visited a pharmacy where the smoking cessation service was being trialed, along with a manager from the science enterprise and a cameraperson. While one designer made notes and sketches and took photographs, the other, a non-smoker, did a “walk-through” of the service – going through various activities with a pharmacy assistant in a similar way to how a user would sign up for the service. The pharmacy assistant took blood and saliva samples from the designer, telling him what she was doing and why this was necessary within the service. The designers wanted to know how she experienced delivering the ser-vice as well as how would-be non-smokers engaged with her during the tests and sign-up activities. During this encounter, the designers paid considerable attention to the artifacts and activities within the pharmacy they saw as connected with the service. These included a poster about the service in the pharmacy window, the layout of the small consulting room where the encounter took place, the website where the assistant signed up new service users and entered details, a large file of information about the service trial, and other things such as a hand-written thank-you note stuck on the wall.
One discussion revolved around the design of the test kit used to take samples of saliva and blood. The assistant explained how she found it useful to lay the contents of the kit out on the desk in a particular order (Figure 1). Since the time taken to do the saliva test and obtain a result was around twenty minutes, she had decided to do this activity first when meeting a person in the consulting room. She laid out the kit in a particular way to prompt her to do this. The manager agreed there was a benefit to doing this, since reducing the duration of the encounter reduced costs. Together, the man-ager and assistant discussed the fact that the pack did not include instructions about which order to do the two tests in. Unprompted, the assistant had analyzed how she could use it to lead to more efficient delivery of the service. Her use of the kit configured it as a more efficient kit in practice than the ways other people might use it. On its own, it would be hard to say if the kit was efficient or inefficient. But within the practices of pharmacy assistants using the kit to conduct tests to constitute a service, it could become efficient or inefficient. The packaging designers’ work had been completed. But the assistant’s activities as she engaged with the kit in the workplace, within particular reward structures and ways of valuing her expertise, played a role in constituting the design of the kit and potentially the efficiency of the service. An attentiveness to practice orients the researcher to how the assistant’s embodied knowledge constituted a particular design of a kit that had been
175
Page 176
13
8
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
designed by others, resulting in a new configuration of value to the service providers and to potential customers. The designers later built on this reconfiguring with specific suggestions as to how to improve the kit’s packaging and information design.
Design-as-practiceSome days after the visit to the pharmacy, the designers spent several hours working together in their studio, which was filmed by a cameraperson and in which I was participant-observer (Figure 2). On the wall, the designers assembled photographs, print-outs from the service website, and other materials connected with the service to create a narrative of the customer journey from the perspective of the service user, a technique developed in services marketing. Overlaying this with annotated sticky notes, the two designers who had visited the pharmacy were joined by a colleague. Together, the three designers undertook a critique of the service. Their discussion ranged from considering specific “touchpoints,” the name they gave to artifacts connected with the service, such as the poster in the pharmacy window, to the goals and strategy of the firm offering the service, the pharmacies involved in delivering it and their resources, and discussion about how smokers went about giving up smoking. This was an extensive although unstructured conversation drawing on tacit knowledge about what constitutes a good service experience (Bate and Robert 2007), with references to other kinds of consump-tion and service. Their working was shaped by these designers’
Figure 1 This photograph, taken by a designer during a site visit to a pharmacy, shows
how the pharmacy assistant organized the test kit when carrying out a smoking cessation service. Photograph: live|work. Courtesy University of Oxford.
176
Page 177
13
9
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
Figure 2 Video stills from participation-observation of the practices of service designers
from the consultancy live|work in their London studio. Video stills by Oxford Academy of Documentary Film. Courtesy University of Oxford.
long-standing professional relationships and shared background in studio-based education. Using the consultancy’s templates, the designers sat around a table and started to draw individually, all of them filling several sheets of paper with their work. They worked quietly, occasionally making comments or showing each other their work. They then presented their sketches to one another. In so doing they brought into view a service that was different to the one they constituted with their explorations in the pharmacy visit described above and other research.
177
Page 178
14
0
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
The designers’ sketching together resulted in suggestions for improvements to existing service touchpoints such as the test kit; proposals for new artifacts to be part of the service; and in some cases their sketches proposed entirely new services, for example a genetic test data bank. The activities of these three designers involved both explicit and tacit knowledge, with minds and bodies working together, sometimes in silence, with little discussion about what they should do next but rather embodied routines which led them from one activity to another. An attentiveness to practice here orients the researcher to the ways that these activities are made possible and become routinized within the cultures of designers (Julier 2008), while other ways of working are made less possible.
These two illustrations have suggested how a pair of concepts, design-as-practice and designs-in-practice, might be used as an analytical device in research about design. Although not fully devel-oped, this analysis suggests a fruitful way of trying to account for what goes on within design, through the practices which involve pro-fessional designers as well as other elements in constituting designs. As a relational pair, design-as-practice and designs-in-practice serve to ground the practices of designers – their knowledge, ways of knowing, ways of doing, and shared routines – within the bodies they use to do their work, their minds, and the institutional arrangements and symbolic structures which make some activities possible and indeed routine in design.
The relationship between the two concepts is not temporal, with one following the other, although in my account here designs-in-practice is followed by design-as-practice. Nor is each concept at one extreme of a continuum. Instead, designs-in-practice and design-as-practice are better thought of as mutually structuring.
The practice perspective connects activities with the objects that are implicated in living and working, and, crucially, to the practices of stakeholders and others co-creating outcomes of design in the world. As an alternative to design thinking, the pairing of design-as-practice and designs-in-practice moves the unit of analysis away from the individual designer or user, or the organization or group and its norms, to a way of thinking about design that is relational, embodied, structured, and structuring. The possible implications of this are now discussed.
DiscussionIn an earlier essay in this journal (Kimbell 2011), I explored inter-est in the term design thinking at a time when designers’ ways of knowing and working were being adopted within management fields (e.g. Martin 2009). I situated this development in a context of professional designers becoming a creative class (Florida 2002) of privileged cultural intermediaries (Nixon and Du Gay 2002) within a dynamic, mediatized economy in which production, consumption,
178
Page 179
14
1
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
and distribution have been reconfigured (Lash and Urry 1994). I reviewed several decades of research into design thinking and sum-marized three strands, although there are significant differences in the research aims, approaches, and methods used in these litera-tures. The first strand sees design thinking as a cognitive style; the second strand defines design thinking as a general theory of design; and the third sees design thinking as a resource for organizations. I then identified three issues. The first is that many of the descriptions of design thinking rest on a dualism between thinking and knowing and acting in the world. The second issue identified how an idealized design thinking ignores the diversity of designers’ ways of doing, knowing, and saying and the specific contexts in which these have come into view. The third is the emphasis on the designer as the main agent in design activity.
In this essay I have summarized theories of practice which I believe help researchers avoid these issues. I have argued that practice theories switch the unit of analysis from individual actors or society and its norms, to a messy, contingent combination of minds, things, bodies, structures, processes, and agencies. Attending to practice offers ways to understand design activity not just as the work of design professionals and what they do or think, but sees designing as constituted in the intra-action (Barad 2007) of these diverse elements. Design thinking can thus be rethought as a set of contingent, embodied routines that reconfigure the sociomaterial world, and which are institutionalized in different ways. This helps us consider what makes it possible for professional designers to do, know, and say particular things, and not others, at particular times and in particular places. This offers a rich way to understand designing that challenges the efforts to describe a generalized (and often celebratory) design thinking.
A practice orientation also opens up the roles that other human and non-human actors play in constituting design activity, including managers, employees, paying customers, end-users, and others, possibly including those who are not yet born, but also sketches, chairs, websites, consultancies, and post-it notes (cf. Ehn 2008; Ravasi and Rindova 2008; Verganti 2009; Botero et al. 2010). Further, by foregrounding the work done by customers, end-users, stakeholders, and other actors in constituting designs-in-practice, this approach suggests that the activity of designing is never complete. With Barad’s (2007) emphasis on how practices shape particular possibilities and exclude others, this orientation begs questions about how and where designers locate themselves, echo-ing research by Lucy Suchman (2003) and Tony Fry (2007, 2009).
I now summarize specific contributions from this approach in relation to the existing literature. Firstly, the practice orientation sees design as a situated, local accomplishment. Instead of dualisms between subject/object, nature/culture, and body/mind, practices are seen as dynamic configurations of minds, bodies, objects,
179
Page 180
14
2
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
discourses, knowledge, structures/processes, and agency which can be routinized and institutionalized. The implication is that it does not make sense to try to identify specific cognitive styles among de-signers which ignore how designers’ ways of knowing and thinking are structured and structure their wider sociomaterial context. Tony Fry (2007) is one researcher and educator who points to how the education and professional work of many designers within a context of capitalist consumption has resulted in a culture that reproduces a drive towards further unsustainable consumption. A practice orienta-tion enriches understanding of how designers think and what they know by making explicit how their culturally specific expertise can create new possibilities, but exclude others, and how these ways have become established over time in particular places.
The second contribution is the emphasis on objects as involved in constituting practices. In a practice orientation they are not just things designers make or that people buy or use. Instead, objects and materials are crucial to the unfolding of practice. Intuitively this makes sense. It is hard to think about design professionals without considering the emblematic artifacts with which they are associated, whether they are illustrations, models, or prototypes. Ethnographic descriptions of engineering designers (e.g. Bucciarelli 1994; Henderson 1999) and architects (e.g. Yaneva 2005; Ewenstein and Whyte 2009) have shown how designers working within different tra-ditions are entangled with objects, whether they have acquired them in the course of their work, created them, or involved stakeholders in generating them. Turning an ethnographic gaze onto design’s cultures will produce a deeper understanding of how designs are constituted and the various actors involved in this.
A third contribution that follows from the previous two is that the practice orientation de-centers the designer as the main agent in designing. This may not make sense to researchers who want to focus precisely on the designers and their expertise. However, the practice orientation can support a richer, more nuanced understand-ing of what goes on during design activity, and indeed supports the development of new kinds of professional expertises. In fact, the de-centering of the designer has been well underway for two decades in fields which draw extensively on the social sciences, such as Participatory Design and Computer Supported Cooperative Work (e.g. Ehn 1988; Suchman 1994; Hartswood et al. 2002). What this paper offers is a synthesis of this literature with research in design studies, a potentially deep vein for rethinking fields such as product and industrial design, visual communication, and craft, not just digital designing.
Some ImplicationsFor design research and practice, the practice-theoretical approach means that designers no longer have to make arguments about why stakeholders or end-users should be at the center of design.
180
Page 181
14
3
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
In this approach, they already are. In the practice approach, design is understood to be relational and it cannot be conceived of without the practices within which designing and designs are constituted. Further, stakeholders are co-designers and designers are another kind of stakeholder. Extending the view of practices as constitut-ing designs through a nexus of minds, bodies, objects, structure, process, agency, and knowledge challenges the claims of some designers (e.g. Brown 2009) that designing is human-centered. Schön’s (1983) description of how the materials “speak back” during designing already makes a move in this direction. Barad’s (2007) post-humanism and Harman’s (2009) object-oriented metaphysics offer alternatives that design researchers should explore further.
Methodologically, the practice orientation raises questions about research design, methods, and the boundaries set within a study. If studying a design process, what methods are appropriate for de-centering the human designers? Social scientists, in particular those studying science and technology, have developed an array of powerful methods that often involve following the objects (e.g. Latour 1987) or studying mundane things such as infrastructure (e.g. Star 1999). Several other questions come into view. If study-ing a designed thing, at what point in time does it make sense to start and stop, to examine its effects in practice? Which current and potential future users, customers, and other stakeholders in which specific cultures should be studied in order to understand a particular design?
Finally, for educators introducing approaches, methods, and tools from design within management education, the research presented here raises questions about the ease with which designers’ exper-tise can be exported elsewhere. The adoption of design thinking into management education, for example, in the form of tools and methods separated from the culture of design, may not have the desired results. Practices associated with professional designers that involve visual and performative methods and attend to the aesthetic dimensions of organization life, for example, are part of an educational tradition in which challenging established categories is institutionally rewarded. In contrast, management education rooted in the social sciences and engineering knowledge may not welcome such approaches despite frequent claims that it should adapt (e.g. Huff and Huff 2001; Dunne and Martin 2006).
Finally, I describe some of the limitations of this study. First, while the concepts introduced here as a relational pair are suggestive, they have not been fully elaborated or tested. To what extent they provide a basis for discussing design in projects, organizations, communi-ties, and other contexts requires further research. Secondly, they rest on an experimental ontology and epistemology in which the world is understood as co-constituted relationally, rather than a realist or constructivist approach (Schatzki et al. 2001; Latour 2005; Barad 2007; Harman 2009; Latour et al. 2011). While this serves the
181
Page 182
14
4
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
purposes of an exploratory essay such as this one, this analysis may not be fruitful for other research aims.
ConclusionThis paper has explored theories of practice to see how they might support a deeper understanding of design activity and designers’ expertise. Practice theories see the locus of the social not at the level of individuals and their minds, or in organizations and groups and their norms but as a nexus of minds, bodies, things, institutions, knowledge and processes, structure and agency. For practice theor-ists, these elements are woven together into routines and structures that together co-constitute the sociomaterial world. The paper’s contribution is to propose a new pair of concepts to describe and analyze design activity that acknowledge the work done by many ac-tors in constituting designs relationally in practice. I have argued that this helps us rethink design thinking and avoid some of the problems that have emerged in previous literature. Using a practice approach re-conceives of design activity as linking both what designers do, know, and say, with what end-users and other stakeholders do, know, and say, acknowledging the materials and objects that are part of these activities and at the same time attending to the discur-sive practices that make possible particular ways of doing, knowing, and saying, but exclude others.
AcknowledgmentsVersions of this paper were presented at the European Academy of Management conference, Liverpool, May 2009, and at the Centre for Research on Socio-Cultural Change conference, Manchester, September 2009 in a panel I co-organized with Laurene Vaughan and Nina Wakeford. The paper was improved with feedback from the editor and anonymous reviewers and through discussions with Simon Blyth, Kees Dorst, Tomas Farchi, Anne-Laure Fayard, Philip Hill, Guy Julier, Noortje Marres, Steve New, Tim Schwanen, Nina Wakeford, and Cameron Tonkinwise.
Notes1. There are of course similarities with Paul du Gay et al.’s descrip-
tion of the Sony Walkman (1997), Stuart Hall’s ([1977] 1992) discussion of the production, circulation, distribution, consump-tion, and reproduction of media, and Appadurai’s (1986) object biographies. But here I synthesize these related endeavors into a formulation that focuses in particular on the relation between designers’ work and designed things and the practices in which they are realized.
2. This research was supported by an award from the Designing for the 21st Century initiative of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.
182
Page 183
14
5
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
ReferencesAppadurai, A. (ed.). 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities
in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Balsamo, A. 2011. Designing Culture: The Technological Imagination at Work. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Barad, K. 2007. Meeting the Universe Half-way: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Barley, S.R. and G. Kunda. 2001. “Bringing Work Back In.” Organiza-tion Science, 12(1): 76–95.
Bate, P. and G. Robert. 2007. Bringing User Experience to Health-care Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience Based Design. Oxford: Radcliffe.
Bauer, R. and W. Eagan. 2008. “Design Thinking: Epistemic Plurality in Management and Organization.” Aesthesis, 2(3): 64–74.
Boland, R. and F. Collopy. 2004. “Design Matters for Management.” In R. Boland and F. Collopy (eds), Managing as Designing, pp. 3–18. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Botero, A., K.-H. Kommonen, and S. Marttila. 2010. “Expanding Design Space: Design-in-use Activities and Strategies.” Paper presented at the Design Research Society, Montreal. Available online: http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/PDF/018.pdf (accessed November 16, 2011).
Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, J.S. and P. Duguid. 2001. “Knowledge and Organization: A Social Practice Perspective.” Organization Science, 12(2): 198–213.
Brown. T. 2009. Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspires Innovation. New York: Harper Collins.
Bucciarelli, L. 1994. Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Carlile, P. 2002. “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development.” Organization Science, 13(4): 442–55.
Cross, N. 2004. “Expertise in Design: An Overview.” Design Studies, 25(5): 427–41.
Cross, N. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Berlin: Springer.Dougherty, D. 2004. “Organizing Practices in Services: Capturing
Practice Based Knowledge for Innovation.” Strategic Organization, 2(1): 35–64.
Du Gay, P., S. Hall, L. Janes, H. Mackay, and K. Negus. 1997. Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Dunne, D. and R. Martin. 2006. “Design Thinking and How It Will Change Management Education: An Interview and Discussion.” Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4): 512–23.
183
Page 184
14
6
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
Ehn, P. 1988. Work-oriented Design of Computer Artifacts. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ehn, P. 2008. “Participation in Design Things.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (PDC ’08). Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA, pp. 92–101.
Ewenstein, B. and J. Whyte. 2009. “Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as ‘Epistemic Objects.’” Organization Studies, 30(7): 7–30.
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Fry, T. 2007. “Redirective Practice: An Elaboration.” Design Philosophy Papers, 1.
Fry, T. 2009. Design Futuring: Sustainability, Ethics and New Practice. Oxford: Berg.
Garud, R., S. Jain, and P. Tuertscher. 2008. “Incomplete by Design and Designing for Incompleteness.” Organization Studies, 29(3): 351–71.
Gell, A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Giddens, A. 1984. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Hall, S. [1977] 1992. “Encoding/decoding.” In S. Hall, D. Hobson, A. Lowe, and P. Willis (eds), Culture, Media, Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–79, pp. 117–27. London: Taylor and Francis.
Harman, G. 2009. Prince of Networks: Bruno Latour and Meta-physics. Melbourne: Repress.
Harman, G. 2010. Towards Speculative Realism: Essays and Lectures. London: Zero Books.
Hartswood, M., R. Procter, R. Slack, A. Voss, M. Büscher, and M. Rouncefield. 2002. “Co-realisation: Towards a Principled Synthesis of Ethnomethodology and Participatory Design.” Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2): 9–30.
Henderson, K. 1999. Online and on Paper: Visual Representations, Visual Culture, and Computer Graphics in Design Engineering. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huff, A. and J.O. Huff. 2001. “Re-focusing the Business School Agenda.” British Journal of Management, 12, S49–S54.
Hutchins, E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Ingram, J., E. Shove, and M. Watson. 2007. “Products and Practices:
Selected Concepts from Science and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice.” Design Issues, 23(2): 3–16.
Julier, G. 2008. The Culture of Design. 2nd edition. London: Sage.Kimbell, L. 2009. “The Turn to Service Design.” In G. Julier and
L. Moor (eds), Design and Creativity: Policy, Management and Practice, pp. 157–73. Oxford: Berg.
184
Page 185
14
7
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II
Kimbell, L. 2011. “Rethinking Design Thinking.” Design and Culture, 3(3): 285–306.
Knorr Cetina, K. 2001. “Objectual Practice.” In T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory, pp. 175–88. London: Routledge.
Krippendorff, K. 2006. The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Lash, S. and J. Urry. 1994. Economies of Signs and Space. London: Sage.
Latour, B. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Latour, B., G. Harman, and P. Erdelyi. 2011. The Prince and the Wolf: Latour and Harman at the LSE. London: Zero Books.
Lawson, B. and K. Dorst. 2009. Design Expertise. Oxford: Arch-itectural Press.
Margolin, V. 2002. The Politics of the Artificial. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Martin, R. 2009. The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking Is the Next Competitive Advantage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Miller, D. 2010. Stuff. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Nixon, S. and P. Du Gay. 2002. “Who Needs Cultural Intermediaries?”
Cultural Studies, 16(4): 495–500.Orlikowski, W. 2000. “Using Technology and Constituting Structures:
A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations.” Organization Science, 11(4): 404–42.
Østerlund, C. and P. Carlile. 2005. “Relations in Practice: Sorting Through Practice Theories on Knowledge Sharing in Complex Organizations.” The Information Society, 21(2): 91–107.
Ravasi, D. and V. Rindova. 2008. “Symbolic Value Creation.” In D. Barry and H. Hansen (eds), The Sage Handbook of New Approaches in Management and Organization, pp. 270–84. London: Sage.
Reckwitz, A. 2002. “Towards a Theory of Social Practices: A Development in Culturalist Theorizing.” European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2): 243–63.
Schatzki, T.R. 2001. “Practice Theory.” In T.R. Schatzki, K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny (eds), The Practice Turn in Contemp-orary Theory, pp. 10–23. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T.R., K. Knorr Cetina, and E. von Savigny (eds). 2001. The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. London: Routledge.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Schön, D. 1988. “Designing: Rules, Types and Worlds.” Design
Studies, 9(3): 181–90.Shove, E. and M. Pantzar. 2005. “Consumers, Producers and
Practices: Understanding the Invention and Reinvention of Nordic Walking.” Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1): 43–64.
185
Page 186
14
8
Des
ign
and
Cul
ture
Lucy Kimbell
Shove, E. 2011. “How the Social Sciences Can Help Climate Change Policy. An Extraordinary Lecture and Accompanying Exhibition.” Performed by members of the social change climate change working party at the British Library, London, January 17, 2011. Available online: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/staff/shove/lecture/filmedlecture.htm (accessed January 15, 2011).
Shove, E., M. Watson, M. Hand, and J. Ingram. 2007. The Design of Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg.
Simon, H. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. 3rd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Star, S.L. 1999. “The Ethnography of Infrastructure.” American Behavioral Scientist, 43(3): 377–91.
Suchman, L. 1987. Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. 1994. “Working Relations of Technology Production and Use.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1): 21–39.
Suchman, L. 2003. “Located Accountabilities in Technology Production.” Centre for Science Studies, Lancaster University, UK. Available online: http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Suchman-Located-Accountabilities.pdf (accessed June 16, 2011).
Verganti. R. 2009. Design-driven Innovation: Changing the Rules by Radically Innovating What Things Mean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Walters, H. 2011. “Design Thinking Won’t Save You.” Blog post. Available online: http://helenwalters.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/design-thinking-wont-save-you/ (accessed July 19, 2011).
Warde, A. 2005. “Consumption and Theories of Practice.” Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2): 131–53.
Whittington, R. 1996. “Strategy as Practice.” Long Range Planning, 29(5): 731–5.
Yaneva, A. 2005. “Scaling Up and Down: Extraction Trials in Architectural Design.” Social Studies of Science, 35(6): 867–94.
186
Page 187
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -., /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&'(#)%"
!"#$% &'#% ()*&% +#,)+#-% )% ($./#**0.1% ./% *#$"0,#% +#*021#$*% ')*%
')*%3#241% &.% &)5#% *')(#6%7,,.41&*%./% *#$"0,#%+#*021%")$8% /$.9%
.$0201*% 01% .&'#$% +0*,0(:01#*% )1+% 9)5#% $#/#$#1,#*% &.% #;0*&012%)(($.),'#*%<0&'01%+#*021-%9)1)2#9#1&%)1+% &'#% *.,0):% *,0#1,#*6%7:&'.42'%&'#*#%*&4+0#*%($."0+#%4*#/4:%01*02'&*-%&'#8%+.%1.&%.//#$%)%*8*	)&0,%)1):8*0*%./%<')&%0*%01".:"#+%01%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*%&')&%+$)<*%#;*0"#:8%.1%3.&'%+#*021%)1+%*#$"0,#%:0&#$)&4$#*%=>#$.10%?% @)120.$20-% ABCCD6% @090:)$:8-% ):&'.42'% &'#% *#$"0,#*%9)$5#&012%
&'#$#% ')*% 3##1% :0&&:#% #//.$&% &.% #12)2#%<0&'% +0//#$#1&% &'#.$0#*% ./%+#*021%=>#1.$-%E)&05.1+)%?%@)9(*.1-%ABBAF%E);%?%@&4)$&-%CGGHD6%
9)1)2#9#1&% )1+% .$2)10I)&0.1% *&4+0#*% $#*4:&012% 01% ()$&% /$.9% )%24:/%3#&<##1% &'#% $#*#)$,'%)1+%#+4,)&0.1% &$)+0&0.1*% 01% &'#%*.,0):%*,0#1,#*%)1+%+#*021%+0*,0(:01#*%=J.:)1+%?%K.::.(8-%ABBLF%M#:01#5-%N.99#%?%J.:)1+-%ABBOF%@09.1-%CGPGD6%
E'#$#% 0*% $#:)&0"#:8% :0&&:#% :0&#$)&4$#% )1):8I012% &'#% <.$5%./% ($./#**0.1):% *#$"0,#% +#*021#$*6% E<.% +#,)+#*% )2.-% *#$"0,#*%$#*#)$,'#$%Q"#$&%R499#**.1%+#,:)$#+%ST#%')"#%8#&% &.%'#)$%./%*#$"0,#% +#*021#$*U% =R$V1$..*-% CGGB-% (6% WHD6% X.<-% )% ($./#**0.1%./% *#$"0,#% +#*021#$*% #;0*&*6% >)18% *#$"0,#% +#*021#$*% )$#%
*4,'% )*% ($.+4,&% .$% 01&#$),&0.1% +#*021-% $)&'#$% &')1% <0&'01% &'#%
+#*021% 0*% *9)::% )1+% /$)29#1&#+-% <0&'.4&% *&$.12% ($./#**0.1):%3.+0#*% .$% )% +#"#:.(#+% $#*#)$,'% :0&#$)&4$#-% 0&% 0*% "0*03:#% &'$.42'%
,.1/#$#1,#*% <0&'01% 410"#$*0&0#*% =*4,'% )*% &'#% ABBP% ,.1/#$#1,#%01% X.$&'493$0)% Y10"#$*0&8-% *##% '&&(Z[[<<<6,/+$6,.645[0*+1[D-%)% ($./#**0.1):% @#$"0,#% \#*021% X#&<.$5% =>)2#$-% ABBLD% <0&'%)114):%,.1/#$#1,#*-%3..5*%=].::01*%?%@'01501*-%ABBPF%>#$.10%?%@)120.$20-% /.$&',.9012D-% )1+% &'$.42'% &'#%<.$5% 0&*% ($),&0&0.1#$*%(43:0*'% 01% $#(.$&*% )1+% .1%<#3*0&#*6%E'#$#% ')*% 3##1% +#*,$0(&0.1%./%&'#%9#&'.+*%)1+%&..:*%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%4*#-%34&%$#:)&0"#:8%:0&&:#%
(43:0*'#+%)3.4&%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%<0&'01%&'#%9)1)2#9#1&%:0&#$)&4$#6%Q;,#(&0.1*%01,:4+#%J)&#%)1+%N.3#$&^*%=ABBHD%*&4+8%./%<')&%&'#8%
E'015_43:0,^*%<.$5%<0&'%)%,)1,#$% &$#)&9#1&% *#$"0,#F%`.9#$+0a5%)1+%b.**^*%=ABCBD%<.$5%.1%&'#%+#*021%./%,$40*#*%)1+%#1&#$&)019#1&%*#$"0,#*F% )1+% c4):0&)&0"#% $#*#)$,'% .1% &'#% 9)&#$0):% ($),&0,#*% ./%*#$"0,#%+#*021#$*%38%@&02:0)10%)1+%d)8)$+%=ABCBD6
E'0*% ()(#$% 4*#*% )1% 01&#$+0*,0(:01)$8% )(($.),'% &.% #;(:.$#%+0//#$#1&% <)8*% ./% &'015012% )3.4&% *#$"0,#% +#*0216% e&% 01"#*&02)&#*%<'#&'#$%($./#**0.1):*%<'.%&)5#%*#$"0,#%+#*021%)*%&'#0$%*(#,0):0*9%3$012%*.9#&'012%1#<%&.%#;0*&012%41+#$*&)1+012*%./%+#*0216%d0$*&-%e%$#"0#<%&'#%:0&#$)&4$#%.1%+#*021%)1+%*#$"0,#*%+$)<012%.1%+#*021%
!"#"$%"&%X."#93#$%AG-%ABCBF%'##"()"&%7($0:%fB-%ABCCF%*+,-$./"&%7424*&%CW-%ABCC6
!"#$%&'()*!"#$%"&#'("&)* +(,%"&)* (-*.$/'0"1%7::%
a.4$1):% ,.1&-% #;,#(&% <'#$#% .&'#$<0*#% 1.&#+-% 0*% :0,#1*#+% 41+#$% )* 2%$&#'3$*2(44("/* 5##%'6,#'("78("2(44$%9'&)78(.$%'3/* :1;* <'9$"/$1% J8% "0$&4#% ./%
!"%%+,#"-.&-'/01)("%*%:4,865093#::g*3*6.;6),645
6&'#()#)(,5*+,<&+=#>&,1',?)&,@1A,*5,6&'#()#)(,<&+=#>&'
*'(+,-)./011
=&>?*@,/'"$//*=9A(()B*C"'3$%/'#D*(-*EF-(%?B*CG
E'0*%()(#$%,.1*0+#$*%+0//#$#1&%<)8*%./%)(($.),'012%*#$"0,#%+#*021-%#;(:.$012%<')&%($./#**0.1):%+#*021#$*%<'.%*)8%&'#8%+#*021%*#$"0,#*%
*#$"0,#*%)*%#1&0&0#*%&')&%)$#%3.&'%*.,0):%)1+%9)&#$0):6%E'#%+#*021#$*%01%&'#%*&4+8%*)<%*#$"0,#%)*%$#:)&0.1):%)1+%	(.$):%)1+%&'.42'&%./%"):4#%)*%,$#)&#+%01%($),&0,#6%E'#8%)(($.),'#+%+#*021012%)%*#$"0,#%&'$.42'%)%,.1*&$4,&0"0*&%#1c40$8%01%<'0,'%&'#8%*.42'&%&.%41+#$*&)1+%&'#%#;(#$0#1,#*%./%*&)5#'.:+#$*%)1+%&'#8%&$0#+%&.%01".:"#%9)1)2#$*%01%&'0*%),&0"0&86%E'#%()(#$%($.(.*#*%+#*,$03012%+#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#%)*%)%()$&0,4:)$%501+%./%*#$"0,#%+#*0216%\#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#%0*%*##1%)*%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%($.,#**%&')&%)09*%&.%,$#)&#%1#<%501+*%./%"):4#%$#:)&0.1%
$#*#)$,'-%($),&0,#%)1+%&#),'0126%
2+$3"%.,/4%\#*021012%/.$%@#$"0,#-%@#$"0,#%\#*021-%@#$"0,#%>)1)2#9#1&6
5+6+78-9+/ )"/:+,&'-/;%89)&9+/ 4%]#:(*% +#*021#$*% 0+#1&0/8%<'0,'% ,.1,#(&*% ./% +#*021% )1+% *#$"0,#% )$#%9.30:0I#+% 01% ($.a#,&*6%\#*,$03#*%+#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#%)*%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%($.,#**%01%<'0,'%+0*&01,&0.1*%3#&<##1%($.+4,&*%)1+%*#$"0,#*%)$#%1.&%09(.$&)1&6%e1*&#)+-%*#$"0,#*%)$#%
!&)8)&"-* !"#$%"&#'("&)*+(,%"&)*(-*.$/'0"B*;
23!4!56*,637!8*9
187
Page 188
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -:, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&$&%'()*'+"*,$-"'.#'/&"'0.1')('!"#$%&$&%'+"*,$-"#
*&4+0#*% )1+% 9)1)2#9#1&-% #*(#,0)::8% 9)$5#&012% )1+% .(#$)&0.1*6%E'#1-% e% +#"#:.(% )% /$)9#<.$5% &.% *4((.$&% +0*,4**0.1% ./% *#$"0,#%+#*021%&')&%9)5#*%#;(:0,0&%41+#$:8012%*0.1*%01%'.<%&'#%,.1,#(&*%./%+#*021%)1+%*#$"0,#%)$#%41+#$*&..+6%E'#1-%e%0::4*&$)&#%01%+#&)0:%.1#%c4)+$)1&%./%&'#%/$)9#<.$5%&'$.42'%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%*&4+8%./%&'$##%($./#**0.1):%*#$"0,#%+#*021%,.1*4:&)1,0#*6%Y*012%)1%#&'1.2$)('0,%)(($.),'-%e%)1):8I#%&'#%($),&0&0.1#$* %),&0"0&0#*% 01% &'$##%,)*#*% &.%
./% '.<% &'#*#% ($),&0&0.1#$*% )(($.),'% +#*021012% *#$"0,#*6% E<.%)$#%,.1,#$1#+%<0&'%<')&% *#$"0,#*%)$#Z% &'#8%<#$#%)(($.),'#+%)*%
"):4#%0*%,.1*&0&4&#+%01%($),&0,#6%E<.%)$#%,.1,#$1#+%<0&'%'.<%&.%+.%*#$"0,#%+#*021Z%+#*021012%)%*#$"0,#%<)*%)(($.),'#+%&'$.42'%)%,.1*&$4,&0"0*&%#1c40$8%01%<'0,'%&'#%+#*021#$*%*.42'&%&.%41+#$*&)1+%&'#%#;(#$0#1,#*%./%+0"#$*#%*&)5#'.:+#$*%)1+%01".:"#%9)1)2#$*%01%
#&'1.2$)('0,%*&4+86%E'0*%()(#$%)++*%&.%&'#%:0&#$)&4$#%38%($.(.*012%)%/$)9#<.$5%
&')&%+0*&01240*'#*%3#&<##1%+0//#$#1&%)(($.),'#*%&.%*#$"0,#%+#*0216%e&%#;(:.$#*%&'#%:#)*&%41+#$*&..+%.1#%01%+#(&'6%e%+#*,$03#%+#*021012%
,.9301012% )1% #;(:.$)&.$8-% ,.1*&$4,&0"0*&% )(($.),'% &.% +#*021-%($.(.*012% )1+% ,$#)&012% 1#<% 501+*% ./% "):4#% $#:)&0.1% <0&'01% )%
(#.(:#-% &#,'1.:.20#*% )1+% )$&0/),&*6% E'0*% ,.1,#(&4):0I)&0.1% ')*%
501+%./%.3a#,&%&.%3#%+#*021#+6%E'#%/$)9#<.$5%9)8%3#%./%"):4#%&.%($),&0&0.1#$*%)1+%$#*#)$,'#$*%38%'#:(012%0+#1&0/8%<'0,'%,.1,#(&*%./%+#*021%)1+%*#$"0,#%)$#%9.30:0I#+%01%&'#0$%<.$56%
*)#0$:#'$0,30;)0<
E.%:)41,'%&'0*%+0*,4**0.1%e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e+#)*% ./% +#*021% ):*.% (#$9#)&#% 9)1)2#9#1&-% /.$% #;)9(:#% 01%.$2)10I)&0.1%+#*021-%./%:),5012%)%+#"#:.(#+%&'#.$8%./%+#*0216%@090:)$:8-%*#$"0,#*%,)1%3#%)(($.),'#+%<0&'01%*#"#$):%9)1)2#9#1&%
+0*&01240*'#*%3#&<##1%+0//#$#1&%501+*%./%*#$"0,#%+#*0216
=0>)?",*)#0$:#'$0>
=7:#;)1+#$-% CGHCD-% 9)1)2#9#1&% [email protected] % CGPGD-% #1201##$012%=]435)-% CGOAD-% ($.+4,&% +#"#:.(9#1&% =T'##:<$02'&% ?% K:)$5-%CGGAD%)1+%*8*	*%+#*021%=Q'1%?%hV<2$#1-%CGGHD6%\#*,$0(&0.1*%./% +#*021%./%'012#%.1%+0//#$#1,#*%3#&<##1%41+#$:8012%"0#<*%./%*,0#1,#%)1+%51.<:#+2#Z%(.*0&0"0*&%*,0#1,#%.$%,.1*&$4,&0.10*9%=\.$*&% ?% \0a5'40*-% CGGWD6% T)8*% ./% &'015012% ./% +#*021% $)12#%/$.9%)&	(&*%&.%340:+%2#1#$):%&'#.$0#*%&.%),,.41&*%./%()$&0,4:)$%($),&0,#*6%d.$%7:#;)1+#$%=CGHCD-%/.$%#;)9(:#-%SE'#%4:&09)&#%.3a#,&%./%+#*021%0*%/.$9U%=(6%CWD%<'#$#)*%/.$%@09.1%=CGPGD-%SQ"#$8.1#%+#*021*%<'.%+#"0*#*%,.4$*#*%./%),&0.1%)09#+%)&%,')12012%#;0*&012%*0&4)&0.1*% 01&.%($#/#$$#+%.1#*U% =(6%WWD6%\#*021%,)1%3#%*##1%)*%)%
)//)0$*% 0*%51.<1%)&% &'#%.4&*#&%)1+%($.3:#9*%,)1%3#%+#,.9(.*#+%01&.% *9)::#$% 410&*% 3#/.$#% 3#012% *.:"#+% [email protected] % CGPGD-% .$% 01%
&')&%0*%#;(:.$)&.$8%)1+%01%<'0,'%&'#%+#*0$#+%#1+%*&)&#%,)11.&%8#&%
01&#$($#&)&0.16%d.$%#;)9(:#% 01%)%,:.*#%$#)+012%./%@09.1%=CGOOD-%_)1+I)% )1+% E'.$(#% =ABCBD% +0*&01240*'% 3#&<##1% +#&#$9010*&0,%+#*021-% 01% <'0,'% +#*021#$* % )2#1,8% 0*% ()$)9.41&% )*% 0&% 0*% &'#0$%+#,0*0.1*% &')&% +#&#$901#% &'#% 1)&4$#% )1+% 3#')"0.$% ./% )$&0/),&*F%
#1201##$012%+#*021-%01%<'0,'%1."#:&8%#9#$2#*%&'$.42'%01+0"0+4):%
($),&0,#%01%<'0,'%($./#**0.1):*%9."#+%3#&<##1%+0//#$#1&%/$)9012*%./% ($.3:#9*%)*% &'#8%<#1&% )3.4&% *.:"012% &'#96%\$)<012%.1% &'0*%#)$:0#$% <.$5-% J4,')1)1% =CGGAD% +#*,$03#+% +#*021% )*% )% :03#$):%)$&% ,)()3:#%./%+#):012%<0&'%<')&%N0&&#:% )1+%T#33#$% =CGHfD% ,)::%S<0,5#+%($.3:#9*U%/.$%<'0,'% &'#$#% 0*%1.%*012:#%*.:4&0.1%)1+% 01%
+#*,$03#*%+#*021%)*%,.1,#$1#+%<0&'%$#+0$#,&012%($),&0,#*%&.<)$+*%,$#)&012%*4*&)01)3:#%/4&4$#*6%
71% 09(.$&)1&% $#*#)$,'% /.,4*% 0*% &'#% ($.,#**% ./% +#*0210126%
*.:4&0.1*% 01%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8-% 0&#$)&0"#%($.,#**% 01%<'0,'%($.3:#9*%
\#*021012% 0*% *##1% )*% *')(#+%38%)% *0&4)&#+%41+#$*&)1+012%./% &'#%0**4#% )&% ')1+% =T01.2$)+%?%d:.$#*-% CGOPD% 01% ,.1&$)*&% &.% )% "0#<%./% +#*021% 01% <'0,'% #1201##$*% +#*021% /41,&0.1*% 01% $#*(.1*#% &.%,.1*&$)01&*% =]435)-%CGOAD6% e1% $#,#1&%8#)$*-% *.9#%#+4,)&.$*% )1+%($),&0&0.1#$*%')"#%)$24#+%&')&%+#*021#$*%*')$#%)%501+%./%S+#*021%&'015012U%01%<'0,'%&'#8%/$)9#%($.3:#9*%)1+%.((.$&410&0#*%/$.9%
2#1#$)&#%0+#)*-%)1+%#12)2#%(.&0):%4*#$*%)1+%*&)5#'.:+#$*%=#626-%J$.<1-%ABBOD6%
J4,')1)1% =CGGAD% )$24#*% &')&% +#*021012% 0*% #**#1&0)::8%01+#&#$901)&#-%34&%,)1%3#%&'.42'&%)3.4&%01%$#:)&0.1%&.%S(:),#9#1&*U%*0&4)&#+% )$.41+% )$&0/),&*% &')&% )% ()$&0,4:)$% +#*021% ($./#**0.1):%9)5#*-% *4,'% )*% (.*&#$*-% ($.+4,&*-% ,.9(4&#$% *8*	*% .$%.$2)10I)&0.1*%=J4,')1)1-%ABBCD6%@.,0.:.20*&*%)1+%)1&'$.(.:.20*&*%
0+#123$4,"--2 0*% )% $#*#)$,'#$-% #+4,)&.$% )1+%+#*021#$6%@'#% 0*% )**.,0)&#% /#::.<%)&%@)i+%J4*01#**%@,'..:-%Y10"#$*0&8%./%!;/.$+-%<'#$#%*'#%')*%&)42'&%)1%>J7%#:#,&0"#%01%+#*021%)1+%+#*021%9)1)2#9#1&%*01,#%ABBW6%e1%'#$%,.1*4:&)1,8-%*'#%<.$5*% .1% (43:0,% )1+% ,.99#$,0):% *#$"0,#% +#*0216% h4,8% .$0201)::8% *&4+0#+% J6%Q1201##$012%\#*021%)1+%7(($.($0)&#%E#,'1.:.28%)&%&'#%Y10"#$*0&8%./%T)$<0,5-%&'#1% )% >76% K.9(4&012% 01%7$&% )1+% \#*021% )&% >0++:#*#;% Y10"#$*0&86% @'#% 0*%,.9(:#&012%)%+.,&.$)&#%.1%+#*021% &'#.$8%)&%h)1,)*&#$%Y10"#$*0&86%]#$%)$&<.$5%')*% 3##1% #;'030&#+% 01&#$1)&0.1)::8% 01,:4+012% 01%>)5012%E'012*% _43:0,% =ABBWD%)1+%)&%EQ\R:.3):%=ABCCD6%
188
Page 189
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -B, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&&'()
+#*021#$*%=]#1+#$*.1-%CGGGD%)1+%($.+4,&%+#*021#$*%=>0,':#<*50-%ABBOD%2.%)3.4&%&'#0$%<.$5-%#1$0,'012%&'#%41+#$*&)1+012%./%<')&%+#*021#$*%+.-%34&%1.&%($."0+012%2#1#$):0*)3:#%),,.41&*6%
T0&'01% 9)1)2#9#1&-% 01&#$#*&% 01% +#*021% ')*% &<.% 9)01%*&$)1+*Z%01"#*&02)&012%&'#%$.:#%./%+#*021%<0&'01%011.")&0.1%)1+%1#<%($.+4,&% +#"#:.(9#1&-% )1+% &'015012% ./%9)1)2#9#1&% )*% )% +#*021%*,0#1,#%$)&'#$%&')1%)%1)&4$):%*,0#1,#6%T0&'%$#2)$+%&.%&'#%/.$9#$-%+#*021%0*%*##1%)*%5#8%&.%011.")&0.1%3#,)4*#%0&%01".:"#*%2#1#$)&012%1#<%,.1,#(&*%)1+%1#<%51.<:#+2#%=])&,'4#:%?%T#0:-%ABBGD-%')*%)%*&$4,&4$#+%,$#)&0"#%($.,#**%=Y:$0,'%?%Q((012#$-%CGGWD%.$%3#,)4*#%
/.$%.3a#,&*%38%#12)2012%<0&'%)%<0+#%$)12#%./%01&#$($#&#$*%=N)")*0%?%N01+.")-%ABBPF%b#$2)1&0-%ABBGD6%T0&'%$#2)$+% &.% &'#% 0+#)%./%)%+#*021% *,0#1,#-% $#*#)$,'#$*% )$24#% &')&% 9)1)2#9#1&% *'.4:+% 3#%&'.42'&%./%)*%)%+#*021%),&0"0&8-%):&'.42'%&'0*%')*%$)0*#+%c4#*&0.1*%)*% &.% <'0,'% 501+% ./% +#*021% 0*% 3#012% 01".5#+% 38% &'#*#% ,:)09*%=_)1+I)%?%E'.$(#-%ABCBD6%
7%1493#$%./%#//.$&*%')"#%3##1%9)+#%&.%+#*,$03#%&'#%),&0"0&0#*%&')&%2.%.1%+4$012%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*6%>)18%./%&'#*#%),,.41&*%')"#%3##1%<$0&%38%($),&0&0.1#$*% =#626-%J4$1*-%K.&&)9-%b)1*&.1#-%?%
ABBAD6%e1%,.1&$)*&%&.%)1%0+#)%./%+#*021%&')&%/.,4*#*%.1%+#*021#$*%9)5012%/.$9*-%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*%')*%3##1%+#*,$03#+%)*%:..5012%
(#$*(#,&0"#*%=].:9:0+%?%Q"#1*.1-%ABBOD6%@#$"0,#%+#*021%')*%3##1%
01&#$),&0.1*% <0&'% &#,'1.:.28% =>.22$0+2#-% ABBPD-% .$% )*% ')"012%09(.$&)1&%+0//#$#1,#*%&.%0&%=].:9:0+-%ABBHD6%
@.9#% ./% &'#% #9(')*0*% ')*% 3##1% .1% &'#% +#*021% ./% &'#%('8*0,):% )$&0/),&*% )1+% #1,.41&#$*% <0&'% *#$"0,#% (#$*.11#:% &')&%)$#%()$&%./%)%*#$"0,#-%./%,)::#+%&.4,'(.01&*6%N#*#)$,'#$*%')"#%
01".:"#%&'#9%01%+#*021%4*012%#&'1.2$)('8%)1+%),&0"0&8%&'#.$8%&.%41+#$*&)1+% &'#0$% (#$*(#,&0"#*-% 2.):*% )1+%($),&0,#*% =@)120.$20%?%K:)$5-%ABBLD6%7*(#,&*%./%_)$&0,0()&.$8%\#*021%')"#%3##1%#;(:.$#+%
()$&0,0()&0.1% )1+% #9)1,0()&0.1% +4$012% *#$"0,#% +#*021% =].:9:0+-%ABBGD6%@#$"0,#%+#*021%')*%3##1%*##1%)*%)%<)8% &.%)++$#**% 0**4#*%./% *4*&)01)30:0&8% 01% ,.1&$)*&% &.% )% (#$,#0"#+% #9(')*0*% 01% ($.+4,&%
1."#:&8%=>)1I010-%ABBfD%38%3#012%)&&0"#%&.%+#*021012%01%&09#%=d$8-%ABBGF%E.1501<0*#-%ABBfD6
&.%9)1)2#9#1&% $#*#)$,'6%_01')1#I% =ABBGD%($.(.*#*% &'015012%./%
.<1#$*'0(%)1+%9#)1*%./%,.1&$.:%01%&'#%($.+4,&0.1%($.,#**6%Q+9)1%
+.901)1&%:.20,%=b)$2.%?%h4*,'-%ABBL)D%)1+%,.1,:4+#*%&')&%+#*021%
.//#$012*6%R:4*'5.% )1+%E)3)*% =ABBGD% )$24#% &')&% &'#% +0//#$#1,#*%
+0//#$#1&%501+*%./%*(#,0):0*&%)$#%1.&%($.+4,&0"#F%01*&#)+%+#*021#$*%
*'.4:+%&'015%./%3),5%)1+%/$.1&%*&)2#*%)*%,.9(:#9#1&)$8%()$&*%./%)%*#$"0,#%*8*`%>.$#::0%=ABBGD%+0*,4**#*%&'#%*0.1*%3#&<##1%&'#% +0*&01,&% .$0201*% ./% *#$"0,#% +#*021% <0&'01% 9)1)2#9#1&% )1+%
\433#$:8% =ABCBD% +#*,$03#% +#*021012% /.$% *#$"0,#% )*% ,.1,#0"012%./-% 0&#$)&0"#:8% (:)11012% )1+% ,.1*&$4,&012% )% *#$"0,#% *8*	% .$%)$,'0&#,&4$#%&.%+#:0"#$%$#*.4$,#*%&')&%,'.$#.2$)('%)1%#;(#$0#1,#%&')&%.&'#$*%+#*0216
E'0*% 3$0#/% $#"0#<% '02':02'&*% 5#8% 0+#)*% 01% $#*#)$,'% )3.4&%+#*021-%$)12012%/$.9%2#1#$):% &'#.$0#*%./% &'#%+#*021%($.,#**%)1+%($),&0,#% &.% ),,.41&*% ./% ()$&0,4:)$% +#*021% ($./#**0.1*6% e9(.$&)1&%
*#$"0,#%+#*0216%7%5#8%*0.1%#;0*&*%3#&<##1%)%+#&#$9010*&0,%"0#<%
*.:"012%),&0"0&8%&')&%)09*%&.%<.$5%&.<)$+*%)%+#*0$#+%*&)&#%./%)//)0$*%&')&%,)1%3#%+#&#$901#+%01%)+")1,#-%.$%)*%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%#1c40$8%+4$012% <'0,'% 41+#$*&)1+012% ./% )1% 0**4#% .$% ($.3:#9% #9#$2#*%=\.$*&% ?% K$.**-% ABBCF% J4,')1)1-% CGGAD6% e1% &'#% :)&&#$% ,)*#-% )%+0"#$*#%2$.4(%./%(#.(:#%,)1%3#%*##1%&.%3#%01".:"#+%01%,.1*&$4,&012%
b#$2)1&0-%ABBGD6%E'#%()(#$%1.<%&4$1*%&.%$#*#)$,'%01%9)1)2#9#1&%&.% ($."0+#% )++0&0.1):% /.41+)&0.1*% <0&'% <'0,'% &.% 41+#$*&)1+%*#$"0,#%+#*0216
@:":?0.0"#,*)#0$:#'$0>
T0&'01% 9)1)2#9#1&% :0&#$)&4$#*-% $#*#)$,'% .1% *#$"0,#*% 0*%($#+.901)1&:8% )**.,0)&#+% <0&'% 9)$5#&012% )1+% .(#$)&0.1*6%
/.$% $#*#)$,'#$*% &.% )2$##% <')&% &'#8% 9#)1% 38% *#$"0,#*6% d.4$%,')$),&#$0*&0,*% *499)$0I#+% 38% `#0&')9:-% _)$)*4$)9)1% )1+%
3##1% *'.<1% &.% 3#% 1.&% 2#1#$):0*)3:#% ),$.**% )::% *#$"0,#*% )1+% &.%3#% )((:0,)3:#% &.% *.9#% 2..+*% =h."#:.,5% ?% R499#**.1-% ABBLF%b)$2.%?%h4*,'-%ABBL3D6%d4$&'#$%+#"#:.(9#1&*%01%,.1,#(&4):0I012%*#$"0,#*% ')"#% :#)+% &.%<')&% 0*% ,4$$#1&:8% )1% 41$#*.:"#+%c4#*&0.16%Q0&'#$% =)D% #"#$8&'012% 0*% *#$"0,#-% 3)*#+% .1% b)$2.% )1+% h4*,'^*%
+$)<*% .1% #)$:0#$% <.$5% 01% *#$"0,#*% 9)$5#&012% )1+% 9)1)2#9#1&%=R$V1$..*-% ABBBF%X.$9)11-% CGGCF%X.$9)11%?%N)9j$#I-% CGGfF%N)9j$#I-% CGGGD-% *422#*&012% &')&% &'#% ,.1"#1&0.1):% +0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1% 2..+*% )1+% *#$"0,#*% +.#*% 1.&%9)&&#$F% .$% =3D% 1#<%<)8*%
/.$%)1+%,.1*49012%*#$"0,#*-%*4,'%)*%'02':02'&012%.<1#$*'0(%)1+%),,#**%&.%$#*.4$,#*%=h."#:.,5%?%R499#**.1-%ABBLD6%b)$2.%)1+%h4*,'% =ABBL3D%+0*&01240*'%3#&<##1%/$%3'9$% 01% &'#% *0124:)$-% )*%)%/41+)9#1&):%),&0"0&8%./%#,.1.90,%#;,')12#-%)1+%/$%3'9$/-%01%&'#%(:4$):-%)*%)1%#,.1.90,%,).$8%01%,.1&$)*&%&.%2..+*6%d.$%b)$2.%)1+%h4*,'-% *#$"0,#% 01".:"#*% +81)90,% ($.,#**#*%<0&'01%<'0,'% "):4#%
?%@(.'$#$-%ABBPD6
189
Page 190
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, --, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&$&%'()*'+"*,$-"'.#'/&"'0.1')('!"#$%&$&%'+"*,$-"#
$#*#)$,'#$*% ')"#% )+")1,#+% 51.<:#+2#% )3.4&% '.<%.$2)10I)&0.1*%9)1)2#% &'#96% ].<#"#$-% +0*,4**0.1% )3.4&% '.<% .$2)10I)&0.1*%?$/'0"%*#$"0,#*%')*%1.&%+$)<1%01%+#&)0:%.1%+#*021%:0&#$)&4$#*%)1+%$#*#)$,'#$*%')"#%$)$#:8%9)+#%#;(:0,0&%:015*%&.%&'#.$0#*%./%+#*0216%E'#%+#*021%($.,#**%')*%3##1%*##1%)*%()$&%./%)%($.,#**%./%1#<%*#$"0,#%+#"#:.(9#1&% =@,'#4012% ?% M.'1*.1-% CGOGF% `#0&')9:% ?% J0&1#$-%ABBfD%.$%&'#%$#+#*021%./%#;0*&012%*#$"0,#*%=J#$$8%?%h)9(.-%ABBBD6%\#*021%0*%*##1%)*%)%(')*#%&')&%,.9#*%)/&#$%,.1,#(&%2#1#$)&0.1%)1+%
01&$.+4,#+%)3."#%&')&%*##%+#*021%)*%2#1#$)&012%1#<%,.1,#(&*%)1+%1#<% 51.<:#+2#6% 7:&'.42'% .(#$)&0.1*% 9)1)2#9#1&% $#*#)$,'#$*%')"#%()0+%)&&0.1%&.%&'#%+#*021%./%&'#%*#$"0,#%+#:0"#$8%*8*	%)1+%&'#%*#$"0,#%($.,#**%=Q+")$+**.1%?%!:**.1-%CGGPF%d0&I*099.1*%?%d0&I*099.1*-%ABBBF%N)9)*<)98-%CGGPD%.$%3$012012%9.+4:)$0&8%&.% *#$"0,#% )$,'0&#,&4$#% =b.**% ?% >055.:)-% ABBHD-% ."#$)::% 1#<%*#$"0,#%+#*021%)1+%+#"#:.(9#1&%)$#%1.&%<#::%41+#$*&..+%=>#1.$-%E)&05.1+)-% ?% @)9(*.1-% ABBAD6% @&4+0#*% ./% 9)14/),&4$012%($.,#**#*%*4,'%)*% 01% &'#%,)$% 01+4*&$8%=T.9),5-%M.1#*-%?%N..*-%CGGBD% )1+% 34*01#**% ($.,#**% #1201##$012% =])99#$% ?% K')9(8-%CGGfD% <0&'% 09(.$&)1&% /.,0% .1% c4):0&8-% ,.1&014.4*% 09($."#9#1&%)1+%3#1,'9)$5012%=`)0$0%?%@01,:)0$-%CGGWD%9)8%)((:8%&.%*#$"0,#%.(#$)&0.1*6%].<#"#$-%0&%0*%(.**03:#%&')&%#;(#$0#1&0):%*#$"0,#*%902'&%($#*#1&% 1#<% ,')::#12#*% /.$% 51.<:#+2#% 3)*#+% 01%9)14/),&4$0126%N#,#1&% <.$5%<0&'01% 01/.$9)&0.1% *8*	*% ')*% :#+% &.% ,)::*% /.$% )%S*#$"0,#*% *,0#1,#U% ,.9301012% #1201##$012-% 9)1)2#9#1&% )1+%&'#% *.,0):% *,0#1,#*% =K'#*3$.42'%?%@(.'$#$-% ABBPD6%71%)1):8*0*%
=!*&$.9%#&%):6-%ABCBD6@'.*&),5% =CGOAF% CGOLD%<)*% )% (0.1##$012% )+".,)&#% ./% &'#%
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
K.9(:#9#1&012% &'0*% #9(')*0*% .1% 9)1)2012% &'#% *#$"0,#%($.,#**-%$#*#)$,'#$*%01%*#$"0,#%9)$5#&012%(.01&%&.%&'#%09(.$&)1,#%
01&#$),&0.1% =@.:.9.1-% @4$($#1)1&-% KI#(0#:-% ?% R4&9)1-% CGOWD%.$%)1% 01&#$),&0.1%3#&<##1%,4*&.9#$*%)1+%'49)1%)1+%)$&#/),&4):%*#$"0,#%#"0+#1,#%=J0&1#$-%J..1*-%?%E#&$#)4:&-%CGGBD6%_)$)*4$)9)1-%`#0&')9:% )1+% J#$$8% =CGOWD% +#"#:.(#+% <)8*% &.% *&4+8% *#$"0,#%c4):0&86% E'#% *#$"0,#% #1,.41&#$% ,$#)&#*% )% S9.9#1&% ./% &$4&'U% )&%&'#%01&#$/),#%./%*#$"0,#%($."0+#$*%)1+%&'#0$%,4*&.9#$*%=X.$9)11-%
01% 1#<% *#$"0,#% +#"#:.(9#1&6% J#$$8-%T)::-% )1+% K)$3.1#% =ABBPD%)$24#% /.$% &'#% 09(.$&)1,#% ./% +#*021012% *#$"0,#% S,:4#*U% <'#1%S#1201##$012U%*#$"0,#%#;(#$0#1,#*6%K)$3.1#%)1+%])#,5#:%=CGGLD%,:)09%&')&%()8012%2$#)&#$%)&&0.1% &.% &'#%+#&)0:*%./% &'#%9)&#$0):%)$&0/),&*% 01".:"#+% 01% )% *#$"0,#% #;(#$0#1,#% <0::% $#*4:&% 01% 2$#)&#$%,4*&.9#$% *)&0*/),&0.16% d4$&'#$% #;+012% &'#% 41+#$*&)1+012% ./%
<')&% 0*% 01".:"#+% 01%,.1*&0&4&012%)% *#$"0,#-%J0&1#$% =CGGAD%)$24#*%&')&%<')&% *'#%,)::*% S*#$"0,#*,)(#*U%k% &'#%('8*0,):% *4$$.41+012*%01%<'0,'%*#$"0,#%0*%($."0+#+%)1+%#;(#$0#1,#+%k%(:)8%)1%09(.$&)1&%$.:#% 01%+#&#$901012% &'#%(#$,#0"#+%c4):0&8%./%,.1*49#$% *#$"0,#*6%]#1,#%@&4)$&%)1+%E);%=ABBLD%+$)<%.1%&'#)&$#%)*%)1%)(($.),'%&.%+#*021012%9#9.$)3:#%*#$"0,#%#;(#$0#1,#*6
Q//.$&*%&.%3$0+2#%&'#%2)(*%3#&<##1%9)$5#&012%)1+%.(#$)&0.1*%(#$*(#,&0"#*%.1%*#$"0,#%+#*021%01,:4+#%+#"#:.(012%*#$"0,#%,.1,#(&*%=R.:+*-% M.'1*&.1-% \4//8-% ?% N).-% ABBAD% )1+% )% ($.(.*):% &.%,$#)&#% )%1#<% /41,&0.1%,)::#+%,4*&.9#$%#;(#$0#1,#%9)1)2#9#1&-%$#*(.1*03:#%/.$%#1*4$012%&')&%.$2)10I)&0.1):%*#$"0,#%+#:0"#$8%):021*%
E'.9(*.1-%ABBGD6%!&'#$*%')"#%&)5#1%/.$<)$+%@'.*&),5^*%<.$5%.1%3:4#($01&*% )1+% *'.<1% '.<% ,$#)&012% #;(#$0#1,#% 3:4#($01&*% '#:(*%
)1+%&#,'1.:.20#*%=_)&$0,0.-%d0*5-%?%K41')-%ABBOD%)1+%'.<%*4,'%
011.")&0.1%=J0&1#$-%!*&$.9-%?%>.$2)1-%ABBOD6N#,#1&%#9(0$0,):%<.$5%&')&%*&4+0#*%($./#**0.1):%+#*021#$* %
)(($.),'% &.% +#*021012% *#$"0,#*% 01,:4+#*% J)&#% )1+% N.3#$&^*%=ABBHD% *&4+8% ./% +#*021#$*% 4*012% )1% #&'1.2$)('0,% )(($.),'% &.%41+#$*&)1+012%4*#$* %#;(#$0#1,#*%01%&'#0$%.<1%&#$9*%)1+%01".:"012%
=ABBHD% *&4+8% ($./#**0.1):*% 01".:"#+% 01% +#*021012% #;(#$0#1&0):%
($./#**0.1):*% )(($.),'#+% +#*021% /$.9% &'#% (#$*(#,&0"#% ./% &'#%,4*&.9#$% a.4$1#8-% $#*#93:012% @'.*&),5^*% 3:4#($01&*-% )1+% &')&%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%')"#% $#:)&0"#:8% 01/.$9):%9#&'.+.:.20#*% *')(012%'.<%&'#8%+#*0216%J:.93#$2%=ABBOD% 0::4*&$)&#*% &'#% 09(.$&)1,#%./%/.,4*012% .1% '.<%($.(.*#+% *#$"0,#% 4*#$*% 1#2.&0)&#% &'#%9#)1012%./%)%*#$"0,#6%`.9#$+0a5%)1+%b.**%=ABCBD%+#"#:.(%*0;%($.(.*0&0.1*%)3.4&%&'#%+#*021%./%#;(#$0#1&0):%*#$"0,#*%)1+%&#*&%&'#9%#9(0$0,)::8%01%CH%,)*#%*&4+0#*-%<'0,'%'02':02'&%&'#%09(.$&)1,#%./%,.1&#;&%01%
#9#$2012%,.1,#(&%./%*#$"0,#%+#*021%0*%#;+#+%&.%,."#$%):9.*&%#1&0$#:8%&'#%+#"#:.(9#1&%./%1#<%*#$"0,#*6%
E.2#&'#$-%&'#*#%,.1,#(&*%k%&'#%+#*021%./%&'#%*#$"0,#%+#:0"#$8%*8*	-%,.1&014.4*:8%+#*021012%($.,#**#*%&.%09($."#%c4):0&8-%&'#%*#$"0,#% #1,.41&#$-% 3:4#($01&*-% #"0+#1,#-% ,:4#*-% *#$"0*,)(#*% )1+%&'#%9)1)2#9#1&%./%,4*&.9#$%#;(#$0#1,#*%k%$#($#*#1&%09(.$&)1,#%)+")1,#*% 01% 41+#$*&)1+012% '.<% .$2)10I)&0.1*% +#*021% *#$"0,#*-%):&'.42'%:),5012%,:)$0&8%)3.4&%<')&%0*%9#)1&%38%+#*0216%E'#$#%')*%3##1%$#*#)$,'%01&.%'.<%($./#**0.1):%+#*021#$*%<'.%*##%&'#0$%<.$5%)*%*#$"0,#%+#*021%2.%)3.4&%+.012%0&-%34&%/4$&'#$%<.$5%0*%1##+#+6%e&%$#9)01*%41,:#)$%)&%)%,.1,#(&4):% :#"#:% 0/% &'#%+0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1%2..+*% )1+% *#$"0,#*% 0*% 09(.$&)1&% )1+% '.<%+#*021012% /.$% *#$"0,#%902'&% 3#% )(($.),'#+% 0/-% )*% b)$2.% )1+% h4*,'% =ABBL)D% *422#*&-%*#$"0,#% 0*%41+#$*&..+%)*%+81)90,%($.,#**#*%<0&'01%<'0,'%"):4#%
=)AA0$0"#,B:+>,%A,6CC$%:(D)"?,E0$;)(0,=0>)?"
<0&'01%*#$"0,#*%:0&#$)&4$#%k%')"#%1.&%($.+4,#+%)%+#"#:.(#+%3.+8%./%51.<:#+2#6%N)&'#$-%<')&%#9#$2#*%)$#%&<.%09(.$&)1&%*0.1*6%
190
Page 191
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -8, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&&'()
*.:"012%&')&%)09*%&.%$#):0I#%<')&%')*%):$#)+8%3##1%,.1,#0"#+%./-%.$%)*%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%#1c40$8%01".:"012%,.1*&$4,&012%41+#$*&)1+012%)3.4&%<')&%0*%3#012%+#*021#+-%01".:"012%#1+%4*#$*%)1+%.&'#$*%01%,$#)&012%9#)10126%E'#%*#,.1+%0*%)%*0.1%3#&<##1%&'#%"0#<%&')&%
.$%&')&%*#$"0,#%0*%3#&&#$%41+#$*&..+%)*%)%/41+)9#1&):%),&0"0&8%<0&'%94:&0(:#%),&.$*%<0&'01%)%"):4#%,.1*&#::)&0.16%d024$#%C%*499)$0I#*%&'#*#%(#$*(#,&0"#*6%
E'#% /$)9#<.$5% 01%d024$#%C!% ')*% &<.%);#*Z%.1#% ,.1,#$1*%'.<% *#$"0,#% 0*% 41+#$*&..+-% &'#% .&'#$% ,.1,#$1*% &'#% 1)&4$#%./% +#*0216% E.2#&'#$-% &'#% c4)+$)1&*% ($.(.*#% +0*&01,&% <)8*% ./%41+#$*&)1+012% *#$"0,#% +#*0216% e1% &'#% &.(% :#/&% c4)+$)1&-% +#*021%
3#&<##1%2..+*%)1+%*#$"0,#*%0*%9)01&)01#+-%)%"0#<%&')&%41+#$(01*%
?% Q((012#$-% CGGWD6% E'0*% c4)+$)1&% 0*% :)3#:#+% S#1201##$012U% )*%0&*%/.,4*%0*% &'#%+#*021%./%1#<%($.+4,&*%)1+%*#$"0,#*% &')&%,)1%3#%
.1#%()$&0,4:)$%,).$8%./%)$&#/),&%&.%3#%+#*021#+6%J#:.<-%+#*021%,)1%3#%41+#$*&..+%)*%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%($.,#**%./%#1c40$8%&')&%,)1%3#%)((:0#+%&.%+0//#$#1&%501+*%./%)$&#/),&%*4,'%)*%($.+4,&*%.$%*#$"0,#*%)1+% <'#$#% &'#% +0*&01,&0.1*% 3)*#+% 01% 01+4*&$0):% 9)14/),&4$012%3#&<##1% &8(#*% ./% +#*021#+% &'012*%9)&&#$% =#62-%J4,')1)1-% ABBCF%
<0&'%&'#0$%/.,4*%.1%()$&0,4:)$%501+*%./%)$&#/),&%*4,'%)*%/4$10&4$#%+#*021-% 01&#$0.$*% .$% 01&#$),&0.1% +#*0216%E'0*% c4)+$)1&% 0*% :)3#:#+%
34&% "0#<*% *#$"0,#% )*% )% /41+)9#1&):% ($.,#**% ./% #;,')12#% =#626-%
ABBL3D6%E'0*%c4)+$)1&%0*%:)3#:#+%S*#$"0,#%#1201##$012U%*01,#%&'#%#9(')*0*% 0*% .1% *#$"0,#-% 34&% &'#% 41+#$:8012% +#*021% &$)+0&0.1% 0*%#1201##$0126%d01)::8-%&'#%3.&&.9%$02'&%c4)+$)1&%*##*%+#*021%)*%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%#1c40$8-%34&%+.#*%1.&%9)5#%)1%09(.$&)1&%+0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1% 2..+*% )1+% *#$"0,#*% =#62-% J)&#% ?% N.3#$&-% ABBHD6% E'0*%c4)+$)1&%0*%:)3#:#+%S+#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#U%$)&'#$%&')1%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*-% #,'.012%<.$5% 38% *#"#$):% ($),&0&0.1#$*% )1+% *,'.:)$*% 01%
&'#% 4*#% ./% &'#% ($#(.*0&0.1% S/.$U% =,/%>#$.10%?%@)120.$20-% ABCCF%
&):5012% ./% +#*021012% -(%% *#$"0,#*% $)&'#$% &')1%?$/'0"'"0* /$%3'9$/%$#,.210I#*% &')&%<')&% 0*%3#012%+#*021#+% 0*%1.&%)1%#1+%$#*4:&-%34&%$)&'#$%)%(:)&/.$9%/.$%),&0.1%<0&'%<'0,'%+0"#$*#%),&.$*%<0::%#12)2#%."#$%&09#6%\#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#-%$)&'#$%&')1%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*-%(.01&*% &.% &'#% 09(.**030:0&8% ./% 3#012% )3:#% &.% /4::8% 09)201#-% (:)1%
"):4#%$#:)&0.1%)$#%01*&)1&0)&#+%38%),&.$*%#12)2012%<0&'01%)%*#$"0,#%,.1&#;&6% \#*021012% /.$% *#$"0,#% $#9)01*% ):<)8*% 01,.9(:#&#% =,/%R)$4+%#&%):-%ABBOD6%
E'0*%/$)9#<.$5%9)5#*%#;(:0,0&%+0//#$#1,#*%01%'.<%(#.(:#%&'015%)3.4&%+#*021%)1+%*#$"0,#-%*')(012%'.<%*#$"0,#%+#*021%,)1%3#%41+#$*&..+6%e&%'#:(*%0::4901)&#%&'#%41+#$:8012%,.1,#(&*%)3.4&%+#*021%)1+%*#$"0,#%&')&%($),&0&0.1#$*%3$012%&.% &'#0$%<.$5%)*% &'#8%#12)2#% 01% *#$"0,#% +#*0216%E'#% ()(#$% 1.<% &4$1*% &.% )1% #9(0$0,):%*&4+8% ./% ($./#**0.1):% +#*021#$*%<.$5012%<0&'01% &'#% #;(:.$)&.$8%+#*021%&$)+0&0.16%7*%($),&0&0.1#$*%<'.%*)8%&'#8%+#*021%*#$"0,#*-%&'#%<)8*%&'#8%)(($.),'%&'#0$%<.$5%<0::%)++%+#(&'%&.%&'#%/$)9#<.$56%%
30>0:$(D,=0>)?"
E'$##% ($./#**0.1):% ,.1*4:&)1,0#*% .//#$012% *#$"0,#% +#*021% &..5%()$&% 01%&'#%*&4+86"
*#$"0,#%/.,4*012%9)01:8%.1%34*01#**%,4*&.9#$*6%E'#*#%<#$#%*9)::%
902'&%9#)1%01%)%,.1&#;&%<0&'% :0&&:#%($#"0.4*%#;(.*4$#%&.%+#*021%($./#**0.1*-%01%,.1&$)*&%&.%,.1*49#$-%#1&#$&)019#1&%.$%'.*(0&):0&8%*#,&.$*% /$.9% <'0,'% ,.1,#(&*% 01% *#$"0,#*% 9)$5#&012% ')"#% 3##1%
+#*021%&.%($./#**0.1):*%)+".,)&012%0&%,$#)&#+%,.1+0&0.1*%01%<'0,'%
$#:#")1,#%./%&'#0$%)(($.),'%&.%&'0*%,.1&#;&%)1+%&.%01"#*&%$#*.4$,#*%
&'#% +#*021#$*% <#$#% ()0+% )% /##6%7::% &'#% +#*021#$*% )1+%9)1)2#$*%
&'#%<.$5*'.(*-%<'0,'%2#1#$)&#+%)%94:&0+0*,0(:01)$8%,.1"#$*)&0.1%)3.4&%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*6%
T$0&% 4(% 01% &'$##% ,)*#*-% &'#% *&4+8% /.,4*#*% .1% '.<% &'#%+#*021#$*% ($),&0,#+% *#$"0,#% +#*021% 38% +#*,$03012%<')&% &'#8% +0+%
<.$5%<0&'%<'#1%&'#%:)&&#$%+0+%1.&%')"#%)%,:#)$%0+#)%<')&%*#$"0,#%+#*021%<)*%.$%<')&%0&%902'&%+.%/.$%&'#9%.$%<0&'%&'#96%R0"#1%)1%.(#1%3$0#/%&.%S+.%*.9#%*#$"0,#%+#*021U%)1+%<0&'%:090&#+%$#*.4$,#*-%&'#%+#*021#$*%#12)2#+%<0&'%&'#0$%	(.$)$8%,:0#1&*%01%*090:)$%<)8*%):&'.42'%#),'%,)*#%0*%<$0&%4(%&.%'02':02'&%+0//#$#1,#*%3#&<##1%&'#96%E'#%,)*#*%)09%&.%0::4*&$)&#%&'#%/$)9#<.$5%01%9.$#%+#(&'%38%
71% #&'1.2$)('0,% )(($.),'%<)*% &)5#1% &.% 3$012% 01&.% "0#<%<')&%&'#%+#*021#$*%)1+%9)1)2#$*%&'.42'&%<)*%01".:"#+%01%+.012%*4,'%+#*021%<.$56%E'0*%<)*%+.1#%/.$%&<.%$#)*.1*-%.1#%&'#.$#&0,):%)1+%.1#%9#&'.+.:.20,):6%d0$*&:8-% &'#% &'#.$#&0,):%41+#$(011012% &.%
F)?'$0,GH,,6CC$%:(D0>,#%,(%"(0C#':1)I)"?,>0$;)(0,&0>)?"H
B:+>,%A,#D)"J)"?,:/%'#,>0$;)(0
6#'0#)>0#*)',C&0!&&),
(**%',1)%,'&+=#>&',
1+&,D1#)01#)&%
<&+=#>&,#',0E&,C1'#>,
4)#0,*5,&>*)*D#>,
&F>E1)(&
B:+>,%A,
#D)"J)"?,
:/%'#,&0>)?"
6&'#(),1',
G+*C2&DH
'*2=#)( I)(#)&&+#)(
<&+=#>&,
&)(#)&&+#)(
6&'#(),1',
&)J4#+A 9*)H&)(#)&&+#)(,
%&'#(),%#'>#G2#)&'
6&'#()#)(,
5*+,'&+=#>&
191
Page 192
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -K, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&$&%'()*'+"*,$-"'.#'/&"'0.1')('!"#$%&$&%'+"*,$-"#
&'#%$#*#)$,'%0*%&'#.$0#*%./%($),&0,#%&')&%(:),#%#"#$8+)8%),&0"0&0#*%)*%&'#%:.,4*%/.$%&'#%($.+4,&0.1%)1+%$#($.+4,&0.1%./%*.,0):%$#:)&0.1*%=N#,5<0&I-% ABBAF% @,')&I50-% ABBCD6% e1% $#*#)$,'% 01&.% ($),&0,#*% 0&%0*% 09(.$&)1&% &.% 3#% )3:#% &.% .3*#$"#%<')&% (#.(:#% +.-% &'#% .3a#,&*%&'#8%,$#)&#%)1+%<.$5%<0&'-%<')&%&'#8%*)8%)1+%&'#%1)&4$#%./%&'#0$%<.$5% )*% &'#8% 2.% )3.4&% 0&% =K)$:0:#-% ABBAD6% E.% 3#&&#$% 41+#$*&)1+%'.<%+#*021#$*% *&$4,&4$#% &'#0$%<.$5-% 0&%<)*% 09(.$&)1&% &.% *(#,0/8%&'#% #9(0$0,):% ($),&0,#*% 01".:"#+% 01% &'#0$% <.$56% @#,.1+:8-% &'#%
ABBOD6%!3*#$"012%+#*021#$*%)*%&'#8%<#1&%)3.4&%&'#0$%<.$5%($."0+#+%
.$%.1%01&#$"0#<*6%\)&)%<#$#%2)&'#$#+%3.&'%38%.3*#$"012%*.9#%./%&'#%#1,.41&#$*%3#&<##1% &'#%+#*021#$*% )1+% &'#%9)1)2#$*-% )1+% 01%.1#%01*&)1,#%./%&'#%+#*021#$*%<.$5012%&.2#&'#$%01%&'#%*&4+0.-%)1+%38%<)&,'012%"0+#.%$#,.$+012*%./%&'#*#%9##&012*%9)+#%38%)%&'0$+%
e1%&.&):-%e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
E:.C1)"?
E'#%*&4+8%01".:"#+%&'$##%+#*021%,.1*4:&)1,0#*%./%+0//#$#1&%*0I#*%
011.")&0.1%01%<'0,'%&'#%*#$"0,#=*D%')+%3##1%+#*021#+%<0&'.4&%&'#%
*'.<1%01%E)3:#%C6
8:>0,6
E'#%($.a#,&%3#2)1%<0&'%.1#%+#*021#$%/$.9%e\Q!%"0*0&012%_$.*.10;%
7*%)%$#*4:&%./%&'0*%+0*,4**0.1-%&'#%()0$%)2$##+%&')&%e\Q!%<.4:+%'#:(%&'#%,.9()18%,$#)&#%)1%S.((.$&410&8%9)(U%/.$%&'#0$%*#$"0,#*6%E'0*%:#)+%&.%)1.&'#$%+#*021#$%),,.9()18012%&'#%9)1)2#$%./%34*01#**%
&'#%+0*,4**0.1%)1+%+#*,$0(&0.1%./% *#$"0,#*6%E'#%1#;&% *&#(%<)*% )%+)8%*(#1&%)&%e\Q!^*%h.1+.1%*&4+0.%01%<'0,'%3.&'%+#*021#$*%)1+%&'#%34*01#**%+#"#:.(9#1&%9)1)2#$%2#1#$)&#+%&'#%.((.$&410&8%9)(%
3)*#+%.1%<')&%&'#%+#*021#$*%$#/#$$#+%&.%)*%S01*02'&*U%2)&'#$#+%38%&'#%+#*021#$*%)&%&'#0$%9##&012*%)1+%/4$&'#$%01(4&%/$.9%&'#%9)1)2#$6%e1%&'0*%<.$5*'.(-%&'#%+#*021#$*%($."0+#+%)%*&$4,&4$#+%8#&%01/.$9):%<)8%&.%2#1#$)&#%0+#)*%01,:4+012%,$#)&012%S<')&%0/U%*,#1)$0.*%#),'%/.,4*012%.1%()$&0,4:)$%01+4*&$0#*%<0&'01%<'0,'%&'#%.$2)10I)&0.1^*%*#$"0,#*%,.4:+%3#%#;(:.0&#+6%
e1% &'0*% <.$5*'.(-% .1#% ./% &'#% +#*021#$*% ,$#)&#+% )% *5#&,'%$#($#*#1&012% &'#% ($.3:#9% /),012% _$.*.10;^*% ,4*&.9#$% 01% <'0,'%
'0::6% E'0*% *5#&,'% ,$8*&)::0I#+% &'#% ($.3:#9% /),012% &'#% 34*01#**%9)1)2#$%)1+%'0*%$.:#%01%,.99410,)&012%&'#%#1&#$($0*#^*%*#$"0,#%&.%(.&0):%,:0#1&%.$2)10I)&0.1*6%e&%3#,)9#%)%9.&0/%4*#+%$#(#)&#+:8%01% *43*#c4#1&% ,.1"#$*)&0.1*% )1+% )&% ($.a#,&% <.$5*'.(*% 38% &'#%9)1)2#$%)1+%&'#%+#*021#$*6%71.&'#$%"0*4):0I)&0.1%4*#+%$#(#)&#+:8%01% &'#% ($.a#,&%<)*% )%b#11% +0)2$)9%./% &'$##% ."#$:)((012% ,0$,:#*%:)3#:#+% +#*0$)30:0&8-% /#)*030:0&8% )1+% "0)30:0&86% e&% $#($#*#1&#+% &'#%,.1*4:&)1,8^*% ,$0&#$0)% /.$% )% *4,,#**/4:% *#$"0,#% +#*021% =M.1#*% ?%@)9):0.10*-%ABBOD-%<'0,'%)1.&'#$%,.::#)24#%/$.9%&'#%,.1*4:&)1,8%
($.a#,&6%!1#%+#*021#$%#;(:)01#+%S!/%<'#1%<#^$#%&):5012%)3.4&%011.")&0.1% .$% &$8012% &.% 2#&% 34*01#**#*% &.% +.% 1#<% &'012*% <#^$#%&):5012%)3.4&%+#*0$)30:0&8F%<'0,'%0*%<')&%+.%&'#%,4*&.9#$*%<)1&-%&'#%'49)1%*0+#%./%0&%)1+%&'#1%<#^"#%2.&%"0)30:0&8%)1+%/#)*030:0&8l].<% ,)1% <#% 9)5#% 9.1#8% .4&% ./% 0&m% 71+% '.<% ,)1% <#% 9)5#%0&mU%E'#%9)1)2#$%*##9#+%&.%),,#(&% &'0*%/$)9#<.$5%)*%)%<)8%./%
2#1#$)&0.1%<0&'%&'#%+#*021#$*%&')&%+)86%e1%:)&#$%+0*,4**0.1*%)&%&'#%($.a#,&%<.$5*'.(*-%3.&'%'#%)1+% &'#%KQ!%$#/#$$#+%*#"#$):% &09#*%&.%&'#*#%&'$##%,$0&#$0)%)1+%,.99#1&#+%&')&%&'#0$%.$2)10I)&0.1%()0+%
9)1)2#$%($0.$0&0I#+%<'0,'%*,#1)$0.*%&.%&)5#%/4$&'#$%)1+%)2$##+%.1%&'#%1#;&%(0#,#%./%<.$5%&'#%,.1*4:&)1,8%<.4:+%41+#$&)5#6%
T.$5012%01%&'#0$%*&4+0.%<0&'%)%,.::#)24#-%&'#%&<.%+#*021#$*%,$#)&#+% /.4$% #:#9#1&*% /.$% <')&% &'#8% ,)::#+% )% &..:50&% /.$% &'#%,.9()186%E'#8%($#*#1&#+%0&%&.%&'#%34*01#**%+#"#:.(9#1&%9)1)2#$%
&'#%($0.$0&0I#+%*,#1)$0.*%)1+%4*#+%'02'%($.+4,&0.1%"):4#*6%E'#8%01,:4+#+% &'$##% "0*4):% )$&#/),&*% &'#% +#*021#$*% ,)::#+% S)+,#(&*U%
2:.**8%9)2)I01#*-%,.99410,)&012%&.%_$.*.10;^*%(.&0):%,:0#1&*%&'#% *.$&*% ./% 011.")&0.1*% (.**03:#% 4*012% &'#% ,.9()18^*% ()$&0,:#%#1201##$012% *#$"0,#*6% !1#-% )09#+% )&% (.&0):% (')$9),#4&0,):%,:0#1&*-% *'.<#+% )1% 09)201)$8% )*&'9)% 01'):#$6%71.&'#$% *'.<#+%
($.+4,&6%d01)::8-%&'#%+#*021#$*%($#*#1&#+%)%($.&.&8(#%/.:+#$%&'#8%')+%,$#)&#+%&.%'#:(%&'#%34*01#**%+#"#:.(9#1&%9)1)2#$%,4*&.90I#%
7:/10,GH,2$?:")I:#)%">,)";%1;0&,)",#D0,>#'&+H
8:>0 =0>)?",(%">'1#:"(+
6L+*'*)#F",M#+D,'G&>#12#N#)(,#),420+1'*)#>,>+A'0122#N10#*),1)%,G1+0#>2&,
&)(#)&&+#)("
/6I?",O420#%#'>#G2#)1+A,>*)'4201)>A,&'01C2#'E&%,#),.PP.,!#0E,*=&+,
88;,&DG2*A&&',#),)#)&,#)0&+)10#*)12,2*>10#*)',#),:;.."
K(H9*'0#>'",M#+D,*55&+#)(,G&+'*)12#N&%,D&%#>#)&,C1'&%,*),1)12A'#',*5,
(&)&0#>,D1+Q&+'",
2#=&R!*+Q",6&%#>10&%,'&+=#>&,%&'#(),1)%,#))*=10#*),>*)'4201)>A,
5*4)%&%,#),:;;.,!#0E,:;,G&*G2&,#),0E+&&,>*4)0+#&',#),:;..",
8?F5*+%,S&)&,T&>E)*2*(#&'",M#+D,*55&+#)(,D#>+*H1++1A,'&+=#>&',5*+,
(&)*D#>,+&'&1+>E",
U1%1+'010#*)",6&'#()H2&%,D1)1(&D&)0,>*)'4201)>A,5*4)%&%,#),:;;B,
5*>4'#)(,*),'&+=#>&,%&'#()"
192
Page 193
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -V, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&&'()
&'#%*#$"0,#%/.$%#;0*&012%.$%1#<%,:0#1&*%38%.$2)10I012%01/.$9)&0.1%)3.4&%&'#9%)1+%($.9(&012%'09%&.%,.1*0+#$%()$&0,4:)$%)*(#,&*%./%&'#%*#$"0,#%01%$#:)&0.1%&.%&'#0$%1##+*6%7&%&'#%9##&012-%&'#%9)1)2#$%
)3.4&% '.<% &'#% #1&#$($0*#% 902'&% ),&% .1% &'#*#% 0+#)*% 3#8.1+% &'#%*,.(#%./%&'#%*&4+86
8:>0,K
K.1*4:&)1,8% :0"#n<.$5% 3#2)1% &'#0$% <.$5% <0&'% &<.% +#*021#$*%
&.%51.<%&'#%.$2)10I)&0.1%)1+%0&*%*#$"0,#6%E'#%#1&#$($0*#%)*5#+%&'#%+#*021#$*%&.%'#:(%<0&'%0&*%X0,.&#*&%*9.5012%,#**)&0.1%*#$"0,#%&'#1%
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d$.9% &'#%4*#$^*%(.01&%./%"0#<lU%)*%'#%(#$*4)+#+%&'#%9)1)2#$*%&.%+#*,$03#%&'#%*#$"0,#%01%+#&)0:6%\4$012%&'0*%9##&012-%&'#%+#*021#$*%<#$#%):*.%)&&0"#%&.%&'#%)$&0/),&*%&')&%&'#%9)1)2#$*%*'.<#+%&'#9%)1+%<)1&#+%&.%&)5#%&'#9%)<)86%E'#8%):*.%*4,,#**/4::8%$#c4#*&#+%(#$90**0.1%&.%),,#**%&'#%<#3*0&#%&')&%/.$9#+%()$&%./%&'#%*#$"0,#6
E'#% +#*021#$* % *#,.1+% ),&0"0&8% <)*% "0*0&% &.% )% (')$9),8%<'#$#%&'#%*#$"0,#%<)*%3#012%&$0)::#+%01%&'#%,.9()18%./%.1#%./%&'#%#1&#$($0*#%9)1)2#$*-%)%,)9#$)9)1%)1+%&'#%)4&'.$6%]#$#-%.1#%./%&'#%
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
$..9%)1+%9)$5#&012%:0&#$)&4$#%($.+4,#+%38%.&'#$%.$2)10I)&0.1*6%E'#0$%1#;&%),&0"0&8%&..5%(:),#%01%&'#%,.1*4:&)1,8^*%h.1+.1%
*&4+0.%<'#$#%&'#%&<.%+#*021#$*%)**#93:#+%.1%&'#%<)::%<')&%&'#8%,)::#+%&'#%S,4*&.9#$%a.4$1#8U-%,.9301012%('.&.2$)('*%&'#8%')+%&)5#1%)&%&'#%(')$9),8%)1+%()2#*%/$.9%&'#%*#$"0,#%<#3*0&#-%)2)01%.3*#$"#+%38% &'#%)4&'.$6%R$.41+#+% 01%.1#%+#*021#$^*% #;(#$0#1,#%./% 41+#$&)5012% &'#% &#*&-% &'0*% "0*4):% $#($#*#1&)&0.1% /.::.<#+% &'#%
,)::#+% &'#% *#$"0,#% S&.4,'(.01&*U% ."#$% &09#6% E'#*#% $)12#+% 01%9)&#$0):%/.$9%/$.9%&'#%2$)('0,%+#*021%./%)%(.*&#$%01%&'#%(')$9),8%<01+.<%&.%&'#%<#3*0&#%/.$%,4*&.9#$*%&.%,.11#,&%<0&'%.&'#$%(#.(:#%&$8012% &.%20"#%4(% *9.50126%E'#%+#*021#$*%)((#)$#+% &.%2.%)3.4&%&'0*%01%)%$#:)&0"#:8%41*&$4,&4$#+%<)8-%):&'.42'%)*%&'#8%340:&%4(%&'#%,4*&.9#$%a.4$1#8-%&'#8%+0*&01240*'#+%3#&<##1%(')*#*%&'#8%:)3#:#+%)<)$#1#**-% ),,#**% )1+% a.010126% 7% &'0$+% ,.::#)24#% a.01#+% &'#9%
&'#%+#*021#$*%,$0&0c4#+%&'#%*#$"0,#-%a49(012%$#(#)&#+:8%/$.9%&'#%+#&)0:% ./% &'#% +#*021% ./% &'#% &.4,'(.01&*% &.% &'#% #1&#$($0*#^*% 2.):*%)1+%&'#%,4*&.9#$%($.(.*0&0.16%7*%&'#8%&):5#+-%*.9#%./%&'#9%<$.&#%.1% *&0,58%1.&#*% )1+% *&4,5% &'#9%.1% &'#% )**#93:)2#%.1% &'#%<)::-%340:+012%4(%)%+#&)0:#+-%:)8#$#+%)1):8*0*%./%&'#%,4*&.9#$%a.4$1#8%/.$%&'#%#;0*&012%*#$"0,#6%!1#%+#*021#$%3#2)1%&.%+$)<%)%S*&)5#'.:+#$%#,.:.28U%+0)2$)9-%<'0,'%*'.<#+%.$2)10I)&0.1*-%)$&0/),&*%*4,'%)*%,.9(4&#$% *#$"#$*%)*%<#::% )*%(#.(:#% 01".:"#+% 01%,.1*&0&4&012% &'#%*#$"0,#-%<0&'%)$$.<*%*'.<012%:015*%3#&<##1%&'#96%
X#;&-% &'#% &'$##% +#*021#$*% *)&% )&% )% &)3:#-% 01+0"0+4)::8%
&'#% ,4*&.9#$% a.4$1#8% .1% &'#% <)::6% Y*012% &'#% ,.9()18^*% .<1%
+#*021#$*%c40,5:8%2#1#$)&#+%*09(:#%*5#&,'#*%/.$%09($."#9#1&*%&.%#;0*&012% &.4,'(.01&*% =#626-% &'#% &#*&% 50&% (),5D-% ($.(.*):*% /.$% 1#<%
)1+%($.(.*):*% /.$%#1&0$#:8%1#<%*#$"0,#*% =#626%)%2#1#&0,% &#*&%+)&)%3)15D6%
h)&#$-% &'#% +#*021#$*% ($.+4,#+% )% +020&):% +.,49#1&%$#($#*#1&012% &'#% ,4*&.9#$% a.4$1#8% &')&% .$2)10I#+% &'#% &09#:01#-%&.4,'(.01&*-% 0**4#*% )1+%.((.$&410&0#*% 01&.%(')*#*% ./% &'#% *#$"0,#%
"0*0&012%&'#%#1&#$($0*#%)2)01-% &)5012%&'#0$%*5#&,'#*-% &'#%,4*&.9#$%a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
8:>0,8
e1%&'#0$%#12)2#9#1&%<0&'%N)+)$*&)&0.1-%&'#%!RE%9)1)2#$*%+#,0+#+%
$#*#)$,'#$*% &.% 41+#$*&)1+% 2#1#&0,% 01/.$9)&0.1% 2)&'#$#+% /$.9%$#*#)$,'%*43a#,&*%)1+%($.,#**#+%38%!RE6%7/&#$%)1%010&0):%9##&012%
#1&#$($0*#^*%),&0"0&0#*%38%9##&012%&'#%K!!-%&'#%+#*021#$*%+#,0+#+%&'#8% 1##+#+% &.% 51.<% 9.$#% )3.4&% &'#% #1&#$($0*#^*% ,4*&.9#$*-%&8(0,)::8% $#*#)$,'% 9)1)2#$*% 01% ,.9()10#*% .$% 410"#$*0&8%
#;0*&012-%.1#%()*&% )1+%.1#%1#<%,:0#1&-% &)5012%1.&#*% )1+%('.&.*6%E'#%+#*021#$*%&'#1%2#1#$)&#+%&'$##%"0*4):%$#($#*#1&)&0.1*%./%&'#%,4*&.9#$%a.4$1#8-%)$$)12012%01%)%:01#)$%*#c4#1,#%&'#%&.4,'(.01&*%&'$.42'%<'0,'%#),'%,:0#1&%#12)2#+%<0&'%!RE%."#$%&09#-%*4,'%)*%#9)0:*-%('.1#%,)::*%)1+%,.1&$),&*6%
E'#% 1#;&% *&)2#% 01".:"#+% &'#% +#*021#$*% .$2)10I012% <')&%
K!!%)1+%)1.&'#$%9)1)2#$6%\4$012%&'0*%<.$5*'.(%&'#%9)1)2#$*%
a.4$1#8*%/.$%#),'%,:0#1&%)1+%'#)$012%<')&%&'#%+#*021#$*%$#/#$$#+%&.% )*% S01*02'&*U% 3)*#+% .1% &'#% 01&#$"0#<*% &'#8% ')+% ,.1+4,&#+6%
193
Page 194
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -W, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&$&%'()*'+"*,$-"'.#'/&"'0.1')('!"#$%&$&%'+"*,$-"#
E'#%()$&0,0()1&*%*(#1&%&09#%<$0&012%)1+%+$)<012%.1%,.(0#*%./%&'#%,.1*4:&)1,8^*% &.4,'(.01&% 	(:)&#-% <'0,'% 01,:4+#+% *#,&0.1*% /.$%
E'#*#%<#$#% &'#1%)**#93:#+%):.12%)%<)::% 01% &'#%*#c4#1,#%./% &'#%,4*&.9#$%a.4$1#8-%+0*,4**#+%)1+%)11.&)&#+%<0&'%*&0,58%1.&#*6%
J),5% 01% &'#% *&4+0.-% &'#% +#*021#$*% /4$&'#$% )1):8I#+% &'#%,4*&.9#$%a.4$1#8%)1+%*5#&,'#+%)1+%)11.&)&#+%(.**03:#%*.:4&0.1*6%
a.4$1#8%)1+%)%($#*#1&)&0.1%&')&%*499)$0I#+%94,'%./%&'#%+0*,4**0.1%
/.$%<)8*% &.% S$#):021%5#8% &.4,'(.01&*U6%E'#*#% $#,.99#1+)&0.1*%<#$#%+$0"#1%38%9)5012%&'#%($.,#**%9.$#%"0*03:#%)1+%*&$#)9:01#+-%')1+'.:+012% 1#<% ,4*&.9#$*% )1+% #;+012% !RE^*% $#:)&0.1*'0(%<0&'%&'#%,4*&.9#$6%E'#%+.,49#1&%/.,4*#+%9.*&:8%.1%&.4,'(.01&*%01% &'#% *#$"0,#% )1+% ($.(.*#+% )1% 09($."#9#1&% &.% #),'% #;0*&012%&.4,'(.01&-%($),&0,#*%)$.41+% 0&%.$%9)+#%*422#*&0.1*% /.$%#1&0$#:8%1#<% .1#*6% Q),'% ./% &'#*#% 01,:4+#+% ,.99#1&*% )3.4&% &'#% 4*#$%
,.9(#&0&.$*6%E'#*#%$#,.99#1+)&0.1*%<#$#%($#*#1&#+%)&%)%($.a#,&%<.$5*'.(%)1+%:)&#$%*#1&%&.%&'#%.$2)10I)&0.1%38%#9)0:6
F)"&)"?>
h..5012% )&% &'#% ,)*#*% &.2#&'#$-% /.4$% 9)01% &'#9#*% #9#$2#-% &<.%,.11#,&#+%<0&'%<')&%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%41+#$*&)1+%&'#9*#:"#*%&.%3#%+#*021012%<'#1%&'#8%)$#%+.012%*#$"0,#%+#*021%)1+%&<.%,.11#,&#+%<0&'%'.<%&'#8%2.%)3.4&%+.012%0&6%
d0$*&:8-%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%()0+%2$#)&%)&&0.1%&.%+#*021%./%&'#%
&.%(#.(:#%)1+%&'#0$%$.:#*-%51.<:#+2#%)1+%*50::*%)1+%<'#$#%&'#*#%*#$"0,#%#1,.41&#$*%&..5%(:),#6%e1%,.1&$)*&%&.%)1%0+#)%./%*#$"0,#%)*%
c4#*&0.1#+%=#626-%h."#:.,5%?%R499#**.1-%ABBLF%b)$2.%?%h4*,'-%ABBL3D-% &'#*#% +#*021#$* %<.$5% ($),&0,#*% /.,4*#+% #;*0"#:8% .1%*&4+8012% )1+% &'#1% $#+#*021012% &'#% )$&0/),&*% &'#8% *)<% )*% ()$&% ./%&'#% *#$"0,#%)1+%()$&0,0()1&* % ($),&0,#*%)*% &'#8%#12)2#+%<0&'% &'#%
3##1%,$#)&#+%38% &'#% *#$"0,#%.$2)10I)&0.1% =#626-%K)*#*%7%)1+%JD-%*422#*&012% &')&% &'#%+#*021#$*%')"#%)%3$.)+%"0#<%./% &'#%)$&0/),&*%)1+% 01&#$),&0.1*% &')&% ,.1*&0&4&#% )% *#$"0,#6% ].<#"#$-% <'0:#% &'#8%()0+%)&&0.1%&.%9)18%)$&0/),&*%<0&'01%&'#%*#$"0,#*-%&'#%+0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1% ($.+4,&*% )1+% *#$"0,#*% +0+% 1.&% *##9% 09(.$&)1&% 01% &'#0$%<.$56%d)$%/$.9%3#012%01&)1203:#-%)%*#$"0,#%,)1%3#%&'.42'&%./%)*%3.&'%*.,0):%)1+%9)&#$0):6%E'4*%&'#%+#*021#$*%*##9#+%&.%,.1,#0"#%./% *#$"0,#% 01% )% *090:)$% <)8% &.% b)$2.% )1+% h4*,'% =ABBL)D-% <'.%($.(.*#% &')&% 9)&#$0):% .3a#,&*% =*4,'% )*% S2..+*UD% (:)8% $.:#*% 01%
),&0"0&8%./%#,.1.90,%#;,')12#6@#,.1+:8-% &'#% +#*021#$*% 01% &'0*% *&4+8% 41+#$*&..+% *#$"0,#%
)*% 3.&'% $#:)&0.1):% )1+% 	(.$):% )*% 4*#$*% )1+% *&)5#'.:+#$*% ./%
#12)2#9#1&% <0&'% )$&0/),&*% )1+% (#.(:#% ."#$% &09#% )1+% *(),#6%
ABBPF% b#$2)1&0-% ABBGD-% &'#% +#*021#$*% *##9#+% &.% *##% &'#% "):4#%./% *#$"0,#% )*% ,.1*&0&4&#+% 01% ($),&0,#% 01".:"012% )% <0+#% )$$)8% ./%9)&#$0):-%+020&):%)1+%'49)1%),&.$*%=X.$9)11%?%N)9j$#I-%CGGfF%
.&'#$%9)&#$0):*-%&'#%+#*021#$*%$#(#)&#+:8%*.42'&%&.%41+#$*&)1+%&'#%
&'#%($),&0,#*%./%#1+%4*#$*%)1+%.&'#$*%*4,'%)*%#9(:.8##*-%01*&#)+%
($.+4,&% .$% *#$"0,#6% \4$012% )% <.$5*'.(-% .1#% +#*021#$% /$.9%:0"#n<.$5% #9(')*0I#+% &'#% 	(.$):0&8% ./% *#$"0,#% 38% +#*,$03012%.$2)10I)&0.1*%)*%3#012%S01%(#$(#&4):%3#&)U-%)%($.,#**%./%.12.012%,')12#% )*% *#$"0,#*% <#$#% $#(#)&#+:8% $#+#*021#+% )1+% ,.1*&0&4&#+%01% ($),&0,#6% E'#% +#*021#$*% &$0#+% &.% $#($#*#1&% &'#% $#:)&0.1):% )1+%	(.$):%1)&4$#%./%*#$"0,#%01%"0*4):%/.$9-%/.$%#;)9(:#%38%,$#)&012%
a.4$1#8%=#626-%)::%,)*#*D%.$%)*%)%*#$"0,#%#,.:.28%"0*4):0I#+%/$.9%)%30$+^*%#8#%"0#<%=#626-%K)*#%JD6%
E'0$+:8-%&'#%+#*021#$*%)(($.),'#+%&'#0$%<.$5%)*%)1%#1c40$8%01%<'0,'%&'#8%)1+%.&'#$*%<.4:+%,.1*&$4,&%)1%41+#$*&)1+012%./%<')&%
e1% )::% &'$##% ,)*#*-% &'#8% <#$#% 01".:"#+% 01% ,.1*0+#$012% #;0*&012%
&'#%'#:(%./%*(#,0):0*&%*#$"0,#%+#*021#$*6%7::%&'#%+#*021#$*%01"#*&#+%&'#%:090&#+%$#*.4$,#*%)")0:)3:#%&.%&'#9%01%&'0*%*&4+8%01%&$8012%&.%41+#$*&)1+%&'#%*#$"0,#%/$.9%&'#%(.01&%./%"0#<%./%,4*&.9#$*%)1+%#1+% 4*#$*-% )*% <#::% )*% &'#% *#$"0,#% .$2)10I)&0.1^*% (#$*(#,&0"#*-%),,#**#+%38%01&#$"0#<012%9)1)2#$*6%E'0*%#9#$2012%41+#$*&)1+012%*')(#+%'.<%&'#8%<#1&%)3.4&% &'#0$%<.$56% e1% &'#%+.,49#1&*% &'#8%,$#)&#+% *4,'% )*% "0*4):% $#($#*#1&)&0.1*% ./% &'#0$% +#*021% ($.,#**#*%)1+%+4$012%&'#0$%($#*#1&)&0.1*%)&%&'#%<.$5*'.(*-%&'#8%#9(')*0I#+%)1%0&#$)&0"#%($.,#**%+4$012%<'0,'%&'#8%,.1+4,&#+%&'#0$%$#*#)$,'-%+#"#:.(#+% 01*02'&*% )1+% 2#1#$)&#+% 0+#)*% &'$.42'% *5#&,'012% .$%
2#1#$)&#+%#1&0$#:8%1#<%*#$"0,#%,.1,#(&*%&')&%+0+%1.&%+$)<%+0$#,&:8%.1% 51.<:#+2#% )3.4&% #;0*&012% ,4*&.9#$*% )1+% 4*#$*% =b#$2)1&0-%ABBGD6%e1%,.1&$)*&%&.%+#*,$0(&0.1*%./%&'#%1#<%*#$"0,#%+#"#:.(9#1&%($.,#**%01%<'0,'%+#*021%0*%)%(')*#%=@,'#4012%?%M.'1*.1-%CGOGD-%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%*)<%&'#0$%#1&0$#%),&0"0&8%)*%+#*021-%,.1*0*&%<0&'%].:.()01#1%=ABCBD6%
d.4$&':8-% &'#% +#*021#$*% ,$#)&#+% .((.$&410&0#*% /.$% &'#%
)1+%01"#*&#+%$#*.4$,#*%01%,$#)&012%9)&#$0):%)$&0/),&*%)1+%*0&4)&0.1*%&')&% #1)3:#+% &'0*6% N)&'#$% &')1% 9.*&:8% <.$5012% .1% &'#0$% .<1%
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a.4$1#8% +0)2$)9*% =)::% &'$##D6% E'#*#%
194
Page 195
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -P, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&&'()
3.41+)$8%.3a#,&*%=@&)$%?%R$0#*#9#$-%CGOGF%K)$:0:#-%ABBAD%(:)8#+%)1%09(.$&)1&%$.:#%01%)::%&'$##%,)*#*%)*%&'#%+#*021#$*%&$0#+%&.%9)5#%&'#% ($),&0,#*% ./% *#$"0,#% *&)5#'.:+#$*% "0*03:#% &.% &'#%9)1)2#$*% &.%
=)>('>>)%"
E'0*%()(#$%')*%#;(:.$#+%+0//#$#1&%<)8*%./%41+#$*&)1+012%*#$"0,#%+#*0216% @#,.1+:8-% 0&% ')*% ,.1*0+#$#+% <')&% <#% ,)1% :#)$1% /$.9%($./#**0.1):%+#*021#$*%<'.%*)8% &'#8%($),&0,#% 0&6%E'#%/$)9#<.$5%
+#*021%)1+%.1%*#$"0,#%.1%&.%<'0,'%0&%0*%(.**03:#%&.%9)(%+0//#$#1&%($./#**0.1):% )1+% +0*,0(:01)$8% #9(')*#*% )*% &.% '.<% +#*021% )1+%
)&&0.1%&.%&<.%)*(#,&*%./%*#$"0,#%+#*021%k%<')&%0*%3#012%+#*021#+%01% &'#% +#*021% ./% *#$"0,#*% )1+% '.<% +#*021#$*% 2.% )3.4&% *#$"0,#%+#*0216%
E'#%$#*#)$,'%/.41+%&')&% &'#%+#*021#$*%)&+#+%,:.*#:8% &.%)%<0+#%$)12#%./%9)&#$0):%)1+%+020&):%)$&0/),&*%)1+%($),&0,#*%<0&'01%*#$"0,#*6%d.$%&'#*#%+#*021#$*-%)%*#$"0,#%0*%3.&'%*.,0):%)1+%9)&#$0):6%E'#8%*)<%*#$"0,#%)*%$#:)&0.1):%)1+%	(.$):%)*%"):4#%<)*%,$#)&#+%01%($),&0,#6%e1%)++0&0.1-%&'#%$#*#)$,'%*'.<#+%&')&%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%
./% &'#0$%<.$5% 01".:"#+%,$#)&012%3.41+)$8%.3a#,&*% &')&% *#$"#+% &.%9)5#%"0*03:#% &'#*#%),&.$*%<0&'01%)%*#$"0,#-%)*%3.&'% &'#8%)1+%&'#%9)1)2#$*%,.1*&$4,&#+%)1%41+#$*&)1+012%./%&'#%*#$"0,#6%K.9301012%&'#*#%*422#*&*%&')&%<')&%&'#*#%($./#**0.1):%*#$"0,#%+#*021#$*%)$#%+.012%0*%/.,4*#+%.1%&'#%3.&&.9%$02'&%c4)+$)1&% 01%d024$#%CZ% &'#8%)$#%?$/'0"'"0*-(%*/$%3'9$6%E'#%)1):8*0*%./%&'#%,)*#*%*422#*&*%&'#8%,.9301#%)%,.1*&$4,&0"0*&%)(($.),'% &.%+.012%+#*021-%<0&'%)%"0#<%&')&%&'#%+0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1%2..+*%)1+%*#$"0,#*%0*%1.&%09(.$&)1&6%N)&'#$-% &'#%+#*021#$* %#//.$&*% &.%41+#$*&)1+% &'#%*&$)#*%./% &'#%34*01#**#*% &'#8% <.$5#+% <0&'% )1+% &.% $#&'015% &'#*#% '02':02'&#+%'.<%&'#8%*)<%*#$"0,#%)*%$#:)&0.1):%)1+%01*&)1&0)&#+%01%($),&0,#6%e1%&'#0$%$#*#)$,'%)1+%($.(.*):*%&.%$#+#*021%)*(#,&*%./%&'#%#1&#$($0*#* %*#$"0,#*-%&'#%+#*021#$*%/.,4*#+%.1%'.<%&'#%")$0.4*%),&.$*%01".:"#+%
J8% $#/#$$012% &.% &'0*% )*%?$/'0"'"0* -(%* /$%3'9$-% $)&'#$% &')1%*#$"0,#% +#*021-% 9)5#*% ,:#)$% &')&% &'#% (4$(.*#% ./% &'#% +#*021#$* %#1c40$8%0*%&.%,$#)&#%)1+%+#"#:.(%($.(.*):*%/.$%1#<%501+*%./%"):4#%
&.%+#*,$03#%)%+0*&01,&0"#%<)8%./%)(($.),'012%*#$"0,#%+#*021-%&')&%0*-%?$/'0"* -(%* /$%3'9$-%<'0,'%')*%1.&% &'4*% /)$%3##1%($#*#1&#+% 01%#0&'#$%&'#%+#*021%.$%9)1)2#9#1&%:0&#$)&4$#*6
e%1.<%&4$1%&.%&'#%(.**03:#%09(:0,)&0.1*%./%&'0*%$#*#)$,'%/.$%9)1)2#$*-% +#*021#$*% )1+% $#*#)$,'#$*6% E'#% /$)9#<.$5% 9)5#*% )%+0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1%+0//#$#1&%<)8*%./%&'015012%)3.4&%*#$"0,#%+#*021%)1+%9)8%'#:(%+#*021#$*%)1+%9)1)2#$*%1)"02)&#%&'#%,.9(:#;0&0#*%
'.4*#% )1+% <')&#"#$% &'#0$% .$0201)&012% +0*,0(:01#6% E'#% +#*021#$*%01% &'0*%*&4+8%)&+#+% &.%($),&0,#*%)1+%"):4#%$#:)&0.1*% 01".:"012%)$&#/),&*%)*%+0"#$*#%)*%(.*&#$*-%<#3*0&#*%)1+%*&)//%&$)01012%9)14):*-%*422#*&012%&')&%+#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#%0*%)%*&$),%501+%./%+#*021%
+0*,0(:01#%./%+#*021%=>#$.10%?%@)120.$20-%ABCCD6%].<#"#$-% &'0*%*&4+8% *422#*&*% &')&% +#*021012% /.$% *#$"0,#% .//#$*% )1% .((.$&410&8%&.% $#&'015% ($./#**0.1):% +#*021% )1+% 0&*% $.:#% 01% .$2)10I)&0.1*% )1+%*.,0#&0#*%9.$#%3$.)+:8%38%9)5012%,:#)$%'.<%41+#$:8012%,.1,#(&*%*4,'%)*%*#$"0,#%)$#%9.30:0I#+6%Q"#1*.1%)1+%\433#$:8%=ABCBD%)1+%>)1I010% =ABCCD% ):*.% 9)5#% &'0*% )$249#1&6% d.$% $#*#)$,'#$*-% &'#%+0"#$*0&8% ./% $#*#)$,'% 4*#+% 01% &'0*% ()(#$-% /$.9%+#*021% *&4+0#*% &.%.(#$)&0.1*-%9)$5#&012%)1+%($),&0,#%&'#.$8-%.//#$*%)%1#<%(#$*(#,&0"#%.1%*#$"0,#%+#*021%&')&%a.01*%4(%:0&#$)&4$#*%)&%)%&09#%<'#1%,)::*%/.$%01&#$+0*,0(:01)$8%$#*#)$,'%)(($.),'#*%')"#%3##1%9)+#6%
d01)::8-% )% +0*,4**0.1% ./% &'#% :090&)&0.1*% ./% &'0*% *&4+8%0*% $#c40$#+6% E'#% /$)9#<.$5% 01% d024$#% C% ,.11#,&*% 09(.$&)1&%,.1,#(&4):% )1+% #9(0$0,):% $#*#)$,'% 01% +#*021% )1+% 9)1)2#9#1&%
/.,4*#+%.1%.1:8%.1#%c4)+$)1&%./%&'#%/$)9#<.$56%e&%'#:(*%,:)$0/8%
+#*021#$*-% 34&% /4$&'#$% <.$5% 0*% 1##+#+% &.% &#*&% &'#% /$)9#<.$5^*%$#:#")1,#%38%#;(:.$012%01%+#(&'%&'#%.&'#$%&'$##%c4)+$)1&*6%E'0$+:8-%01% &'0*%*&4+8% &'#%4*#%./%)1%#&'1.2$)('0,%)(($.),'% &.%2#1#$)&012%+)&)%/.$%,)*#*%<)*%)(($.($0)&#%/.$%)1%#;(:.$)&.$8%*&4+8%01%<'0,'%&'#%('#1.9#1.1%0*%1.&%<#::%41+#$*&..+-%34&%&'0*%:090&*%'.<%&'#*#%
&.% .&'#$% ,.1&#;&*% *4,'% )*% &'.*#% 01% <'0,'% 1.&0.1*% ./% ,4*&.9#$%#;(#$0#1,#% )$#%9.$#% ,.99.16%d01)::8-% &'#$#%<)*% 1.% )&	(&% &.%)**#**%<'#&'#$%&'#%)(($.),'%($),&0,#+%38%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%<.4:+%:#)+%&.%3#&&#$%+#*021#+%*#$"0,#*6%E'#%#9(')*0*%<)*%.1%+#*,$03012%&'#%)(($.),'6%d4$&'#$%<.$5%0*%1##+#+%&.%)**#**%0&*%#//#,&0"#1#**6
8%"(1'>)%"
E'0*%()(#$%)09#+% &.%#;(:.$#%'.<% &'#%<.$5%./% *#$"0,#%+#*021% 0*%41+#$*&..+6% e&% +#"#:.(#+% )% /$)9#<.$5% &'$.42'% <'0,'% *#$"0,#%+#*021% ,)1%3#%+0*,4**#+%)1+%#;(:.$#+% 0&% 38% )1):8I012% &'#%<.$5%./% +#*021#$*% <'.% *)8% &'#8% +#*021% *#$"0,#*6% E<.% )(($.),'#*%')"#% 3##1% ,.9301#+Z% )1% #;)901)&0.1% ./% :0&#$)&4$#*% 01% +#*021%
,.1*4:&)1,0#*%*(#,0):0I012%01%*#$"0,#%+#*0216%e1%+.012%*.-%&'#%()(#$%')*%'02':02'&#+%+0//#$#1&%<)8*%./%&'015012%)3.4&%*#$"0,#%+#*0216%
*.:"012%01%<'0,'%&'#%+#*0$#+%*&)&#%./%)//)0$*%0*%):$#)+8%51.<1%.$%)*%)%($.,#**%./%#1c40$8%+4$012%<'0,'%9#)1012%0*%,.1*&$4,&#+%<0&'%+0"#$*#% *&)5#'.:+#$*6%T0&'01% $#*#)$,'%.1% *#$"0,#*-% e% '02':02'&#+%,.1&$)*&012% (.*0&0.1*% &')&% #0&'#$% *##% 09(.$&)1&% +0*&01,&0.1*%3#&<##1%&'#%<)8*%2..+*%)1+%*#$"0,#*%)$#%+#*021#+%)1+%9)1)2#+%.$%<'0,'%*##%&'#%+0*&01,&0.1%)*%1.&%09(.$&)1&-%34&%<'0,'%01*&#)+%*##*% *#$"0,#% )*% &'#% /41+)9#1&):% 3)*0*% ./% ,$#)&012% "):4#6% d$.9%
c4)+$)1&%./%&'0*%/$)9#<.$56%Y*012%&'#%&'#.$#&0,):%(#$*(#,&0"#%./%
195
Page 196
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, 8;, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&$&%'()*'+"*,$-"'.#'/&"'0.1')('!"#$%&$&%'+"*,$-"#
&'0*% )(($.),'%+#*021012% /.$% *#$"0,#%)1+%)$24#+% 0&% 0*% $..&#+% 01%)%,.1*&$4,&0"0*&%)(($.),'%&.%+#*021%01%<'0,'%+#*021#$*%)1+%+0"#$*#%.&'#$*%)$#%01".:"#+%01%)1%.12.012%#1c40$8%)1+%01%)1%41+#$*&)1+012%./%*#$"0,#%&')&%+.#*%1.&%$#*&%.1%&'#%+0*&01,&0.1%3#&<##1%2..+*%)1+%*#$"0,#*%/$.9%01+4*&$0):%9)14/),&4$012-%34&%$)&'#$%*##*%*#$"0,#%)*%&'#%/41+)9#1&):%3)*0*%./%#;,')12#*%./%"):4#6%
6(J"%<10&?.0"#>
E'0*%$#*#)$,'%<)*%*4((.$&#+%38%&'#%7$&*%)1+%]49)10&0#*%N#*#)$,'%K.41,0:%)1+%Q1201##$012%)1+%_'8*0,):%@,0#1,#%N#*#)$,'%K.41,0:^*%\#*021012%/.$%&'#%AC*&%K#1&4$8%*,'#9#6%E'#%()(#$%<)*%09($."#+%<0&'% 01(4&% /$.9% &'#% #+0&.$*% )1+% )1.189.4*% $#"0#<#$*% )1+% ):*.%
@&#"#%X#<-%N)/)#:%N)9j$#I-%\)10#:)%@)120.$20%)1+%J$4,#%E#&'#$6%
9"&"%#0>
!#h05#%)18%/$)9#<.$5%&'0*%.1#%$#+4,#*%&'#%+0"#$*0&8%./%:0&#$)&4$#%
"#
@#0+#:%=Q+*6D%=ABBOD6
30A0$0"(0>
C6% 733.&&-%76% =CGOOD6%HA$* /D/#$4*(-*I%(-$//'("/J*5"*$//&D*("*#A$*?'3'/'("*(-*$FI$%#*)&6(%6%K'0,)2.Z%Y10"#$*0&8%./%K'0,)2.%_$#**6
A6%*#$"0,#%+#"#:.(9#1&%($.,#**6%+(,%"&)*(-*=$%3'9$/*K&%L$#'"0-%MN
f6% 7:#;)1+#$-% K6% =CGHCD6% 8(#$/* ("* #A$* /D"#A$/'/* (-* -(%46%K)93$0+2#-%>7Z%])$")$+%Y10"#$*0&8%_$#**6
L6% J)&#-% _6-% ?% N.3#$&-% R6% =ABBHD6% @%'"0'"0* ,/$%* $FI$%'$"9$*#(* A$&)#A9&%$* '4I%(3$4$"#J* HA$* 9("9$I#/B* 4$#A(?/* &"?*I%&9#'9$/*(-*$FI$%'$"9$*6&/$?*?$/'0"6%!;/.$+Z%N)+,:0//#6%
W6%1#<% &$0,5*Z% E'#% ($.90*#% ./% *#$"0,#% $#+#*0216% +(,%"&)* (-*=$%3'9$*O$/$&%9A-%:
P6% J#$$8-%h6%h6-%T)::-%Q6%76-%?%K)$3.1#-%h6%_6% =ABBPD6%@#$"0,#%,:4#*% )1+% ,4*&.9#$% )**#**9#1&% ./% &'#% *#$"0,#% #;(#$0#1,#Z%h#**.1*% /$.9% 9)$5#&0126% 59&?$4D* (-* K&"&0$4$"#*P$%/I$9#'3$/-%:Q
H6% J0&1#$-% >6% M6-% !*&$.9-% 76-% ?% >.$2)1-% d6% =ABBOD6% @#$"0,#%3:4#($01&012Z%7% ($),&0,):% &#,'10c4#% /.$% *#$"0,#% 011.")&0.16%2&)'-(%"'&*K&"&0$4$"#*O$3'$R-%;Q
O6% J0&1#$-%>6%M6%=CGGAD6%@#$"0,#*,)(#*Z%E'#%09(),&%./%('8*0,):%*4$$.41+012*% .1% ,4*&.9#$*% )1+% #9(:.8##*6% +(,%"&)* (-*K&%L$#'"0-%;N
G6% J0&1#$-%>6%M6-%J..1*-%J6%]6-%?%E#&$#)4:&-%>6%@6%=CGGBD6%E'#%*#$"0,#% #1,.41&#$Z% \0)21.*012% /)".$)3:#% )1+% 41/)".$)3:#%01,0+#1&*6%+(,%"&)*(-*K&%L$#'"0-%;S
CB6%J:)050#-%X6%=ABBB6D%.$/'0"'"0*/(9'&)*%$/$&%9AJ*HA$*)(0'9*(-*&"#'9'I&#'("6%>):+#1-%>7Z%_.:0&8%_$#**6
CC6%J:.93#$2-% M6% =ABBOD6% X#2.&0)&012% 9#)1012% ./% *')$#+%
01/.$9)&0.1% 01% *#$"0,#% *8*	% #1,.41&#$*6% T,%(I$&"*K&"&0$4$"#*+(,%"&)-%:N
CA6%J.:)1+-% N6-% ?% K.::.(8-% d6% =Q+*6D% =ABBLD6% K&"&0'"0* &/*?$/'0"'"06%_):.%7:&.-%K7Z%@&)1/.$+6
Cf6%J$.<1-% E6% =ABBOD6% \#*021% &'0150126% U&%3&%?* @,/'"$//*O$3'$R-%VN
CL6%J4$1*-%K6-%K.&&)9-%]6-%b)1*&.1#-%K6-%?%T01')::-% M6% =ABBPD6%OT.* I&I$%* Q:J* H%&"/-(%4&#'("* ?$/'0"6% h.1+.1Z% \#*021%K.41,0:6
CW6%J4,')1)1-%N6%=CGGAD6%T0,5#+%($.3:#9*%01%+#*021% &'0150126%.$/'0"*!//,$/-%V
CP6%J4,')1)1-%N6%=ABBCD6%\#*021%$#*#)$,'%)1+%&'#%1#<%:#)$10126%.$/'0"*!//,$/6%MW
CH6%K)$3.1#-% h6% _6-% ?% ])#,5#:-% @6% ]6% =CGGLD6% Q1201##$012%,4*&.9#$%#;(#$0#1,#*6%K&%L$#'"0*K&"&0$4$"#-%X
CO6%K)$:0:#-% _6%N6% =ABBAD6%7% ($)29)&0,% "0#<% ./% 51.<:#+2#% )1+%3.41+)$0#*Z%J.41+)$8%.3a#,&*%01%1#<%($.+4,&%+#"#:.(9#1&6%E%0&"'Y&#'("*=9'$"9$B%MX
CG6%K'#*3$.42'-%]6-%?%@(.'$#$-%M6%=ABBPD6%7%$#*#)$,'%9)10/#*&.%/.$%*#$"0,#*%*,0#1,#6%2(44,"'9&#'("/*(-*#A$*52KB%SZLB6
AB6%K$.**-% X6% =ABBPD6% .$/'0"$%)D* R&D/* (-* L"(R'"06% J#$:01Z%@($012#$6
AC6%+#*,$03012%+#*021%),&0"0&86%.$/'0"*=#,?'$/B*MN
AA6%.$/'0"*=#,?'$/-%
::=WD-%LAWkLfH6%Af6%\411#-% \6-% ?% >)$&01-% N6% =ABBPD6% \#*021% &'015012% )1+%
'.<% 0&% <0::% ,')12#% 9)1)2#9#1&% #+4,)&0.1Z% 71% 01&#$"0#<%)1+% +0*,4**0.16% 59&?$4D* (-* K&"&0$4$"#* <$&%"'"0* &"?*T?,9&#'("-%;
AL6%
U&"?6((L*(-*A,4&"79(4I,#$%*'"#$%&9#'("fCfD6%X#<%o.$5Z%Q:*#"0#$6
AW6% TFI)(%'"0* (3$%)&I/* &"?*?'--$%$"9$/* '"* /$%3'9$7?(4'"&"#* )(0'9* &"?* ?$/'0"* #A'"L'"06%_)(#$% ($#*#1&#+% )&% &'#% C*&% X.$+0,% K.1/#$#1,#% .1% @#$"0,#%\#*021%)1+%@#$"0,#%e11.")&0.1-%!*:.-%X.$<)86
AP6%*#$"0,#%+#"#:.(9#1&6%HA$*=$%3'9$*!"?,/#%'$/*+(,%"&)B%MN=AD-%
AH6%Q"#1*.1-%@6-%?%\433#$:8-%]6%=ABCBD6%\#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#Z%K$#)&012% )1% #;(#$0#1,#% )+")1&)2#6% e1% R6% @):"#1+8% ?% T6%
!"#%(?,9#'("*#(*/$%3'9$*$"0'"$$%'"0% =((6%
AO6%d0&I*099.1*-% M6-% ?% d0&I*099.1*-% >6% =ABBBD6%8$R* /$%3'9$*?$3$)(I4$"#J* 2%$&#'"0* 4$4(%&6)$* $FI$%'$"9$/6% E'.4*)1+%!)5*-%K7Z%@)2#6
AG6%d$8-% E6% =ABBGD6%.$/'0"* -,#,%'"0J* =,/#&'"&6')'#DB* $#A'9/* &"?*"$R*I%&9#'9$1%!;/.$+Z%J#$26%
fB6%R)$4+-%N6-%M)01-%@6-%?%E4#$&*,'#$-%_6% =ABBOD6% e1,.9(:#&#%38%+#*021% )1+% +#*021012% /.$% 01,.9(:##**6% E%0&"'Y&#'("*=#,?'$/-%:Z
196
Page 197
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, 8., /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&&'()
fC6%R:4*'5.-%N6-%?%E)3)*-%h6%=ABBGD6%\#*021012%*#$"0,#%*8*	*%38%3$0+2012%&'#%S/$.1&%*&)2#U%)1+%S3),5%*&)2#U6%!"-(%4&#'("*=D/#$4/*T7@,/'"$//*K&"&0$4$"#B*W
fA6%R.:+*-%@6%>6-%M.'1*&.1-%N6-%\4//8-%M6-%?%N).-%M6%=ABBAD6%E'#% *#$"0,#% ,.1,#(&Z% E'#% 90**012% :015% 01% *#$"0,#% +#*021%$#*#)$,'m% +(,%"&)* (-*EI$%&#'("/*K&"&0$4$"#-%:QCfL6
ff6%R$V1$..*-%K6%=ABBBD6%=$%3'9$*4&"&0$4$"#*&"?*4&%L$#'"0J*5*9,/#(4$%* %$)&#'("/A'I*&II%(&9AT0:#86%
fL6%])99#$-% >6-% ?% K')9(8-% M6% =CGGBD6% O$$"0'"$$%'"0* #A$*9(%I(%&#'("J*5*4&"'-$/#(* -(%* 6,/'"$//* %$3(),#'("6% h.1+.1Z%7::#1%?%Y1<016
fW6%])&,'4#:-%76%=ABBCD6%E.<)$+*%+#*021%&'#.$8%)1+%#;()1+)3:#%
+(,%"&)*(-*K&"&0$4$"#*&"?*[(3$%"&"9$-%;fP6%])&,'4
/.$94:)&0.16%O$/$&%9A* '"%T"0'"$$%'"0* .$/'0"-% MZCGA6
fH6% E"* )'"$* &"?* ("* I&I$%J* \'/,&)*%$I%$/$"#&#'("/B* 3'/,&)* 9,)#,%$B* &"?* 9(4I,#$%* 0%&IA'9/* '"*?$/'0"*$"0'"$$%'"01%K)93$0+2#-%>7Z%>eE%_$#**6
fO6%].::01*-% J6-% ?% @'01501*-% @6% =ABBPD6% K&"&0'"0* /$%3'9$*(I$%&#'("/J*.$/'0"*&"?*'4I)$4$"#&#'("1%h.1+.1Z%@)2#6%
fG6%].:9:0+-%@6%=ABBH-%>)8%AGD6%!"#$%&9#'("*?$/'0"*&"?*/$%3'9$*?$/'0"J* TFI&"?'"0* &* 9(4I&%'/("* (-* ?$/'0"* ?'/9'I)'"$/6%_)(#$%($#*#1&#+%)&%&'#%A1+%X.$+0,%\#*021%N#*#)$,'%\#*021%K.1/#$#1,#-% @&.,5'.:9-% @<#+#16% N#&$0#"#+% !,&.3#$% CC-%ABBG-% /$.9% '&&(Z[[.,*6*/46,)[1.$+#*[01+#;6('([1.$+#*[ABBH[()(#$["0#<[CLB[GW
LB6%].:9:0+-% @6% =ABBG-% X."#93#$% APD6% P&%#'9'I&#'3$B* 9(7(I$%&#'3$B* $4&"9'I&#(%DJ* ]%(4* I&%#'9'I&#(%D* ?$/'0"*#(* /$%3'9$* ?$/'0"6% _)(#$% ($#*#1&#+% )&% &'#% C*&% X.$+0,%K.1/#$#1,#%.1%@#$"0,#%\#*021%)1+%@#$"0,#%e11.")&0.1-%!*:.-%X.$<)86% N#&$0#"#+% M4:8% W-% ABCC-% /$.9% '&&(Z[[<<<6)'.61.[
.(#$)&0"#-pAB#9)1,0()&.$86(+/%LC6%].:9:0+-%@6-%?%Q"#1*.1-%@6%=ABBOD6%J$012012%*#$"0,#%+#*021%
&.% *#$"0,#% *,0#1,#*-% 9)1)2#9#1&% )1+% #1201##$0126% e1% J6%=$%3'9$* /9'$"9$B*4&"&0$4$"#*
&"?* $"0'"$$%'"0J*T?,9&#'("* -(%* #A$* :M/#* 9$"#,%D*fLWD6%J#$:01Z%@($012#$%b#$:)26
LA6%].:.()01#1-% >6% =ABCBD6% Q;(:.$012% *#$"0,#% +#*021% 01% &'#%,.1&#;&% ./% )$,'0&#,&4$#6% HA$* =$%3'9$* !"?,/#%'$/* +(,%"&)B*XQ
Lf6%]435)-% b6% =CGOAD6% P%'"9'I)$/* (-* $"0'"$$%'"0* ?$/'0"6%
LL6%h6%>..$%=Q+*6D-%.$/'0"*&"?*9%$&#'3'#DJ*P()'9DB*4&"&0$4$"#*&"?*I%&9#'9$*
LW6% .$/'0"'"0* -(%*/$%3'9$/*^*K,)#'?'/9'I)'"&%D*I$%/I$9#'3$/1*P%(9$$?'"0/*-%(4*#A$*$FI)(%&#(%D*I%(_$9#*("*?$/'0"'"0*-(%*/$%3'9$/*'"*/9'$"9$*&"?* #$9A"()(0D76&/$?* $"#$%I%'/$/6% !;/.$+Z% @)i+% J4*01#**%@,'..:6
LP6%*#$"0,#% 9)$5#&012% )1+% .(#$)&0.1*% <0&'% *#$"0,#% #;(#$0#1,#%
9)1)2#9#1&6%+(,%"&)*(-*=$%3'9$*O$/$&%9A-%MMLH6%M#:01#5-% >6-% N.99#-% 76% R6% h6-% ?% J.:)1+-% N6% M6% =ABBOD6%
e1&$.+4,&0.1% &.% &'#% *(#,0):% 0**4#Z% !$2)10I)&0.1% *&4+0#*% )*%)% *,0#1,#% /.$% +#*021Z% K$#)&012% ,.::)3.$)&0"#% )$&0/),&*% )1+%$#*#)$,'6%E%0&"'Y&#'("*=#,?'$/-%:Z
LO6% HA$*/$4&"#'9*#,%"J*5*"$R*-(,"?&#'("*-(%*?$/'0"6%J.,)%N)&.1-%dhZ%E)8:.$%?%d$)1,0*6
LG6%*#$"0,#% 9)$5#&012% )1+% .(#$)&0.1*% <0&'% *#$"0,#% #;(#$0#1,#%9)1)2#9#1&6%+(,%"&)*(-*=$%3'9$*O$/$&%9A-%MM
WB6%h."#:.,5-% K6-%?%R499#**.1-% Q6% =ABBLD6%T'0&'#$% *#$"0,#*%9)$5#&012m% e1% *#)$,'% ./% )% 1#<% ()$)+029% )1+% /$#*'%(#$*(#,&0"#*6%+(,%"&)*(-*=$%3'9$*O$/$&%9A-%W
WC6%>)2#$-% J6% =ABBLD6% =$%3'9$* ?$/'0"J* 5* %$3'$Re1&#$1)&0.1):%@,'..:%./%\#*0216
WA6%=ABBPD6% @#$"0,#% *8*	*-% *#$"0,#% *,0#1&0*&*-% @@>Q-% )1+%011.")&0.16%2(44,"'9&#'("/*(-*#A$*52K-%SZ=HD
Wf6%>)1I010-% Q6% =ABBfD6% @,#1)$0.*% ./% *4*&)01)3:#% <#::3#0126%.$/'0"*PA')(/(IAD*P&I$%/-%C6%N#&$0#"#+%X."#93#$%AL-%ABBG-%/$.9%'&&(Z[[<<<6+#*('0:.*.('86,.9[%
WL6%>)1I010-% Q6% =ABCCD6% e1&$.+4,&0.16% e1% 76% >#$.10% ?% \6%@)120.$20% =Q+*6D-% .$/'0"* -(%* /$%3'9$/* 1*7:+#$*'.&-%
WW6%>#1.$-%h6%M6-%E)&05.1+)-%>6%b6-%?%@)9(*.1-%@6%Q6%=ABBAD6%X#<%*#$"0,#%+#"#:.(9#1&Z%7$#)*%/.$%#;(:.0&)&0.1%)1+%#;(:.$)&0.16%+(,%"&)*(-*EI$%&#'("/*K&"&0$4$"#-%:Q
WP6%>#$.10-%76-%?%@)120.$20-%\6%=ABCCD6%7%1#<%+0*,0(:01#6%e1%76%>#$.10%?%\6%@)120.$20%=Q+*6D-%.$/'0"*-(%*/$%3'9$/* 1*
WH6%&'#% ,4:&4$#% ./% +#*021#$*6%E%0&"'Y&#'("* =#,?'$/-%:ZfGA6
WO6%>.22$0+2#-%J6% =ABBPD6%.$/'0"'"0* '"#$%&9#'("/6%K)93$0+2#-%>7Z%>eE%_$#**6
WG6%>.$#::0-% X6% =ABBAD6% \#*021012% ($.+4,&[*#$"0,#% *8*	*Z% 7%9#&'.+.:.20,):%#;(:.$)&0.16%.$/'0"*!//,$/-%MV
PB6%>.$#::0-%X6% =ABBG-%X."#93#$% ALD6%@$D("?* #A$* $FI$%'$"9$J*!"*/$&%9A*(-*&"*(I$%&#'3$*I&%&?'04*-(%*#A$*'"?,/#%'&)'Y&#'("*(-* /$%3'9$/6% _)(#$% ($#*#1&#+% )&% &'#% C*&% X.$+0,% K.1/#$#1,#%.1% @#$"0,#%\#*021% )1+% @#$"0,#% e11.")&0.1-% !*:.-% X.$<)86%N#&$0#"#+% X."#93#$% AC-% ABBG-% /$.9% '&&(Z[[<<<6)'.61.[_)2#d0:#*[POCG[>.$#::0pABpABJ#8.1+pAB&'#pAB#;(#$0#1,#6(+/%
PC6%X#8:)1+-%\6% =ABBOD6%E%0&"'Y&#'("&)* $#A"(0%&IAD1% h.1+.1Z%@)2#6%
PA6%X.$9)11-%N6%?%N)9j$#I-%N6% =CGGfD6%\#*021012% 01&#$),&0"#%*&$)Z%d$.9%"):4#% ,')01% &.%"):4#% ,.1*&#::)&0.16%U&%3&%?*@,/'"$//*O$3'$R-%WM
Pf6%X.$9)11-% N6% =CGGCD6% =$%3'9$* 4&"&0$4$"#J* =#%&#$0D* &"?*)$&?$%/A'I*'"*/$%3'9$*6,/'"$//6%K'0,'#*&#$-%XoZ%T0:#86%
PL6%
=ABCBD6%>."012%/.$<)$+%)1+%9)5012%)%+0//#$#1,#Z%N#*#)$,'%($0.$0&0#*% /.$% &'#% *,0#1,#% ./% *#$"0,#6% +(,%"&)* (-* =$%3'9$*O$/$&%9A-%MX
197
Page 198
!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, 8:, /)0&+)10#*)12,3*4+)12,*5,6&'#(),7*2"8,9*":,:;..
!"#$%&$&%'()*'+"*,$-"'.#'/&"'0.1')('!"#$%&$&%'+"*,$-"#
PW6%34&%<')&%501+%./%+#*021m%71%)(($)0*):%./%&'#%+#*021%*,0#1,#%)1):.28% /.$%9)1)2#9#1&6%@%'#'/A* +(,%"&)* (-*K&"&0$4$"#-%:M
PP6%_)$)*4$)9)1-%76-%`#0&')9:-%b6%76-%?%J#$$8-%h6%h6%=CGOWD6%7%,.1,#(&4):%9.+#:%./%*#$"0,#%c4):0&8%)1+%0&*%09(:0,)&0.1*%/.$%/4&4$#%$#*#)$,'6%+(,%"&)*(-*K&%L$#'"0-%SZ
PH6%_)$5#$-%@6-%?%]#)(8-%M6%=ABBPD6%HA$*_(,%"$D*#(*#A$*'"#$%-&9$J*U(R* I,6)'9* /$%3'9$* ?$/'0"* 9&"* 9(""$9#* ,/$%/* #(* %$-(%41*h.1+.1Z%\#9.*6
PO6%_)&$0,0.-% h-% d0*5-% N6% _6-% ?% K41')-% M6% d6% =ABBOD6% \#*021012%
3:4#($01&6%+(,%"&)*(-*=$%3'9$*O$/$&%9AB%MQPG6%
.$/'0"*!//,$/-%:;HB6%N)9)*<)98-%N6%=CGGPD6%.$/'0"*&"?*4&"&0$4$"#*(-*/$%3'9$*
I%(9$//$/HC6%
.$0201*%)1+%09(:0,)&0.1*%/.$%($),&0,#%)1+%$#*#)$,'6%=#%&#$0'9*K&"&0$4$"#*+(,%"&)-%:Q
HA6%N)")*0-%\6-%?%N01+.")-%b6%=ABBOD6%@893.:0,%"):4#%,$#)&0.16%e1%\6%J)$$8%?%]6%])1*#1%=Q+*6D-%U&"?6((L*(-*"$R*&II%(&9A$/*#(*(%0&"'Y&#'("
Hf6%N#,5<0&I-%76%=ABBAD6%E.<)$+*%)%&'#.$8%./%*.,0):%($),&0,#*Z%7%+#"#:.(9#1&% 01% ,4:&4$):0*&% &'#.$0I0126%T,%(I$&"*+(,%"&)*(-*=(9'&)*HA$(%D-%;
HL6%N0&&#:-% ]6-% ?%T#33#$-% >6% =CGHfD6% \0:#99)*% 01% )% 2#1#$):%&'#.$8%./%(:)110126%P()'9D*=9'$"9$/B*S
HW6%@)120.$20-% \6-% ?% K:)$5-% J6% =ABBL-% M4:8% AOD6% H(R&%?/* &*I&%#'9'I&#(%D* ?$/'0"* &II%(&9A* #(* /$%3'9$* ?$/'0"6% _)(#$%($#*#1&#+% )&% &'#% O&'% J0#110):% _)$&0,0()&.$8% \#*021%K.1/#$#1,#-%E.$.1&.-%K)1)+)6
HP6%@)120.$20-% \6% =ABBG-%7($0:D6% @,')?'"0* ,I* &* -%&4$R(%L* -(%*=$%3'9$*.$/'0"*%$/$&%9A6%_)(#$%($#*#1&#+%)&%&'#%O&'%Q4$.(#)1%7,)+#98%./%\#*021%K.1/#$#1,#-%73#$+##1-%@,.&:)1+6%
HH6%@,')&I50-%E6% N6% =ABBCD6% e1&$.+4,&0.1Z% _$),&0,#% &'#.$86% e1%E6%HA$*
I%&9#'9$* #,%"* '"*9("#$4I(%&%D* #A$(%DN.4&:#+2#6
HO6%@,'V1-% \6% =CGOHD6%I%(-$//'("&)/*#A'"L*'"*&9#'("1%X#<%o.$5Z%J)*0,%J..5*6
HG6%@,'#4012-%Q6-%?%M.'1*.1-%Q6% =CGOGD6%7%($.(.*#+%9.+#:% /.$%1#<% *#$"0,#% +#"#:.(9#1&6% +(,%"&)* (-* =$%3'9$/* K&%L$#'"0-%X
OB6%@'.*&),5-%R6%h6%=CGOAD6%].<%&.%+#*021%)%*#$"0,#6%T,%(I$&"*+(,%"&)*(-*K&%L$#'"0-%MN
OC6%@'.*&),5-% R6% h6% =CGOLD6% \#*021012% *#$"0,#*% &')&% +#:0"#$6%U&%3&%?*@,/'"$//*O$3'$R-%N:
OA6%@09.1-%]6%76%=CGPGD6% =C*&%#+6D6%K)93$0+2#-%>7Z%>eE%_$#**6
Of6%@09.1-%]6%76%=CGOOD6% =A1+%#+6D6%K)93$0+2#-%>7Z%>eE%_$#**6
OL6%@.:.9.1-%>6%N6-%@4$($#1)1&-%K6-%KI#(0#:-%M6%76-%?%R4&9)1-%Q6%R6%=CGOWD6%7%$.:#%&'#.$8%(#$*(#,&0"#%.1%+8)+0,%01&#$),&0.1*Z%E'#%*#$"0,#%#1,.41&#$6%+(,%"&)*(-*K&%L$#'"0-%SZ
OW6%@&)$-%@6%h6-%?%R$0#*#9#$-%M6%N6%=CGOGD6%e1*&0&4&0.1):%#,.:.28-%
S&$)1*:)&0.1*U% )1+% 3.41+)$8% .3a#,&*Z% 79)$*% )1+%($./#**0.1):*% 01%J#$5#:#8^*%94*#49%./% "#$$)&#% I..:.28-%
=(9'&)*=#,?'$/*(-*=9'$"9$B*MZOP6%@&02:0)10-%e6-%?%d)8)$+-%76%h6%=ABCBD6%.$/'0"'"0*"$R*9,/#(4$%*
$FI$%'$"9$/J*5* /#,?D*(-* /(9'(74&#$%'&)* I%&9#'9$/* '"* /$%3'9$*?$/'0"% q\0*,4**0.1% ()(#$r6% h.1+.1Z% e9(#$0):% K.::#2#%J4*01#**%@,'..:6%
OH6%@&4)$&-%d6%e6-%?%E);-%@6%=ABBLD6%E.<)$+%)1%01$)&0"#%)(($.),'%&.%+#*021012%*#$"0,#%#;(#$0#1,#*Z%h#**.1*% :#)$1#+%/$.9%&'#%&'#)&$#6%+(,%"&)*(-*EI$%&#'("/*K&"&0$4$"#-%::
OO6%E);-% @6-% ?% @&4)$&-% e6% =CGGHD6% \#*021012% )1+% 09(:#9#1&012%1#<%*#$"0,#*Z%E'#%,')::#12#*%./%01$)&012%*#$"0,#%*8*	*6%+(,%"&)*(-*O$#&')'"0-%WX
OG6%E.1501<0*#-%K6% =ABBf-%7($0:D6% !"#$%4'"&6)$* ?$/'0"J* H$9A"$*&"?* #'4$* '"* #A$* ?$/'0"* (-* /,/#&'"&6)$* /$%3'9$* /D/#$4/1*_)(#$% ($#*#1&#+% )&% &'#% W&'% Q4$.(#)1%7,)+#98% ./% \#*021-%J)$,#:.1)-%@()016%
GB6% P%(?,9#* ?$/'0"* &"?*?$3$)(I4$"#
GC6%b)$2.-% @6% h6-% ?% h4*,'-% N6% d6% =ABBL)D6% Q".:"012% &.% )% 1#<%+.901)1&%:.20,%01%9)$5#&0126%+(,%"&)*(-*K&%L$#'"0B*NV
GA6%b)$2.-% @6% h6-% ?% h4*,'-% N6% d6% =ABBL3D6% E'#% /.4$% *#$"0,#%
9.+#:6%+(,%"&)*(-*=$%3'9$*O$/$&%9A-%NGf6%
:.20,Z%K.1&014012%&'#%#".:4&0.16%+(,%"&)*(-*#A$*59&?$4D*(-*K&%L$#'"0*=9'$"9$-%XN
GL6%b)$2.-%@6%h6-%?%h4*,'-%N6%d6%=ABBO3D6%T'8%S*#$"0,#Um%+(,%"&)*(-*#A$*59&?$4D*(-*K&%L$#'"0*=9'$"9$-%XN
GW6%b#$2)1&06% N6% =ABBGD6% .$/'0"7?%'3$"* '""(3&#'("1* 2A&"0'"0*#A$*%,)$/*(-*9(4I$#'#'("*6D*%&?'9&))D*'""(3&#'"0*RA&#*#A'"0/*4$&"1%J.*&.1Z%])$")$+%J4*01#**%_$#**6%
GP6%b.**-%K6-%?%`.9#$+0a5-%h6%=ABBHD6%e11.")&0.1%01%#;(#$0#1&0):%*#$"0,#*%k%71%#9(0$0,):%"0#<6%e1%R$#)&%J$0&)01%\#(&6%./%E$)+#%)1+% e1+4*&$86% =Q+6D-% !""(3&#'("* '"* /$%3'9$/*h.1+.1Z%\#(&6%./%E$)+#%)1+%e1+4*&$86
GH6% O$3(),#'("'Y'"0*
&"?*`,&)'#D1%X#<%o.$5Z%d$##%_$#**6%GO6%T01.2$)+-%E6-%?%d:.$#*-%d6%=CGOPD6%C"?$%/#&"?'"0*9(4I,#$%/*
&"?*9(0"'#'("J*5*"$R*-(,"?&#'("*-(%*?$/'0"1%X.$<..+-%XMZ%73:#;6%
GG6%T.9),5-%M6%_6-%M.1#*-%\6%E6-%?%N..*-%\6%=CGGBD6%HA$*4&9A'"$*#A&#*9A&"0$?*#A$*R(%)?6%X#<%o.$5Z%N)<*.1%7**.,0)&#*6
CBB6%#1201##$012% )1+% ($.,#**%9)1)2#9#1&Z%7% *4$"#8% ./% ,4$$#1&%($),&0,#% )1+% /4&4$#% &$#1+*% 01% 01$)&#+% 9)1)2#9#1&6%@,/'"$//*P%(9$//*K&"&0$4$"#*+(,%"&)B*M
CBC6% #0&')9:-% b6-% ?% J0&1#$-% >6% M6% =ABBfD6% =$%3'9$/* 4&%L$#'"0J*% =f$+% #+6D6% X#<%
CBA6% #0&')9:-% b6%76-% _)$)*4$)9)1-%76-% ?% J#$$8-% h6% h6% =CGOWD6%_$.3:#9*% )1+% *&$)#*% 01% *#$"0,#*% 9)$5#&0126% +(,%"&)* (-*K&%L$#'"0-%SZ
CBf6% .9#$+0a5-% h6-% ?% b.**-% K6% =ABCBD6% @#$"0,#% +#*021% /.$%+(,%"&)* (-* =$%3'9$* O$/$&%9A-%
MX
198
Page 200
Chapter 5 Designing as inventive practice
Iwouldn’tsaythebigquestionsarecosmologicalquestions,butrather
cosmopoliticalquestions.BrunoLatour(Latouretal2011:50).
5.1 Introduction
Theprevioustwochapterspresentedsomeoftheencountersbetweendesigning
anddifferentkindsofsocialandculturalresearch.Theydemonstratedthat,as
designresearchersandpractitionershaveengagedmoredeeplywithsocialand
culturalresearch,sotoohavesociologistsandanthropologistsfound
opportunitiestoworkmoredirectlyinrelationtotheworldsofchangeand
actionor,asSimon(1996)wouldsay,design.Thischaptercontributestoabetter
understandingofdesigninginthecontextofservicesandsocialinnovation,by
drawingonsomeoftheseresourcesandothers,toexplorehowtoconceptualise
thedesigningofrelationsbetweenpeopleandthings.
Todothis,thechaptergoesintomoredetailintosomeofthedebateswithinthe
designstudiesliterature,introducedinChapter2,andusesresearchfrom
ScienceandTechnologyStudies(STS),torethinksomeoftheunderlyingissues.
Theseincludewaysofthinkingaboutinventiveness,methodsandignorance,
basedonunderstandingthesociomaterialworldasco-constitutedby
heterogeneousactorsinpractice.Conceptsdevelopedinthreeofmyownsolo-
authored,peer-reviewedpublications,presentedintheinterstitialbetween
200
Page 201
Chapter4andthischapter,arealsomobilised.Thischapterexpands,deepens
andsynthesizesacrossthesecontributions,thinkingofthisaskindofremixing.
Thusthewritingofthischapterincludesdirectquotationsfromsomeofthe
authorscited,mixedwithsomeofmyownwork,toconstructanargumentthat
connectsideasaboutdesigningwithideasabouthowdesigningandusingunfold.
QuotationsfromPapers1to3arepresentedvisuallylikethistohighlightwhere
thisworkiscombinedintothelargerargumentinthischapter.
Thewaythisproceedswillseparatetheobjectofdesignfromhowpractitioners
dodesigning.Thischoiceneedsexplaining,sinceatheoreticalbaseusedhereis
ethnographically-informedtheoriesofpracticethatwouldsaythisdualismis
false.Butitisusefultomaintainthisanalyticaldistinction,becauseitisfoundin
designstudiesliteraturesandinpractitionerandresearcherclaimsabout
“designthinking”,whichremaininfluentialincontemporaryconversationsabout
design.
Thischapterisdividedintothreesections.Thefirstisconcernedwithattempts
tounderstandanddescribewhatitisthatpeopledoingdesignareworkingonor
in,whentheydosomethingtheycalldesign(whatwemightreducetothe“what”
ofdesign).Thesecondsectionfocusesonthewaysdesignersapproachthedoing
ofdesign(orthe“how”ofdesign).Bothsectionsbeginbyoutliningsomeofthe
keytensionsandcontributions,andthenintroduceresourcesfromSTSthatopen
upnewwaysofthinkingabouttheseissues.Thethirdsectionremixesthese
ideas,andpresentsaninventivepracticeperspectiveondesigning.
201
Page 202
Readerswhoperseverewillthenfindthat,aftertheapparentseparationofthe
whatandthehowofdesigning,thesetwoarewoundintoaconceptualpairingof
designs-in-practiceanddesign-as-practice.Thisopensupwaysofunderstanding
thenatureandimpactofdesign-basedpracticesinthedesignofservicesandin
thecontextofcollectiveissues.Chapter1showedthereisalackofclarityabout
theobjectofservicedesignanddesignforinnovation.Itisthereforetimelytore-
considerwhatiscentraltothedoingofdesigning–whetherthisiscalleddesign
thinkingorsomethingelse–andwhat,ifanything,isdistinctiveabouttheways
thatpeoplepracticingwithindesigntraditionsdoitandwhatthisoffersthose
workingindesignforserviceanddesignforsocialinnovation.
5.2 Design’s objects
5.2.1 Designing objects or designing for change
Whatisdesigningconcernedwith?Whatisitsobject?Andhowisthisobjector
setofconcernsdifferenttothoseofotherkindsofprofessionalexpertiseand
practice?Thesequestions–whichsurfaceregularlyinpaneldiscussionsandat
presentationsbydesignpractitioners,whethertalkingaboutstrategicdesign,
socialdesign,servicedesignordesignthinking–arenoteasytoanswer,evenfor
researchersfamiliarwithdesignliteratures.Thereexistsomeimportantand
long-standingdisagreementsaboutwhatpeoplewhothinkofthemselvesas
designers,aredoingwhentheydosomethingtheycalldesign.InwhatfollowsI
202
Page 203
brieflyreviewsomeoftheissuespresentedinChapter2,summarisethese
tensionsandshowhowotherresearchershavetriedtoaddressthem.
Thestartingpointformanydesignersandresearchersistothinkofdesignas
concernedwithartefacts.
Whenin1971ChristopherAlexanderarguedthatdesignisaboutgiving
form,organizationandordertophysicalthings,heacknowledgedan
entireschoolofthought.ForAlexander,“theultimateobjectofdesignis
form”(1971:15).Theideathatformisaphysicalarrangementremainsa
dominantviewofwhatdesignersdo:theymakethings.Visitorsto
professionaldesignstudiosarelikelytonoteadisorderlyarrangementof
objectsonworksurfaces,wallsandfloors.Suchclutterremindsushow
professionaldesignstillinvolvesdoingthingswithandtoobjects,even
forthosedesignerswhoseetheirworkasdesigningintangibleservicesor
experiences.(Kimbell2011a:290)
Incontrast,forHerbertSimon(1969)designisaboutchangingexisting
situationsintopreferredones,whichmeansitisnotprimarilyfocussedonthe
creationofnewartefacts.Hatchuel(Hatchuel2001;HatchuelandWeil2008)
extendsSimon,butarguesthatdesigningisnotjustproblem-solving,butrather
newconceptsemergethroughwhatHatchuelcallsan“expandablerationality”.
MorerecentdevelopmentsoftenfollowSimon,especiallydesignthinking–the
ideathatdesigners’approachesandmethodscanbeappliedtoawiderangeof
situations.Thisshiftindesignfrombeingprimarilyconcernedwithgivingshape
203
Page 204
andformtotangibleobjects,towardstryingtocreatechange,isparticularly
evidentintheconversationsincontemporarypracticearounddesignthinking
andservicedesignandisinpartshapedbytheacademicandpractitionersocial
andculturalresearchtraditionspresentedinChapter3.
Thistension–betweendesignasconcernedwithobjects,orconcernedwith
change–hassurfacedmanytimesindesignliteratures.Forexample,Findeliand
Bousbaci(2005)describeaneclipseoftheobjectintheoriesofdesign,fromthe
qualitiesoftheobjecttotheexperiencesofitsusers.Oneresponseisfoundinthe
workofBuchanan(1992).ThisinfluentialpaperaimstotakeforwardSimon’s
claimandcombinesitwithRittelandWebber’s(1973)ideasof“wicked
problems”andadiscussionofJohnDewey’sexperimentalandempiricist
pragmatismtoseedesign(orashecallsit,designthinking)asakindofexpertise
thatislocatedinfourplacements–signsandsymbols,materialobjects,activities
andorganisedservices,andcomplexsystemsandenvironments.Callingthese
“fourordersofdesign”,Buchanansaysthatthesedonotlimitdesigners,but
provideastartingpointfordesignworktoproceed.Theyseemtomapontothe
conventionalobject-baseddistinctionsbetweenspecialismsfoundinmany
designschools.Forexample,attheRoyalCollegeofArtinLondon,thereare
currentlypost-graduateprogrammesinareasthatfitprettyneatlywithin
Buchanan’sfourordersofdesign:communicationdesign,productdesign,service
design,andarchitecture.
EchoingBuchanan,thedesignconsultancyHumantificalsohasaquadrupleset
thatdividesupdesignpractice.HoweverforHumantific’sco-founderGKvan
204
Page 205
Patter(2009),thisistiedtoahistoricalnarrativeastothekindsofproblems
designerstakeascentraltotheirwork.Hecastsdesignasprogressingin
complexityinalmostalinearfashionfromdesign1.0,concernedwithcreating
newproducts,todesign4.0,workingtowardssocialtransformationaddressing
systemicissues.
Butthesecontributionstendnottoengagewiththelargebodyofresearch
outlinedinChapter4,writtenmostlybypeoplewithasocialsciencestraining,
whichchallengedandenrichedconceptualisationsoftherelationsbetween
peopleandobjectsindesigning.Further,aninterestinScienceandTechnology
Studiesamongsomeresearchers,hasresultedineffortstothinkdifferently
abouttheobjectofdesignandwhatdesignersdoincludingpublications(eg
Binderetal2011),recentPhDtheses(egWilkie2010;Moll2012;Andersen
2012;Singleton2012;Botero2013)andconferencesandworkshops(egEhn
2008;PDC2012).Thiscoincideswitharelatedinterestamongresearchers
workingwithinSTStoengagewithdesignincludingBrunoLatour’skeynoteat
theDesignHistorySocietyConference(Latour2008),andpanelsondesignat
conferencessuchasEASSTin2010(EASST2010)and2012(EASST2012)and
recentpublications(egYaneva2005;WilkieandMichael2009;Michael2011;
LuryandWakeford2012).
Onecontributionthatdoesexploresomeoftheseintersectionsisabook
authoredbyacollectiveofwell-establishedresearcherswhocallthemselvesA.
Telier(Binderetal2011).ThiscombinesworkinPD,CSCWandSTStopropose
theobjectofdesignas“designthings”iesocialandmaterialentitiesformedof
205
Page 206
humanandnon-human“constituents”(Binderetal2011:57-63).Overthe
successivechapters,whichdrawextensivelyontheauthors’closeparticipant
observationofwhathappensinteachingstudios,inparticularwithin
architecturalandinteractiondesign,Binderetalproposeunderstandingdesign
asacollectivematerialpractice.Theyshowhowdesignersapproachdesigning,
whereitcantakeplace,theobjectsofdesign,and,usingterminologyfromPD,
howdesigningrelatestousing.
RelevanttothissectionisBinderetal’sdescriptionofthedesignof“things,
projects,objects,artefacts,devices,materials,places,infrastructures,designers,
users,stakeholders,publics,andsoon,incollectivesofhumanandnonhumans
performingandtransformingtheobjectofdesign”(Binderetal2011:6;
emphasisinoriginal).BorrowingLatourandWeibel’s(2005)useoftheterm
“thing”todescribecollectivesthataremattersofconcern,Binderetalmobilize
thisconcepttoarguethatwhatdesignersdesignaresociomaterialdesignthings
(Binderetal2011:6).“Aturntowardsthingscan…beseenasamovementaway
from‘projecting’andtowarddesignprocessesandstrategiesof‘infrastructuring’
and‘thinging’”(Binderetalibid).Theydistinguishtwoperspectivesonthe
objectofdesign:an“engineering”approachwhichseestheoutcomesofdesignas
providingaccesstofunctions(egachairprovidesopportunitiesforsitting)and
an“architectural”perspectiveinwhichanoutcomeofadesignprocessisathing
thataimstochangetheexperienceofitsusersandwhichis“richinaesthetical
andculturalvalues,openingnewwaysofthinkingandbehaving”(Binderetal
2011:51).Further,relevanttothecontextofdesignforservicesandforsocial
innovation,Binderetalseeopportunitiesforcreatingdesignthingsincontexts
206
Page 207
“outsidethebox”insitesnotusuallyassociatedwithdesign(Binderetal2011:
183-193).
Fruitfulasitis,Binderetal’sargumentdoesnotconnectstronglywithdebates
ondesignthinkingordesignforservicesandforsocialinnovation.Sowhatthis
chapterdoesisjoinupseveralresearchtraditions–researchersindesign
studies,ontheonehand,andresearchersinCSCWandPD,ontheother.A
secondthingthischapterdoesistoextendBinderetal’scharacterisationof
sociomaterialdesignthings.Thisdrawsinspirationfromsomeofthesame
sourcesasBinderetal,butenrichesanddevelopstheirwork,byusingadditional
resourcessuchastheoriesofpracticeandresearchoninventivenessinSTS.
5.2.2 Co-articulation of the material and the social
Thefirstconcepttomobiliseisco-articulation(Marres2011),theideathatthe
worldisnotdividedupintothesocialorthematerial(oftenexpressedasa
human-centredapproachincontrasttoatechnologicalapproach),butratherthe
socialandthematerialarebroughtintomutualrelationwithoneanotherin
practice.Thisview–thoughcontroversialforsomesocialscientistsand
philosophers–isoneofthekeypiecesofintellectualscaffoldingforthe
interdisciplinaryfieldknownasScienceandTechnologyStudies/ActorNetwork
Theory(STS/ANT).Manyresearcherswhoassociatethemselveswiththisfield
havemadecontributionstothiscoreconceptincludingLatourandWoolgar
(1986),Callon(1986),Akrichetal(2002a),Akrichetal(2002b),Mol(2002),
Barad(2003),Law(2004),Latour(2005),Barad(2007),andCallon(2009).
207
Page 208
Forthepurposesofthisthesis,whichislocatedindesignstudiesratherthanSTS,
itisimportanttorehearsethemainideas,withoutbeingboggeddownbysome
oftheinternalcomplexitiesofthisfield.Sointheinterestsofretainingafocuson
thetopicsdiscussedhere,thissummarydrawsonlyonthemostprominent
relevantcontributions6.
InWeHaveNeverBeenModernBrunoLatour(1993)arguesthatthemodernist
projectofseparatingthedomainsofhumanandworld,andnatureandsociety,
hasnotbeensuccessful.Latourdescribeshowmodernthinkerstriedtopurify
themessyworldswithinwhichhumansareimplicatedandmaintaindistinctions
betweenwhatis“natural”andwhatis“social”.ForLatour,thiseffortitpointless
sincethesecategoriesaregroundless.Themodernistprojectofmaintaining
thesedistinctionscouldnoteverbesuccessfuloracompletefailure.Latour’s
criticismappliesasmuchtotheanti-modernandpost-modernthinkersastothe
modernists.HeseesallofthemasmakingthesamemistakeasKantofdividing
uprealityintotwodistinctrealmsofhumanandworld.AsHarman(2009:59)
putsit,
IfKant’sCopernicanRevolutionplacedhumansatthecenterof
philosophyreducingtherestoftheworldtoanunknowablesetofobjects,
whatLatourrecommendsisaCounter-Revolution.Natureandcultureare
6AkeyfoundationalresourceforthissummaryistheworkofGarfinkel(1984)whoproposesseeingthesocialworldasaprovisional,collectiveaccomplishmentandemphasizescloseempiricalstudyofwhatis.ForanintroductiontoSTSseeSismondo(2011).
208
Page 209
not‘inextricablylinked’,becausetheyarenottwodistinctzonesatall
(Harman2009:59).
Instead,forLatour,thethingsthatmakeuptheworldarehybridsofpeopleand
stuff,incomplicatedsetsofrelations.Athingisonlyknownbywhatit“modifies,
transforms,perturbs,orcreates”(Latour1999:122).Actantsareconstructedin
numeroustrialsofstrengthwithotheractants,resultinginhybrids.Tryingto
identifyanessenceinanactantthatcanbetermednature,orculture,ispointless.
InsteadtheapproachLatourrecommendsistotraceanetworkandstudyhow
actantsareconnectedtoandtransformoneanother(Latour2005).Itisthrough
theirmutualconstitutionorco-articulationthatactantscometohavethe
capacityofagency.
Latour’sunravellingofthehuman/worlddualismhasbeeninfluential.Another
researcher,whohasadvancedsimilarideaswhicharecomplementary,but
whichofferadifferentemphasis,isKarenBarad.Baradworksfromafeminist
perspectivewithinsciencestudiesandisunusualinalsohavingadoctoratein
physics.MuchofBarad’sfocusinherbookMeetingtheUniverseHalfway:
QuantumPhysicsandtheEntanglementofMatterandMeaning(Barad2007)is
ontheideasofphysicistNielsBohr,knownforhisworkonunderstandingthe
atom,andleadingashiftfromparticletoquantumphysics.Baradcombinesher
closereadingofBohr’swritingwithliteratureinthehumanitiesandsocial
sciencesincludingMichelFoucault(1980)andJudithButler(1993).Barad
identifieswhatsheseesasimportantadvancesthateachofthesehasmade.She
arguesthatitisthecombinationofthesewithBohr’sworkthatoffersadifferent
209
Page 210
waytoconceiveofhowwethinkabouttheworld:agentialrealism.Herwayof
understandingtheworldrecognizesthatmatteractivelyconstitutestheworld,
alongsidehumans.Botharerealbuttheycomeintobeingthroughrelatingtoone
another.
UsingBohrasherstartingpoint,Baradpointstohisfindingthat“thenatureof
theobservedphenomenonchangeswithcorrespondingchangesintheapparatus”
(Barad2007:106).Experimentalresultsarenotamirrorthatreflectsrealitybut
areexperiencedthroughtheinstruments.Thisisachallengeto“the
epistemologicalassumptionthatexperimentsrevealthepre-existing
determinatenatureoftheentitybeingmeasured”(Barad2007:106).ForBarad,
thingsdonotpre-existanexperimentor,moreaccurately,measurementduring
anexperiment.Instead,determinateentitiesemergefromtheirintra-action,a
termsheintroducestomakeadistinctionwithinteractionbetweenpre-existent
entities.ForBarad,
thematerialandthediscursivearemutuallyimplicatedinthedynamics
ofintra-activity…Neitherdiscursivepracticesnormaterialphenomena
areontologicallyorepistemologicallyprior(Barad2007:152).
Baraddescribes“phenomena”astheprimaryontologicalunit.Thisissimilarto
Latourforwhomtheworldismadeupofactantsentangledwithinhybrids.For
Barad
210
Page 211
phenomenaaredifferentialpatternsofmattering(‘diffractionpatterns’)
producedthroughcomplexagentialintra-actionsofmultiplematerial-
discursivepracticesorapparatusesofbodilyproduction,where
apparatusesarenotmereobservinginstrumentsbutboundary-drawing
practices–specificmaterial(re)configuringsoftheworld–whichcometo
matter(Barad2007:140;emphasisinoriginal).
Thusfar,thissoundslikeLatour.ForBarad,objectsdonotprecedetheirintra-
action;rather,objectsemergethroughparticularintra-actions.Similarlyfor
Latour,objectsarealwayshybridsandexistonlyintheirrelations.However
whatBaradaddsisanattentivenesstotheethicalandpoliticaleffectsof
particularsetsofrelationsandhowthesecometobe.Baradfurtherdevelops
thisbysayingthe“apparatusesarethematerialconditionsofpossibilityand
impossibilityofmattering:theyenactwhatmattersandwhatisexcludedfrom
mattering”(Barad2007:148).Anapparatusisasociomaterialmeansto
constitutesomethingasobservableandmeaningful.Afeministattentivenessto
embodimentleadsBaradtowardsJudithButler’s(1993)work(cfHaraway1991,
1994).Butler’sideaofperformativitydrawsattentiontothematerial,embodied
anddiscursivepracticeswhichconstitutesubjectivity.HoweverwhereBarad
goesbeyondButleristonotlimitthistohumansubjects,butrecognizematteras
co-constitutingpracticesandapparatuses.Barad’sstanceisthatbecausespecific
practicesofmatteringhaveethicalconsequences,andthusexcludeotherkinds
ofmattering,onto-epistemologicalpracticesarealwaysinturn“onto-ethico-
epistemological”(ibid).
211
Page 212
Thisfeministacknowledgementoftheethicalandpoliticaleffectsisparticularly
relevanttothisstudy.WhereasLatourisinterestedinhowactantsformalliances
withotheractantsintheirmutualelaboration,heoftenappearslessinterestedin
theeffectsofparticularkindsofnetworkswhichhaveweakalliances.Inhis
discussionoftheFrenchsociologist,HarmanhintsthatLatourdoesnotseem
particularlyinterestedinactantsthatareunsuccessfulinformingalliances.
Harmancomments:“Themoreinterestingdistinctionisbetweenthedeserving
andtheundeservingamongbothwinnersandlosers”(Harman2009:49).In
contrast,Baradremediesthiswithanattentivenesstowhatcomestomatter,and
herpoeticlinkingofmatterandmattering.AddingaBaradianattentivenessto
thepoliticalandethicaldimensionsofasociomaterialarrangement,suchasa
serviceorsocialventure,highlightshowdesign’sdiscursiveandsemiotic
practicesco-articulateparticularkindsofissue,inparticularways,with
particularconsquences.Herattentiontolocatednesspromptsresearchersto
considerwhatpossibilitiesareconstructed,atthesametimeasother
configurationsaremadeimpossible,andtheconsequencesofthis.
Toconclude,akeyambiguitythatarisesinaccountsofdesign,describingthe
objectofprofessionaldesign,canbeaddressedbydrawingonworkinSTS/ANT.
Itallowsareconceptualisationoftheobjectofdesign.Ifobjectsandhumans
comeintobeingagentialthroughtheirmutualintra-action,thentheobjectof
designcanneverbeunderstoodasastand-aloneartefact.Thedesignofashoe
necessarilylinksthatshoetomanyotheractorsinthesociomaterialworldin
whichthatshoewillexistanditisthroughthesealliancesthattheshoecomesto
haveitscharacteristics.AsBinderetalputit
212
Page 213
thepropertiesandformsofentities(things,objects)areacquiredin
relationtootherentities,humanaswellasnon-human…[T]heyare
performedandemerging”(Binderetal2011:14).
ReturningtotheoriginalsourceswithinSTS/ANTaddsgreaterdepthtothis
formulation.ResearchbyLatourandBaradexplainshowco-articulationorintra-
actionisnotmerelyawayofseeingthingsasconnectedtootherthings.Rather,
STSshowshowartefactscometohavepropertiesandqualitiesthroughtheir
discursiveandmaterialintra-action.Further,Baradshowsthathowparticular
arrangementscometobe,isamatterofethics.Inthecontextofdesignfor
servicesandforsocialinnovation,politicalandethicalconsiderationsarenot
optional,butpartofhowsociomaterialdesignthingscometobe.Insummary,
effortstodescribetheobjectofdesignascreatingartefacts,orcreatingchange,
arebothpartialviews.Rather,changeresultsfromthemutualintra-actionof
objectsastheyformallianceswithoneanother,throughtheunfoldingofpractice.
Anexampleofwhattheseconceptsmightmeanforunderstandingdesignfor
servicescomesfromPaper3,DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigning
Services(Kimbell2011b).Thispapermakesacontributiontotheemergingfield
ofservicedesign,inawaythatrelatesbacktotheargumentsjustpresented.The
paperexaminesdifferentwaysofapproachingthedesignofservices,firstly
throughaliteraturereviewindesignandmanagementfields,andthroughan
ethnographicstudyofprofessionalswhocalltheirworkservicedesign.
213
Page 214
Theresearchfoundthatthedesignersattendedcloselytoawiderangeof
materialanddigitalartefactsandpracticeswithinservices.Forthese
designers,aserviceisbothsocialandmaterial.Theysawserviceas
relationalandtemporalasvaluewascreatedinpractice.(Kimbell2011b:
49).
Methodologically,thedesignersobservedinthisstudy“triedtorepresentthe
relationalandtemporalnatureofserviceinvisualform,forexamplebycreating
two-dimensionaldocumentsshowingtouchpointsinthecustomerjourney(e.g.,
allcases)orasaserviceecologyvisualizedfromabird’seyeview(e.g.,CaseB).”
(Kimbell2011b:48).Althoughthispaperfocusesonservicedesign,ithighlights
theenduringambiguityattheheartofdesignthatthissectiongrappleswithand
similarlyconcludesthattheobjectofdesignisnoteithermaterial/digitalor
social,butallatonce.
5.2.3 Remixing designs-in-practice
Tofurtherdevelopthisargument,arelatedquestionmustbeaddressedthat
sharestheviewthatthesociomaterialworldisperformedthroughtheintra-
actionofheterogeneousactants.Thetopicthatnowrequireselaborationishow
toconceptualise,inmoredetail,thewayssocialandmaterialworldsarere-
configuredinpractice,andhowtorelatethistoconceptswithindesign
literatures.ThissectiondrawsonPapers1and2,whichmadeuseoftheoriesof
practice.
214
Page 215
RethinkingDesignThinking:Part2(Kimbell2012)highlightssomeofthemain
contributionsfromresearchthatstartsfromlookingatthesociomaterialworld
asconstitutedthroughpractice.Itoutlinessomeoftheimportantconceptsin
theoriesofpractice,whichofferadifferentperspectiveonthetopicofstudying
designalthoughitisimportantnottoglossoversomeofthecontradictions
betweenthem(Reckwitz2002).Otherresearchersarealsoexploringthe
conceptthatwhatdesignersareinvolvedinconstitutingarenewpractices(eg
Shove2006;Ingrametal2007).ForexampleScottetal(2012)introduced
participantstoconceptsofpracticeinastudyofbathingpractices,andfoundit
wasapromisingwaytobringoutopportunitiesfordesigninterventions.
Coreconceptsintheoriesofpracticeincludebodies,minds,things,
knowledge,discourse,structure/processandagency(Reckwitz2002).
ForexampleElizabethShoveandMikaPantzar(2005)describethe
practiceofNordicwalkingasaninterweavingofcompetenceandskills
(howtodoNordicwalking),symbolicmeaningandimages(whatitmeans
todoit)andequipment(thematerialstuffthatispartofdoingit).While
theoriesofpracticemayvary,therearehowevertwoimportantcommon
ideas.Firstlypracticescannotbeconsideredbytakinganyoneofthese
elementsinisolation(Shove2011;Reckwitz2002).Secondly,practices
areunderstoodtobeproduceddynamicallythroughtheinterplayofthese
diverseelementsinrelationtooneanother(Barad2007;Shoveand
Pantzar2005).OrasCarstenØsterlundandPaulCarlile(2005:92)putit,
“subjects,socialgroups,networks,orevenartifactsdeveloptheir
propertiesonlyinrelationtoothersubjects,socialgroups,ornetworks”.
215
Page 216
(Kimbell2012:132)
Thepaperthenmovesontoofferanewwayofthinkingoftheobjectofdesignas
designs-in-practice,thatis,designsasconstitutedmateriallyanddiscursively.
…thistermacknowledgestheemergentnatureofdesignoutcomesasthey
areenactedinpractice.Ittakesthepluralnounformof“design”which
canmeantheoutputscreatedduringaprocessofdesigning,suchas
blueprints,models,specificationsandwhatisfinallyassembledin
productsandservices.Thetermdesigns-in-practicedrawsattentionto
theimpossibilityoftherebeingasingulardesign.(Kimbell2012:135)
Ifdesignersarenot(just)designingobjects,norarethey(grandly)designingfor
change,howcanwedeepenunderstandingoftheirsociomaterialthingsthey
helpbringintoview?TheworkofLucySuchman,akeycontributortodebates
abouttherelationsbetweenethnography,designanduse,offersawayforward.
Inarecentessay,drawingonBarad,Suchmanpicksupontheword
configurationtosharpenanunderstandingofhowthesocialandthematerialare
constitutedinpractice(Suchman2012).
SuchmanlinksthetermconfigurationwithJohnLaw’sconceptofmethod
assemblage(Law2004:84).Shesays“configurationasamethodassemblage
aimstoarticulatemethodinawaythatopensreceivedand/orcongealed
relationstobeingreenacteddifferently”(Suchman2012:58).AswithBarad,a
216
Page 217
feministattentivenesstodifferencebringsintoviewtheontologicalpoliticsof
differentkindsofconfiguring,howsomethingscometobe,andnotothers.
Configuration…bringsthingstogether–atoncereiteratingtheseparate
existenceoftheelementsassembled,anddrawingtheboundariesofnew
artefacts.Italertsustothehistoriesandencountersthroughwhichthings
arefiguredintomeaningfulexistence,fixingthemthroughreiterationbut
alsoalwaysengagedin‘theperpetuityofcomingtobe’thatcharacterizes
thebiographiesofobjectsaswellassubjects.(Suchman2012:50).
Oneoftheimplications,Suchman,notes,is
recognizingthecontingencyandincompletenessofartefacts…bothin
termsofasystem’sdescription(presupposingasitdoes‘hinterlands’that
itdoesnot,andcouldnot,fullyspecify)andofitsimplementation
(presupposingalwaysfurtherpracticesofdesign-in-use)(Suchman2012:
56).
Notonlyareartefactsandsystemseverincomplete,theycanonlybeviewed
partially.Acknowledgingthemultiplerealitiestheybringintobeing,through
configuringthingsdifferently,canalsobearesourceforunderstandingdesign
insteadofanattempttoofferatotalizingviewfromnowhere.Suchman’s
emphasisonboundary-workdrawsattentiontowhatisinsideandwhatis
outsideandhowthesecometobeagential.
217
Page 218
5.2.4 Summary: Changing-object-configurations
Earlier,thissectionhighlightedaprobleminhowtheobjectofdesignis
understood.Ontheonehand,designisseenasprimarilyaboutgivingshapeand
formtothings,butontheother,othersarguethatdesignisseenasconcerned
withchangingexistingsituationsintopreferredones.Thisisevidentintheways
thatdesignersandresearchersfindithardtomakeacaseforthedistinctiveness
ofservicedesignandfordesignthinkinginthecontextofsocialinnovation.
Myargumentisthatbothwaysoflookingatdesign,arelimiting.Theanalysis
presentedheresuggestsunderstandingtheobjectofdesignasco-articulatedin
practice.Binderetal(2011)describedtheobjectofdesignas“sociomaterial
designthings”.Thissectionaddeddetailtothisformulationbyemphasizinghow
configurationsofobjectsandhumansareperformedinpractice.
Thechallengefacedindescribingtheobjectofdesignindesignforservices,or
designforsocialinnovationisaddressedasfollows.Designingforservicesor
designingwithinsocialinnovationinvolvessociomaterialreconfiguringthatcan
resultinnewpractices,thatis,configurationsofartefactsandpeople,resultingin
changedmeaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesand
properties.Thecontributionmadehereistocentreondescribingtherelations
betweenpeopleandthingsindesigningforserviceanddesigningforsocial
innovation.Bothareconcernedwithartefacts,whichcometohavetheirforms,
capacitiesandproperties,andwithpeople,whocomeintohavingidentitiesand
skills,throughparticularproceduresassociatedwithparticularmeanings.Any
218
Page 219
resultingchangeisco-constitutedbythemutualintra-actionofthesevarious
actants.
Toconclude,Iargueforconceivingofdesigningasconcernedwithsociomaterial
configurations,understoodascollectiveaccomplishmentsthatunfoldinpractice.
LinkingbacktoSimon’s(1969)discussionofdesign,thiscanbeseenasa
descriptionofchange.Thetermdesigns-in-practicerecognizeshowdesigns
stabilizethroughthecollectiveco-articulationofdifferentobjectsandpeople
thatcomeintobeingagentialinrelationtooneanother.Suchdesigns–or,touse
Barad’s/Suchman’sterm,configurations–areentitiesthatcanbestudiedasto
howtheybringintoviewwhatisinsideandoutside,asSuchmansuggests.
Thinkingtemporally,theycanalsobestudiedbylookingatdifferencesbetween
configuringdifferentlywhatexiststhen,andnow,orconfiguringwhatisand
whatcouldbe.AsSuchmanhighlights,onlypartialandincompleteversionsof
theseconfigurationsareavailable;thereisnopossiblebird’seye,globalexternal
viewpoint.Thisconfiguringenactsmultiplerealities,whichistosaythata
designer’svisionorethnographer’sanalysisoranindividualuser’susage,isnot
theonlythingthatcomesintomattering.Butrather,thecollectiveunfoldingof
designconfiguresthingsdifferentlyfordifferentactors,associomaterialthings
change,resultingintheopeningupofparticularrelations,andtheclosingdown
ofothersthroughpracticesofincludingandexcluding.
219
Page 220
5.3 Doing designing
5.3.1 Reflective practices
Havingconsideredtheobjectofdesign,thissectionnowturnstoasecond,
relatedproblemthatcontinuestoanimatedesignpracticeandresearch.As
Chapter1demonstrated,theemergingfieldsofdesignforservicesordesignfor
serviceinnovationhaveraisedquestionsabouttheexpertisethatprofessional
designershaveanditsdistinctivenessinrelationtothecapacitiesandskillsof
others,particularlywhenconfiguringartefactswithinservicesorco-designing
projectsorientedtowardsbehaviourchangeorsocialimpact.Paper1showed
thattheriseofthetermdesignthinkingoverthepastdecadeisassociatedwith
increasinginterestfromotherfields,especiallymanagement,inhowdesigners
dodesign,accompaniedbyconfusionaboutwhetherthereisacoresetof
practicesdesignersallenact.Andyetconfusionremainsaboutwhatdesignersin
thecultureofdesign(Julier2006)cancontribute.
Whatisthenatureofdesignexpertiseorknowledgeandhowisitdistinctive
fromtheworkofotherssuchasmanagers,orpeopleengagingwith
sociomaterialdesignthings?Orinthereductiveversion:howdoprofessional
designers,andothersinvolvedindesigning,goaboutdoingit?Answeringthis
requiressummarizingsomeissuesfromtheliteraturereviewedinChapters3
and4.TurningtoresourcesbasedinSTS/ANT,helpsthinkdifferentlyabout
thesequestions.Drawingonthisdifferentconceptualapparatusdislodgessome
ofthewaysthatdesignresearchershavegotstuck,andhelpsaddresssomeof
220
Page 221
thechallengesassociatedwithdescribingthepracticesinthecultureofdesign,
whetherenactedbyprofessionaldesignersorothers.Thechapterproceedsby
remixingtheseconceptsalongwithresearchfromPapers1-3.Whatresultsisa
wayofseeingdesigningasapracticethatproceedsthroughinventiveness,
ignoranceandopeninguppossibilities,whichisdistinctive,althoughnot
exclusive,todesigners’cultureandisaresourceforconstitutingnew
sociomaterialconfigurations.
Chapter3andPaper1,RethinkingDesignThinkingPart1(Kimbell2011a),offer
accountsofresearchwithindesignstudies,thataimstodescribewhatdesigners
doandhowtheythink.Theseinclude“designerlywaysofknowing”,treatingall
problemsasill-defined,eveniftheyarenot(Cross2006;2011).Attemptingto
explaindesigners’tendenciestogeneratenewsolutions,researchershave
emphasizedabductivereasoning(Cross1982;Martin2009;Dorst2010).Dorst
(2006)notedthatsinceadesigners’understandingofaproblemshiftsduringa
designprocess,otherconceptsmightbebetteremployed,suggestinginsteadthat
designersconstructdesignsthattranscendorconnectparadoxes.Michlewski’s
(2008)interview-basedstudyofthecultureofdesignersleadtoidentifyingfive
distinguishingcharacteristics:consolidatingmultidimensionalmeanings;
creating,bringingtolife;embracingdiscontinuityandopen-endedness;
embracingpersonalandcommercialempathy;andengagingpolysensorial
aesthetics.
OnecontributiontoexploreinmoredepthisSchön’s(1983)descriptionofthe
reflectivepractitioner.Thishasbecomeanimportanttouchstonefor
221
Page 222
practitionersofseveralkindsincludingdesigners,andforresearcherstryingto
understanddesigning.DrawingonDewey’sworkoninquiryandexperience,
Schönbroughtintoviewthewaysthatpractitionersstepbacktoreviewwhatis
goingon.Theirreflectioninactionallowsthemtomakejudgementsabouttheir
worksothattheycanproceedwiththematterathand.Theirreflectiononaction
whentheyarenotinthemomentofdoingwork,guidesthemtoconsiderwhatis
shapingtheirworkandlookatfactorsthatshapeit.
Whilethisworkisundoubtedlyproductivefordesignersandresearchers,itrests
onimportantunspokenassumptionswithinmuchdesignresearch.Thisisthat
designersareindividuals.Inthisandotherwork(egArgyrisandSchön1978),
Schönhighlightsthesocialnatureofhowindividualpractitionerscometomake
decisions,butmyreadingofreflectivepracticeisthatitreliesonahuman-
centred,atomisticmodelofthesocial.InSchön’sanalysis,thematerials“talk
back”tothepractitioner,butwedonotgettoseethedetailofwhatthisdoesto
thepractitioner–howheorsheischanged.InLatour’sterms,thedesigner
remainsablackbox(Latour1987:81-82)thatisneveropenedup.InSchön,we
seetheeffectontheprocessofdoingtheworkbutnotitseffectonthe
practitionerandhowsheislocated.Thepractitionerremainsabounded
individualintowhoseworldwedonotpryfurther.
MorerecentworkwithindesignresearchcombinedwithresearchinCSCW,
ParticipatoryDesignandSTS/ANTdepartsfromthis,asChapter4demonstrated.
Insteadofthinkingofdesignersasindividualsandobjectsasdiscrete,bounded
entities,researchersproposedseeingdesignprojectsassociomaterialworldsin
222
Page 223
whichdesigners,researchers,usersandtheobjectsofdesigninteract.Arecent
articulationoftheshifttowardsadifferentwayofthinkingofdesignpracticeis
byBinderetal(2011).Binderetalproposea“deconstruction”oftheindividual
designerandtheobjectofdesign.“Thisdeconstructionbegins,following
Heidegger(1971),withthethingsthemselves,ormorespecificallyinourcase
withsociomaterialdesignthings”(Binderetal2011:6,emphasisinoriginal).In
theirdescriptionofhowdesigners’expertisecomestomatter,theytalkofhow
designproceedsthroughalignment,navigationandexpansionbetweenand
amongtheconstituents(Binderetal2011:51-77).
AsPapers1and2demonstrate,mycontributiontorethinkinghowtodescribe
designers’expertiseandknowledge,withinthedesignstudiestradition,isto
highlighttheactivityofdesignasasocialaccomplishment.Thisshiftsfrom
understandingdesigners’workingasamatterofindividualskillorcognition,toa
relationalagency.Introducinganewterm,design-as-practice,extendsothers’
researchintotheculturesofdesigners(egBucciarelli1994;Henderson1999;
Julier2006;Shoveetal.2007).
Design-as-practicemobilizesawayofthinkingabouttheworkof
designingthatacknowledgesthatdesignpracticesarehabitual,possibly
rule-governed,oftenroutinized,consciousorunconscious,andthatthey
areembodiedandsituated.Whatdesignersknow,doandsayis
constitutedbyandco-constituteswhatispossiblefordesignerstodo,
knowandsay(andwhatisnotpossiblefortheminparticularplacesand
atparticulartimes).Anattentivenesstopracticeorientstheresearcherto
223
Page 224
howknowing,doingandsayingconstituteandareconstitutedinrelation
tootherelementsofapractice.(Kimbell2012:135)
Whatthisdoesisrelocatetheconversationsaboutdesignersandtheirreflective
practicesortheirdesignthinking,sotheyarenotseenasindividualswith
expertise.Insteadtheyareseenasenactingacollectivepracticethatcomesinto
beingthroughtheintra-actionofthedifferentelementsofapracticedescribed
earlier–bodies,minds,things,knowledge,discourse,structure/processand
agency(Reckwitz2002).
Thesectionthatfollowsinvestigatesthepossibilitiesthatemergefrom
extendingthistrajectory.ThisdrawsonworkinSTS/ANTonignoranceand
publicexperiments,andoninventivenessandinventivemethods.Here,
ignoranceisseenasproductivefordesignpractice,andlinkstoamodeof
experimentality.Insteadofproducingmoreknowledge,design’spracticesare
seenasconstitutingnewsociomaterialconfigurations,whichresultinmore
ignoranceandsurprise(cfGross2010).Thisignorancerelatestoanotheraspect
ofhowdesigningunfolds.Incontrasttoaviewofdesignthatseesdesigners’
intentionsandmotivationsasparamount,asociologicalapproachhighlightshow
practicesopenuppossibilitiesratherthanbeingdeterminedbydesigners.As
Barryputs,it
inventionshouldnotbeequatedwithtechnicalchange,butwithformsof
practicewhichservetoopenupratherthandeterminepossibilitiesfor
furtherthoughtandaction(Barry2001:33).
224
Page 225
Usinganinventivepracticeperspectivebringsintoviewthemethodsthathave
developedwithindesignculture.TurningtoLuryandWakeford’s(2012)
discussionofinventivemethodshighlightstheexcesstheygenerate.Thisoffersa
wayforpeoplewantingtounderstanddesignerlypractice,totalkdifferentlynot
aboutwhatdesignersknow,butwhattheydon’tknowandwhythisisgenerative.
5.3.2 Productive ignorance and experimentality
Thisdiscussionstartswithadiscussionofignorance.Itmaybecounter-intuitive
todiscussdesigners’expertiseandknowledgebyexploringwhattheydon’t
know,butdoingthisofferssomethingusefultocurrentdebates.
Buchanan(1992)arguedthatdesignersworkwitha“quasisubjectmatter”
becausetheyworkwiththeparticularandspecific,ratherthanthegeneral.His
accountofdesignthinkingemphasizesdesignasapragmaticenquiry,which
proceedsthroughengagingwiththesituationathand,ratherthanimposinga
pre-determinedstructureorpre-existingknowledgeontoit.Thisseemsto
suggest–althoughBuchanandoesnotquitesayit–thatitisdesigners’lackof
knowledgethatenablesthemtoproceedeveninterrainsinwhichtheymight
reasonablynothavemuchrecognisableexpertiseandwheretheynowhave
ambitionstowork,suchaschronicdisease,policy,orhumanitarianchallenges.
ThiscertainlyseemstobetheclaimoftheUKDesignCouncil(2012)whichhas
setupseveraldesignchallengesinwhichdesignersareinvitedandfundedto
225
Page 226
workinresponsetoissuessuchasbehaviourandsafetyinemergencyroomsof
hospitals.
SimilarlyinthefamousABCNightlineTVprogrammeinwhichateamfrom
consultancyIDEOredesignedashoppingcartinfivedays,co-founderDavid
Kelleysays“Thepointiswe’renotactuallyexpertsatanygivenarea.We’rekind
ofexpertsontheprocessofhowyoudesignstuff.”(ABC1999).ElsewhereKelley
hasreferredtodesignas“glue”,anactivitythatholdstogetheradiversesetof
interestsandknowledgeandbringsthemintorelationwithoneanother(van
Patter2005).Amoreacademicversionofthis,whichperhapsinfluencedKelley
(sincetheauthorwaswritingaboutIDEO),isbyAndrewHargadon,who
describesdesignersas“knowledgebrokers”(HargadonandSutton1997).The
designer-mavenisrecognisablenotsomuchforwhats/heknowsthatiscoreto
her/hisprofessionalwork,butwhats/hedoesn’tknow,andbyher/hisabilityto
pickupknowledgeandweaveittogether.
Researchinsciencestudieshelpsopenupunderstandingofthiscapacity.The
findingofthisresearchishowscientistsproduceknowledgeasacollective
processthatisinrelationtopublics,ratherthanasdescribedasprogressing
throughparadigmshifts(egKuhn1962).Butfarfromsimplyproducingnew
knowledge,theyalsoproduceignorance.
SeveralstrandsofSTSresearchhaveexploredtheideaofpublicexperimentation
andhowthesitesforconductingexperimentsarenownotjustinstitutionalised
sciencebutalsootherkindsofpubliccontext.ForexampleSimonSchaffer’s
226
Page 227
(2005)workonthehistoryofsciencerevealedhowwhatpeoplenowcallthe
“scientific”methodbecameacceptedbydevelopingresearchmethodsthat
requiredbeingdoneinpublic.ShapinandSchaffer’s(1985)historyofthe
developmentofexperimentalsciencein17thEnglandwithafocusontheair-
pump,showedhowthescientificmethodemergedassomethingthatwas
constituteddiscursively,sociallyandmaterially.ShapinandSchafferarguethat
RobertBoyleandotherexperimentalscientistsbelievedthatthefoundationof
properknowledgewasthroughcreatingexperimentalfacts.
Acrucialboundarywasconstructedaroundthedomainofthefactual,
separatingmattersoffactfromthoseitemsthatmightbeotherwiseand
aboutwhichabsolute,permanent,andeven‘moral’certaintyshouldnot
beexpected.(ShapinandSchaffer1985:24).
Boyle’sexperimentalmethodinvolvedcreatingnewartefacts(theairpumps)as
wellasnewdiscursiveandsocialpracticesthatcouldbemobilizedtogenerate
assent.
Anotherstrandofsciencestudieshasalsoproducedconceptsthathelp
illuminatewhatisgoingoninknowledgeproduction.Inhiscasestudiesof
ecologicalprojectssuchastherevitalisationofpost-industrialbrownfieldsites,
Grosshasshownthat,alongwithnewknowledgecomes–perhapsunexpectedly
–moreignorance.Hisresearchdemonstratestheadvantagesofallowingfor
surprisesandincludingignoranceindesignandnegotiationprocesses.“Ifthisis
thecase,handlingignoranceandsurprisebecomesoneofthedistinctivefeatures
227
Page 228
ofdecisionmakingincontemporarysociety”(Gross2010:1).Oneimplicationis
that“uncertaintyisnotresidualbutimmanent,or–toputitmoreflippantly–a
feature,notabug”(Bærenholdtetal2010:9).Butwhilesurprisesandignorance
canbeseenasaccompanyingknowledgeproduction,thisdoesnotserveall
actorsequally.Forexample,McGoey(2012)proposesseeingignoranceas
somethingthatcanbeharnessedasaresource,enablingknowledgetobe
deflected,obscured,concealedormagnifiedinawaythatincreasesthescopeof
whatremainsunintelligible,inparticularforthoseinpositionsofpower.
Movingbeyondstudiesofscience,othershavearguedthattheideaof
experimentationisnowtobefoundinmanyothernon-sciencecontexts
includingartgalleries(egMacdonaldandBasu2007),publicdialogues(Wynne
andFelt2007)andhomes(egMarres2009).Thesenewsitesfor
experimentationarenotjustconcernedwithproducingknowledge,butrather
resultinchangestohowthesociomaterialworldisunderstoodandpracticed.
[T]heintroductionofnewtechno-scientificobjectstosocietyinvolves
muchmorethantheadditionofnewknowledgeandthingstosociallife.It
requiresthereconfigurationofthewidersocial-materialrelationsamong
whichthenewobjectistobeaccommodated(Marres2009:119).
Twospecificexamplesarerelevanttothepresentstudy.Thefirstistheuseofart
galleriesandmuseumsassitesforpublicexperimentation,asdiscussedina
collectionofessayseditedbyMacdonaldandBasu(2007).Theirexamples
includeLatour’stwointerdisciplinaryexhibitionsIconoclash(2002)andMaking
228
Page 229
ThingsPublic(2005)(LatourandWeibel2005)7.BasuandMacdonald(2007:2)
suggestthat“therealmsofexperimentsandexhibitionsarenotthatdistinct”.
Forthem,anexhibitionisalsoasiteforthegenerationratherthanreproduction
ofknowledgeandexperience.Galleriesandmuseumsarere-imaginedasaspace
ofencounterratherthanoneofrepresentation.Suchexperimentsask
howtoengagewithcomplexity,howtocreateacontextthatwillopenup
aspaceforconversationanddebate,aboveallhowtoenlistaudiencesas
co-experimenters,willingtotryforthemselves(BasuandMacdonald
2007:16).
Asecondexampleisthe“greenlivingexperiments”studiedbyMarres(2009;
2012),whichprovideanotherexampleofnon-professionalsinvolvedin
conductingpublicexperiments.Suchexperimentstendtoinvolvethemeticulous
recordingandreportingofeverydaypractices,theattempttochangethem,and
theconsequencesofsuchattempts,invariousmedia,bysomeonelivinginand
writingabouttheirattemptstolivemoresustainablyinthehome.Asakindof
research,greenlivingexperimentscannotbesaidtoperformthesametasksas
object-centredsociologists,thatofdescribingsociomaterialrelations,says
Marres.Thisisbecausetheiraccountshavelittletosayaboutinescapable
featuressuchasenergyinfrastructures,landlords,orregulatoryarrangements.
Instead,theytendtohighlightsociomaterialrelationsthatcanbereconfigured
7MyinstallationcreatedincollaborationwithsociologistAndrewBarry,PersonalPoliticalIndices(Pindices),wasshowninMakingThingsPublic(2005).
229
Page 230
throughindividualintervention,byswitchingappliancesofforinstallingsaving
devices(Marres2009:125).
NonethelessMarresclaimssuchlivingexperimentsarearesourceforsocial
researchersbecausetheyprovideaformator“protocol”forexploringand
testingformsoflife;exploringcollectivepracticesofresearchingsocialand
culturalchange,asengagedinbyactorswhodonotnecessarilyidentify
themselvesassocialresearchers;andbecausetheycanbetakenasachallengeto
socialscientiststocometotermswithparticularsocialandtechnological
changesthatarecurrentlyaffectingsocialresearch(Marres2012).Bydescribing
theobjectsandhabitsthatmakeupeverydayliving,theseexperimentsaspireto
bringintoviewtheenvironmentalandsocialconsequencesofeverydayliving.
Further,theyhighlightarelationofdependencybetweentheobjectsofpublic
experimentsandtheirpublics(Marres2009:119).
Theinterestingresultofsuchresearchisnotthatexperimentsproducenew
knowledge.Rather,asShapinandSchaffer,MacdonaldandBasu,andMarres,
haveshown,theworkofdoingexperimentsisconcernedwithbringinginto
existencenewkindsofsociomaterialconfiguration,whichconstitutepublicsand
bringtheimplicationsofnewdevelopmentsintoview.Further,asGrosshas
argued,alongwithknowledge,comesmoreignoranceandmoresurprises.
Togetherthesestudiespointtothedynamicinterplaybetweenknowledge,
ignoranceandpublics.
230
Page 231
Thissuggeststhatatleastpotentially,designers’professionalignoranceisnot
somethingtodownplay.Instead,theconditionsthatgiverisetothisignorance
andthecapacityforignorancetobecomeavailabletothesensesandforpeople
designingtoengageproductivelywiththis,suggestre-thinkingitassomethingto
appreciateandmobilise.Linkingresearchindesignstudiesondesignmethods
anddesigners’knowledgeoftheparticular,withideasofexperimentalityand
ignorancefromstudiesofscience,pointstoseeingthelackofknowledgewithin
designers’practicesandcultures,asgenerative.Whatthismeansforthepresent
studyisthatdesigningcanbethoughtofascreatingpublicexperimentsthrough
discursive,socialandmaterialpracticesthatcreatetemporaryformsof
sociomateriallife.Ascommunity-basedresearchsuchastheMalmölivinglabs
(Björgvinssonetal2010,2012)suggest,suchexperimentscanmakemanifest
newkindsofsociomaterialconfigurationinpractice,withoutdownplayingthe
agonismthatispartofhowsuchrelationsareconstituted.Suchexperiments
involveandmutuallyareconstitutedwiththeirpublicsinsodoing,ratherthan
producingknowledgeforthem.Butalongsideanyknowledgealsocomes
ignoranceandsurprises,whichmaybenefitsomeactorsonly.
Thishelpsrecastsomeoftheclaimsmadebythoseusingdesignapproachesin
thecontextofsocialissuesthroughmethodssuchascollaborativeandcross-
disciplinaryworksinvolvingparticipantsanddiversesocialactorsasmany
serviceandsocialdesignersdo(DesignCouncil2012).Ratherthanproducing
ideasorknowledgeforanewserviceorasocialenterprise,suchworkshopscan
playanotherrole,whichiscreatingnewkindsofsociomaterialconfiguration,
introducingnewkindsofactantintoconfigurations,markingoutboundariesof
231
Page 232
whoisinoroutasacontributororconstituent,andquestioningclaimsto
knowledgeandauthorityamongactants.Newconfigurationsareperformedinto
beingthroughtheproductiveignoranceofdesign-as-practice.
Thusfar,thisdiscussionavoidedgoingintodetaildescribingwhatdesignersdo
atspecifictimesandplaces,otherthanwithreferencetomypublications.But
thenextsectionstartswithafocusonwhathappensindesigning,tobringinto
viewhowthisignoranceisgenerative.
5.3.3 Inventive methods and excess
Anydiscussiononmethodsindesignhastopayhomagetothelongtraditionin
studiesofdesign,atleastthoseconductedinsidedesignschools,ofdescribing
designers’methods.ThissectionbrieflyreviewswhatisusuallycalledtheDesign
Methodsmovementfromthe1960sonwards.Itstartswithanoverviewofsome
influentialmethodsusedindesignwork,andthenmovesontosituatingthese
withinawidercontext,associologyandanthropologyhaveturnedrenewed
attentiontomethods.FinallyLuryandWakeford’sconceptofinventivemethods
(2012)isintroduced,whichhelpsclarifythepossibilitiesthatemergeinthe
encountersbetweendesignmethodsandthepublicsinrelationtowhichthey
aredeployed.Inparticulartheirdiscussionoftheexcessofinventivemethods
helpsmakeclearhowdesign-as-practicecanreconfiguresociomaterialworlds
andbringthesenewarrangementsandpracticesintoview.
232
Page 233
TheConferenceonDesignMethodsof1962(JonesandThornley1963)isoften
citedasakeyhistoricaljuncturefordesignstudiesanddesigntheory(Buchanan
andMargolin1995;King1995).Herewasagroupofpeoplemostlyworkingin
designfirmsanddesignschools,ratherthaninuniversitydepartments,
grapplingwitharticulatingknowledgeaboutdesigners’workacrosstheir
differentspecialismsandforsomeofthematleast,tryingtomarkitoutas
somethingdistinctive.Onewaytodothiswasbydescribingthedesignprocess
anddesigners’methodsandmakingthemmoreexplicit,althoughforsomethis
effortveeredtooclosetotryingtoproscribethem.Theemblematictexthereis
byJohnChrisJones.HisDesignMethods,stillinprint,wasoriginallypublishedin
1970andreadingittodaystillresultsinrecognitionamongdesigners.The
argumentembeddedinJones(1992)wasthatwithincreasingcomplexity
broughtaboutbyincreasingindustrialisationandchangesinconsumer
behaviour,designersneededtouseagreatdealofinformationandbemoreself-
consciousoftheirwaysofworkingtoimprovethequalityoftheirdesignwork.
Itspagesincludetopicsonexploringdesignsituations,generatingideas,
exploringproblemstructures,andevaluatingdesigns.
Someofthekeypeople,includingJonesandAlexander,involvedinthesedebates
laterrejectedafocusonrationalmethods:
Wesoughttobeopen-minded,tomakedesignprocessesthatwouldbe
moresensitivetolifethanweretheprofessionalpracticesofthetime.But
theresultwasrigidity:afixingofaimsandmethodstoproducedesigns
thateveryonenowfeelstobeinsensitivetohumanneeds.Anotherresult
233
Page 234
wasthatdesignmethodsbecamemoretheoretical(Jones,quotedin
Mitchell1992:ix).
ReviewingJones’laterpoeticbookDesigningDesigning(Jones1991),King
(1995)arguesthatJoneslaterdevelopedaviewofdesignprocessesand
methodsasconcernedwiththestimulationofcollectivehumancreativity,open
tochanceasmuchastaskedwithmakingresearchusefultodesigners.
Withindesignresearchthereremainsinterestindescribingapproachesthat
shapeprofessionaldesignwork.Designstudiesshiftedtowardsinvestigationsin
designthinkingdrawingoncognitivescience,includingstudyingdesigners
workingonprojects(egCross1982;Lawson1997).Alongsidethis,practitioners
tacklingparticularissuesalsopublishtheirdescriptionofmethods(egIDEO
2012;StickdornandSchneider2010)andsometimesthereistrafficbetweenthe
worldsofacademicandpractice.Chapter1showedtheplethoraoftoolkitsfor
designforservicesandforsocialinnovationthathaveemergedinthepast
decade.
Itisworthgoingintomoredetailbydescribingtwomethodsassociatedwith
recentdesignpractices,inparticularthoseoperatingincloserelationtosocial
andculturalresearch.Theseare:personasandculturalprobes.Eachis
introducedandlinkedwithdevelopmentsinsocialresearchmethods.
Thefirstmethoddiscussiscreating“personas”,versionsofwhichappearin
numeroustoolkitsfordesign.Thisfirstemergedindesigningforcomputer
234
Page 235
systems(GrudinandPruitt2002).Initiallyshapedbyeffortstobuild
psychologicalprofilesofpotentialusersofanewtechnology,themethodhas
alsobeenusedtoexploreandthensummarisethecharacteristicsofindividual
potentialusers.Althoughrootedinpsychology,thepersonamethodhasbeen
reworkedtocreateusersasmicro-socialactorsunderstoodasbeinglocated
sociallyandculturally.Howeverthewaysuchartefactsareusedinpractice
suggestsamorecomplextrajectoryforusersandforothers.Forexample
Wilkie’s(2010)PhDthesisincludesanethnographicstudyofthemethodof
creatingpersonaswithindesignwork,specificallyaglobalmanufacturerof
computercomponents.Hisanalysisshowshowtheuserpersonaisnotastand-
aloneobjectusedindesignteams,butexistswithinawideruser-trajectorythat
resourcestheworkofsuchteams.UsingLaw’s(2004)conceptofamethod-
assemblage,Wilkieshowshowuser-assemblagesresourcedesignwork.For
exampleinonecasethepersonabroughtintoviewa“non-user”whichshaped
thedevelopingproposition.
Thesecondmethodisculturalprobes,whichlikepersonas,hasbeentakenupin
manydifferentkindsofdesigning.InitiallydevelopedanddescribedbyGaveret
al(1999)inthecontextoftechnologydesignandhuman-computerinteraction,
themethodofcreatingandusingculturalprobeshasbeenadoptedwidely
amongdesignersworkingwithininteractiondesignandservicedesign.A“probe
pack”mightcontainseveralitemsusingdifferentmediatechnologiesfor
researchsubjectstoengagewith,oftenathome,outofthepresenceofthe
researcher,andthengivebacktotheresearcher.Thesecouldincludedisposable
cameraswithalistofphotographstotake;amapaskingthepersontonote
235
Page 236
particularsitesofmeaning;oranotebookwithinstructionsforthepersonto
recordparticularkindsofimpressions.
Gaveretal(2004)describehowtheydevelopedthismethodtoengagewith
peopletotriggerinspirationfordesign,butnotehowothersarenowusingthe
methodtogatherdata.Theydescribethevalueofthismethodtothemasbeing
aboutholdingaplaceforuncertainty,notasakindofdatagathering.More
recentlyBoehner,GaverandBoucheretal(2012)haveemphasizedthetactile
andsituatednatureofprobesandagainassertedthemotiveofinspiringnew
ideas,ratherthanunderstandingexistingpractices.Further–andmore
interestingly–Boenheretalarguethatusingprobes“wouldentailembracing
provisionalunderstanding,subjectiveengagement,particularityandambiguity
notonlyintheprocessofresearch,butinitspresentationaswell”(Boehner,
GaverandBoucheretal2012:200).Theresearchers’positionseemstooffera
resistancetotheideaofdata-gathering,toadvanceknowledgefordoingdesign
work,Rathertheyinsistonnotknowingmuchaboutusers,emphasizinginstead
theopeningupofnewpossibilitiesforengagementandinterpretation.
Thesebriefdescriptionsofsomeinfluentialdesignmethodsshowhow,farfrom
beingtechniquesthatdesignersdeploytoincreasecertaintyaboutwhattheyare
designing,canservetoopenupquestionsabouttheexpertiseofdesignersand
theircapacitytoknowtheworldtheyaredesigningforandin.Tothinkabout
this,itisusefultoturntosocialsciencetraditionswherethereisrecent
discussionaboutmethodsforsocialandculturalresearchinthecontemporary
world.Forexamplewithinanthropology(egRussell1999;GrimshawandRavetz
236
Page 237
2005;SchneiderandWright2006;Pink2007)andsociology(egLaw2004;
Thrift2008;Büscheretal2011;AdkinsandLury2011),researchershavetried
tograpplewiththeextenttowhich“their”methodsforcapturingordescribing
socialworldsareuseful,productiveorevenclearlythemonopolyofthose
workingwithinacademicdisciplines,andwhatthematerialpracticesofother
domainssuchasartanddesignoffer.ForexampleAdkinsandLury(2011:5)
situatetheirintroductiontoaspecialissueonchangingconceptionsofthe
empiricalinsociologywithina“crisiscreatedbytheexpansionofdatarelatingto
thesocialworldbyresearchers(andtechnologies)outsidetheuniversity”.Many
oftheseresearchershaveturnedtootherfieldssuchasdesignandthearts,to
understandhowthesefieldsproducepracticeswhichresemblesocio-cultural
researchmethods.
Tofindawaytothinkthroughthewaysthatmethodsintheculturesof
designershavethiscapacity,itisworthturningtoarecentdescriptionof
inventivemethods,whichhassomethingadditionaltooffer.Intheirintroduction
totheirbookofthistitle,CeliaLuryandNinaWakeford(2012)describethe
characteristicsofinventivemethodsthatareorientedtowardsmakinga
differenceinthesociomaterialworld,not(merely)tostudyingorattemptingto
representit.
Thefirstthingtheypointoutisthat,forLuryandWakeford,inventivenessdoes
notequatetonewness.AsBarry(2001)similarlyargues,inventivenessisbetter
understoodasreconfiguringrelationswithotheractorsandopeningup
possibilities.
237
Page 238
Inshort,justbecauseanobjectordeviceisnewdoesnotmakeitan
invention.Whatisinventiveisnotthenoveltyofartefactsanddevicesin
themselves,butinthenoveltyofthearrangementswithotherobjectsand
activitieswithinwhichartefactsandinstrumentsaresituated,andmightbe
situatedinthefuture.(Barry2001:211-212,emphasisinoriginal).
LuryandWakeford’seditedbookisacollectionofmethods,devices,and
patternsdiscussedfromarangeofdisciplinaryperspectives,somewithalong
history.Theauthorscharacterizetheinventivenessofmethodsasfoundin
therelationoftwomoments:theaddressingofamethod–ananecdote,a
probe,acategory–toaspecificproblem,andthecapacityofwhat
emergesintheuseofthatmethodtochangetheproblem.Itisthis
combination,wesuggest,thatmakesamethodanswerabletoitsproblem,
andprovidesthebasisofitsself-displacingmovement,itsinventiveness,
althoughthelikelihoodofthatinventivenesscanneverbeknownin
advanceofaspecificuse(LuryandWakeford2012:7).
Continuing,LuryandWakefordnotetheuncertainbutnotunorganizedrelation
betweentheactionofamethodanditseffects(LuryandWakeford2012:9;
italicsinoriginal).LuryandWakefordidentifywhattheybelievetobea
changingrelationbetweenthesensibleandtheknowableinthecontemporary
238
Page 239
socialworld.LikeotherssuchasphilosopherJacquesRancière8(2004),they
highlighthowthesensibleandtheknowableareintertwined,bringingintoview
theimportanceofthesensoryandthematerialinsocialresearch,notasmerely
somethingtobestudied,butasactiveco-constituentsofsociallife.Luryand
Wakefordclaimthatinventivemethodsofferanaffordanceorgrasponthis
world.Theyarguethatinventivemethods
makeitpossibletoaddressthecomplexrelationsbetweenthesensible
andtheknowablebydeployingwhatSerracalls‘thelogicofmaterials,’
andthushavedifferentaffordancesofgeneralization(LuryandWakeford
2012:11).
Thisacknowledgementofthesensibleandthematerialmarksoutinventiveness
assuchmethodsbringwiththeman“excessofspecificitythatisalwayspresent
intheactualbymakingarelationtoelsewhereastheymakethemselves”(ibid:
12).
ItisLuryandWakeford’snotionofexcessthathelpsclarifythedistinctivenessof
design-as-practice.
…theexcessthatcomesfromtheinternalnon-cohesionofthesetwithin
itself,fromtheirreduciblyunstablerelationsbetweenthepartsthat
belongandtheelementsthatareincluded…sometimesthisis
8ForadiscussionoftheFrenchphilosopherJacquesRancièreseeBeyes(2008)andKimbell,L.(2011).
239
Page 240
quantitativeexcess,theexcessofdatageneratedintransactiondatasets,
butitcanalsobetheexcessofsensoryplenitude,ofthenon-
representationalandthemore-and-less-than-rational.Graspingthis
excess,configuringit,isoneoftheprincipalsourcesofamethod’s
capacitytobeinventive,acapacitythatcanonlybeenhancedbytheuse
ofthematerial-semioticpropertiesofmaterialandmediatoexpand
relationsbetweenthesensibleandtheknowable.(LuryandWakeford
2012:21).
LuryandWakeford’sfocusonthenon-representational,thematerialandthe
sensory,linkswiththediscussionsontheroleofrepresentationsofsocialand
culturalresearchdiscussedinChapter4.WhatLuryandWakefordofferisaway
toshifttheconversationawayfromtheobjects,orfromdesignersandtheir
methods,orresearchersandtheirmethods,andhowthesemightsupport
(providegroundsfor)orchallengeeachother’swork,asindoingresearchfor
design,orstudyingpracticeafterdesign.Instead,drawingfromLuryand
Wakeford’sworkopensupthepossibilityofaninventivepracticeperspectiveon
designing,whichhighlightshowmethodsconfiguredifferentlythesayableand
theknowablebyofferinganexcessofdata,asensoryplenitude,thatexpands
whatisthere,notjuststudyingitordescribingit.Thepointhereisthatin
design-as-practice,theaddressingofamethodtoaproblemcanleadto
unforeseenresultsthatleadtochangingthatproblem.Thisresultsinbringing
newactantsorconstituentsintothesociomaterialconfigurationbeing
performedorbroughtintoview.Amethodanditspublicsco-emergeand,along
240
Page 241
withthese,thereisanexcessofdata,orthesensory,whichcandisruptthe
establishedrelationsbetweenthesayableandtheknowable.
5.3.4 Summary: Design’s ignorant excesses
Toconclude,thissectionclarifieshowtheseideascontributetoissuesindesign
researchthatwerehighlightedabove.Researcherswithinseveraltraditionshave
triedtounderstanddesigners’knowledgeandmethods;severalhavemade
claimsaboutthesebeingdistinctive.Withindesignforservicesandforsocial
innovation,theproductionanddisseminationof“methods”and“toolkits”has
beenpartoftheearlydevelopmentofthesefields.Theimportanceofdesign
methodscontinuestoanimatediscussionsamongpractitionersandthose
workinginrelatedfields,suchasmanagement.Asdesignpractitionershave
movedoutthestudioandnowworkinrelationtoservices,socialinnovationand
policy,someresearchershavereachedouttosocialandculturalresearch
traditionstoanalyzewhatisgoingon.Insteadofstudyinganindividualdesigner
andhisthinkingbasedonmodelsofcognition,anotherwayoflookingata
designerisseeingherasenactingasociomaterialpractice.
Thissectionhasaddeddepthtothis,byproposingconceivingofdesign-as-
practice,usingresourceswithinpracticetheoriesandSTS/ANT.Thefirstideato
bemobilizedwasthatexperimentalworkproducesignorance,whichoffersways
torethinkclaimsaboutdesigners’knowledgeandinsteadseedesigners’focuson
theparticular,andtheirdisciplinaryignorance,asacollectiveinventivecapacity.
Thesecondmovedrewoutanalysesfromsciencestudies,whichfoundthat
241
Page 242
duringexperimentation,apublicco-emergeswiththemethodsandknowledge
thatareproduced.Thisemphasizesthemutualrelationsthatdesignersandtheir
sketches,prototypesandotherobjectshavewiththepublicsconstitutedintheir
professionalwork,whichcanbeseenasakindofpublicexperimentation.
Thirdly,discussionsofinventivenessinBarry(2001)andLuryandWakeford
(2012)emphasisetheopeningupofpossibilities,ratherthandesignsbeing
determinedbydesigners.LuryandWakeford(2012)highlighttheexcess
resultingfromtheinstabilitybetweentheconstituentpartsofaconfiguration,
andthematerial-semioticpropertiesofmaterialsandmediaandtheircapacity
toexpandrelationsbetweenthesensibleandtheknowableinsociomaterial
reconfiguring.Thispointstotheinventivenessofdesign-as-practicenotsimply
asanattributeofindividualpeople’screativity,orofanobject,butasacollective
practiceinwhichnon-humanmaterialsandobjectsplayapartinexceedingtheir
currentrelations.Further,thereisneverasingulardesignmethod,suchas
creatingpersonasorculturalprobes.Rather,withindesigning,theproductionof
methodsisspecifictoparticularplacesandtimes,resultinginparticular
configurations.Thisiswheredesign-as-practiceconnectsbacktodesigns-in-
practice,andwheretheSTS/ANTliteratureconnectswithinterestamong
researchersindescribingdesigners’practices.Together,theseconceptsofferan
inventivepracticelensonwhatisgoingonduringdesigning.Thereislessfocus
onthedesignerandwhatgoesoninsideherheadorinherreflectivepractice.
Instead,thislensondesigningemphasizeshowtherelationsbetweenpeopleand
thingsareconstitutedrelationallyinpractice.
242
Page 243
5.4 Remix: An inventive practice perspective on designing
Toattempttodrawthisalltogetherrequiresafinalmove.Itisherewherethe
approachofremixingmyownwritingwiththatofothers,intheslow(re)writing
ofthisthesis,mustresultinapieceoftextthatwillendupasdisciplinedand
stableonthepage.Althoughthistextwillbeopentofuturere-interpretations,
thisnextparagraphrequiresmetomakeclearhereandnow,whatIthink,and
howitrelatestotheexpandingfieldfordesignintroducedinthefirstchapter.It
isalsowhereImustlocatemyself.
Combiningliteraturesindesignstudies,CSCWandPDwithresearchinSTS/ANT
hasshownthatdesigncanbere-thoughtasanactive,collectiveunfoldingofthe
socialandthematerialthroughwhichchangehappensandnewconfigurations
comeintobeing,whichexcludeotherconfigurations.Thisleadtoproposingan
inventivepracticeperspective,basedonthemutualconstitutionof
heterogeneousactantsduringdesigning.Here,thepairoftermsdesign-as-
practiceanddesigns-in-practice,emphasizeacollectiveimaginativeand
analyticalendeavourthatbringsintoviewnewsociomaterialconfigurations.
Viewingdesignthroughaninventivepracticeperspective,emphasizeshow
changedconfigurationsofthesocialandthematerial,aspeople,things,
structures,identitiesandhabitsareconstitutedandcomeintobeingagentialin
practice.Itdoesnotprivilegethehuman,ortheobject,butratheracknowledges
themutualintra-actionsbetweenactantsastheycomeintobeingmaterialand
social,producingnewmeaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,
243
Page 244
capacitiesandproperties.Itacknowledgesthemultiplerealitiesthatmayco-
existandinterrelateinanyreconfiguringwork,highlightingtheactors’
locatedness,particularityandmutualaccountability,butwithoutimposinga
singlenarrative.Itrecogniseshowparticularaccountsbecomeprivileged
throughactivitiesofincludingandexcluding,andhowtheseareenactedwithin
particulartemporalities.
Thisisaversionofdesigning,understoodasacollectivepracticeofcreatingand
mobilisinginventivemethodsthatservestobringintoview,andacton,the
sociomaterialworldinnovelwaysthatarecontingent,andspecifictoparticular
timesandplaces,andwhichtraceparticularpaths,butnotothers.Instead
design-as-inventive-practicefindsignoranceaboutaparticularconfigurationas
productive,becauseinventivemethodsenableexcess.Theygenerate
possibilitiesandtrajectoriesthatcouldnotbeanticipated,whichfigurea
sociomaterialworlddifferentlyintoview,withoutaimingtocreateanytotalising
representationofit.Thenotionofinventivemethodshighlightshowmethods
addressparticularproblems,butcanalsoproductivelydisruptrelationsbetween
thesayableandtheknowable.
Thisconceptualisationofdesigningfocusesontherelationsbetweenpeopleand
thingsandisparticularlyrelevanttothedesignforservicesanddesignforsocial
innovation.Itresolvesissuesindesignliteratureabouttheobjectofdesign
whichraisesproblemsfordesignforservicesandsocialinnovation.Thetension
betweenahistoricfocusonobjects,orondesignbeingseenasaboutmaking
changehappen,becomeslessimportantbyacknowledginghowdesignscoming
244
Page 245
intobeingthroughthemutualintra-actionofdiverseactors,whichcomeinto
havingmeaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesand
properties.Asecondcontributiontotheemergingfieldsofdesignforservices
andforsocialinnovationcomesfromtheideaofinventivemethods,whichshifts
fromseeingdesignthinkingasconcernedwithdesignprofessionalsandtheir
skillsandtools,andmovestowardsdesigningasbeingawidersetofpracticesin
whichdiverseactorsareinvolvedandthroughwhichtheycomeintobeing
mutuallyaccountabletooneanother,andwhichunfoldovertime.
Thenextchaptergoesontomakeclearerwhatthisapproachoffersasaway
forwardtocurrentquestionsandissuesinfieldsofdesignpractice,especiallyin
designforservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.Thatchapterisnotmerely
theequivalentof“implicationsfordesign”(Dourish2006),stagingtheoretical
researchassomethingthatpre-figuresthepracticalenactmentofdoing
designing.Insteaditservestotranslatethisproposaldescribinganinventive
practiceperspectiveondesign,intowiderconversationsabouttheroleofdesign
intheworldandinparticulardesignforservicesandsocialinnovation.
245
Page 246
Chapter 6 Remixing design-as-inventive-practice
6.1 Introduction
Thepreviouschapterproposedattendingtohowdesigningunfoldswithin
materialanddiscursivepracticesresultinginnewconfigurationsofpeopleand
objects.Thewiderpurposeistoaddressissuesinunderstandingwhatisgoing
oninthedesignofservicesanddesigningforsocialinnovation.Althoughitdrew
onempiricalresearchgroundedintheoriesofpractice,thatdiscussionwas
abstract.Thischapterbringsthediscussionbacktothetwoemergingdesign
fieldsintroducedinChapter1,andshowshowtheycanbeanalysedproductively
throughtheconceptsintroducedinChapter5.
Thusthischapterisafurtherelaborationofaninventivepracticeperspectiveon
designthroughthepairofconcepts,designs-in-practiceanddesign-as-practice.
Thischapterdevelopsargumentsmadeearlier,inthreeways.First,itoffersa
summary,orremix,ofargumentsdevelopedinChapter5.Second,itexplores
theirusefulnessbyapplyingthemtorecentaccountsofdesigningintwocase
studies.Thirdly,itpresentsadiscussionastowhethertheconceptsdevelopedin
thisdissertationcanbeproductive,andtospecifyinwhatwaystheyare.
Thefirstcasethatisre-analysedthroughtheperspectiveofinventivepracticeis
astudyoftheuseofservicedesignapproacheswithinthecommissioningand
designofhealthcareservices,undertakenbyresearchersatLancasterUniversity
246
Page 247
(ImaginationLancaster2011).Thesecondisare-writingofanaccountofusinga
design-basedapproachtodesigningservicessupportingolderpeopleinwhichI
wasinvolved(Kimbellforthcoming).Ineachcase,theauthors’researchis
summarised,andfollowedbyananalysisthatmobilisestheconceptsdiscussed
inthepreviouschapter.Eachofthesediscussionsisthereforearemixofthecore
ideasadvancedinthisdissertation,bytryingthemout.
Theaimofdoingthisistoexploreif,andhow,theseconceptsopenup
understandingofdesigningforserviceanddesigningforsocialinnovation.This
willalsoincludeforeachcaseaspeculativediscussionabouthowthismight
haveprovidedshortcutsfortheproject,ifparticipantsandresearchershad
explicitlyadoptedtheinventivepracticeperspective.Arguably,thewaythe
projectswerecarriedoutandanalysedincludesomeoftheconceptsassociated
withtheinventivepracticeapproach.Sotheargumenthereisnotthatthe
inventivepracticeperspectiveisentirelynew.Rather,thequestioniswhether
theconceptsdevelopedinthisdissertationcanopenupnewpossibilities,which
couldprovideshortcutstoilluminatewhatwasgoingoninsuchdesigning.In
short,whatfollowsdescribesanevaluationoftheseconcepts,toseeiftheyare
productive,andconcludeswithasummaryofwhattheyoffer.
247
Page 248
6.2 Design-as-inventive-practice: The remix
Thissectionoffersare-writingoftheargumentsadvancedinChapter5,withthe
aimofmakingthemproductiveinanalysingrecentaccountsofservicedesign
anddesignforsocialinnovation.Tothinkthroughwhatsuchare-writing(forthe
author)andre-reading(forthereader)mightinvolve,itisusefultoreturntothe
conceptofremix,anactivitythatappearsinmanypartsofcontemporarylife,
thatwasintroducedinChapter2.
Conceivingofrewritingotherpeople’swork,orrewritingmyown,asakindof
remixingopensuppossibilities.There-mixinginthissectionoftheconceptsset
outinChapter5,isnotmerelyaprécis,asummary,oranoverview.Itinvolves
rewriting,appropriating,referencingandincorporatingnewmaterials.The
conceptofremixingstimulatesawarenessofhowtheactivitiesoftextual
recombination,addingfeaturesfromothergenres,resultinnewworks.It
promptsanattentivenesstohowartefactssuchasbookchapters,journalor
conferencepapers,blogposts,tweets,orPhDfiles,circulateandhowlegaland
institutionalpractices,suchasthoseoftheacademy,engagewiththem.Byre-
writingtwopre-existingcasesandthinkingofthisasremixing,provokesan
interestinsimilaritiesandcontinuitiesaswellasdifferenceandthematerial,
social,andculturalhistoriesofeachoftheseartefacts(cfBorschke2012).In
whatfollows,theconceptsdevelopedinPapers1,2,and3arereworkedin
relationtoresearchwithinSTS/ANTdescribedinChapter5.Thisresultsina
conceptualisationofdesigningthataddressessomeofthechallengesin
248
Page 249
understandingdesigningforserviceanddesigningforsocialinnovationoutlined
inChapter1.
Thefirststepistoelaborateconceptsandargumentsdevelopedintheprevious
chapter.Below,Figure6showsthetwointertwinedperspectivesofinventive
practice,designs-in-practiceanddesign-as-practice,whichwerefirstintroduced
inPaper2.Theseperspectiveseachofferadifferentanalyticalfocusonanaspect
ofdesigning.
Theperspectiveofdesigns-in-practicebringsintoviewhowdesigns,understood
associomaterialconfigurations,comeintobeingagential,producingnew
meaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesand
propertiesthatemergeinpractice,sometimesinunexpectedorunforeseenways.
(Re)configuringdesigns-in-practicecanbedoneunwittinglyorconsciously,as
partofdesign-in-useorthroughdesign-as-practice,whichshapeandareshaped
bysociomaterialpractices.Theperspectiveofdesigns-in-practicerecognizesthe
actantsandtheirmutualrelations,expandssensitivitytolackofknowledge,and
unfoldsasexistingpossibilitiesareexceeded,creatingnewaccountabilitiesand
particulartemporalities.
AnexamplecomesfromPaper2,whichdescribeshowthepharmacyassistant
laidoutthetestkitforthesmokingcessationserviceinaparticularwayonher
desk.Oversomeweeksshehaddevelopedembodiedknowledgeofwaysof
doingthesalivaandbloodtestswithcustomers,andgatheringpersonaldata
fromthem.Doingtheseactivitiesinaparticularsequencereconfiguredthe
249
Page 250
designofthekit,herinteractionswithcustomers,andherownworkasefficient
withintheconstraintsofabusypharmacy.Analysingthesociomaterial
configurationaroundthetestkit,theperspectiveofdesign-in-practiceis
attentivetotheactantsinvolved,andtheresultingnewidentitiesandcapacities,
forexample,howtheassistantisconfiguredasanefficientdelivererofaservice,
andhowcustomersareconfiguredasengagedproductivelyintheunfoldingof
theservice.
Theperspectiveofdesign-as-practiceisattentivetohowdesigningtakesplaceas
peopleandobjectscomeintobeingagential,producingnewmeaningsand
identities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesandproperties,and
attemptstoguide,facilitateandpromptparticularkindsofconfigurations.
Design-as-practiceinvolvestheunintentionalorconscious(re)configuringof
actantsresultinginnewpossibilities,whichremainsopentoemergenceandhow
practiceunfolds.Design-as-practicerecognizestheactantsandtheirmutual
relations,expandssensitivitytolackofknowledge,andunfoldsasexisting
possibilitiesareexceeded,creatingnewaccountabilitiesandparticular
temporalities.
AgainusinganexamplefromPaper2,describingthedesigners’workinthe
studio,thisperspectiveisattentivetohowthehumanandnon-humanactants
mutuallyconstitutethecapacityfordesignworktounfoldandwhatresults
duringthis.Itrecognisesthattherearehiddenpocketsofignorancetofindand
makeuseofaswellasthecapacitytoproduceknowledgeaboutwhatwas
previouslyunknown.Thisexampleusesprofessionaldesignersbutdesign-as-
250
Page 251
practicecanbeseenasacollectiveactivitywhichmanyactantsconstitute
together,whichtriestoconfigureparticularkindsofemergence.
Figure6Twoperspectiveswithindesign-as-inventive-practice
Withinthetwoperspectivesofdesigns-in-practiceanddesign-as-practice,five
keyemergentcharacteristicscanbeconceptualisedbyremixingthetheoretical
resourcesdescribedinChapter5.Theseareeachdiscussedinturnand
summarisedbelowinTable4.
Intra-action.Barad’stermintra-actionhighlightshowthesocialandmaterial
dynamicallycomeintobeinginpractice.Ratherthanadoptingthecommonterm
interaction,followingBarad,theuseofthetermintra-actioninsistsonthe
multiplepointsofengagementamongandbetweenactantsaspracticeunfolds.
AsBaradargues,thediscursiveandthematerialareintertwined.Actantscan
includediverseartefacts,animals,trees,cloudsandpeople,butalsoinstitutions
Designs-in-practice
Themeaningsandidentities,skillsand
procedures,andforms,propertiesand
materials,whichemergeandstabilizeas
agenciesareintra-actedinpractice.
Design-as-practice
Themeaningsandidentities,skillsand
procedures,andforms,propertiesand
materials,whichemergeandstabilize
duringintentionalorunconscious
designingthattriestoconfigureparticular
kindsofemergenceinpractice.
251
Page 252
andconcepts.WithinBarad’swork,afocusonmatterbringsintoviewthe
particlesthatconstitutematerialityaspartoftheco-articulationofthe
sociomaterialconfigurations.WithinSTS,actantscanbethemundaneobjectsof
dailyandorganizationallifesuchaschairs,teabags,buttons,andquestionnaires,
butalsojobdescriptions,policiesandPDFsofstrategicvisions.“Users”andtheir
“needs”orcapacitiesarealsoemergentcharacteristicsofdesigning.AsSuchman
hasshown,markingoutthecomponentsinvolvedinaconfiguringa
sociomaterialassemblageinvolvesdoingboundarywork:decidingwhatitis
insideandwhatisoutside,offeringonlypartialperspectives.Thusapracticelens
ondesigningrequiresacknowledginghowasociomaterialthing,andaprocessof
designing,arebothmadeupheterogeneousactantsdynamicallyconstitutedin
relationtooneanother.
Theimplicationsofconceptualisingthesocialandthematerialasacontinually
emergingeffectaretoshiftthinkingawayfromobjects-in-themselvesorindeed
designers-in-themselves.Instead,rethinkingdesignthroughintra-action
requiresrecognitionofthemultipleothersengagedindesigning,andhownew
theirmutualreconfiguringresultsinnewmeaningsandidentities,skillsand
procedures,andforms,capacitiesandproperties.Theperspectiveofdesigns-in-
practiceallowsafocusonhownewconfigurationsstabilize,temporarily.The
objectofdesigningisunderstoodassociomaterialreconfiguringinpractice,that
isemergent,andcanneverbefullyspecified.Theperspectiveofdesign-as-
practiceenablesrecognitionofthediversityofactantsarisingindesigning.
252
Page 253
Inventiveness.Whenrethoughtthroughtheoriesofpractice,theinventiveness
ofdesigningisunderstoodasasituatedaccomplishmentemergingfromthe
intra-actionofvarioushumanandnon-humanactants,notasbeingqualitiesof
individualhumans,organisationsorobjects.Inventivenessisnotthesameas
novelty.Aperspectiveoninventivenessinvolvesrecognitionofhowdesign
methodsresultinanexcessofdata,oraffect,orthesensory,thatreshape
configurationsbeyondwhatwasknownorthoughttobepossible,resultingin
unexpectedconsequences,whichcannotbespecifiedinadvance.The
perspectiveofdesign-as-practiceemphasizesthecollectiveworkdoneby
heterogeneousactantsduringdesigning,includingtheinstitutionalstoriesand
meaning,skillsandcompetences,andmaterialsandobjectsinvolvedinthe
activitycalleddesigning.
Ignorance.Seeingdesigningasacollectiveinventivepracticeacknowledgesthe
roleofignoranceandsurprise.Thisdoesnotreplacetheimportanceof
generatingknowledgewithindesigning,forexamplethroughdeveloping
hypothesesandtestingtheminsomekindsofdesignworksuchasfocussed
prototyping.Apracticeperspectiverecogniseshowignoranceandsurprisecan
emergefromandmobilizedifferentconfigurations,resultinginnewmeanings
andstories,competencesandskills,andforms,capacitiesandproperties.Thisis
partofdesign’spracticalexperimentation,whichdoesnotalwaysproducenew
knowledge,butcanresultinnewactantsbecominginvolvedinanissueandnew
publicsco-constitutedrelationallywiththem.Nordoesthisserveallactors
equally.Withintheperspectiveofdesigns-in-practice,thekindsofignorancethat
producenewpossibilitiesincludepeoplenotknowinghowtoparticipateinor
253
Page 254
engagewithsociomaterialthings,orfindingwaystoengageinthingsthatwere
notintendedbydesignersormarketers.Suchbreakdownsbringintoview
differentpossibilities.Withintheperspectiveofdesign-as-practice,ignorance
opensupnewwaysofthinkinganddoing,asinventivemethodsresultin
surprisesthatpromptpossibilitiesforfurtherthoughtandaction.
Accountabilities.Aninventivepracticeperspectiveondesignstartswithan
expandedsetofaccountabilitiestotheactantswithinasociomaterial
configuration,recognisingthemasconstituents,andrenderingthemasmutually
accountabletooneanother.Asecondmoveistomakeavailableactants’
accounts.Thustheaccountsofallsortsofdifferentactants(must)count.The
processesformakingthishappenarepartoftheworkofinventivepractice
throughexpanding,includingandexcluding,andmakingactants’accounts
available.Togethertheseprocessesbringintoviewthedynamicreconfiguringof
competingaccounts,thatgoesonduringdesigning.Withintheperspectiveof
designs-in-practice,representationsandaccountsofhowthingsareusedaretied
touse,provokingopportunitiesforactantstoreconfiguretheirmaterial-
discursiveengagementwithobjectsandpeople.Withintheperspectiveof
design-as-practice,designmethodscreateandbringtogetherdifferentaccounts
ofthesociomaterialworld,leadingtocontestationanddebate,resultinginnew
waysofthinkinganddoing.
Temporalities.Justastheboundaryworkthattakesplacewithinpractices
markswhatisinsideandoutside,sotoo,thereisanotherkindofboundarywork
thatinvolvesconstitutingthetemporalitiesthatexistindesigning.Timingisnot
254
Page 255
agiven;itisthecontingentproductionofsociomaterialactorscomingtogether
toconstituteparticulartemporalregimes.Temporallensesandeventsare
producedbythecollectiveworkofseveralactorsinpractice,andcomeinto
beingforintendedaswellasunintendedconsequencesofdesigning.Eachcould
beotherwise:theyarepartofthepracticescarriedbyindividualsandcollectives,
whichbringintoviewtimeframesthroughandwithwhichtoattendtowhen
constitutingtheobjectofdesign(aservice,orcommunityresource,orwebsite
backoffice)andaprocesstododesigning.Withintheperspectiveofdesign-as-
practice,timespansareconstructedthroughpractice.Forexample,foraUX
designer,thismaybetheday-to-daylivedexperienceofauser.Foramanager
actingwithincollectivedesignactivity,thismaybeanannualbudgetcycle.Fora
facilitiesmanager,theappropriatetemporalframefordiscussinganewservice
mightbetheprocessofcommissioning,equipping,runningandde-
commissioningabuilding.Withintheperspectiveofdesigns-in-practice,the
unfoldingofpracticeisconstitutedindifferentways,dependingonthe
locatednessofparticularactors.Forexampleforsomeoneengagingwitha
mobilephoneservice,thefocusmightbeonannualcontracts.Forsomeoneusing
acarsharingservice,itscarbonimpactontheplanetmightbethetemporality,
whichisattendedto.
Emergentcharacteristics
Intra-action Designingtakesplacethroughthedynamicintra-actionof
heterogeneoushumanandnon-humanparticipants,
respondingto,andresultingin,changestomeaningsand
255
Page 256
identities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesand
properties,involvingincludingandexcluding.
Inventiveness Inventivenessemergeswhenmethods,data,affectand
materialsexceedpossibilities.
Ignorance Alongwithknowledge,ignoranceandsurpriseproducenew
meaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,
capacitiesandproperties,whichdonotserveallactors
equally.
Accountabilities Designingproceedsandemergesinrelationtomutually-
accountableheterogeneoushumanandnon-human
participantsandtheiraccounts.
Temporalities Designinganddesignsunfoldoverdifferenttemporalities
whichareconstitutedrelationally.
Table4Characteristicsofdesign-as-inventive-practice
Design-as-inventive-practice,remix
Tosummarize,designre-thoughtthroughthelensofinventivepracticeisnot
designer-led,norobject-based,noruser-centred.Itforegroundsdesigningasa
sociomaterialpractice,carriedbysomeindividuals,institutionsandprojects,but
alreadyentangledwithdiversehumansandnon-humanactants.Itisexpansive
inwhatitaddresses,andthewaysitgoesaboutthis,andthroughtheexcessit
generates,andthenewwaysofthinkinganddoingthatconfigureand
256
Page 257
reconfigurerelationsbetweenactors,resultinginnewmeaningsandidentities,
skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesandproperties.
Aspreviouschaptershaveshown,somecontributorstoservicedesignand
designforsocialinnovationclaimthatthiskindofdesigningisdifferentto
designingproducts,thatservicesareintangible,orthatsuchdesigningisabout
bringingpeopleandartefactstogether.Theytypicallyputtheputativeuserand
hisorherneeds,experiencesandcapacitiesatthecentreofthedesignwork.
Designproceedsoftenthroughusingco-designmethodsbutparticipants’
creativitysupposedlyresidesinthemindsofhumanactorstakingpartina
process.Effortstoincludesomeparticipants,necessarilyinvolveexcluding
others.
Incontrast,theinventiveperspectiveseesalldesigned-thingsassociomaterial
configurations,unfoldingthroughtheintra-actionofheterogeneousparticipants.
Thisperspectiveopensuphowindividualsubjectivities,needs,identities,
capacitiesandbehavioursdonotpre-exist,butratheraredynamically
constitutedinrelationtootheractants.Design-as-inventive-practiceprivileges
thecollectiveinventivenessthatemergeswhenamethodormaterialexceedsits
currentpossibilities.
257
Page 258
6.3 A study of service design: Towards integrated, holistic scenarios and systems
Thissectionoffersafurtherremixoftheconceptofinventivepractice,by
applyingitto,andre-writing,anaccountofservicedesign.Bothofthe
perspectivesondesign-as-inventive-practice,andthefivecharacteristics
describedabove,areusedtodiscussacaseofservicedesigninahealthcare
context.Assuggestedearlier,thereisnointentionofclaiminganentirelynew
approach.Theresearchersinvolvedinthehealthcareservicedesignstudythat
followsincludespecialistsinPDandservicedesign,whoareworkingwithin
researchtopicsverysimilartotheterritoryofthisdissertation.So,whatis
attemptedhere,isadiscussionastowhethertheinventivepracticeperspective
canprovidesomeshortcutstothinkthroughwhattheresearchers/designers
weredoingintheproject,moresystematicallyandexplicitly.
Thefirstpartofthissectionsummarisesareport(ImaginationLancaster2011),
whichexploreswhataservicedesignapproachcouldbringtocommissioning
processeswithinprimaryhealthcareprovisionwithintheUK.TitledDesignIn
Practice:Flexibility&ChangewithinHealthcareProviders,thereportsummarizes
18-monthsofresearchfortheEPSRC’sHealthandCareInfrastructureResearch
InnovationCentre.
Theaimoftheprojectwastoinvestigateimplementationsofthepractice-based
commissioning(PBC)programmeinonepartoftheUK.“Practice-based
commissioning”istheresultofpolicychangesthataimtogetclinicians,whoare
258
Page 259
closertopatients,tocommissionservicesforthem.Theprojectinvolvedateam
fromLancasterUniversityandSalfordUniversityexploringhowPBCwasbeing
carriedoutandgovernedintheregionconcernedduring2009-2010.A
secondaryaimwastoexploreifandhow“designandothercreativemethodsand
toolscouldsupportcommissioners’activities”(ibid:3).Throughcasestudiesof
differentapproaches,fieldstudies,andtryingoutdesignmethods,the
researcherssummarizeddifferentwaysthatPBCwasbeingcarriedout.They
thenproposedadifferentapproachtoPBC,whichtheycallcommunity-centred
commissioningrecognisingtheroleofclinicalgroupsasfacilitatorsofservices,
throughaprocessofco-creation.
Howeverbeforesummarizingthereport,itisimportanttoclarifyhowtheterm
“practice”willbeusedinwhatfollows.Elsewhereinthisdissertation,theterm
practicehasbeenusedtoindicateananalyticalorientationtowards
understandingthesociomaterialworldasconstitutedthroughtheactivitiesof
variousactorsinvolved(e.g.practicetheory;designs-in-practice).Therehave
beenreferencestodesign-as-practice,meaningthecollectivesociomaterial
worldsofthoseinvolvedindesigning.
Butinthereportstudiedhere,thetermpracticeisusedinotherwaysincluding
“GPpractices”(aUKtermmeaningformally-constitutedgroupsofclinicalstaff,
providingprimarycaretopatientsinthecommunity,through“generalpractice”),
and“practice-basedcommissioning”(givingsuchorganisationsresponsibilityfor
commissioning,notjustdeliveringsuchhealthcare).Toreduceconfusion,Iwill
259
Page 260
avoiddifferentusesofthetermpractice,byreferringtoGPpracticesasprimary
clinicalcareproviders,andtoPBCasprovider-commissioning.
Inthenextsection,whichsummarisestheLancasterreport,phrasesthatare
highlightedlikethisarethoseusedintheremixversionthatfollowsinsection
6.3.2.Asinthepreviouschapter,whichusedthissametypographicaldevice,the
aimofthisvisualarrangementistohelpthereaderseewherespecificphrases
areliftedandthenre-worked.Inthiscase,someofthephraseshighlightedin
greyinsection6.3.1aredirectlyexcerptedfromtheLancasterreport,butsome
aremyownreductionsofthatreport.
Finally,itisnecessarytorecognisetheimplicationsofremixingapublicly-
availablereport,whichisanecessarilyreducedversionoftheresearchthatwent
onintheprojectinvolvingresearchersfromseveraldifferentfields,withinthe
contextofafundedresearchproject.Remixingthisreportalsorequires
awarenessthatitdoesnotnecessarilyreflectequallytheperspectivesand
contributionsofallofresearchersinvolved.
6.3.1 Service design case study: Structures and practices in provider-commissioning
Thereportonprovider-commissioningisstructuredasfollows.Itbeginswithan
overviewofprovider-commissioning,thatis,commissioningofhealthcareby
primarycareclinicianssuchasgroupsofdoctorswhodeliversuchcare.A
literaturereviewsummarizesissuessuchas:lackofclarityaboutrolesand
responsibilitiesbetweenthevariousNHSorganizationsinvolved;bureaucracy;
260
Page 261
poordataprovision;difficultiesinmotivatingandengagingprimarycare
clinicianstogetinvolved;andnon-strategicapproachestodesigningservices.
ThearrivalofanewUKgovernmentinMay2010leadtoacontroversialpolicy
change,toshiftthewholeoftheNHStoprovider-commissioning,toreduce
bureaucracy,cutcosts,andimproveproductivity,outcomesandinnovation
(ibid:7).
Thenextsectionoffersthreedifferentmodelsofprovider-commissioning,based
oninterviewsandmappingexercisesofthreeactivegroupsinthenorthwestof
Englandin2009-2010.Thereportidentifiesthreemodelsofgovernance
showinghowtheclinicalprovidersrelatedtotheregionalNHSinfrastructure
(ibid:10-11).Thisisfollowedbysinglepagecasestudies,showinghoweachof
theseproviderswentaboutcommissioningparticularservices.
Thereportthenidentifiesfindingsacrossthethreecasestudies(ibid:18-19).
Briefly,thesearecategorisedas
- Relationships;
- Motivationandengagement;
- Approachtoservicere-design.
Thefindingsshowhowthegovernance,support,andexpertiseinvolvedin
commissioningservicesvarysignificantlyacrossthethreecases.
Thenextsectionfocusesonhowclinicalprimarycareprovidersgoabout
designingservices,throughastudyofoneprovider.Thisinvolvedparticipant
261
Page 262
observation,interviews,andfacilitatingwhattheresearcherscalled“design
interventions”incollaborationwithstaff.Theresearchersfocussedonhowthis
providerapproachedthedesignofanewUrgencyCareCentre.Theintentionwas
thatthisfacilitywouldconsolidate“urgent”and“sameday”appointments.The
providerhadcommissionedanextensiontotheirpremises,withspaceformore
consultingrooms.Theresearchersnote:“Itbecameclear,however,thatin
additiontoanarchitecturalresponsetotheproblem,thereexistedaservice
managementissuewithregardtoadministeringthedemandsforurgentorsame
daycare”(ibid:20).ThisledtoashiftfromdesigninganewUrgencyCareCentre,
towardsdesigninganUnscheduledCareService.
Thereportdescribeshowcliniciansandstaffapproacheddesigningtheurgency
service.Forexampletheygeneratedideasincludingtheideaoftelephonetriage,
scriptsforthereceptionists,anda“sameday”teamwithadutydoctortocover
theservice(ibid:22).Howeverinthevariousmeetings,researchersnoted,
“Whatbecameevidentwasthat,togetherwithorganizationalissuesrelatedto
capacitymanagement,amaindesignconcernwasrelatedtotheinterpretationof
‘urgency’”(ibid:22).
Havingdevelopedideas,stafforganizedapilottotrialsomeoftheideas.They
expressedinterestinpatientconcerns,butdidnothaveaclearprocessfor
invitingpatientsandtheirconcernstobeinvolvedintheserviceredesign.
Insteadpatientswereconsulted,oncetheserviceredesignwaslaunched(ibid:
22).
262
Page 263
Thereportdescribeshow,inresponsetothesefindingsandevents,the
researchersintroducedthree“designexperiments”.Thefirstfocussedon
knowledgeaboutpatients,andthesecondinvolvedconflictinginterpretationsof
urgencyamongstaffandpatients.Thethirdinvolvedaworkshoptoexplore
usingamethodtocreatescenariosoffutureservices.Thereportdescribesthese
inmoredetail,withphotographsshowinghowresearcherscollaboratedwith
staffandpatients.
Thefirstinvolvedstaffcreatingpersonas,tounderstandexistingknowledgeand
gapsinknowledgeaboutpatients.Theresearchersconductedaworkshopwith
stafffromtheprovider,providingthemwithanonymizedphotosoftypical
patientsservedbytheprovider.Staffwereaskedtocreatepersonasorcreative
profilesoftheusers,basedonthesephotos,fillingindetailssuchaswherethe
personlived,workandspenttheirtime;whatfamilyorhomelifewaslike;and
whathealthconditionstheymighthave.Feedbackfromsomeofthestaff
indicatedtheywere“horrified”atthestereotypestheyhadproducedwhich
seemedtorestonanattitudeof“them”and“us”andwereshapedbytheircoping
strategiesfromdealingwithworkpressures(ibid:24).
Thesecondwasadesigngametoexploretheinterpretationof“urgency”with
staffandpatients.“Patients,receptionists,anddoctorsmighthavedifferent
perceptionsandinterpretationsaboutwhatis‘urgent’anddevelopdifferent
strategiestofindout.Protocols,bookingsystems,andtrainingallsupportthis
interpretation”(ibid:24).Inresponse,theresearchersusedagamesmethodto
involveparticipantsinenvisioningandexperiencingfutureworksituations.The
263
Page 264
reportdescribesindetailtwoworkshops,oneinvolvingstaffandoneinvolving
patients,usingaspecially-madegameboardandcards.Thegamesrevealed
participants’conflictingknowledgeaboutwhohadexpertiseindiagnosing
urgencyandgivingadvice.
Thethirdwasaworkshoptocreateasharedvisionofintegratedcare(ibid:28-
32).Thiswasinresponsetotheresearchers’observationthatserviceredesign
wasincremental,shapedbydailydecisionsandcontingencies.Bycreatingmaps
ofprovidersandresourcesaroundprofilesofindividualpatients,participants
broughtintoviewthecomplexityofintegratedcareandrevealedapictureof
many,oftendisconnected,actors.
Adiscussionoffindingsacrossthesedesigninterventions(ibid:33)summarises
theresearchers’analysisfromtheirprocessofstudyandengagementwiththe
staffandpatients.“Observingdailydesignconversationswithinaprimarycare
centreontheurgencycareproject,showedhowtheactofdesigningis
intertwinedwiththeservicemanagementanddelivery.…Itwasaniterative
process,withideassuggestedandrefinedthroughdiscussionamongpresent
staffandverifiedthroughpilotimplementationsandquantitative(numberof
callsandvisits)andqualitativeevaluations(emailsandnotesfromstaff).”(ibid:
33)Theresearchersmadethefollowingobservations.
1Patientknowledgeandengagement
264
Page 265
“Patientswerepartoftheprocessthroughformalandinformal‘complaints’and
‘consulted’attheendoftheredesignprocess.…Staffmostlyreliedontheir
‘inherentknowledgeofpatients’butasthepersonaexercisepartiallyshowed
theirrepresentationswereofteninfluencedby‘copingstrategies’inrelationto
themostdifficultcases”(ibid:33).
2Collaborativedesign
“Healthservicesrelyoncomplexdiagnosticprocessesthatareconductedby
differentprofessionalsindifferentphases.Theurgencycareprojectshowedhow
negotiationsandinterpretationsoverthemeaningandconditionsofurgency
needtobemadeexplicitandcollaborativelydiscussedinanegalitarianand
collaborativesettingtoallowdilemmasandconflictstoarise.Patientsshouldbe
engagedaswellastheircontributiontodiagnosisisfundamental.Peertopeer
learningsessionscansupportusefulknowledgeexchange.Designgames
approachescanprovideastructuretofacilitatetheseconversations.Inthe
contextofourresearchprojectanditsobviouslimitations,designgameswere
foundusefulinallowingpeopletosharetheirdifferentviewsonagiventopic
andinsupportingthemtohavemuchneededconversationstocometoterms
withtheirdifferences”(ibid:33).
3Creatingavisionandlocalsynergies
“Servicere-designappearedtobeday-to-dayactivitybasedonemergentneeds,
constraintsandopportunitiesthatallowforlimitedradicaltransformations.
265
Page 266
Systemicchangeneedstogobeyondindividualcarepathwaysandindividual
professionalworkandconsiderhealthastheresultofawidersetofconditions
andcontributions.Cliniciansneedtoengageinconversationswithvariouslocal
actorstogenerateanagreedvisionforchangeandidentifypotentialsynergies
amongtheirindividualworkandserviceofferings.Creatingspacesandtimesfor
theseconvergencesisfundamental,whilescenariobuildingactivitiesand
mappingexercisescanprovideusefulstructuresandtoolstofacilitatethese
encounters.”(ibid:33)
Thefinalsectionofthereportoffersanevaluationoftheuseofservicedesign
toolsinpublichealthserviceprojects,aimingtofindopportunitiesforclinical
providerstoengagewithpatientsandcreatenewmodelsofhealthcareservices.
Thesecasestudiesinclude:
- Aprojectonlivingwellwithdiabetes,betweentheDesignCouncil’sRED
unitandBoltonDiabetesNetwork,producingsomecardstobeusedwhen
cliniciansmeetpatients,andablog;
- AprojectpromotingactivelifestylesbetweentheDesignCouncil’sRED
unitandKentCountyCouncil,resultinginaprojectcalledActivmobs,
involvingsmallself-organisedlocalgroupsofpeople;
- Aprojectexploringhealthinequalities,bydesignerMartinBontoftand
theNorthEastLincolnshireNHSprimarycaretrust,resultinginOpen
Door,ahealthandsocialcareenterpriseprovidingsupportand
challenges;
266
Page 267
- AprojectbetweentheLondonBoroughofEalingandtheNHSInstitutefor
InnovationandImprovement,resultinginanewservicemodelfor
patientswithMultipleSclerosis.
Reviewingallthesecasestudies,theresearchersidentifythefollowing
characteristicsandopportunitieswithinservicedesignapproaches(ibid:39):
- Startingwithadiscoveryphase.
- Applyingethnographically-inspiredmethodologiestoproduceanin
depthunderstandingofpeople’sbehaviours,understandingand
relationshipswiththeirdiseasesandwiththeserviceitself.
- Engagingawidearrayofpeopleassourcesofinformationandco-
designers.
- Usingmethodsthatpromotedifferentlevelsofengagementegpen
portraits,profiles,storyboardsetc.“Thesematerialsworkas‘boundaries
(sic)objects’amongpeoplewithdifferentbackgroundsandperspectives.”
(ibid:39)
- “ThefourphasesofDiscovery,Define,DevelopandImplementare,in
practice,constantlyrepeatedintheprocessofredefininganddeveloping
theinitialinsightsandideas.Designersalternatefieldstudiesandco-
designsessionswithworkintheirstudiostoconductaniterativeprocess
ofverificationandrefinementoftheirinitialinsightsandideas”(ibid:39).
- Usingvisualizationstomakeintangibleexperiencestangible,
representingcomplexsystems,connectingtheprojectwithrealpeople
andpractices.
267
Page 268
- Changingpeople’sbehavioursatthesametimeastransforming
organizationstodelivermoresupportiveandefficientsolutions.
- Designingplatformsforcollaborativeservice,meaningasystemof
supportthatpeoplecanuseinvariousways.
- Engagingpatientsandtheirrepresentativesasco-designersandactive
researchersoftheirowncontext.
Thefinalsectionsummarizestheimplicationsofthesefindingsandsuggests
recommendations.Theresearchersconcludedthatthedifficultiesineffective
provider-commissioningarerelatedtostructures,mechanismsandprofessional
practicesthatresistandconflictwithintegratedandcollaborativemodesof
commissioninganddeliveringservices.Thereportarguesthat(service)design
canprovidesupportandtoolsintheseways(ibid:40-41):
- Supporttosetupcollaborativeframeworks,supportinglookingatthings
holisticallyandenablingimaginationsegcreatingscenariostofacilitate
thevisionoflong-termfutures.
- Combiningevidence-basedandexperience-basedapproachesegusing
ethnographicstudiestoprovideinsightsandpersonalstories.
- Supportingpatientengagementanditerativedesignegthroughcreating
quickmock-upsofpartiallydevelopedsolutions.
- Developingintegratedandcommunity-basedsolutionsegthrough
proposingaccessibleplatformsmeaningsystemsofsupport,integrated
withincommunityservicesandfacilities.
268
Page 269
Therecommendationsarefor“community-centredcommissioning”(ibid:44-45).
Thisaimstoshifttheattentionofclinicalproviderstowardsthewider
communityincludingthemingeneratingnewservicemodels.Thismodeof
commissioninganddesigningservicesrequires:
1. Creatingpartnershipsthatsharescenarios,understoodascollaborative
effortstovisualisefuturesandwhichmaketheaimsandvisionofa
projecttangiblebyusingscenariosoffutureservices.
2. Creatingacultureofcollaborationandengagement,includingbuilding
trust,changingattitudes,andfacilitatingon-goingdialogue.
3. Buildingcollectivecapabilities,suchassupportingclinicianstodevelop
skillsandknowledgetoengagewithpatientsandundertake
commissioning,notjustdevelopingtheirbusinessskills.
4. Redesigningwithawholesystemsapproach,goingbeyondindividual
organizationsandpathways.
6.3.2 Service design case study: Inventive remix
Thissectionanalysesthesamecasethroughthelensoftheconceptsdeveloped
inthisdissertationandexpressedaboveinFigure6andTable4.Inwhatfollows,
theLancasterreportsummarisedaboveisanalysedthroughtheinventive
practiceperspective,intwoways.Firstly,atablepresentstextexcerptsfromthe
summaryaboveandanalysesthemthroughtheinventivepracticeperspective.
Thisisfollowedbyamoredetaileddiscussionofeachofthecharacteristicsof
269
Page 270
inventivepractice,suggestinghowthesecanbemobilisedtoopenupnewways
ofthinkingaboutwhatwentoninthatservicedesignproject.
Table5isstructuredasfollows.Itpresentsanexcerptfromthesummaryinthe
lefthandcolumn.Thenextcolumnidentifiestheinventivepractice
characteristic(s)operativewithinit.Then,thatexampleisre-describedthrough
aninventivepracticelens.Thefinalcolumnsuggestsashortcutshowinghowthe
inventivepracticelensopensup,ormakesexplicit,particularissueswhichin
somecasesareimplicitorhidden.Thispost-hocanalysisservestoreorient
researchersandpractitionerstoconceptsthatareimportantinunderstanding
anddescribingdesignforservice.
Foreaseofreading,thelayoutinTable5followsthestructureofthereport,from
toptobottom.Together,thevariousexamplesfromtheLancasterreport,re-
analysedthroughinventivepractice,openupdifferentwaysofunderstanding
whatwentonintheresearch,andbringintoviewthingsgoingonthatwould
otherwiseremainlessvisible.Apointtore-emphasizehereisthatthereport
doesindicatethattheresearchersworkingontheprojectwereattentivetomany
oftheissuesraisedinthisdissertation.Sothisremixoftheirreportaimsto
suggestwaystobringthisperspectivemoreclearlyintoview,notclaimthatitis
entirelyabsentfromtheirwork.
ExampletextfromLancaster
casestudyonprovider-
Core
concepts
Examplere-
described
Productiveshortcuts
fromusingtheinventive
270
Page 271
commissioningandservice
design
throughan
inventivepractice
lens
practicelens
Analysisofcurrentdesigningpracticesatahealthcareprovider
Therewasashiftfrom
designinganewUrgencyCare
Centre,towardsdesigningan
UnscheduledCareService.
Intra-
action
Aninventive
practice
perspective
emphasizesthat
anynewbuilding
relatestostaffand
patientroutines
andstaff-patient
interactionsin
whichthepremises
wereembedded.
Anexplicitstartingpointis
combinationsofbuildings,
people,skills,routines,
interactions,processes,
meaningsandother
resourcesasco-
constitutingaservice,
ratherthanexistingin
isolationfromoneanother.
Togetherwithorganizational
issuesrelatedtocapacity
management,amaindesign
concernwasrelatedtothe
interpretationof“urgency”.
Accounta
bilities
Aninventive
practice
perspectiveopens
updefinitionssuch
as“urgency”to
includethe
accountsofnon-
clinicalstaffsuch
asreceptionists
andpatients,
familiesandcarers.
Anexplicitstartingpointis
contestationabout
conceptsembeddedina
serviceandpractices
arounditandhowthere
areonlypartial
perspectives,whichcanbe
madeavailableasactants
arerevealedtobemutually
accountable.
Someofthestaffindicated
theywere“horrified”atthe
Ignorance
,
Aninventive
practice
Ashortcutisto
acknowledgehow
271
Page 272
stereotypestheyhadproduced
whichseemedtorestonan
attitudeof“them”and“us”and
wereshapedbytheircoping
strategies.
inventive
ness
perspectivebrings
intoviewtheways
thathistoriesof
interactions,and
rolesandlocations,
shapehowstaff
thinkaboutand
knowpatients,
makingaffecta
resourcefor
design.
ignoranceandaffectcanbe
aresourcefordesign.
Participants’lackof
knowledgeabouthowto
engagewithmethodssuch
ascreatingpersonas,and
theirunderlying
knowledgeorignorance
aboutpatients,foreground
questionsaboutwhatis
knownandwhatisnot
knownwithincurrent
organisationalpractices.
Designgamesrevealed
participants’conflicting
knowledgeaboutwhohad
expertiseindiagnosing
urgencyandgivingadvice.
Intra-
action,
ignorance
Aninventive
practice
perspectivebrings
intoviewthe
locatednessof
diverseactors
involvedinthe
service.
Ashortcutisthatcurrent
understandings,viewed
fromparticularlocations,
areco-constitutiveofthe
services,andthatno
exterior,bird’seyeviewis
possible.
Bycreatingmapsofproviders
andresourcesaroundprofiles
ofindividualpatients,
participantsbroughtintoview
thecomplexityofintegrated
careandrevealedapictureof
many,oftendisconnected,
actors.
Intra-
action,
accounta
bilities
Aninventive
practice
perspectivemakes
availableto
participantshow
theintra-actionof
diverseactors
constitutedthe
Mapsofresourcesoffera
shortcutthatorient
practitionerstothevarious
diverseconstitutive
elementsofaserviceand
howtheyintra-actwithone
another.
272
Page 273
service.
Findingsfromobservingcurrentredesignpracticeswithinahealthcareprovider
Observingdailydesign
conversationswithina
primarycarecentreonthe
urgencycareproject,showed
howtheactofdesigningis
intertwinedwiththeservice
managementanddelivery.
Temporali
ty
Aninventive
practice
perspective
makesa
distinction
between
attentivenessto
design-as-practice
andhowdesigns-
in-practiceunfold,
withintemporal
regimes.
Ashortcutcanhighlight
howdifferenttemporal
regimeswithinspecific
areasofworkconstitute
meaningsandidentities,
skillsandprocedures,and
forms,capacitiesand
properties,whichmightbe
specifictoorganisational
rolesandroutinesandthe
temporalitiesinwhichthey
areenacted.
Patientswerepartofthe
processthroughformaland
informal“complaints”and
“consulted”attheendofthe
redesignprocess.
Accounta
bilities
Aninventive
practice
perspective
necessarily
includespatients’
andothers’
accounts,whether
madeavailableas
complaintsand
throughformal
consultation.
Ashortcutfocussingon
accountabilitiesopensup
discussionaboutwhich
patients,andotherssuchas
carersandfamilymembers,
areanalyticallypresentand
drawsattentiontothe
inclusionsorexclusions
thattakeplace.
Designgamesapproachescan
provideastructureto
facilitatetheseconversations
Accounta
bilities
Aninventive
practice
perspective
Designgamesareashortcut
thatdrawsattentiontothe
practicesofdifferentstaff
273
Page 274
(betweenpeersandwith
patients).
resourceswaysto
enrolpatientand
staffaccountsin
designing.
anddesigners,thatshows
theactiveworkofincluding
andexcludingaccounts.
Creatingspacesandtimesfor
theseconvergencesis
fundamental.
Inventive
ness,
temporali
ties
Aninventive
practice
perspective
resourcesways
forheterogeneous
actantstobecome
activeco-
participantsin
designatdifferent
times.
Thefocusondesign-as-
practicehighlightshow
choicesaboutparticular
spaces,timesandactivities
includeandexclude
participantsandaccounts.
Evaluationoftheuseofservicedesigntoolsinpublichealthserviceprojects
Applyingethnographically-
inspiredmethodologiesto
produceanin-depth
understandingofpeople’s
behaviours,understanding
andrelationshipswiththeir
diseasesandwiththeservice
itself.
Intra-
action,
accounta
bilities
Aninventive
practice
perspective
emphasizes
activitiesof
humansand
artefactswithin
designs-in-
practice,and
occasionsmethods
thatmakeavailable
designs-in-practice
asaresourcefor
Ethnographicmethods
provideshortcutsthat
makeavailableaccountsof
thesociomaterialworlds
enactedinaservice,which
setupnewaccountabilities
betweenactors.
274
Page 275
designing.
Designersalternatefield
studiesandco-designsessions
withworkintheirstudiosto
conductaniterativeprocessof
verificationandrefinementof
theirinitialinsightsandideas.
Ignorance
,
inventive
ness
Aninventive
practice
perspectivecycles
betweendesigns-
in-practiceand
design-as-practice.
Cyclingbetweendesigns-
in-practiceanddesign-as-
practicedrawsexplicit
attentiontohow
sociomaterial
configurationsemerge(in
practice)andhow
attendingtothis(as
practice)opensup
opportunitiesformoving
forward.
Changingpeople’sbehaviours
atthesametimeas
transformingorganizationsto
delivermoresupportiveand
efficientsolutions.
Intra-
action,
inventive
ness
Aninventive
practice
perspectivetakes
asitsobjectthe
sociomaterial
configurations
peopleandobjects
arepartofand
engageswith
organizational,
patientandcarer
practices.
Theinventivepractice
perspectiveoffersa
shortcuttohighlightthe
interdependenciesbetween
behavioursand
organisationsinthesearch
forsolutions.
Engagingpatientsandtheir
representativesasco-
designersandactive
researchersoftheirown
context.
Accounta
bilities
Aninventive
practice
perspective
resourceswaysto
render
Thefocuson
accountabilitiesdraws
attentiontotheinclusions
andexclusionsinvolvedin
makingaccountsavailable.
275
Page 276
participants’
accountsindesign-
as-practice.
Implicationsandrecommendations
Thedifficultiesineffective
provider-commissioningare
relatedtostructures,
mechanismsandprofessional
practicesthatresistand
conflictwithintegratedand
collaborativemodesof
commissioninganddelivering
services.
Intra-
action,
temporali
ties
Aninventive
practice
perspective
highlightshow
servicesand
patient-staff
interactionsexist
inrelationtoand
areshapedby
organisational
routines.
Astartingpointthat
providesashortcutfor
practitionersishighlighting
theinterdependencies
betweenroutines,
structures,andhow
organisationscommission
anddeliversolutions,and
howtheseexistwithin
distincttemporalregimes.
Supporttosetupcollaborative
frameworks,supporting
lookingatthingsholistically
andenablingimaginationseg
creatingscenariostofacilitate
thevisionoflong-termfutures.
Intra-
action,
ignorance
Aninventive
practice
perspective
occasionswaysfor
participantsto
encounterhow
servicesand
futuresexist
throughtheintra-
actionof
heterogeneous
actantsand
methodsthat
Theshortcuthereisto
offeraframeworkfor
analysistosupportholistic
approaches,thatbringinto
viewthevariousaspects
involvedinthewhole.
276
Page 277
exceedcurrent
knowledge.
Developingintegratedand
community-basedcare
solutionsegaccessible
platformsmeaningsystemsof
support,integratedwithin
communityservicesand
facilities.
Intra-
action,
inventive
ness
Aninventive
practice
perspective
focusesonhow
artefactsare
mobilisedin
practice.
Astartingpointisto
understandhowsuch
platformsandactorsco-
constitutemeaningsand
identities,skillsand
procedures,andforms,
capacitiesandproperties
throughintra-action,rather
thanpre-existing.
Table5Analysisofservicedesigninhealthcarecase,usinganinventivepracticeperspective
Table5offersasummaryacrossawiderangeoftextualexcerptsfromthe
Lancasterreport,butthisformatislimited.Someoftheseobservationsand
findingsfromtheLancasterstudyarenowdiscussedinmoredepth,inrelation
tothefivecharacteristicsofdesign-as-inventive-practice.
Intra-action
Oneofthereport’sconclusionswasthatdifficultiesineffectiveprovider-
commissioningarerelatedtostructures,mechanismsandprofessionalpractices
thatresistandconflictwithintegratedandcollaborativemodesof
commissioninganddeliveringservices.Aninventivepracticeperspectiveoffers
ashortcuttosuggesthowsuchananalysisisrelevanttothedesignoffuture
services.Byattendingtohowdesigns-in-practiceareconstituted,thisanalysis
277
Page 278
focusesonhowmeaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,
capacitiesandpropertiesemergedynamicallythroughtheintra-actionofpeople
andthings.Further,theinventivepracticeperspectiveacknowledgestheactive
workofincludingandexcludingparticularactorsandhowonlypartial
perspectivesareavailable.Inotherwords,itdrawsattentiontohowparticular
waysofdoingthings,withinparticularmaterial-discursivepractices,are
possible,andothersarenot.Thisilluminateswhystructures,mechanismsand
professionalpracticesresistandconflictwithintegratedandcollaborative
modesofcommissioninganddeliveringservices.
Thisemphasiseshowwaysofgoingaboutcommissioning,patient-staff,staff-
staff,andperson-artefactinteractions,allexistinrelationtoandareshapedby
theUrgencyCareService’sdesigns-in-practice.Itpromptsquestioningastowhy
particularresourcesareincluded,orwhyparticularstructures,mechanismsand
capacitiesareenabled,whileothersareexcludedordisabled.Thinkingabout
design-as-practicewhencommissioningservices,drawsattentiontohowdiverse
resourcesaremobilisedduringdesigning.Itpromptsquestionsastowhy
particularpeopleandresourcesareincluded,orwhyparticularstructures,
mechanismsandcapacitiesareenabled,whileothersareexcludedordisabled.
Inventiveness
Thereportrecommendedgeneratingcollaborativesolutions,forexample,
accessibleplatformsunderstoodassystemsofsupport,integratedwithin
communityservicesandfacilities.Itarguedthatprovider-commissioning
278
Page 279
involvedaculturalshifttowardscollaborative,integratedandmorecommunity-
centredcommissioningofcare.Attendingtoinventivenessoffersashortcutto
helpparticipantsunderstandthatsuchplatformsunfoldinpractice,resultingin
unexpectedandunforeseenconsequences,andthattheycannotbefullyspecified
inadvance.
Thinkingaboutdesigns-in-practicehelpspractitionersunderstandthat
collaborativeplatformsareanewsociomaterialconfigurationthatresultin
reconfiguringandbeingreconfiguredbytheactantswithwhichtheyintra-act.It
highlightshowthedesignofaplatformdoesnotfullydeterminebehavioursand
capacitiesorresourceparticularoutcomes,andemphasizesthatnew
configurationscomeintobeingasnewpracticesunfoldinrelationtoanew
platform.Whileresearchersmaybefamiliarwiththeseconcepts,presentingthis
topractitionersoffersashortcuttohelpthemmovebeyondtheircurrent
understandingofcommissioning“solutions”or“platforms”toachievegoals.
Instead,thinkingaboutdesigns-as-practiceduringthedesigningofsuch
platforms,recognisesthatdiverseresourcesaremobilisedandcanreconfigure
workpractices.Aninventivepracticeperspectiveopensuphowmethods
enactedduringdesigningleadtoanexcessofdata,oraffect,orthesensory,
whichdisruptwaysofthinkingaboutthingsordoingthings.Again,for
practitioners,beingawareofhowinventivepracticesunfoldhelpsshiftthem
awayfrombeinglockedintoparticularindividuals,skillsormethodswhendoing
servicedesign,andbecomemoreopenandresponsivetoemergence.
Ignorance
279
Page 280
Thereportdescribeshowsomeofthestaffinvolvedinaworkshopusingthe
personasmethod,indicatedtheywere“horrified”atthestereotypesthey
produced.Thereportsaysthesewaysofthinkingaboutpatientsseemedtorest
onanattitudeof“them”and“us”andwereshapedbystaffcopingstrategies.
Attendingtoignoranceoffersashortcuttohelpmobiliseignoranceasaresource
intheproject.
Aninventivepracticelensbringsintoviewthewaysthathistoriesofinteractions,
identities,rolesandlocations,shapehowstaffthinkaboutandknowpatients.
Drawingonthisanalysis,aconversationaboutwhatthisresponsemeans,can
promptquestionsastowhatstaffknowofpatientsandhowtheyknowthis,and
whattheydon’tknow,andsimilarly,whatpatientsknowaboutstaff,andhow
theyknowthis,andwhattheydon’tknow.Thinkingaboutdesigns-in-practice
drawsattentiontohowknowledgeandignoranceareproducedincurrent
organisationalroutines.Asmoreknowledgeisproduced,forexamplebycreating
participants’accounts,describingparticipants’worlds,orbyinvolvingpatients
asparticipantsindesigning,sotooismoreignorance.Thinkingaboutdesign-as-
practicedrawsattentiontohowsomemethodscancreateignoranceand
surprise,alongsidemoreknowledge.Forexample,thestaff’slackofknowledge
abouthowtouseandmakesenseofthepersonamethodandwhatitmightopen
upwithintheproject,promptsawarenessofthewiderissueoflackofknowledge
amongthepractitionerswhatisinvolvedaboutdesigningservices.
Accountabilities
280
Page 281
Thereportdescribesdesigngamesthattheresearchersintroduced.Itsaysthe
designgamesrevealedparticipants’conflictingknowledgeaboutwhohad
expertiseindiagnosingurgencyandgivingadvice.Thereportarguesthatsuch
approachescanprovideastructure,andatimeandspace,tofacilitate
conversationsbetweenstaffmembers,andwithpatients.Aninventivepractice
perspectiveinvolvesexpandingthenumberofactorsinvolvedand
foregroundingtheirmutualaccountabilities,whichchangestherelations
betweenthem.Bringingthevariousofaccountsofsuchactantsintorelationto
oneanotherleadstocontestationanddebate,andrevealingthatperspectives
arepartial,resultinginnewwaysofthinkinganddoing.Thinkingaboutdesign-
as-practiceopensupquestionsabouthowtoengagestaffmembers,patientsand
othersincreatingandexploringoneanother’saccounts.Attendingtodesigns-in-
practice,involvestracingmutualconnectionsbetweenactantsandidentifying
howaccountabilitiescomeintobeing.Itcreatesopportunitiesforparticipantsto
reflectontheactive,material-discursiveengagementsbetweenpeopleand
things.
Temporalities
Thereportnotesthatwithinthecurrentpracticesofahealthcareprovider,
creatingspacesandtimesforpeopletoworktogethertocreatevisionsis
fundamental.Aninventivepracticelensoffersashortcutbyrecognisingthat
thesetemporalitiesarenotgivenorpre-determined,butcontingent,resulting
fromtheintra-actionofparticularactants.Itdrawsattentiontothedifferent
281
Page 282
temporalitiesenactedintheroutinesandpracticesofmembersofstaff,patients,
andthroughdifferentorganisationallenses,whichservetomakeparticularways
ofdoingthingsandspecificcapacitiespossible,andotherslessso.Adesign-as-
practiceapproachrecognisesthatheterogeneousactantsbecomeconfiguredas
activeco-participantsatdifferenttimesduringdesigning.Thinkingabout
designs-in-practicebringsintoviewhowparticulareventsandinteractions,for
example,intheengagementsbetweenreceptionstaffandpatients,operate
withindifferenttemporalregimes.
Thissectionhasusedthecharacteristicsofinventivepracticetoemphasizeways
ofthinkingaboutwhatwentonintheresearchdocumentedintheLancaster
report,whichtosomeextentwerealreadyimplicit.Suggesting“shortcuts”
makesthesecharacteristicsmoreexplicit,andopensupdifferentwaysof
understandingwhatgoesonindesigningforservice.Afulleraccountofwhat
thisperspectiveenablesisofferedafterthenextcasestudy.
6.4 A study of design for social innovation
Thissectioninvolvesremixingtheconceptsofdesign-as-inventive-practiceby
applyingthecoreconceptsin(re-writing)anaccountofservicedesigninthe
contextofsocialinnovation.Unliketheprevioussection,whichusedaproject
conductedandwrittenaboutbyotherresearchers,thisonedrawsonmyown
professionalworkandwriting.Firstthecaseissummarised,whichisarecent
282
Page 283
exampleofdesign-basedapproachesbeingusedinthecontextofsocial
innovation(Kimbellforthcoming).Thedocumentisapeer-reviewedchapter
fromaneditedbookentitledSourcebookofAnthropologyinBusiness(Dennyand
Sutherlandforthcoming),whichincludesdiversecontributionsexploringthe
roleofethnographyandanthropologyinorganizations.Includedinasectionon
emergentthemes,thischapterexploreswhatthecombinationofethnographic-
anddesign-basedapproachescanbringtocomplexcollectiveissuessuchas
ageing.Thechapterdrawsonaproject,whichIconductedasheadofsocial
designatTheYoungFoundationin2012foraproviderofhousingandsocial
careservices.Permissiontousethisresearchherehasbeengivenbythe
anonymousorganisationandsomeofthedetailshavebeenchanged.
AswiththeremixoftheLancasterstudy,someoftheconceptsexploredinthis
dissertationarealreadyimplicatedintheprojectdescribedandinthebook
chapter.Thisisevenmorethecase,asIundertooktheprojectandwroteitup
during2012and2013whenIwaswritingsomeofthechaptersinthisstudy.
Nonethelesstheexplicitapplicationoftheinventivepracticeperspective
outlinedinTable6generatesnewwaysofthinkingaboutthiscase,andabout
thepossibilitiesofaninventive-practiceperspectivewithindesignforsocial
innovation.
6.4.1 Ageing case study: Changing what an issue is made up of
Thebookchapterconformswithmanyoftheothercasesinwhichdesign-based
approacheshavebeenappliedtocollectiveandpublicchallenges.Having
283
Page 284
reviewedthecontext,itoffersanaccountledbytheauthor,involvingthe
applicationofanapproachandmethodsthatledtosomeshiftsinhowthe
projectwasproceedingandhowitwasunderstoodandwrittenup,withsome
degreeofreflectivityandreflexivity.
Thechapterstartswithanoverviewofsomeoftheareasinwhichdesignersand
design-basedapproachesarebeingused,arguingthattypicallytheseapproaches
aredescribedas“human-centred”.“Peoplearecentraltodesign-ethnography,
buttheyarealwayssituatedinparticularworldsandinrelationtootherpeople
andthingsandwaysofliving,workingandcaring”(Kimbellforthcoming).The
chapteraimstoshowhow“design-ethnography”canhelpcreatenew
understandingsofwhatanissueismadeupofandhowitmightbeengagedwith.
Thenextstepistofocusonthetopicofageing,whichwillpresentthecontextfor
thecase.Itdescribestheauthor’sorientationasapractitionerascombining
ParticipatoryDesign,ScienceandTechnologyStudiesanddesignstudies.
Theconsultancyproject,undertakenforaUKproviderofhousingandsupport
servicesforolderandvulnerablepeople,isthenintroduced.Theaimwasto
designanewbefriendingserviceinvolvingunpaidvolunteersvisitingolder
peopleintheirhomes,oraccompanyingthemonshorttripsoutsidetheirhomes.
Atthestagetheauthor’steamengagedwiththem,theproviderwasrunninga
pilotwiththreeolderpeopleandafewvolunteerbefrienders.Intotalthe
consultancyinvolved22daysontheprojectoverfourmonths.
284
Page 285
men
tal m
odel
s
Find o
r dra
w a p
ictur
e of t
his p
erso
n
Biog
raph
yNa
me
Age
Gend
erFa
mily
Livin
g Con
text
Wor
kPl
ay
Note
down
your
assu
mpt
ions
Who
are t
hey?
Whe
re ar
e the
y?
Rela
ting a
nd co
nnec
tions
Conn
ectio
nsOb
ject
s
habi
ts an
d skil
ls
Skill
sHa
bits
Mat
terin
g and
valu
es
Plea
sure
Perso
nal o
bjec
t
Men
tal m
odel
s
Thou
ghts
Self
perce
ptio
n
Stor
ywor
ldUs
e thi
s to h
elp y
ou de
scrib
e the
user
and t
heir
world
Who
is th
is p
erso
n co
nnec
ted
to? H
ow?
(Incl
ude
peop
le/o
rgan
isatio
ns
they
kno
w a
nd d
on’t
know
)
Wha
t phy
sica
l and
dig
ital
obje
cts i
s thi
s per
son
conn
ecte
d to
?
How
, whe
re a
nd w
hen?
How
doe
s thi
s per
son
enjo
y th
emse
lves
?
(Not
just
spec
ial o
ccas
ions
bu
t eve
ryda
y pl
easu
res)
Pick
one
per
sona
l obj
ect t
hat
has m
eani
ng fo
r thi
s per
son
and
disc
uss w
hat i
t mea
ns to
th
em a
nd w
hy
Wha
t doe
s thi
s per
son
thin
k or
bel
ieve
abo
ut th
e w
orld
aro
und
them
?
How
doe
s thi
s per
son
thin
k ab
out t
heir
invo
lvem
ent i
n ch
ange
?W
hat s
hape
s thi
s?
How
doe
s thi
s per
son
lear
n? W
hat s
hape
s thi
s?
Wha
t ski
lls a
nd k
now
ledg
e do
es th
e pe
rson
hav
e?
Wha
t act
iviti
es a
re u
sual
or
habi
tual
for t
his p
erso
n?
Wha
t wou
ld b
e no
vel
for t
hem
?
Way
s of d
oing
thin
gs
Sour
ce: K
imbe
ll an
d Ju
lier.
2012
. The
Soc
ial D
esig
n M
etho
ds M
enu
285
Page 286
Previous page: Figure 7Storyworldtemplateusedtocreatepersonasorguideinterviews
Thechapterproceedswithadescriptionofanapproachandmethodsusedto
engageinactivitiestosupportthehousingproviderinresearchanddesignfor
theservice,includingsemi-structuredethnographicinterviewswitholderpeople,
volunteersandothersworkingwiththem;andcreatingpersonasofolderpeople
andvolunteers.ThestoryworldtemplateshowninFigure7wasusedtoinform
theinterviewquestions.Ratherthanbeingexternalprovidersofresearchand
analysis,theconsultancyorganisationinvolvedstaffandvolunteersas
participantsinthiswork.Thechapterdescribestwoworkshops.
Workshop1
Thefirstinvolvedmembersofstaffandoldervolunteersinreviewingandadding
topersonasofolderpeoplederivedfromtheresearchinterviews.Anexampleof
oneofthepersonascreatedisshowninFigure8.Workinginpairs,thestaff
memberscreatedfournewpersonasbasedonpeopleknowntothem:one
personwhowasunabletoleavetheirbed,anotherwithdementia,onewhowas
himselfacarerofasonwithlearningdifficulties,andafourthwhowasanolder
personwithlearningdifficulties.Theparticipantsthensharedthesenew
personaswithoneanother,againaddinglayersofdetailtooneanother’s
descriptionsandqueryingorchallengingaspects.Intheirdiscussionsthestaff
madenumerousreferencestopeopletheyworkedwith,drawingontheir
detailedknowledgeofolderpeople’slivedrealitiesfromtheirworkassupport
staffandservicemanagers.
286
Page 288
Previous page: Figure8PersonaofoldermanGeorge,derivedfrominterviews,andannotatedin
theworkshop(Reproducedwithpermission)
Thechapterdescribeshow,havingreviewedandcreatedasetof12personas,
thenextactivitywastodiscussthemesemergingacrossallofthem.Examples
suggestedbyparticipantsincludedmakingdistinctionsbetweenolderpeople
whopayforservicesvs.thosewhodon’t;thosewhoareactivevs.thosewhoare
lessactive;olderpeoplewholiveinthecommunityvs.thosewholivein
supportedhousing;thosewhoareisolatedvs.thosewhoarenotisolated;those
whobenefitfromoneononeinteractionsvs.thosewhofunctionbetterin
groups;andthosewhohavecarersvs.thosewholivealoneandhavefewvisitors.
Throughactivefacilitation,theparticipantsagreedonawaytodistinguish
betweenolderpeopleasfollows:peoplewithlotsofmeaningfulconnectionsvs.
thosewithfewerconnections;andthosewhoareinastablesituationvs.those
whosesituationwasworsening.Together,theseactivities
broughtintoviewtheirworkingpracticesandknowledge,resultingina
collectiveactivitythatmadeavailablethecomplex,situatedlivesofthe
peopletheorganizationwantedtoworkwith,andposedquestionsabout
thevolunteerswhocouldsupportthem.(Kimbellibid).
Theapproachandmethodsintheworkshop,andtheresearchleadinguptoit,
didnotclaimdefinitiveexpertiseaboutthepeopletheserviceaimedtowork
with.Withonlyaminimalopportunitytoundertakeresearch,whatmatteredat
288
Page 289
leastasmuchastheresearcher’sknowledgefrominterviewingpeople,wasthe
knowledgeofmembersofstaff.
Theworkshopwasthusaperformativeencounterbetweendifferent
kindsofknowledge–thestaffmembers’embodiedknowledgeabout
olderpeople,families,andthehealthandsocialcaresystems;
ethnographicrenderingoftheinterviewees’worldscapturedinthe
interviewsandpersonaswhichmadethisknowledgelessfamiliarand
moreanalytical;andtheparticipants’lackofknowledgeabouthowtouse
thistodesignabefriendingservice.(Kimbellibid).
Thechapterdescribesasecondresultofthisapproach.Intheorganisation’s
documentsandinemails,phonecallsandmeetingswiththem,staffmembers
hadusedlanguageconsistentwiththeexistingcareparadigm:theolderpeople
had“needs”,whereasthevolunteershadresources,sothetaskofthe
befriendingservicewastoengagethelattertoaddresstheformer.The
workshopdiscussionsshiftedthewaysthatparticipantstalkedaboutolder
peopleandtheproposedbefriendingservice.Insteadoftheolderpeoplehaving
“needs”,theywerediscussedashavingcapacitiesandashavingsomethingto
offerthe
(presumablyyounger)peoplecomingintotheirhomes.Insteadofthevolunteers
beingtheoneswithsomethingtooffer,theywerereconfiguredashavingtheir
ownneedsinrelationtotraining,support,andpeer-to-peerinteractions.
Workshop2
289
Page 290
Thechapterdescribeshowasecondworkshop,afewweekslater,movedthe
projectonwardstoanoperationalfocustothinkingthroughwhatresources
wererequiredtodeliverandsupportinteractionsbetweenolderpeopleand
othersintheirlivingenvironment,withthebefrienders,andtheorganization
itself.Thisusedaversionoftheserviceblueprinttemplate(Bitneretal2008)
thatdistinguishedbetweenthesephases:inquiring(findingoutaboutthe
service),assessment(signinguporjoiningit),induction(trainingandmatching
olderpeopleandbefrienders),firstvisitormeeting,secondandsubsequent
visits,feedbackandending(seeFigure9).Methodssuchasserviceblueprinting
bringintoviewthemultiplepointsofengagementbetweenheterogeneous
humanandnon-humanactantsthatdynamicallyconstitutedthenewservice
beingproposedbythehousingprovider.
Thelanguageusedbythesesocialcareprofessionals–termssuchasstaff,older
people,carers,professionals(egmanagersataresidentialhome),volunteer
befrienders,andstakeholders–insistsonthehumandimensionoftheirwork.
Butthisdisguisesotherimportantdimensionstothissociomaterialworldsuch
asvolunteerrecruitmentpolicies,formstofillin,safetyprocedures,databases,
doorentryphones,andcupsoftea.
Next page: Figure9Serviceblueprinttemplate
290
Page 291
Thin
gs, m
edia
an
d dev
ices
Wha
t the
user
do
es, f
eels,
kn
ows,
thin
ks
Wha
t oth
er
peop
le
do,fe
el, kn
ow,
thin
k
Wha
t ser
vice
perso
nnel
do,
feel,
know
, th
ink
Whe
re th
ings
ha
ppen
Wha
t ser
vice
perso
nnel
do
, fee
l, kn
ow, t
hink
Wha
t sup
ports
th
e ser
vice
Awar
eJo
inIn
itial
use
Use a
gain
Finish
usin
g
Blue
prin
tUs
e thi
s to d
escri
be or
imag
ine a
parti
cipan
t’s en
gage
men
t with
the s
ervic
e
Sour
ce: K
imbe
ll an
d Ju
lier.
2012
. The
Soc
ial D
esig
n M
etho
ds M
enu
291
Page 292
Usingthisframework,staffmembersdescribedindetailtheimaginary
encounterofoneoftheolderpeoplepersonasandoneofthebefriender
personas,matchedbythestaffmemberwhoseactualjobthiswouldbe,which
wasrecordedbywritinganddrawingontotheframeworkonthewall.This
resultedinrichdescriptionsofthepeopleandartefactsinvolvedinconstituting
theservice.Participantswentontodescribetheteamsandorganizational
functionstheythoughtwererequiredtosupporttheservice,usingvocabulary
theywerefamiliarwithbasedonastructureweproposedwhichdistinguished
betweenoperations,humanresources,marketingandcommunications,finance
andaccounting,ITandresearch.
Theworkshopactivitiesmovedthemfromthinkingaboutwhatmighthappen
betweenthisolderperson,andthisbefriender(basedonthepersonas)duringa
homevisit,towardsconsideringhowresourceswithinandbeyondtheirown
organizationwereimplicatedintheserviceinwhichthisinteractionwasakey
activity.Thisledtoextensivediscussionbetweenmanagersandstaffmembers
abouthowtheirteamandthenewserviceinteractedwiththerestoftheir
organization,andtowhatextentitsaimswerebeingrealisticallyresourced.The
chaptercommentsthatthismethodhelpedtheprojectteamre-thinktheentity
theyweredesigning,assomethinginwhichdigitalandmaterialartefacts,and
thepractices,playedimportantrolesandinwhichtheinter-relationships
betweenthemwerecontingentandopentoquery.
Thesharedvisualandnarrativeactivityoftheblueprintingmethod
broughtintoviewthemultipleactorsinvolvedintheserviceovertime,as
292
Page 293
wellasimportantartefactssuchasapplicationformsanddatabasesand
interactionsbetweenpeopleviaphonecallsandface-to-faceencounters.
(Kimbellibid).
Insummary,thechaptershowedhowanapproachthatcombinesethnography
anddesign,changedthewaytheissueismadeupinpractice.Theolderpeople
werere-castashavingcapacitiesandresources,andsimilarlythevolunteershad
requirementsandtheservicehadimpactsonthem.Themethods:
- Revealedcapacitiesandresourcesthatwerepreviouslynotevident;
- Constitutedtheissueofageinginadifferentway,asasociomaterial
assemblageofpeople,organisationsandthingssuchasphones,databases,
andbuildingsbutalsoskillsandknowledge;and
- Supportedrecombiningthesecapacitiesandresourcesinnewways.
Finally,thechapterarguesthatthemethodswerenothuman-centredbutrather
theyprovideawaytounderstandsociomaterialassemblagesinvolvingcomplex
political,financial,socialandtechnologicalsystemsathumanscale.
6.4.2 Ageing case study: Inventive remix
Aswiththeprevioussection,thisanalysisusestwoformats.Firstly,someofthe
discussionissummarisedinTable6,whichindicateshowaninventivepractice
approachisproductiveinunderstandingwhatwenton.Then,eachofthe
293
Page 294
characteristicswithininventivepracticeisintroduced,withadiscussionofhow
thisperspectiveopensupunderstandingthecase.Thenumberofitems
presentedinTable6isfewerthaninTable5intheearlierdiscussionondesign
forservice.Thisisbecausethebookchapterthissectiondrawsonismuch
shorterthantheLancasterreportondesignforhealthcareservices.
Exampletextfromcase
studyondesignforsocial
innovation
Core
concepts
Examplere-described
throughaninventive
practicelens
Productiveshortcuts
fromusingtheinventive
practicelens
Description
Methodsusedbroughtinto
viewtheirworking
practicesandknowledge,
resultinginacollective
activitythatmadeavailable
thecomplex,situatedlives
ofthepeoplethe
organizationwantedto
workwith.
Intra-
action
Aninventivepractice
perspectivehighlights
thediversehumanand
non-humanactants,and
alsoemergent
characteristicssuchas
users’needsand
capacitiesthatare
constituteddynamically
inpractice.
Offersashortcuttodraw
attentiontothemultiple
peopleandartefacts
involvedintheservice
andhowthesethingslike
“users”and“needs”are
mutuallyanddynamically
constitutedthroughthe
intra-actionofactants.
Insteadoftheolderpeople
having“needs”,theywere
discussedashaving
capacitiesandashaving
somethingtoofferthe
(presumablyyounger)
peoplecomingintotheir
Inventiv
eness
Aninventivepractice
perspectivehighlights
howanexcessofdata,
affectandthesensory
canopenuppossibilities
andleadtonew
configurations.
Emphasisesthataffect
andthesensoryrelating
tothelivesofolder
people,befrienders,
carersandstaff,area
resourcefordesigningthe
newservice.
294
Page 295
homes.
Aversionoftheservice
blueprinttemplate
distinguishedbetween
differentphases.
Tempor
alities
Aninventivepractice
attendstohowdifferent
temporalitiesare
constructedindesigning.
Foregroundstheservice
ashavingdifferent
temporalitiestoattendto
egtheexperiencesof
peopleduringhomevisits,
managingongoing
relationshipsand
fluctuatingresources.
Methodssuchasservice
blueprintingbringintoview
themultiplepointsof
engagementbetween
heterogeneoushumanand
non-humanactantsthat
dynamicallyconstitutethe
newservice.
Intra-
action
Aninventivepractice
perspectivehighlights
thenon-humanmaterial
anddigitalartefactual
andinstitutionalaspects
ofpractice,whichshape
whatcanbepossible.
Drawsattentiontothe
partialperspectives
createdbywhatis
included,andwhatis
excluded,inthe
blueprints.
Thesharedvisualand
narrativeactivityofthe
blueprintingmethod
broughtintoviewthe
multipleactorsinvolvedin
theserviceovertime.
Inventiv
eness
Aninventivepractice
perspectivedraws
attentiontohowthe
material-discursive
propertiesofmaterials
andmethodsopenup
newwaysofthinkingand
doing.
Movesbeyondan
emphasisonthevisuality
andnarrativityofdesign
methods,focussingon
whatsuchdevices
occasioninpractice
throughanexcessofdata,
affectorthesensory.
Summary
295
Page 296
Revealedcapacitiesand
resourcesthatwere
previouslynotevident.
Inventiv
eness
Aninventivepractice
perspectivebringsinto
viewhowcapacitiesand
resourcesdynamically
emergeaspractice
unfolds.
Showshowresources
suchaspeople’s
capacitiesandneedsare
notpre-existing,but
becomeavailableduring
designingthrough
particularconfigurations.
Supportedrecombining
thesecapacitiesand
resourcesinnewways.
Inventiv
eness
Aninventivepractice
perspectiveoccasions
newwaysofthinkingand
doing,resultinginnew
configurations.
Drawsattentiontohow
methodsproducean
excesswhichopenupnew
waysofdoingand
thinking.
Themethodswerenot
human-centredbutrather
theyprovideawayto
understandsocio-material
assemblagesinvolving
complexpolitical,financial,
socialandtechnological
systemsathumanscale.
Account
abilities,
intra-
action
Aninventivepractice
perspectivebringsinto
viewthemutual
accountabilitybetween
actants,ratherthan
privilegingspecific
humanusers.
Pointstowardsthe
complexpracticalitiesand
structuresinwhich
peopleareembeddedand
whichtheyco-articulate
andthediversityofactors
towhichtheyare
mutuallyaccountable.
Table6Analysisofcasediscussingdesigninsocialinnovation,usingtheinventivepractice
perspective
Someoftheobservationsandfindingsfromthebookchapterarenowdiscussed
inmoredetail,inrelationtothefivecharacteristicsofdesign-as-inventive-
practice.
296
Page 297
Intra-action
Thelanguageusedbysocialcareprofessionalsinvolvedintheproject–terms
suchasstaff,olderpeople,carers,professionals,volunteers,andstakeholders–
insistsonthehumandimensionoftheirwork,isolatedfromthesociomaterial
worldsinwhichtheyexist.Butthisdisguisesimportantartefacts,suchas
volunteerrecruitmentpolicies,formstofillin,safetyprocedures,databases,
doorentryphones,andcupsofteathatarepartofthepracticesthatpeople’s
capacitiescomeintobeinginrelationto.Attendingtointra-actionoffersa
shortcuttohelpestablishthemanydifferentactorsinvolvedinasocialcare
venture,andhowtheirpropertiesandformsareconstitutedrelationally,rather
thanpre-existing.Aninventivepracticelenshighlightsthenon-humanmaterial,
digitalandinstitutionalaspectsofpractice,whichshapewhatcanbepossible,
withinexistingpractices,andwhatmightbereconfiguredthroughthecoming
intobeingofnewpractices.Thinkingofdesign-as-practicepromptsawareness
thattheneedsorcapacitiesofvolunteersandolderpeoplearenotpre-existing,
butemergeinpracticeduringdesigning.Thinkingofdesigns-in-practicedraws
attentionhowtheserviceunfoldsthroughthemutualparticipationofnumerous
actorsbeyondtheorganisationanditsdirectcontrolandexpertise.Whatthe
conceptofintra-actionoffersisastrongemphasisonthemultipleinteractions
betweenheterogeneousactors,thatresultinmeaningsandidentities,skillsand
procedures,andnewandmodifiedforms,propertiesandmaterials.
297
Page 298
Inventiveness
Thecasehighlightshowtherewasashifttowardsseeingolderpeopleashaving
capacities,ratherthanmerelyneeds.Similarlythevolunteerswerereconfigured
ashavingneeds,andnotmerelyresourcestooffer.Aninventivepractice
orientationgoesfurtherandattendstohowthedesignmethodsdeployedexceed
currentwaysofwaysofknowinganddoing.Itoffersashortcuttohelpestablish
thatnewwaysofdoingthingsemergewhendataormaterialexceedthe
possibilitiesavailable.Thinkingofdesigns-in-practice,pointstohowmeaning,
competenceandmaterialartefactsarecombinedindifferentways,asdesigns
anddesigningunfold.Forexample,themethodofcreatingpersonasand
reviewingandannotatingtheminworkshops,broughtanexcessofdataand
affectintoview.Throughgrapplingwiththisexcess,participantshadtoshiftthe
waystheyconstitutedtheservice,bothintermsoftheolderpeopletheythought
theyknewwell,andthevolunteerstheydidnot.
Thinkingofdesign-as-practicedrawsattentiontohowmembersofstaffand
serviceusersinvolvedwiththehousingproviderwererenderedinthe
workshopsashavingcreativecapacities.Theircreativitywasnotacharacteristic
ofindividualsega“creative”memberofstaffproposinganovelprocessfor
signingupvolunteerbefrienders.Suchinventivenessisbetterdescribedasan
emergentqualityofdesign-as-practiceasitunfolded.
Ignorance
298
Page 299
Thecasedescribedhowtheprojectstartedwithonlyafewdaysoffieldworkto
interviewolderpeople,volunteersandstaff.Theresearchers/consultantsmade
noclaimsaboutbeingexpertsaboutageing,norabouttheolderpeopleand
volunteersinterviewed.Insteadthechapterdescribeshowtheworkshop
processtoreviewandmodifypersonas,allowedparticipantstoaccesstheirown
expertiseandignoranceaboutolderpeople’scareandhowtodesignnewservice
provision.Rethinkingthiscasethroughthelensofignoranceandsurprise,
emphasizeshowdesign-as-practicemobilizeslackofknowledge,thatwas
producedalongwiththeknowledgefromresearchundertakenfortheproject.
Thepracticeunfoldedbyengagingmembersofstaffasactorsintheopeningup
ofnewpossibilities.Insomecases,thiswasasaresultofstaffknowledgeabout
olderpeople(egcorrectingapersonatheydidnotrecognise,orcreatingnew
personas).Butinsomeothercases,thestaff’signoranceaboutvolunteers,
becamearesource.Forexample,sincetheydidnotknowmuchaboutwhy
peoplemightvolunteertodobefriendingactivities,orhowtoreachpeoplewho
mightbewillingto,thispromptedthestafftoidentifyactorstoworkwithtoget
beyondtheirownignorance.Thisthenincreasedthecapacityoftheorganization
tocreateastableconfigurationandpracticestoresourcethenewservice.
Accountabilities
Likeotherdesign-ledsocialinnovationprojects,whichaimtoaddressa
collectiveissue,theprocessofdesigningdescribedinthecaseopensupageing,
byrecognisingdiverseactants.Thebookchapterdescribessomeparticular
methodsfordoingthiswiththeresourcesavailable.Firstly,itincludedmembers
299
Page 300
ofstaffandolderpeopleworkingasvolunteersasparticipantsinworkshops.
Secondly,itinvolvedconstructingaccountsofthelivedexperienceofolder
peopleandvolunteers,andmakingthesepartoftheprocesstodesignanew
service.Whataninventivepracticeorientationaddsishowtheparticipantsare
renderedmutuallyaccountabletooneanother.Thinkingofdesign-as-practice
drawsattentiontohowolderpeopleandvolunteerscameintoview,forexample,
intheserviceblueprintingmethod,byaskingparticipantstodescribe
encountersintheproposedservicebetweenaparticularolderpersonpersona
andaparticularvolunteerpersona.Thismethodengagedmembersofstaffwith
imaginingandanalysinghow,when,andwheresuchencounterscouldtakeplace
andthemutualrelationswithinthem.Forexample,thetemplateusedasked
participantstoimaginehowandwhatpeoplewoulddo,say,knowandfeeland
howthislinkedwithorganisationalresources.
Thinkingofdesigns-in-practiceforegroundshowtheorganisation’spractices
mediatedrelationsbetweentheolderpeople,andpeopleandresourcesintheir
worlds,andthevolunteers,andpeopleandresourcesintheirworlds.Insteadof
avolunteeringserviceforolderpeople,theservicewasreconstitutedthrough
thepossibilityconflictingaccountsandresourcesofdifferentpeople.
Temporalities
Thebookchapterdescribesasociomaterialconfigurationthatrequiresa
considerationoftime.Itinvolvesaprojecttodesignaservicewhichinvolves
peoplevisitingolderpeopleintheirhomes,supportedbymembersofstaffand
300
Page 301
peersupportoversomemonthsorpossiblyyears.Butattentivenessto
temporalitiesoffersashortcuttohelpestablishthedifferenttemporalregimes
associatedwithdifferentpracticesandtheirconstituentactants.Thinkingof
designs-in-practiceinvitesastrongerfocusonhowdifferenttimeframesare
broughtintoview,throughthedifferentactivitiesoftheservice.Thesemightbe
individualeventssuchasvisitstooldpeoplebybefrienders,emerging
relationshipswitholderpeopleandtheirfamiliesandcarers,andbetween
volunteers,andwithfundersandcommissioners.Itrequiresthestaffthinking
throughthepointsofcontactvariouspeopleandartefactshavewiththehousing
providerovertime,tiedtoregimesofdesign(howtocreatetheservice),
operations(howtoresourceorganizationalroutinesandkeepitrunningsafely
andeffectively),andresearchandevaluation(howtounderstandandreportits
valueandimpact).Thinkingofdesign-as-practicehighlightshowthesedifferent
expertisesandroutinesasassociatedwithdifferenttimeframes,whicharenot
given,butconstitutedrelationally.
6.5 Making the inventive practice perspective productive
Thisconcludingsectionreviewshowtheconceptssummarisedearlierinthe
articulationofaninventivepracticeperspectiveondesigninghavemobilised
newwaysofthinkingintwodescriptionsofdesign,oneconcernedwith
commissioninghealthcareservices,theotherconcernedwithaproposed
venturetoaddressolderpeople’sneedsinnewways.Theaimofremixingthese
twocasesthroughthelensofinventivepractice,wastoexplorewhetheritis
301
Page 302
productiveanddescribehowitis.Sinceinbothcases,theresearcherswriting
thereportswerefamiliarwithmuchoftheconceptualapparatususedinthis
dissertation,theaimwasnottomakeclaimsofuniqueness.Insteadthepurpose
istoshowhowtheinventivepracticeperspectivedescribedhere,itselfa
recombinationofotherpeople’swork,canilluminatewhatisgoingoninsuch
designworkandwaysofdoingandtalkingaboutit.
Inshort,aninventivepracticeperspectiveopensupdifferentwaysofthinking
aboutwhatwentonintheactivitiesofprovider-commissioninganddesigning
newservicesrelatedtoageing.Summarisingacrossthetwotablesand
discussionsofcharacteristicspresentedabove,theinventivepractice
perspective:
- Suggestshowtoreconceivewhatitisparticipantsaredesigningandhow
itproceeds,bybeingexplicitaboutthecentralityoftherelationsbetween
peopleandartefactswithinconfigurationsthatunfoldinpractice,rather
thanthestartingpointbeingexistingorganisations,artefacts,services,
roles,orbehaviours.
- Surfacesconceptswithwhichsomeresearchersmaybefamiliar,and
makesthem“do-able”inthecontextofaparticularpracticecontext,with
limitedopportunitiesfordiscussion.
- Bringsintoclearerviewtheunintendedconsequencesofdesigningasa
sitefordiscussionandaction.
- Setsuptemporalitiesandaccountabilitiesasproblematics,notasgivenor
pre-determined.
302
Page 303
- Shiftsawayfromindividualcapacities,skillsandneedsandhighlights
howtheseareco-constitutedrelationally,consideredboththroughthe
lensesofdesign-as-practiceandindesigns-in-practice.
Inconclusion,then,itisarguedthattheinventivepracticeperspectiveis
productive.Itdoesnotreplaceexistingmodesorstylesofanalysis,butrather
servestocombinedifferentintellectualtraditionsinarecombinantformulation
thatopensupnewpossibilities,whileneverclaimingtobedefinitiveandfinal.
303
Page 304
Chapter 7 Conclusion
7.1 Introduction
Thischapterconcludesthisstudybyrevisitingtheelementsusedinweavingit
together.Itthenoffersasummaryofthecontribution,identifiessomeofthe
limitationswithinthisworkandoutlinesdirectionsforfutureresearch.
Chapter1openedwithanaccountofdesignoperatinginanexpandedfield.It
describedrecentchangesintheactivitiesofpeopletrainedinthekindsofdesign
taughtinartanddesignschoolsandpracticedindesignteamsandconsultancies,
someofwhomarenowworkinginrelationtopublicandcollectivematterssuch
aspolicy,internationaldevelopment,educationandhealthcare.Inadditionto
professionalandstudentdesignersundertakingtheseactivities,thereisalso
evidencethatdesign-likemethodsandtoolkitsarebeingtakenintoprojectsand
ventureswithinsocialinnovation,internationaldevelopment,and
entrepreneurship,sometimesassociatedwiththetermdesignthinking,raising
questionsabouttheparticularexpertiseofdesignersanditsportability,andhow
toengagetheknowledgeandskillsofotherssuchasserviceusers,orspecialists
suchassocialworkers.
Twoemergingfieldsweresummarised:thedesignofservices,anddesignfor
socialinnovation.Foreach,someofthekeysites,organisations,projects,publics,
events,researchandteachingweredescribed.Theargumentproceededby
305
Page 305
identifyingsharedproblems.Theseincludeidentifyingtheobjectofdesign,ways
togoaboutandinvolveparticipantsindoingsuchdesigningandthekindsof
expertiserequired.Thereisconfusionaboutwhetherthesefieldsofpracticeare
newanddistinct,andorwhetherideasofservicesand“thesocial”canand
shouldbewovenintootherkindsofspecialistdesignpractice.Further,
particularlypertinenttodesignforsocialinnovation,thesepracticesraise
questionsaboutethicsandaccountability.
Againstthisbackground,aresearchquestionwasposedas:Inwhatwayscanthe
relationsbetweenpeopleandthingsbeconceptualizedmorecoherentlyinthe
designofservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation?
Answeringthisquestionledtofourtasksfortheresearch:
- Toreviewliteraturestounderstandhowresearchershaveconceptualised
therelationsbetweenpeopleandartefactswithindesigning;
- Todrawtogetherawaytothinkoftherelationsbetweenpeopleand
artefactsindesigning,usingtheoriesofpracticesandresourcesinSTS
andremixingmaterialfromthreepublishedpapers;
- Toevaluatethisconceptualisationbyre-analysing(remixing)twocases
onservicesandsocialinnovation;and
- Todiscussimplicationsforresearchandpractice.
Chapter2describedtheapproachtothisstudy.Itoutlinedtheontologicaland
epistemologicalcommitmentsthatunderpintheresearch,identifyingparticular
waysofunderstandingtheworldandhowknowledgeisproduced.Theseshaped
306
Page 306
thechoiceofanabductiveresearchstrategy,inwhichimmersionandanalysis
proceediterativelyandtheresearcherisseenasco-articulatingthe
sociomaterialworldinwhichsheandtheresearcharelocated.Thischapteralso
introducedtheargumentofcontinuallyreworkingtheanalysis,byeditingandby
addingnewtextualrelationships,thinkingofthisasakindofremixing.
TheliteraturereviewinChapter3reviewedmajorcontributionswithindesign
studies,thedevelopmentofuser-centreddesignandchallengestoit,including
ontologicaldesign.Thisleadsawayfromacosmologyofdesigninwhichentities
suchasthedesigner,theobject,andtheuserpre-existwithinacontext,towardsa
recognitionthattheseentitiescomeintobeingthroughtheprocessesof
designingandhowthingshappeninpractice.
Chapter4continuedtheliteraturereview,highlightingwhereandhowdesign
andsocialandculturalresearchhaveintersectedinseveralfieldsincludinginPD
andCSCW,andidentifiedissuesthatresearcherscontinuetoaddress.Theseare:
theroleofsocialandculturaltheoriesinresearchfordesign;enduringgaps
betweenresearch,designanduse;howaccountsarecreatedandtowhomactors
areaccountable;andhowrepresentationsofsociomaterialworldsare
instantiatedandengagedwith.
Thiswasfollowedbyaninterstitial,thatofferedthreepublishedpapers,twoon
designthinkingandoneonservicedesign.Theaimofpresentingthesepapers
here,ratherthaninanappendix,wastoofferthisresearchasaresourcetobe
remixedandreworkedinsubsequentchapters.Paper1reviewedtheoriginsof
307
Page 307
thetermdesignthinkingindesignandotherliteratures,andsurfacedsomeof
theissuesassociatedwithit.Paper2introducedthepairofconceptsdesign-as-
practiceanddesigns-in-practice,tohighlighttheunfoldingofdesigningwithin
sociomaterialpractices.Paper3reviewedliteraturesonservicedesignindesign
andmanagementliteratures.Throughdescribingthreeshortcasesbasedonan
ethnographicstudyofservicedesignprofessionals,itproposeddescribing
designingforserviceasanexploratoryactivity,inwhichservicesareseenas
socialandmaterialconfigurationswhichcreatevalueinpractice.
Chapter5expandedthethreepapersintoawiderargumentfordesigntobe
conceivedofasaninventivepracticeimplicatedinconstitutingconfigurations
thatunfolddynamicallyinpractice.Thiswasachievedintwoparts,inrelationto
long-standingdebatesinthedesignstudiesliterature.Thefirstpartfocussedon
theobjectofdesign,whichhasvariouslybeendescribedasconcernedwithform,
orasaboutresultinginchange,orasdifferentkindsofentity.Thesecondpart
focussedonunderstandinghowdesignproceeds,oftenthroughdescribing
designers’methods.TurningtoresourcesinSTS/ANT,thischapterproposed
conceivingofdesigningasconstitutedthroughthemutualintra-actionof
heterogeneousactants,unfoldinginconfigurationsthatresultnewmeaningsand
identities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,propertiesandmaterials.This
involvedfurtherelaborationofdesigns-in-practiceanddesign-as-practice.
Design-in-practicesawtheobjectofdesignasconstitutedthroughthedynamic
intra-actionofheterogeneousactants,involvingparticularinclusionsand
exclusions.Design-as-practicedescribedhowdesigningproceedsinwaysthat
308
Page 308
resultinnewkindsofconfiguration,bymobilisingignoranceandsurpriseandan
excessofdata,affectandthesensoryasresources.
InChapter6,theseconceptswerefurtherremixed.Fivecharacteristicsof
inventivepracticewereidentifiedwhichgavefurtherdefinitiontotheconcepts
exploredinthepreviouschapter.Intra-actionhighlightshowdesigningtakes
placethroughthedynamicintra-actionofheterogeneoushumanandnon-human
participants,respondingto,andresultingin,changestomeaningsandidentities,
skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesandproperties.Inventivenesssees
noveldesignsasresultingfromnewconfigurations,whichservetoopenup
ratherthandeterminepossibilitiesforfurtherthoughtandactionandwhich
emergewhenmethods,data,affectandmaterialsexceedpossibilities.Ignorance
recogniseshowduringdesigning,alongwithknowledge,ignoranceandsurprise
producenewmeaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,
capacitiesandproperties,whichdonotserveallactorsequally.Accountabilities
emphasizeshowdesigningproceedsandemergesinrelationtomutually-
accountableheterogeneoushumanandnon-humanparticipantsandtheir
accounts.Temporalitiesbringsintoviewhowdesigninganddesignsunfoldover
differenttemporalitieswhichareconstitutedrelationally.
Thisformulationwasevaluatedbyusingtheinventivepracticeperspectiveto
discusstwocases.Remixingthefirst,areportofdesigninghealthcareservices,
openedupnewwaysofthinkingaboutstructuresandpractices,howthesegotin
thewayofeffectiveprovider-commissioningbyclinicalgroups.Re-writingthe
secondcase,ondesignforsocialinnovation,madeavailableawayofthinking
309
Page 309
aboutwhoandwhatcouldbeinvolvedinconstitutingthenewservice.The
challengesassociatedwithenactingadesignapproachinbothofthesetwocases
highlightthedifficultiesandnecessityoffindingbetterwaystodescribeanddo
designing,ifthepromiseofdesignforserviceandforsocialinnovationistobe
delivered.Thiswasfollowedwithasummaryofhowtheinventivepractice
perspectiveopenedupshortcutsforunderstandinganddescribingwhatgoeson
indesigningforservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.
Whatislefttodoistosummarisethecontributionstoresearchandpractice,and
tooutlinefuturedirectionsforbothanddiscusslimitations.
7.2 Contributions
Theaimofthissectionistoclarifywhattheargumentsadvancedhereofferto
researchliteraturesandtopractice,inrelationtoservicedesignanddesignfor
socialinnovation.Therearethreecontributions.However,similarlyto
Singleton’sstudyonservicedesign(2012),theresultisnotaframework,easily
portabletotheworldofprofessionaldesign.Insteadthedissertation
demonstrateshowbringingtogetherresourcesintheoriesofpracticeand
STS/ANTaddressessomelong-standingissuesindesignstudies,whichare
particularlyacuteinthedesignofservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.
Theseresourcesopenupnewdirectionsforresearchandpractice,atatime
whendesignanddesignersareinvolvedinanexpandedandexpandingfield.
310
Page 310
Firstly,oneadvanceenabledbytheargumentpresentedistorethinktheobject
oftheseemergentdesignfields.Difficultiesindefiningwhatdesignersofservices
aredesigning,hasleadtocompetingaccountsthatoftenweaveuncomfortably
betweenideasofhumans,objects,society,behaviours,structures,processes,and
agency.Examplesarethinkingofservicesasinvisibleprocessesaroundevidence
(egShostack1982;1984),orthewiderphysicalenvironment(egBitner1992),
orasplatforms(egEvensonandDubberly2010),behaviourchange(Singleton
2012),orinterfaces(egSecomandi2012).Similarly,researchersanddesigners
workinginsupportofsocialchangealsohavedifficultydefiningwhatitisthatis
beingdesigned.Aswithservices,researchersanddesignershavedescribedthe
objectofsuchdesigningassustainablewaysoflivingandworking(egJégouand
Manzini2008),aswellasnewproductstiedtoparticularsocialoutcomes(eg
BrownandWyatt2010).
Thesedifficultiesarenotsurprising.Theyresultfromarelianceondistinctions
betweentangibilityandintangibility,inservicedesignliteratures,oronusers,
designersandobjects,inmuchofthedesignliterature.Butbeyondthese
manifestationsinresearch,thesedifficultiespointtoanontologicaldistinction
betweenpeopleandthings,asifthesocialislocatedoutsideofobjects,usuallyin
people.Incontrast,thisdissertationhasmadeuseofresourcesinfluencedby
traditionswithinsocialandculturalresearchthatattendseriouslytoobjectsand
tohumansandhowtheycometobeagentialthroughsociomaterialprocesses.
Theresearchquestioninthisdissertationfocussedonunderstandingthe
relationsbetweenpeopleandartefacts,indesignforservicesandforsocial
311
Page 311
innovation.Thus,viewedthroughthelensofdesign-as-inventive-practice,the
distinctionbetweenobjectsandhumans,orhumansandsystems,isnot
pertinent.Instead,theobjectofdesignisunderstoodasconstitutedthroughthe
intra-actionofheterogeneoushumansandnon-humans,whichcometobe
agentialthroughpracticesthatareatoncematerialanddiscursive,leadingto
changestomeaningsandidentities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacities
andproperties.
Further,thetensionsindesignliteraturesbetweenafocusonobjects,oron
designbeingseenasaboutmakingchangehappen,becomeslessimportantby
acknowledginghowdesignscomeintobeingthroughthemutualintra-actionof
diverseactors.Thishelpsrecastthequestionabouttheobjectofdesignfor
servicesandforsocialinnovation,notasconcernedprimarilywitheither
designingobjects(egtouchpointsinaservice),oraimingtochangehuman
behaviour.Instead,thedesignasinventivepracticeperspectiverecognisesthe
emergentandcontingentresultsofdesigninginthechangingrelationsbetween
peopleandthings.
Putanotherway,theadvanceofferedhereistorecognizethat(re)designing
digitalormaterialartefacts,behaviours,policies,structures,capacities,
organizations,orjobroles,allresultinchangetoanexistingconfigurationof
peopleandthingsthroughtheirmutualintra-action.Theextenttowhichthese
newconfigurationsexhibitinventivenessiscontingentontheexcessofdata,
affectandthesensorythatgobeyondcurrentpossibilities.Someofthese
consequenceswillofcoursebeunpredictableandemergeasnewpracticescome
312
Page 312
intobeing.Beingattentivetothetemporalitiesthatareoperativewillhelporient
practitionersandresearcherstothetimescalesoverwhichunintended
consequencesemerge.Theexpandedandmutualaccountabilitiesthatare
broughtintobeingduringdesigninginvolveattentivenesstothediverseactors
involvedandtheirvariousaccounts,andwhichareincludedandexcluded.
Further,theinventivepracticeperspectiveshiftsconceptsandlanguageaway
from“users”andtheir“needs”which,owingtotheinheritanceofuser-centred
designanditsvariants,continuetoshapedesign.Instead,theinventivepractice
lenshighlightshowchangeinconfigurationsresultinnewmeaningsand
identities,skillsandprocedures,andforms,capacitiesandproperties.Thus–to
usethedesignvernacular–usersandtheirneedsandcapacities,areconstituted
relationallyinpractice,ratherthanbeingpre-existingentitiesandcharacteristics.
Asecond,relatedcontributionistoopenupnewwaysofunderstandinghow
designingproceedsandhowtocharacterizeadesignerlyapproachindesignfor
serviceanddesignforsocialinnovation.Claimsabout,andmorerecent
rejectionsof,designthinkinghaveinsistedondesignershavingadistinctive
approach,thatnon-designers,suchasthosecommissioningorpayingfordesign,
canaccessorinhabit,inparticularthepeopleknownasusersorparticipants.
Whilethepopularversionsofdesignthinking(egBrown2009)typicallydonot
engagewiththedecadesofresearchliteratureonthetopic,whathasbecome
clearissustainedinterestindesign-basedapproachesincludingbymanagement
educatorsandresearchers,butalsosocialinnovatorsandentrepreneurs.
Describingdesigning,inthecontextofservicesandsocialinnovation,presents
313
Page 313
addedcomplexitywhencomparedwithundertakingstudiesof,forexample,solo
productdesignersworkingondiscreteindustrialobjects.Itwouldbefoolishto
attempttodefineadesign-basedapproachasifitisnothistoricallyand
culturallysituated.
Carefultoavoidanyclaimsofuniversality,thecontributionherebuildson
directionsbeingfollowedbyotherresearchers,includingthoseworkingwith
practicetheory(egShove2006;Ingrametal2007;Julier2007;Scottetal2011),
orwithSTS/ANT(egSuchman1987;Yaneva2005;Ehn2008;Wilkie2010;
Binderetal2011;Moll2012;Andersen2012;Botero2013).ForexampleBinder
etal(2011)’sdiscussionofdesignobjects,arguesthatsuchobjectsareboth
socialandmaterial,andhowdesigningunfoldsthroughtheinvolvementof
diverseparticipants.Whatthisdissertationaddsisadditionaldepthto
argumentsthatthesociomaterialworldisconstitutedthroughdiscursive-
materialpractices,drawingontheworkoffeministphilosopherKarenBarad
andherconceptofintra-action.Further,theuseofinventiveness,aspresented
byBarry(2001)andbyLuryandWakeford(2012),opensuppossibilitiesfora
moreradicalformofco-realizationasproposedbyHartswoodetal(2002).
Ifthestartingpointofadesignprojectistoconceiveoftheworldasmutually
constitutedthroughtheintra-actionofdiverseactors,ratherthanwithpre-
existingformsandproperties,thisacknowledgesallpotentialactantsas
mutuallyaccountableindesigning,notmerelythehumanoneswhoarecurrently
alive.Thinkingofdesigningasaninventivepractice,attendstohowdesignerly
methodsproduceexcessofdata,affectandthesensorythatexceedcurrent
314
Page 314
possibilities,whichleadtonewwaysofthinkinganddoing,openingup
possibilitiesthatconfigureandreconfigurerelationsbetweenactants.The
inventivepracticelenscontributestounderstandingdesigningintheseemergent
fieldsbyengagingproductivelywithbothignoranceandsurprise,notjust
knowledge,whichcanbeaboutusers,orprocesses,butalsohowtogoabout
designing.Ithighlightsthewaysinwhichpracticescreateboundariesbetween
whatisinsideandoutside,andbetweenwhatisnow,andwhatcouldbe,enacted
withdifferenttemporalities.
Thecontributiontotheemergingfieldsofdesignforservicesandforsocial
innovationcomesfromtheshiftawayfromseeing“designthinking”as
concernedwithdesignprofessionalsandtheirskillsandtools,perhapstakenup
byotherprofessionalsoractivists.Itmovestowardsdesigningasbeingawider
setofpracticesinwhichdiverseactorsareinvolvedandthroughwhichthey
comeintobeingmutuallyaccountabletooneanother.Atatimewhenresearch
designandprototypingarebeingadvocatedbyandfornon-designers,itis
importanttoclarifythatdesigningisnotownedorshapedexclusivelybyanyone
grouporsetofpractices.
Thethirdadvanceistobroadenunderstandingaboutthenatureofparticipation
indesignforsocialinnovation.Muchofthehopeinvestedindesign-based
approachesforsocialimpactisaboutdesigningnewwaystounderstandthe
livedexperienceof,andworkproductivelywith,vulnerableandhard-to-reach
individuals,familiesandsocialgroups.Insomeaccounts,designingforsocial
innovationispresentedasattendingexplicitlytothesocial(collective)concerns
315
Page 315
ofthoseimplicatedinoraffectedindirectlyordirectlybydesigning(egJégou
andManzini2008)orasmeetingpeople’sunmetneedsbybeingempathetic(eg
BrownandWyatt2011).Howeverinsomeaccounts,suchidealismistempered
byrecognizingothernessandtheagonisticnatureofthesocialworld(egEhn
2008;Binderetal2011;diSalvo2012).
Designersandresearchersworkinginsocialinnovationhavebeenslowtodraw
ontheliteraturesexploredinChapter4,whichexplicitlyformulatewaysto
understandtherelationsbetweendesigningandsocialandculturalresearch.But
theseliteraturestoohaveahistoryofworkingwitharelativelylimitedsetof
participants/users,inparticularpeopleforwhomnewdigitalsystemsand
softwarearebeingdesigned.ForexampleCSCWhasmostlybeenconfinedtothe
designofsystemsaspartofinvestmentsintoICTs,wheretheparticipantswho
matterarethemanagersandendusersofthesoftwareandhardwarewithin
specificworkplaces.WithinPD,therearealreadyongoingexperimentsinthe
formof“livinglabs”whichattempttobringparticipatoryapproachestowards
communitiesaddressingcomplexchallenges(egBjörgvinssonetal2010,2012).
Further,recentworklinkingPDanddesign(egAndersen2012;Moll2012)
withinhealthcarehasalsoopenedupexistingconceptualizationsofparticipation
andwhoshouldbeconsideredaparticipantfrommedicalsecretariestoposters
enrollingpatients.
Acontributionfromthisstudyistobuildonthis,andmakeavailable
contemporarytheoryandpracticeandrecentresearchindesignforservicesand
316
Page 316
designforsocialinnovation,whichoffersamuchbroadercanvaswithinwhichto
understandparticipation.
Insummary,theaccountofdesignasinventivepracticeofferedhererestsona
viewofthesociomaterialworldasenactedthroughthedynamicintra-actionof
heterogeneousactors,notjusthumanusersofsystems.Further,itrecommends
thatsuchactorsarerenderedasmutuallyaccountabletooneanother,although
inpracticetheyoftenarenotordonotchosetobe.Theconceptualizationof
designingofferedhereispartofthewidertrajectoryofSTS-inflectedPDand
designthinking,thatrecognizetheparticipationofdiverseactantsindesigning,
andhowworkisdonetoincludeandexcludetheminnewconfigurations.It
highlightsthatthetemporalitiesoverwhichsuchpracticesandtheirintended
andunintendedconsequencescomeintobeingisnotgiven,butarecontingent.
This,then,raisesthebarforthoseinvolvedindesigningnewkindsof
participatoryproject,methodsordevices.Itbegsquestionsaboutwhatunfolds
fromspecificconfigurationsandtheirconsequences,withinspecificsetsof
accountabilities,overdifferenttimescales.
Afourthadvancefromthisstudyistoconnectresearchtraditionsthatdonot,as
yet,havemanypointsofcoincidenceandintersection,althoughtherearesome
notableexceptions.Researchersworkingwithdesignstudiesrarelycitework
withinPDorSTS,whichhavedevelopedanextensiveconceptualvocabularyfor
thinkingaboutthesociomaterialworldsinwhichdesigningtakesplace.Those
workingwithinservicedesignhaveoftennotbeenattentivetothedepthofwork
availabletothemwithinPDandCSCWtohelpconceptualisedesigningfor
317
Page 317
systemsandplatforms.Thoseworkingwithinsocialinnovation,forexample
aimingtochangebehavioursorresultinwellbeing,rarelyinvestigatetheoriesof
practicethatofferawaytounderstandinghowbehavioursareconstitutedand
thecontestedmeaningsofwellbeing.Itisunrealisticforanyresearchertoknow
anyfieldbyencompassingalltheactantsinanetwork,letalonetobeeasilyable
tonavigatemorethanonefield.Butforthoseofusworkinginemergingand
relativelyunformedareasofresearch,suchasdesignforservices,anddesignfor
socialinnovation,itissurelyessentialtoseekoutconceptsandtheoriesfrom
otherfieldsthatsomehowaddresscurrentproblemswearebeginningto
understand.
Despitetheseclaims,thisremainsanexperimentalpieceofwriting,thatremixes
concepts,texts,andgenresfromseveralfields.Oncefinishedintheformalsense
bybeingacceptedbytheexaminers,andhard-bound,itwillcontinuetounfold.
Thispossibilityofitneverbeingquitefinished,isnotanexcusefornotdoingthe
bestonecanwiththeresourcesavailable.Insteadthishighlightsthere-writing
andre-mixingthatistocome.
7.3 Limitations
Finally,itisusefultorevisitthelimitationsassociatedwiththeapproach
developedinthisstudy.Chapter2describedthereasonsforselectingan
abductiveresearchstrategyandthemethodsusedinthisstudy,whichaimedto
understanddynamic,emergingformsofdesignpracticediffusinginmanykinds
ofsite.Thischoicewasbasedonawayofviewingtheworld,andknowledge
318
Page 318
production,notasexisting“outthere”butratherasconstructedthroughthe
activitiesandaccountsofsocialactors.Thisstudyaimstoclarifythephenomena
underdiscussion.Butratherthanseeingthemasexistingoutthereforthe
researchertouncoveranddescribe,thisresearchstrategyrecognisesmy
practiceandresearchasco-constitutingthephenomenaIhavestudied.However
withthisapproachcomesomelimitations,andadiscussionofhowtheywere
addressedwillbringtheseintotheframe.
Thefirstimportantlimitationistheattempttodevelopabroad
conceptualizationofdesigningthataddressesnotjustonebigfield,buttwo.
Developinganunderstandingoftherelationsbetweenpeopleandartefactsin
thecontextofdesigningforservices,anddesigningforsocialinnovationisabig
ask.Evenacursoryinvestigationofdesigningforservices,underthedefinition
offeredinPaper3,addressesnearlyanykindofdesignactivity.Thedescription
ofsocialinnovationofferedinChapter1,alsoseemstoencompassawiderange
ofsitesofdesigningfromhealthcaretoeducationtodevelopment.Theseseemto
suggestthatusingasmallnumberofcasesisnotanadequatebasistoofferany
generalisability.Thesuggestionmadehereistoreplaceadesired-for
generalisabilityofthefindings,withadesireformodifiability(egGlaserand
Strauss1967).Muchinthesamewaythatthisdissertationhasbeenwritten,by
recombiningexistingtextswithconceptsfromSTS,sotoocantheaccountof
design-as-inventive-practicepresentedherebeassessedbyitsfuture
modifiability.
319
Page 319
Afurtherlimitationismethodological.Thestrategyofremixingexistingstudies,
phenomenaandanalysiswithnewtheoryandresearchmayatfirstglanceseem
unlikelytograntmuchvalidity.Extensivenewfieldworkatsitesofdesignfor
servicesanddesignforsocialinnovationcouldhavebeencarriedouttoensure
broadempiricalevidence.Insteadtheapproachtakenherehasbeentomash-up
existingcases.Howeverfollowingdiscussionsingroundedtheory(egGlaserand
Strauss1967),empiricalvalidityislessimportantthanexploringwhetherthe
dataandemergingconceptualizationsshowfitwithandrelevancetothe
phenomenastudied,andamash-uppresentsempiricalphenomenainsufficient
detailforthefocusofthisstudyondevelopinginventiveintra-actionsbetween
fieldsofdesigntheoryandpractice.
Tofurtherincreasefitnessforpurpose,triangulationmethodsinvolvedincluded
givingparticipantsinvolvedintheresearchdescribedinPapers1,2and3
opportunitiestoreadandcommentonearlyversionsoftheresearch.
Participationinconferences,seminarsandlectures,includingco-organizingthe
SocialDesignTalks(2013)allowedmetocompareandreflectonmyemerging
analysiswithotherresearchersandpractitionersinservicedesignanddesign
forsocialinnovation.
Additionally,withinthetraditionofethnomethodologydescribedearlier(eg
Garfinkel1967),animatingthisresearchisalonger-termcommitmentto
reflexivityaboutmyownpracticesandinstitutionallocationsinco-constituting
theemergingfieldsdescribedhere.Bringinganautoethnographicsensibilityinto
320
Page 320
theauthor’sworkasaresearcher,educatorandpractitionerhighlightsthe
mutualconstitutionbetweenthesedifferingspheresofactivity.
7.4 Future directions
Theaimofthissectionistosuggesthowtheconceptsadvancedopenupnew
linesofinquiryinrelationtoresearchandpracticeindesignforserviceand
designforsocialinnovation.
Afirstavenueforfurtherresearchisconcernedwithtemporalitiesand
accountabilities,giventheinevitable,unintendedconsequencesofanydesigning
andusing.Forexample,theongoingdebatesoverthedesignandproductionof
theiPhone,reliantonmanufacturingcapabilityinChinesefactoriesinwhich
workers’rightsdonotmeetinternationallabourstandards,hasexposedhowthe
emblematicproductsofindustrialandinteractiondesignexpertise,producedby
internationalcorporationswithinglobaltechnologicalconsumptionpractices,
areimplicatedinwidersocial,politicalandeconomicnetworks.Thinkingofthe
iPhone,thedesign-in-practiceperspectivehighlightshowthedeviceexists
withinanexpandingsetofmutualaccountabilitiestothefamiliesofChinese
labourersaswellasAfricanminersandmanyotheractants.Inthecontextof
designforsocialinnovation,tacklingissuessuchasageing,well-beingor
worklessness,therearelikelytobecomplexquestionsaboutaccountabilities
andthetimeframesandscalesoverwhichusers,activists,customers,managers,
volunteers,funders,regulatorsandotherhumanandnon-humanactorsare
renderedaccountabletooneanother.Soamajorchallengefacingthoseinvolved
321
Page 321
indesignforsocialinnovationanddesignforservicesistounderstandhowto
thinkaboutandrenderavailablethediverseagenciesimplicatedinnewdesigns-
in-practice,andhowtoidentifythetimeframesoverwhichtoanalysehow
practicesunfold.
Asecondissueisafocusonthecollectivecompetencesrequiredby
organisations,communities,projectsandteamsinordertoworkinwaysthat
support,anddonothamper,designasinventivepractice.Therecentinterestin
designthinkingamongmanagementeducatorsdiscussedinPaper1,andin
designforservices,reviewedinPaper3,isevidenceofoneofthewaysthat
designisspreadingbeyonditstraditionaldomains.Similarly,thedissemination
oftoolkitslikeIDEO’s(2011)HumanCentredDesignToolkitintodevelopment
fieldscontinuestoadvancetheclaimthatdesign-basedapproacheshave
somethingtoofferfieldsconcernedwithsocialinnovation.Howeverthistake-up
ofdesignwithinsomeaspectsofmanagement,professionalfieldssuchassocial
work,andentrepreneurshipraisesquestionsaboutwhatorganisational
capacitiesandcompetencesneedtocomeintobeing,inorderforthesehopesto
berealised.Thiscanbeunderstoodasachallengeforboththoseinvolvedin
highereducation,andvariantsofitthatarenotdegree-awardingsuchas
executiveeducationorcontinuingprofessionaldevelopment.Otherwaysof
exploringandestablishingneworganisationalcompetencessuchasformal
training,accreditation,peerreviewnetworks,onlinelearningandcoaching,are
allsitesforfutureresearchabouttheextenttowhichinventivepracticecanbe
developedasacollectivecapacity.
322
Page 322
Athirddirectionforfutureresearchisunderstandingandevaluatingimpact.The
emphasisinthisstudyhasbeenconceptualisingtherelationsbetweenpeople
andthingsindesignforservicesanddesignforsocialinnovation.Butexisting
alongsidethissomewhatabstractresearcharenumerousexamplesofthis
practicealreadyhappeningatmanydifferentscalesandinrelationtodifferent
kindsofchallengeoropportunity.Muchoftheexistingconversationisakindof
claims-makingforandbydesignersaboutthevalueoftheirapproaches.
However,thereisasyetverylittleevaluativeresearchabouttheeffectiveness
andimpactofbringingdesignapproachestothedesignofservicesanddesign
forsocialinnovation.Thispresentsconceptualaswellasmethodological
challenges,particularlygiventhediversityofactorsinvolved,andtheneedto
assesstheconsequencesofdesigningwithindifferenttemporalregimes.
7.5 End note
Havingstartedwithbyofferingacriticalperspectiveontheclaimsmadefor
designintheexpandedfield,thisstudyhasreworkedexistingpublicationsand
casesandrecombineditwithresearchwithinSTS/ANTtoproposeaninventive
practiceperspectiveondesigning.ItisthispracticethatIworktowards
constitutingandwhichco-constituteswhatIdo,think,make,say,know,andfeel,
andhowandwhoandwhatIamasapractitionerandeducator.Itisthrough
beingpartoftheenactmentofaversionofthispracticeatparticularplacesand
times,thatIhavebeenabletowritethistext;andatthesametime,through
323
Page 323
writingthistext,Ihavebeeninvolvedinreconfiguringmyownprofessional
work.
324
Page 324
Bibliography
ABCTelevision.(1999).Nightline:TheDeepDive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkHOxyafGpE,lastaccessedDecember20,
2012.
Adkins,L.andLury,C.(2011).Whatistheempirical?EuropeanJournalofSocial
Theory.12(1):5-20.
Akrich,M.,Callon,M.,Latour,B.(2002a).Thekeytosuccessofinnovation:The
artofinteressment(Part1).InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,
6(2),187-206.
Akrich,M.,Callon,M.,Latour,B.(2002b).Thekeytosuccessofinnovation:The
artofchoosingagoodspokenperson(Part2).InternationalJournalof
InformationManagement,6(2),207-225.
Alexander,C.(1971).NotesontheSynthesisofForm.Cambridge:Harvard
UniversityPress.
Alexander,C.(1977).APatternLanguage:Towns,Buildings,Construction.Oxford:
OUP.
Anderson,R.(1994).Representationandrequirements:Thevalueof
ethnographyinsystemdesign.Human-ComputerInteraction,9(2),151-182.
Anthem.(2008).RecordingofTheHarmanReview:BrunoLatour’sEmpirical
Metaphysics.http://anthem-group.net/2008/02/08/recording-of-the-harman-
review-bruno-latours-empirical-metaphysics/,accessedMarch19,2013.
Anthrodesignmailinglist.http://anthrodesign.com/,accessedJanuary29,2013.
325
Page 325
Antonelli,Paola.(2008).DesignandTheElasticMind.NewYork:TheMuseumof
ModernArt.
Archer,B.(1979).ThethreeRs.DesignStudies,1(1),17-20.
Argyris,C.andSchön,D.(1978).OrganizationalLearning:ATheoryofAction
Perspective.Reading,MA:AddisonWesley.
ArtCenterPasadena.(2013).DesignMatters.
http://www.designmattersatartcenter.org/accessedFebruary25,2013.
Bærenholdt,J,Büscher,M.,Scheue,J.D.andSimonsen,J.(2010).Perspectiveson
designresearch.InSimonsen,J.,Bærenholdt,J.,
Büscher,M.,andScheue,J.D.(eds).DesignResearch:Synergiesfrom
interdisciplinaryperspectives.London:Routledge.1-15.
Banks,M.andMorphy,H.(1997).RethinkingVisualAnthropology.Yale.
Barad,K.(2003).Towardaposthumanperformativity:Towardan
understandingofhowmattercomestomatter.Signs:JournalofWomenin
CultureandSociety,28(3),801-831.
Barad,K.(2007).MeetingtheUniverseHalf-way:QuantumPhysicsandthe
EntanglementofMatterandMeaning.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress.
Barker,C.(2012).4thedition.CulturalStudies:TheoryandPractice.London:Sage.
Barry,A.(2001).PoliticalMachines.London:Athlone.
Barry,A.,Born,G.andWeszkalnys,G.(2008)Logicsofinterdisciplinarity.
EconomyandSociety,37(1),20-49.
Barry,A.andKimbell,L.(2005).Pindices.InLatour,B.andWeibel,P.(eds)
MakingThingsPublic:AtmospheresofDemocracy.Cambridge:MITPress.
Bason,C.(2010).LeadingPublicSectorInnovation:Co-creatingForABetter
Society.Bristol:PolicyPress.
326
Page 326
Basu,P.andMacdonald,S.(2007).Introduction:ExperimentsinExhibition,
Ethnography,ArtandScience.In:Macdonald,S.andBasu,P.(2007).Exhibition
Experiments.Oxford:Blackwell.
Bate,P.andRobert,G.(2007).BringingUserExperiencetoHealthcare
Improvement:TheConcepts,MethodsandPracticesofExperienceBasedDesign.
Oxford:Radcliffe.
Bergdoll,B.,Dickerman,L.,Buchloh,B.andDoherty,B.(2009).Bauhaus1919-
1933.NewYork:TheMuseumofModernArt.
Beyes,T.(2008).Reframingthepossible:Rancièreanaestheticsandthestudyof
organization.Aesthesis.2(1),32-41.
Biggs,M.A.R.andBüchler,D.(2008).Eightcriteriaforpractice-basedresearchin
thecreativeandculturalindustries.Art,DesignandCommunicationinHigher
Education.7(1),5-18.
Binder,T.,Brandt,E.andGregory,J.(2008):Designparticipation(-s)–acreative
commonsforongoingchange.CoDesign:InternationalJournalofCoCreationin
DesignandtheArts,4(2),79-83.
Binder,T.,deMichelis,G.,Jacucci,G.,Linde,P.,Wagner,I.(2011).DesignThings.
Cambridge:MITPress.
Bitner,M.J.(1992).Servicescapes:Theimpactofphysicalsurroundingson
customersandemployees.JournalofMarketing.56(2),57-71.
Bitner,M.J.,Ostrom,A.andMorgan,F.(2008).Serviceblueprinting:Apractical
techniqueforserviceinnovation.CaliforniaManagementReview.Spring2008,
50(3),66-94.
327
Page 327
Björgvinsson,E.,Ehn,P.andHillgren,P-A.(2010).Participatorydesignand
"democratizinginnovation".InProceedingsofthe11thBiennialParticipatory
DesignConference(PDC'10).ACM,NewYork,NY,USA,41-50.
Björgvinsson.E,Ehn.P.andHillgren.P-A,(2012).Agonisticparticipatorydesign:
workingwithmarginalisedsocialmovements.CoDesign:InternationalJournalof
CoCreationinDesignandtheArts,8:2-3,127-144.
Blaikie,N.(2002).DesigningSocialResearch.Cambridge:Polity.
Blomberg,J.,Suchman,L.andTrigg,R.(1996).ReflectionsonaWorkOriented
DesignProject.HumanComputerInteraction,11(3),237-265.
Boehner,K.,Gaver,W.andBoucher,A.(2012).In:Lury,C.andWakeford,N.(eds).
InventiveMethods:TheHappeningoftheSocial.London:Routledge,185-201.
Boland,R.andCollopy,F.(eds.)(2004).Managingasdesigning.PaloAlto:
Stanford.
Boradkar,P.(2010).DesigningThings:ACriticalIntroductiontotheCultureof
Objects.Oxford:Berg.
Borschke,M.(2012).RethinkingtheRhetoricofRemix.CopiesandMaterial
CultureinDigitalNetworks.PhDThesis.UniversityofNewSouthWales.
Bourriaud,N.(2002).RelationalAesthetics.Paris:LesPressesDuReel.
Botero,A.(2013).ExpandingDesignSpace(s):DesigninCommunalEndeavors.
PhDThesis.AaltoUniversity.
Brown,T.(2009).ChangebyDesign:HowDesignThinkingTransforms
OrganizationsandInspiresInnovation.NewYork:HarperCollins.
Bucciarelli,L.(1994).DesigningEngineers.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Buchanan,R.(1992).WickedProblemsinDesignThinking,DesignIssues,8(2),5-
21.
328
Page 328
Buchanan,R.(2001).DesignResearchandtheNewLearning.DesignIssues,17(4),
3-23.
Buchanan,R.andV.Margolin(eds).(1995).DiscoveringDesign:Explorationsin
DesignStudies.Chicago:ChicagoUniversityPress.
Burns,C.,Cottam,H.,Vanstone,C.andWinhall,J.(2006).REDpaper02:
TransformationDesign,London:DesignCouncil.
Buscher,M.,Urry,J.andWitchger.K.(2011a).Mobilemethods.InBuscher,M.,
Urry,J.andWitchger.K.(eds).MobileMethods.London:Routledge,1-19.
Buscher,M,Coulton,P,Hemment,D,andMogensen,PH.(2011b).Mobile,
Experimental,Public.InBuscher,M,JohnUrryandKatianWitchger(eds).Mobile
Methods.London:Routledge,119-137.
Button,G.(2000).TheEthnographicTraditionandDesign.DesignStudies,21(4),
319-332.
Buur,J.andMatthews,B.(2008).ParticipatoryInnovation.InternationalJournal
ofInnovationManagement,12(3),255.
Buur,Jacob.2011.ProceedingsoftheParticipatoryInnovationConference,13-
15January2011,Sønderborg,Denmark.
http://spirewire.sdu.dk/proceedings/PINC-proceedings-web.pdf,accessed
February25,2013.
Buxton,B.(2007).SketchingUserExperiences:GettingtheDesignRightandthe
RightDesign.SanFrancisco,CA:MorganKaufman.
Callon,M.(1986).Someelementsofasociologyoftranslation:Domesticationof
thescallopsandthefishermenofStBrieucBay.196-233inLaw,J.(ed)Power,
ActionandBelief:ANewSociologyofKnowledge?(RoutledgeandKeganPaul:
London).
329
Page 329
Callon,M.(1987).Societyinthemaking:Thestudyoftechnologyasatoolfor
sociologicalanalysis.InBijker,W.E.,Hughes,T.P.andPinch,T.J.(eds.)TheSocial
ConstructionofTechnicalSystems:NewDirectionsintheSociologyandHistoryof
Technology.Cambridge,Mass.andLondon,MITPress:83-10.
Callon,M.(2009).Civilizingmarkets:Carbontradingbetweeninvitroandinvivo
experiments.Accounting,OrganizationsandSociety,34(3),535-548.
Carlile,P.(2002).APragmaticViewofKnowledgeandBoundaries:Boundary
ObjectsinNewProductDevelopment.OrganizationScience,13(4),442-455.
Cefkin,M.(ed).(2009).EthnographyandtheCorporateEncounter.Berghahn
Books.
CentralStMartins.(2013).DesignAgainstCrimeResearchCentre.
http://www.designagainstcrime.com/,accessedApril4,2013.
Clarke,A.(2010).DesignAnthropology:ObjectCultureinthe21stCentury.Berlin:
Springer.
Clifford,J.,andMarcus,G.E.(1986).WritingCulture:ThePoeticsandPoliticsof
Ethnography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Collina,L.(2009).TrainingDesignersoftheFuture.ELISAVATdD26.
http://tdd.elisava.net/coleccion/26/collina-en,lastaccessedApril4,2013.
Continuum.(2013).2ovens.DesigningANewFoodExperience.
http://continuuminnovation.com/work/designing-a-new-food-experience/,
accessedFebruary25,2013.
Cook,M.R.(2011).Theemergenceandpracticeofco-designasamethodunder
NewLabour.PhDThesis.UniversityofEastLondon.
330
Page 330
Cooper-HewittNationalDesignMuseum.(2012).SocialImpactDesignSummit.
http://www.cooperhewitt.org/conversations/2012/02/21/social-impact-
design-summitaccessedFebruary25,2013.
Cottam,H.andLeadbeater,C.(2004).RedPaper01Health:Co-creatingServices.
London:DesignCouncil.
Cross,N.(1982).Designerlywaysofknowing.DesignStudies,3(4):221–7.
Cross,N.(2001).Designerlywaysofknowing:DesignDisciplineVersusDesign
Science.DesignIssues,17(3),49–55.
Cross,N.(2006).DesignerlyWaysofKnowing.Berlin:Springer.
Cross,N.(2007).Fortyyearsofdesignstudies.DesignStudies,28(1),1-4.
Cross,N.(2010).“DesignThinkingasaFormofIntelligence.”Proceedingsofthe
8thDesignThinkingResearchSymposium(DTRS8),Sydney,October19–20,99–
105.
CrossN.,Dorst,K.andRoozenburg,N.(eds).(1992).ResearchinDesignThinking.
Delft:DelftUniversityPress.
Cross,N.(2011).DesignThinking.Oxford:Berg.
Davis,A.,Webb,S.,Lackey,D.andDeVoss,D.N.(2010).Remix,Play,and
Remediation:UndertheorizedComposingPractices.InUrbanski,H.(ed),Writing
andthedigitalgeneration:Essaysonnewmediarhetoric.Jefferson,NC:
McFarland,186-197.
Denny,R.andSutherland,P.(eds).(forthcoming).SourcebookofBusiness
Anthropology.WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoastPress.
Denzin,N.K.(1997).Interpretiveethnography:Ethnographicpracticesforthe
21stcentury.London:Sage.
331
Page 331
DesignCouncil.(2007).DOTT.http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-
work/challenges/communities/dott-07/,accessedMarch20,2013.
DesignCouncil.DOTTCornwall.(2013).http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-
work/challenges/Communities/Dott-Cornwall1/,accessedMarch20,2013.
DesignCouncil.(2012).Challenges:StimulatingInnovation.
http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-work/challenges/,lastaccessed
December20,2012.
DesignforAllInstituteforIndia.(2013).http://www.designforall.in/accessed
March21,2013.
DesignHistorySociety.(2011).Conferencewebsite.
http://www.historiadeldisseny.org/congres/,accessedSeptember9,2011.
DesigntheNewBusiness.(2012).Featuring:Volkswagen–BenjaminSchulz&
LukasGolyszny.
http://www.designthenewbusiness.com/featuring/volkswagen-benjamin-
schulz-lukas-golyszny.html,accessedJuly2,2012.
DesignPhilosophyPapers.(2012).BeyondProgressiveDesign2.Issue1.
http://www.desphilosophy.com/dpp/home.html,accessedDecember2,2012.
DesignPhilosophyPapers.(2011).BeyondProgressiveDesign1.Issue3.
http://www.desphilosophy.com/dpp/home.html,accessedApril2,2013
DesignResearchSociety.(2010).Conferenceprogram.
http://www.drs2010.umontreal.ca/program.php,accessedMarch12,2013.
DesignResearchSociety.(2012).Proceedings.
http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/drs2012/drs2012-1.pdf,
accessedMarch12,2013.
332
Page 332
DesignResearchSociety.(2011).Website.
http://www.designresearchsociety.org/joomla/index.php/about/history.html,
accessedJune3,2011.
DESIS.(2013).Vision.http://www.desis-network.org/?q=content/vision,
accessedFebruary25,2013.
DesignObserver.(2013).http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/accessed
February25,2013.
Dewey,J.(1958).ArtasExperience.NewYork:Capricorn.
Dilnot,C.(1993).TheGift.DesignIssues,9(2),51-63.
DiSalvo,C.(2012).AdversarialDesign.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
DomusAcademy.(2013).MasterinServiceandExperienceDesignProgram.
http://www.domusacademy.com/site/home/master-programs/service-and-
experience-design/program.html,accessed11March2013.
Dorst,K.(2010).TheNatureofDesignThinking.Proceedingsofthe8thDesign
ThinkingResearchSymposium(DTRS8),Sydney,October19–20,131–9.
Dourish,P.(2001).WhereTheActionIs.Cambridge:MITPress.
Dourish,P.(2006).Implicationsfordesign.CHI,Montreal,April.
Downs,C.(2006).UnpublishedinterviewfromworkshopheldatSaïdBusiness
School,UniversityofOxford.
Drake,C.,Cerminaro,D.withDrenttel,W.(2010).DesignandtheSocialSector.
Ananotatedbibliography.
http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/feature/design-and-the-social-
sector-an-annotated-bibliography/30158/accessedFebruary25,2013.
DuGay,P,S.Hall,L.Janes,,H.MackayandK.Negus.(1997).DoingCultural
Studies:TheStoryoftheSonyWalkman.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.
333
Page 333
DundeeUniversity.2013.MasterofDesignforServices.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/design_for_services_mdes.htm,
accessedMarch11,2013.
Dunne,A.(1999).HertzianTales:ElectronicProducts,AestheticExperienceand
CriticalDesign.London:RCA:CRDResearchPublications.
Dunne,A.andRaby,F.(2002).DesignNoir:TheSecretLifeofElectronicObjects.
Birkhauser.
Dunne&Raby.(2011).CriticalDesignFAQ.
http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0,accessedMay10,
2011.
Dunne,D.andMartin,R.(2006).Designthinkingandhowitwillchange
managementeducation:Aninterviewanddiscussion.AcademyofManagement
Learning&Education,5(4),512–23.
EASST.(2010).Practicisingscienceandtechnology.Conferencegeneralthemes
andtracks.http://events.unitn.it/en/easst010/general-themes-and-tracks,last
accessedDecember20,2012.
EASST.(2012).Designanddisplacement:Socialstudiesofscienceand
technology.Conferenceprogramme.
http://files.conferencemanager.dk/medialibrary/51432ddb-bbe3-4327-85f4-
be3493077470/images/Final_program.pdf,lastaccessedDecember20,2012.
Ehn,P.(1988).Work-OrientedDesignofComputerArtifacts.Hillsdale,NJ:
LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.
Ehn,P.(2008).ParticipationinDesignThings.PDC'08ProceedingsoftheTenth
AnniversaryConferenceonParticipatoryDesign,Bloomington,Indiana,USA,
October1-4.
334
Page 334
Engeström,Y.andMiddleton,D.(1996).CognitionandCommunicationatWork.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Evenson,S.,andDubberly,H.(2010).Designingforservice:Creatingan
experienceadvantage.InSalvendy,G.andKarwoski,W.(eds)Introductionto
ServiceEngineering.Hoboeken,NJ:JohnWiley,403-413.
Ferry,J.(2009).Unpublishedinterview.
Findeli,A.(2001).Rethinkingdesigneducationforthe21stcentury:Theoretical,
methodologicalandethicaldiscussion.DesignIssues,17(1),5-17.
Findeli,A.andBousbaci,R.(2005).L’Éclipedel’OjectdanslesThéoriesdu
ProjectenDesign.Communicationproposéeau6ièmecolloqueinternationalet
biennaldel’Académieeuropéennededesign(EuropeanAcademyofDesign,
EAD)tenuàBrêmedu29au31mars2005souslethème«Design-Système-
Évolution».
Forty,A.(1986).ObjectsofDesire:DesignandSociety1750-1980.London:
ThamesandHudson.
Fry,T.(1999).ANewDesignPhilosophy:AnIntroductiontoDefuturing.Sydney:
UNSWPress.
Fry,T.(2007).“RedirectivePractice:AnElaboration”.DesignPhilosophyPapers
Issue1.
Fry,T.(2010).DesignFuturing:Sustainability,EthicsandNewPractice.Oxford:
Berg.
Funtowicz,S.andRavetz,J.(1993).Scienceforthepost-normalAge.Futures,
25(7),739-755.
335
Page 335
Futuregov.(2012).Benefitscamp.
http://wearefuturegov.com/2012/01/benefits-camp-read-all-about-it/,
accessedMarch20,2013.
Futuregov.(2013).Casserole.http://wearefuturegov.com/case-
study/casserole/accessedFebruary25,2013.
Garfinkel.H.1984.StudiesinEthnomethodology.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Gaver,W.andDunne,T.andPacenti,E.(1999).Design:Culturalprobes.
Interactions,6(1),21-29.
Gaver,B.,Beaver,J.andBenford,S.(2003).Ambiguityasaresourcefordesign.In
ProcCHI’03.ACMPress.233-240.
Gaver,W.andBoucher,A.,Pennington,S.andWalker,B.(2004).Culturalprobes
andthevalueofuncertainty.Interactions,11(5),53-36.
Geertz,C.(1973).Thickdescription:Towardaninterpretivetheoryofculture.In
Geertz,C.TheInterpretationofCultures:SelectedEssays.NewYork:BasicBooks:
3-30.
Gibson,J.J.(1979).TheEcologicalApproachtoVisualPerception.Boston:
HoughtonMifflin.
GlaserB.G.andStrauss,A.L.(1967).TheDiscoveryofGroundedTheory:
StrategiesforQualitativeResearch.NewYork:AldinedeGruyter.
GNU.(2013).IntroductiontoFreeSoftware,FreeSociety:TheSelectedEssaysof
RichardM.Stallman.http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/lessig-fsfs-intro.html,
accessedApril11,2013.
GlobalServiceJam.(2013).http://planet.globalservicejam.org/accessed
February25,2013.
336
Page 336
Greenbaum,J.andKyng,M.(1991).DesignatWork:CooperativeDesignof
ComputerSystems.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceEarlbaum.
Greenbaum,J.andLoi,D.(2012):Participation,thecamelandtheelephantof
design:Anintroduction.CoDesign:InternationalJournalofCoCreationinDesign
andtheArts,8:2-3,81-85
Greenwood,E.(1944).ExperimentalSociology:AStudyinMethod.NewYork:
King’sCrownPress.
Grimshaw,A.andRavetz,A.(2005).VisualizingAnthropology.Bristol:Intellect.
Gross,Matthias.(2010).IgnoranceandSurprise:Science,Society,andEcological
Design.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Grudin,J.andPoltrock,S.(2013).CSCW-ComputerSupportedCooperative
Work.In:Soegaard,M.andDam,F.R.(eds.).TheEncyclopediaofHuman-
ComputerInteraction,2ndEdition.Aarhus,Denmark:TheInteractionDesign
Foundation.Availableonlineathttp://www.interaction-
design.org/encyclopedia/cscw_computer_supported_cooperative_work.html,
accessedJanuary29,2013.
Hall,S.[1977]1992.Encoding/decoding.InHall,S.,Hobson,D.,Lowe,A.and
Willis,P.(eds).Culture,Media,Language:WorkingPapersinCulturalStudies,
1972-79.London:TaylorandFrancis,117-127.
Halse,J.(2008).DesignAnthropology:BorderlandExperimentswithParticipation,
PerformanceandSituatedIntervention.DoctoralThesis.TheITUniversityof
Copenhagen.
Halse,J.andClark,B.(2008).DesignRitualsandPerformativeEthnography.EPIC
ConferenceProceedings.
337
Page 337
Han,Qin.(2010).Principlesandpracticesofservicedesign.
http://designgeneralist.blogspot.co.uk/2010/09/thesis-published-practices-
and.html,accessedDecember1,2010.
Hamdi,N.(2004).SmallChange:AbouttheArtofPracticeandtheLimitsof
PlanninginCities.London:Earthscan.
Haraway.Donna.(1994).Agameofcat’scradle:ScienceStudies,feministstudies,
culturalstudies.Configurations,2(1),59-71.
Haraway,Donna.(1991).Simians,Cyborgs,andWomen.NewYork,Routledge.
Hargadon,A.B.andSutton,R.I.(1997).Technologybrokeringandinnovationina
productdevelopmentfirm.AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,42(4),716-749.
Harman,G.(2009).PrinceofNetworks:BrunoLatourandMetaphysics.
Melbourne:Re:Press.
Harman,G.(2010).TowardsSpeculativeRealism:EssaysandLectures.London:
ZeroBooks.
Hartwood,M,Procter,R,Slack,R,Voß,A,Büscher,M,Rouncefield,M,andRouchy,
P.(2002).Co-realisation:Towardsaprincipledsynthesisofethnomethodology
andparticipatorydesign.ScandinavianJournalofInformationSystems.14(20),9-
30.
Hatchuel,A.(2001).Towardsdesigntheoryandexpandablerationality:The
unfinishedprogrammeofHerbertSimon.JournalofManagementandGovernance,
5(3-4),260-273.
Hatchuel,A.andWeil,B.2009.C-Kdesigntheory:Anadvancedformulation.
ResearchinEngineeringDesign,19,181-192.
Henderson,K.(1999).OnlineandOnpaper:VisualRepresentations,VisualCulture,
andComputerGraphicsinDesignEngineering.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
338
Page 338
Hillgren,P-A.,Seravalli,A.andEmilson,A.Prototypingandinfrastructuringin
designforsocialinnovation.(2011).CoDesign,7(3-4),169-183.
Howard,J.(2013).Designforserviceblog.
http://designforservice.wordpress.com/accessedFebruary25,2013.
Hughes,J,Randall,D,andShapiro,D.(1992).FalteringfromEthnographyto
Design.ProceedingsofCSCW.115-122.Toronto:ACMPress
IDEO.(2008).Designforsocialimpact.
http://www.ideo.com/images/uploads/news/pdfs/IDEO_RF_Guide.pdfaccessed
February25,2013.
IDEO.(2011).Humancentereddesigntoolkit.
http://www.ideo.com/work/human-centered-design-toolkit/accessed
February25,2013.
ImaginationLancaster.(2011).DesignInPractice:Flexibility&Changewithin
HealthcareProviders.ResearchReport.
Ingram,J.,Shove,E.,&Watson,M.(2007).Productsandpractices:Selected
conceptsfromscienceandtechnologystudiesandfromsocialtheoriesof
consumptionandpractice.DesignIssues,23(2),3–16.
IIT.2012.
http://www.iit.edu/about/history/hall_of_fame/lazlo_moholy_nagy.shtml,
accessedJanuary13,2012.
Jenkins,H.(2008).ConvergenceCulture:WhereOldandNewMediaCollide.New
York:NYUPress.
Jégou,F.andManzini,E.(2008).CollaborativeServices:SocialInnovationand
DesignforSustainability.Milan:EdizioniPOLI.design.
Jones,J.C.(1970).DesignMethods.1stedition.London:Chichester:Wiley.
339
Page 339
Jones,J.C.(1980).OpusOne,NumberTwo.DesignStudies,(1)6,373-377.
Jones,J.C.andThornley,D.G.(1963).ConferenceonDesignMethods.Oxford:
PergamonPress.
Jones.MandSamalionis,F.(2008),FromSmallIdeastoRadicalService
Innovation.DesignManagementReview,19(1),20-27.
Jones,P.,Petrescu,D.andTill,J.(2005).ArchitectureandParticipation.Oxford:
SponPress.
Julier,G.(2007).DesignPracticewithinaTheoryofPractice.DesignPrinciples&
Practices:AnInternationalJournal.1(2),43-50.
Julier,G.(2008).TheCultureofDesign.2ndedition.London:Sage.
Julier,G.(2011).PoliticalEconomiesofDesignActivismandthePublicSector.
NordicDesignResearchConference,Helsinki.
http://ocs.sfu.ca/nordes/index.php/nordes/2011/paper/viewDownloadIntersti
tial/350/209,accessedApril5,2013.
Junginger,S.andSangiorgi,D.(2011).Publicpolicyandpublicmanagement;
contextualisingservicedesigninthepublicsector.InCooper,R.,Junginger,S.and
Lockwood,T.(eds)HandbookofDesignManagement.Oxford:Berg,480-494.
Kaptelinin,V.andNardi,B.(2006).ActingwithTechnology:ActivityTheoryand
InteractionDesign.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Kelley,T.(2001).TheArtofInnovation:LessonsinCreativityfromIDEO.New
York:DoubleDay.
Kensing,F.,andBlomberg,J.(1998).ParticipatoryDesign:IssuesandConcerns.
ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork,7(3-4):167–185.
Kimbell,L.(2009).TheTurntoServiceDesign.InJulier,G.andMoor,L.(eds).
DesignandCreativity:Policy,ManagementandPractice.Oxford:Berg,157-173.
340
Page 340
Kimbell,L.(2011a).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part1.DesignandCulture,3(3),
285-306.
Kimbell,L.(2011b)DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigningServices.
InternationalJournalofDesign,5(2),41-52.
Kimbell,L.(2012).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part2.DesignandCulture,4(2),
129-148.
Kimbell,L.(2013).TheObjectStrikesBack:AnInterviewwithGrahamHarman.
DesignandCulture,5(1),103-117.
Kimbell,L.(forthcoming).Renderingcollectiveissuesdo-ableandathumanscale.
InDenny,R.andSutherland,P.(eds).(forthcoming).SourcebookofBusiness
Anthropology.WalnutCreek,CA:LeftCoastPress.
Kimbell,L.andSeidel,V.P.(eds)(2008).DesigningforServicesinScienceand
Technology-basedEnterprises,Oxford:SaïdBusinessSchool.
King,A.(1995).ReviewofDesignMethodsandDesigningDesigning.Journalof
DesignHistory.8(1),70-75.
Krippendorff,K.(2006).TheSemanticTurn:ANewFoundationforDesign,Boca
Raton:CRCPress.
Kuhn,T.(1962).TheStructureofScientificRevolutions.UniversityofChicago
Press.
LancasterUniversity.Experimentality:InstituteforAdvancedStudiesAnnual
ResearchProgramme2009-10.http://www.lancs.ac.uk/experimentality/,
accessedAugust26,2011.
Latour,B.(1987).ScienceinAction:HowtoFollowScientistsandEngineers
throughSociety.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
341
Page 341
Latour,B.(1993).WeHaveNeverBeenModern.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Latour,B.(1999).Pandora'sHope:EssaysontheRealityofScienceStudies.
Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress.
Latour,Bruno.(2005).ReassemblingtheSocial:AnIntroductiontoActor-
Network-Theory.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Latour,BrunoandWeibel,Peter(eds.)(2005).MakingThingsPublic:
AtmospheresofDemocracy.Cambridge:MITPress.
Latour,B.(2008).ACautiousPrometheus?AFewStepsTowardaPhilosophyof
Design(withSpecialAttentiontoPeterSloterdijk).Keynotelectureforthe
NetworksofDesignmeetingoftheDesignHistorySocietyFalmouth,Cornwall.
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL-
GB.pdf,lastaccessedDecember20,2012.
Latour,B.,Harman,G.andErdélyi,P.(2011).ThePrinceandtheWolf:Latour
andHarmanattheLSE.Alresford:Zerobooks.
Latour,B.andWoolgar,S.(1986)LaboratoryLife:TheConstructionofScientific
Facts.Chichester:PrincetonUniversityPress.
Law,J.(2004).AfterMethod:MessinSocialScienceResearch.London:Routledge.
Lawson,B.(1997).HowDesignersThink:TheDesignProcessDemystified.3rd
edition.London:ArchitecturalPress.
Leadbeater,C.(2008).We-think:ThePowerofMassCreativity.London:Profile
BooksLtd.
Lessig,L.(1999).Codeandotherlawsofcyberspace.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Lessig,L.(2001).TheFutureofIdeas:TheFateoftheCommonsinaConnected
World.NewYork:KnopfDoubleday.
342
Page 342
Lessig,L.(2008).Remix:MakingArtandCommerceThriveintheHybridEconomy.
PenguinPress.
Lethem,J.(2007).TheEcstasyofInfluence,HarpersMagazine,February.
http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/the-ecstasy-of-influence/,lastaccessed
April1,2013.
Lippard,L.(1973).SixYears:TheDematerializationoftheArtObject.Berkeley,
CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
LondonCollegeofCommunication.(2013).MDesServiceDesignInnovation.
About.http://mdesservicedesigninnovation.co.uk/Mdes/About.html,accessed
April8,2013.
LondonSchoolofEconomics.(2011).PublicPolicyGroupseminarseries.
Innovatingthroughdesigninpublicservices,2010–2011.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/government/research/resgroups/LSEPublicPolicy/even
ts/PPG_Seminars.aspxaccessedFebruary25,2013.
Loi,D.(2007).Reflectiveprobes,primitiveprobesandplayfultriggers.
EthnographicPraxisinIndustryConference,Keystone,CO.
Luff,P.,Hindmarsh,J.andHeath,C.(eds).(2000).WorkplaceStudies:Recovering
WorkPracticeandInformingSystemDesign.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Macdonald,S.andBasu,P.(2007).ExhibitionExperiments.Oxford:Blackwell.
Maglio,P.P.,Srinivasan,S.,Kreulen,J.T.,andSpohrer,J.(2006).Servicesystems,
servicescientists,SSME,andinnovation.CommunicationsoftheACM,49(7),81-
85.
343
Page 343
Manzini,E.(2007).Alaboratoryofideas.Diffusedcreativityandnewwaysof
doing.InMeroni,A.(ed)Creativecommunities.Peopleinventingsustainableways
ofliving.Milan:EdizioniPoli.Design,13-15.
Manzini,E.(2010a).Small,Local,Open,andConnected:DesignforSocial
InnovationandSustainability.JournalofDesignStrategies,4(1):8-11.
Manzini,E.(2010b).UnpublishedseminaratDOTTCornwall.
Marcus,G.E.(1995).Ethnographyin/oftheworldsystem:Theemergenceof
multi-sitedethnography.AnnualReviewofAnthropology.24:95-117.
Margolin,V.(1991).Designstudiesandtheeducationofdesigners.Pedagogiadel
Disseny.TemesdeDisseny(6).http://tdd.elisava.net/coleccion/6/margolin-ca,
lastaccessedJanuary9,2013.
Margolin,V.(1995).Theproductmilieuandsocialaction.InBuchanan,R.and
Margolin,V.(eds.),DiscoveringDesign:ExplorationsinDesignStudies.Chicago:
ChicagoUniversityPress,121-145.
Margolin,V.(1997).Gettingtoknowtheuser.DesignStudies,18(3),227-236.
Margolin,V.(1998).DesignforaSustainableWorld.DesignIssues.14(2),83-9
Margolin,V.,andMargolin,S.(2002)A“socialmodel”ofdesign:Issuesof
practiceandresearch.DesignIssues18(4),24-30.
Marres,N.(2009).TestingPowersofEngagement:GreenLivingExperiments,the
OntologicalTurnandtheUndoabilityofInvolvement.EuropeanJournalofSocial
Theory,12(1):117–133.
Marres,N.(2011).Thecostsofpublicinvolvement.Everydaydevicesofcarbon
accountingandthematerializationofparticipation.EconomyandSociety,40(4),
510-533.
344
Page 344
Marres,N.(2012).Theexperimentinliving.InLury,C.andWakeford,N.(eds).
InventiveMethods:TheHappeningoftheSocial.London:Routledge,76-95.
Marshall,C.andRossman,G.B.(1995).DesigningQualitativeResearch.London:
Sage.
Martin,R.(2009).TheDesignofBusiness:WhyDesignThinkingistheNext
CompetitiveAdvantage.Cambridge:HarvardBusinessPress.
McCullough,K.(2012).EcosystemsRuleOverProductsNow.Here’sHow
Samsung’sDesignersAreCoping.
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1669854/ecosystems-rule-over-products-now-
heres-how-samsungs-designers-are-coping,accessedMarch12,2013.
McGoey,,L.(2012).Strategicunknowns:towardsasociologyofignorance.
EconomyandSociety,41(1),1-16.
McKee,H.(2008).Ethicalandlegalissuesforwritingresearchersinanageof
mediaconvergence.ComputersandComposition,25(1),104–122.
Meroni,A.(ed).(2007).CreativeCommunities.Peopleinventingsustainableways
ofliving.Milano:EdizioniPoli.Design.
Meroni,A.andSangiorgi,D.(2011).ANewDiscipline.InMeroni,A.and
Sangiorgi,D.(eds).DesignforServices.Aldershot:Gower,9-33.
Michlewski,K.(2008).Uncoveringdesignattitude:Insidethecultureof
designers.OrganizationStudies,29(3):373-392.
Miles,M.B.andHuberman,A.M.(1994).QualitativeDataAnalysis:AnExpanded
Sourcebook.NewburyPark:Sage.
MindLab.(2011).AboutMindLab.http://www.mind-
lab.dk/assets/116/ml_folder_eng.pdf,accessedJuly15,2011.
345
Page 345
Mitchell,C.T.(1992).Prefacetothesecondedition.InJones,J.C.DesignMethods.
2ndedition.London:JohnWiley.
Moggridge,B.(2006).DesigningInteractions.Cambridge:MITPress.
Mol,A.(2002).TheBodyMultiple.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Morelli,N.(2002).Designingproduct/servicesystems:amethodological
exploration.DesignIssues,18(3),3-17.
Mulgan.G.(2006).SocialInnovation:Whatisit,Whyitmatters,andHowitcanbe
accelerated.Oxford:SkollCentreforSocialEntrepreneurship.
Munari,B.(2009).DesignArt.London:Penguin.
Nader,L.2011.Ethnographyastheory.HAU:JournalofEthnographicTheory1
(1):211-219
Nardi,B.(1996a).ActivityTheoryandHuman-ComputerInteraction.InNardi,B.
(ed)ContextandConsciousness:ActivityTheoryandHumanComputer
Interaction.Cambridge:MITPress,7-16.
Nardi,B.(1996b).StudyingContext:AComparisonofActivityTheory,Situated
ActionModels,andDistributedCognition.InNardi,B.(ed)Contextand
Consciousness:ActivityTheoryandHumanComputerInteraction.Cambridge:
MITPress,35-52.
Neuhart,J.,Neuhart,M.,Eames,R.(1989).EamesDesign.Theworkoftheofficeof
CharlesandRayEames.NewYork:HarryAbrams.
Neyland,D.(2008).OrganizationalEthnography.London:Sage.
Norman,D.A..(1988).ThePsychologyofEverydayThings.NewYork:BasicBooks:
45-46.
Norman,D.A.(1990).TheDesignofEverydayThings.NewYork:Doubleday.
346
Page 346
Norman,D.2011.Affordancesanddesign.
http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/affordances_and.html,accessedApril12,2011.
Nowotny,H,Scott,P.andGibbons,M.(2001).RethinkingScience,Knowledgeand
thePublicinAnAgeofUncertainty.Cambridge:PolityPress.
Nussbaum,B.,Pilloton,E.Fabricant,R.Popova,M.andStairs,D.(2010).
HumanitarianDesignversusDesignImperialism:DebateSummary.Design
Observer.http://changeobserver.designobserver.com/feature/humanitarian-
design-vs-design-imperialism-debate-summary/14498/accessedMarch12,
2013.
Nussbaum,B.(2011).DesignThinkingisafailedexperiment.Sowhat’snext?
FastCompany.http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-
failed-experiment-so-whats-next,accessedApril4,2013.
Ong,A.,andCollier,S.(2005).GlobalAssemblages:Technology,Politics,andEthics
asAnthropologicalProblems.Malden,MA:Blackwell.
Papanek,V.(1985)DesignfortheRealWorld:HumanEcologyandSocialChange.
London:ThamesandHudson.
PDC.(2012)WorkshopExploringANTinPD:Reflectionsandimplicationsfor
theoryandpractice.http://pdc2012.org/WS114.html,accessed20December
2012.
PhD-Designmailinglist.(2011).https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-
bin/webadmin?A0=phd-design,accessedNovember1,2011.
Parker,S.andHeapy,J.(2006).TheJourneytotheInterface:HowPublicService
DesignCanConnectUserstoReform.London:Demos.
Penin,L.(forthcoming).Amplifyinginnovativesustainableurbanbehaviors.
Definingadesign-ledapproachtosocialinnovation.InCrocker,R.,andLehmann,
347
Page 347
S.(eds).BehaviourChange,ConsumptionandSustainableDesign(workingtitle).
London:Earthscan.
Pilloton,E.(2009).DesignRevolution:100ProductsthatEmpowerPeople.New
York:MetropolisBooks.
Pink,S.(2007).DoingVisualAnthropology.London:Sage.
Pink.S.(2006).TheFutureofVisualAnthropology:EngagingtheSenses.London:
Routledge.
Polaine,A.,Løvlie,L.andReason,B.(2013).ServiceDesign.NewYork:Rosenfeld
Media.
POLIMI.(2008).ChangingtheChangeConference:Designvisions,proposalsand
tools.http://emma.polimi.it/emma/showEvent.do?idEvent=23,accessed
February25,2013.
Rancière,J.(2004)ThePoliticsofAesthetics.Translatedwithanintroductionby
GabrielRockhill.London:Continuum.
Ravasi,D.andRindova,V.(2008).SymbolicValueCreation.InBarry,D.and
Hansen,H(eds.)TheSageHandbookofNewApproachesinManagementand
Organization.London:Sage.
Rawsthorne.A.(2013).HelloWorld.Wheredesignmeetslife.London:Penguin.
Rayner.S.(2006).JackBealeMemorialLectureonGlobalEnvironment.Wicked
problems:Clumsysolutions–DiagnosesandPrescriptionsforEnvironmentalIlls.
http://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/research/Documents/Steve%20Rayner/Steve%20Ray
ner,%20Jack%20Beale%20Lecture%20Wicked%20Problems.pdf,accessed
November11,2009.
Reckwitz,A.(2002).Towardsatheoryofsocialpractices:Adevelopmentin
culturalisttheorizing.EuropeanJournalofSocialTheory,5(2),243–63.
348
Page 348
Redmiles,D.(2002).IntroductiontotheSpecialIssueonActivityTheoryandthe
PracticeofDesign.ComputerSupportedCooperativeWork,11(1-2):1–11.
Rittel,H.andWebber,M.(1973).Dilemmasinageneraltheoryofplanning.
PolicySciences,4(2),155-169.
Roberts,P.(1992)OfModels,ModellingandDesign:AnAppliedPhilosophical
Enquiry.In:AframeworkforDesignandDesignEducation:Areadercontaining
papersfromthe1970sand80s.2005.LoughboroughUniversity.Designand
TechnologyAssociation.22-33.
RoyalCollegeofArt.(2012).ServiceDesignProgrammeOverview.
http://www.rca.ac.uk/Default.aspx?ContentID=514886&GroupID=514706&Con
tentwithinthissection&More=1,accessed15December2012.
RoyalSocietyforArts.(2012).StudentDesignAwards.
http://www.thersa.org/sda,accessed15December2012.
Russell,C.(1999).ExperimentalEthnography:TheWorkofFilmintheAgeof
Video.Durham:DukeUniversityPress.
Rust,C.(2007).UnstatedContributions:HowArtisticInquiryCanInform
InterdisciplinaryResearch.InternationalJournalofDesign,1(3):69-76.
Salter,A.andTether,B.(2006),InnovationinServices:ThroughtheLookingGlass
ofInnovationStudies,BackgroundpaperforAdvancedInstituteofManagement
(AIM)Research’sGrandChallengeonServiceScience,Oxford:SaïdBusiness
School.
Sanders,L.(2006).DesignServingPeople,inCopenhagen.CumulusWorkingPapers,
PublicationSeriesG,UniversityofArtandDesignHelsinki,28-33.
349
Page 349
Sanders,L.andStappers,P.J.(2008)Co-creationandthenewlandscapesof
design.CoDesign:InternationalJournalofCoCreationinDesignandtheArts,4(1),
5-18.
Salvador,T,Bell,G.andAnderson,k.(1999).Designethnography.Design
ManagementReview.10(4):35-41.
Sangiorgi,D.andClark,B.(2004).Towardaparticipatorydesignapproachto
servicedesign.ArtfulIntegration.InterweavingMedia,MaterialsandPractices,
ParticipatoryDesignConferencePDC2004,Toronto.
Schatzki,T.R.(2001).Introduction:Practicetheory.InSchatzki,T.R.,Cetina,K.K.
andvonSavigny,E.(eds.).ThePracticeTurninContemporaryTheory.London,
Routledge,10-23.
ServiceDesignResearch.(2013).http://www.servicedesignresearch.com/
accessedMarch20,2013.
Shapin,S.andSchaffer,S.(1985).LeviathanandtheAir-Pump:Hobbes,Boyleand
theExperimentalLife.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,22-79.
Schaffer,S.(2005).PublicExperiments.InLatour,B.andWeibel,P.(eds).Making
ThingsPublic:AtmospheresofDemocracy.Cambridge:MITPress
Schön,D.(1987).TheReflectivePractitioner:HowProfessionalsThinkinAction.
NewYork:BasicBooks.
Schneider,A.andWright,C.(eds)(2006)ContemporaryArtandAnthropology,
Berg.
SchoolofVisualArts.(2013).DesignforSocialInnovation.Approach.
http://dsi.sva.edu/program/approach/accessedFebruary25,2013.
Secomandi,F.(2012).InterfaceMatters:PostphenomenologicalPerspectiveson
ServiceDesign.PhD.TUDelft.
350
Page 350
Secomandi,F.(2013).Thinkingthroughtheserviceinterface:AstudyofPhilips
DirectLife.DesignPhilosophyPapers,1.
http://www.desphilosophy.com/dpp/dpp_journal/journal.html,accessedMarch
11,2013.
Secomandi,F.andSnelders,D.(2011).TheObjectofServiceDesign.Design
Issues27(3),20-34.
Servdes.(2013).ServiceDesignandInnovationConference
http://www.servdes.org/accessedMarch11,2012.
ServiceDesignNetwork.(2011).FactsandFigures2011.http://www.service-
design-
network.org/system/files/media/SDN%20Annual%20Report%202011_final.pd
f,accessedFebruary25,2013.
ServiceDesignNetwork.(2013a).ServiceDesignNetwork.http://www.service-
design-network.org/,accessedFebruary25,2013.
ServiceDesignNetwork.(2013b).SDNConferences.http://www.service-design-
network.org/content/sdn-conferences,accessedFebruary25,2013.
ServiceDesignNetwork.(2013c).Listofuniversitiesofferingservicedesign.
http://www.service-design-network.org/studyaccessed11March2013.
ServiceDesignNetwork.(2013d).Thejournal.http://www.service-design-
network.org/tp-start,accessedMarch11,2013.
ServiceDesigning.(2013).http://servicedesigning.org/accessedMarch2,2013.
ServiceDesignThinking.(2013).http://thisisservicedesignthinking.com/,
accessedMarch11,2013.
Shostack,G.L.(1982)Howtodesignaservice.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,
16(1),49-63.
351
Page 351
Shostack,G.L.(1984)Designingservicesthatdeliver.HarvardBusinessReview,
62(1),133-139.
Shove,E.(2006).AManifestoforPracticeOrientedProductDesign.Document
presentedatthedesigningandconsumingworkshop,Durham,UK.
Shove,E.,Watson,M,Hand,M.,andIngram,J.(2007).TheDesignofEverydayLife.
Oxford:Berg.
SILK.(2010).SILKmethoddeck.http://socialinnovation.typepad.com/silk/silk-
method-deck.html,accessed4April4,2013.
Simon,H.A.(1969).TheSciencesoftheArtificial.1stedition.Cambridge,MA:
MITPress.
Simon,Herbert.A.(1996).TheSciencesoftheArtificial.3rdedition.Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.
Singleton,B.(2012).OnCraftandBeingCrafty:HumanBehaviourastheObject
ofDesign.PhDThesis.UniversityofNorthumbria.
Sismondo,S.(2011).AnIntroductiontoScienceandTechnologyStudies.2nd
edition.Chichester:JohnWiley.
SkollWorldForuminSocialEntrepreneurship.(2013).
http://skollworldforum.org/accessedMarch11,2013.
SocialDesignTalks.(2013).http://socialdesigntalks.org/,accessedMarch11,
2013.
SocialInnovationCamp.(2013).http://sicamp.org/accessedApril4,2013.
SocialInnovationExchange.(2013).http://www.socialinnovationexchange.org,
March20,2013.
Sparke,P.(2010).TheGeniusofDesign.London:QuadrillePublishing.
352
Page 352
Spohrer,J.andMaglio,P.(2008).TheemergenceofServiceScience:Toward
systematicserviceinnovationstoaccelerateco-creationofvalue.Productionand
OperationsManagement,17(3):238–246.
Spry,T.(2001).PerformingAutoethnography:AnEmbodiedMethodological
Praxis.QualitativeInquiry,7(6):706-732.
Squires,S.andByrne,B.(eds.)(2002).CreatingBreakthroughIdeas:The
CollaborationofAnthropologistsandDesignersintheProductDevelopment
Industry.Westport,CT:Bergin&Garvey.
Star,S.L.(1999).Theethnographyofinfrastructure.TheAmericanBehavioural
Scientist.43(3),377-391.
Star,S.L.andGriesemer,J.R.(1989).InstitutionalEcology,Translationsand
BoundaryObjects:AmateursandProfessionalsinBerkeley’sMuseumof
VertebrateZoology,1907-39.SocialStudiesofScience,19(3),387-420.
Stickdorn,M.andSchneider,J.(2010).ThisisServiceDesignThinking:Basic,
Tools,Cases.Amsterdam:BISPublishers.
Struthers,A.(2009).Unpublishedinterview.
Suchman,L.(1987).PlansandSituatedActions.NewYork:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Suchman,L.(2002a).Locatedaccountabilitiesintechnologyproduction.
ScandinavianJournalofInformationSystems.14(2),91-105.
Suchman,L.(2002b).Practice-baseddesignofinformationsystems.Notesfrom
theHyperdevelopedWorld.TheInformationSociety,18(2),139-144.
Suchman,L.(2005).Affiliativeobjects.Organization,12(3),379–399.
Suchman,L.(2012).Configuration.In:Lury,C.andWakeford,N.(eds).Inventive
Methods:TheHappeningoftheSocial.London:Routledge.
353
Page 353
Suchman,L.,Blomberg,J.Orr,J.,andTrigg,R.(1999).Reconstructing
TecholnogiesasSocialPractice.TheAmericanBehaviouralScientist,43(3),392-
407.
TASCI.(2012).http://www.tacsi.org.au/,accessedNovember20,2013.
Thorpe,A.(2012).ArchitectureandDesignversusConsumerism:HowDesign
ActivismConfrontsGrowth.London:Routledge.
Thorpe,A.andGamman,L.(2011).Designandsociety:Whysociallyresponsive
designisgoodenough.CoDesign:InternationalJournalofCocreationinDesign
andtheArts,7(3-4),217-230.
Thrift,N.(2005).KnowingCapitalism.London:Sage.
Thrift,N.(2008).Non-RepresentationalTheory.Abingdon:Routledge.
Tonkinwise,C.(2011).AmplifyingCreativeCommunities2011Northwest
Brooklyn:KindsandProductofSocialDesign,Part1.Core77blog20Dec2011.
http://tinyurl.com/d6mjdzd,accessedFebruary20,2012.
Tonkinwise,C.(2011).Atasteforpractices:Unrepressingstyleindesign
thinking.DesignStudies,32(6),533-545.
Vargo,S.L.,&Lusch,R.F.(2004).Evolvingtoanewdominantlogicinmarketing.
JournalofMarketing,68(1),1-17.
VanPatter,G.(2005).NextDJournal.ReRethinkingDesign.GKVanPatterin
conversationwithDavidKelley.Conversation21.Designasglue:Understanding
theStanfordD-school.http://issuu.com/nextd/docs/conv21,accessed
December20,2012.
VanPatter,G.(2009).Understandingfuturesthathavealreadyarrived.
http://issuu.com/humantific/docs/nextdfutures09,accessedDecember20,
2012.
354
Page 354
Verganti.R.(2009).Design-drivenInnovation.ChangingtheRulesofCompetition
byRadicallyInnovatingWhatThingsMean.Boston:HarvardBusinessPress.
Voss,C.andZomerdijk,L.(2007).InnovationinExperientialServices–An
EmpiricalView.In:DTI(ed).InnovationinServices.London:DTI.
Wakeford,N.(2005).Craft,Value,andtheFetishismofMethod.Proceedingsof
theEthnographicPraxisinIndustryConference.75-80.
Wang,T.(2010).Anewparadigmfordesignstudioeducation.International
JournalofArt&DesignEducation,29(2),173-183.
Wasson,C.(2000).EthnographyintheFieldofDesign.HumanOrganization,
59(4),377-388.
Wilkie,A.(2010).UserAssemblagesinDesign:AnEthnographicStudy.Doctoral
thesis.Goldsmiths,UniversityofLondon.
Wilkie,A.(2011).Regimesofdesign,logicsofusers.AtheneaDigital,11(1),317-
334.
Wilkie,A.andMichael,M.(2009).Expectationandmobilization:enactingfuture
users.Science,TechnologyandHumanValues,34(4),502-522.
Winograd,T.andFlores,F.(1986).UnderstandingComputersandCognition:A
NewFoundationforDesign.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
White,H.(2013).MasterofDesignforServices.
http://www.slideshare.net/HazelWhite/design-for-services-at-the-university-
of-dundee-11923087,accessedMarch11,2013.
Woolgar,S.(1991).Configuringtheuser:Thecaseofusabilitytrials.InLaw,J.
(ed).ASociologyofMonsters:EssaysonPower,TechnologyandDomination.
London:Routledge,66-75.
355
Page 355
Yaneva,A.(2005)ScalingupandDown:Extractiontrialsinarchitecturaldesign.
SocialStudiesofScience,35(6):867-94.
Yin,RobertK.(1994).CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods.ThousandOaks:
SagePublications.
YoungFoundation.(2012).SocialInnovationOverview-PartI:Definingsocial
innovation.Availablefrom
http://www.tepsie.eu/images/documents/TEPSIE.D1.1.Report.DefiningSocialIn
novation.Part%201%20-%20defining%20social%20innovation.pdf,accessed
April2,2013.
356