This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Structuring roles in Research through Design collaboration SLEESWIJK VISSER Froukje ID-StudioLab, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology [email protected] doi: 10.21606/dma.2017.297 In Research through Design knowledge is generated, but not always captured and shared effectively. When working in a multidisciplinary team of, e.g. designers, design researchers, academic researchers and domain practitioners confusion about roles, processes, and results easily occurs. In a series of three Research through Design cases we developed a set of role descriptions to help structuring the collaboration in such projects, using different configurations of people, roles and documentation tools. We conclude with a structure for assigning roles that enables multidisciplinary teams to make their Research through Design process more explicit, reflect on their activities as part of process data, and propose moments to capture knowledge from all actors involved. Research through design, collaboration, design documentation 1. Introduction Research through Design (abbreviated in this paper as RtD) covers a range of approaches in which design and research activities inform each other with the aims of generating new insight and new solutions. Most academic discussions of RtD concern work of academic researchers (in PhD positions or beyond, often with a design background). When an RtD project involves multiple actors in a multi- faceted project, collaboration can become rather challenging. Different actors are often strongly motivated and dedicated in willing to improve the current situation, come from very different backgrounds, and bring in a wide variety in expertise knowledge, skills and language. In the last two decades design is increasingly addressing complex and social issues (Norman, 2010; Kimbell, 2011; Dorst, 2011; Sanders and Stappers, 2014; Sustar and Mattelmäki, 2017). The design discipline has broadened from traditional product design to the domain of social transformations (e.g. transforming healthcare; Jones and van Patter, 2008). In social design and service design the domain is often complex, and projects typically involve multi-disciplinary teams. The complexity of design problems expands and designer’s practice is changing, requiring new methods, practices and roles and new networks to collaborate with (Kimbell, 2011). Stakeholders in design processes are no longer designers’ direct clients, but rather a network of different stakeholders. Rygh (2013) suggests new roles for designers such as connectors between diverse stakeholders, facilitators of co-creation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
StructuringrolesinResearchthroughDesigncollaborationSLEESWIJKVISSERFroukje
ID-StudioLab,FacultyofIndustrialDesignEngineering,[email protected]:10.21606/dma.2017.297
In Research throughDesign knowledge is generated, but not always captured andshared effectively. When working in a multidisciplinary team of, e.g. designers,designresearchers,academicresearchersanddomainpractitionersconfusionaboutroles, processes, and results easily occurs. In a series of three Research throughDesign cases we developed a set of role descriptions to help structuring thecollaboration in such projects, using different configurations of people, roles anddocumentationtools.Weconcludewithastructureforassigningrolesthatenablesmultidisciplinary teams to make their Research through Design process moreexplicit,reflectontheiractivitiesaspartofprocessdata,andproposemomentstocaptureknowledgefromallactorsinvolved.
Researchthroughdesign,collaboration,designdocumentation
1. IntroductionResearchthroughDesign(abbreviatedinthispaperasRtD)coversarangeofapproachesinwhichdesignandresearchactivitiesinformeachotherwiththeaimsofgeneratingnewinsightandnewsolutions.MostacademicdiscussionsofRtDconcernworkofacademicresearchers(inPhDpositionsorbeyond,oftenwithadesignbackground).WhenanRtDprojectinvolvesmultipleactorsinamulti-facetedproject,collaborationcanbecomeratherchallenging.Differentactorsareoftenstronglymotivatedanddedicatedinwillingtoimprovethecurrentsituation,comefromverydifferentbackgrounds,andbringinawidevarietyinexpertiseknowledge,skillsandlanguage.
Inthelasttwodecadesdesignisincreasinglyaddressingcomplexandsocialissues(Norman,2010;Kimbell,2011;Dorst,2011;SandersandStappers,2014;SustarandMattelmäki,2017).Thedesigndisciplinehasbroadenedfromtraditionalproductdesigntothedomainofsocialtransformations(e.g.transforminghealthcare;JonesandvanPatter,2008).Insocialdesignandservicedesignthedomainisoftencomplex,andprojectstypicallyinvolvemulti-disciplinaryteams.Thecomplexityofdesignproblemsexpandsanddesigner’spracticeischanging,requiringnewmethods,practicesandrolesandnewnetworkstocollaboratewith(Kimbell,2011).Stakeholdersindesignprocessesarenolongerdesigners’directclients,butratheranetworkofdifferentstakeholders.Rygh(2013)suggestsnewrolesfordesignerssuchasconnectorsbetweendiversestakeholders,facilitatorsofco-creation
andinstigatorstogetanideaforwardtowardsimplementation.Manzini(2015)suggestsseveralstructurestoorganisesocialinnovationwithdesignersandnon-designers,e.g.,citizens,wherenon-designersbecomethechangecatalysts,andwheredesignerstakeamoreresearch-orientedattitudeandfacilitatingrole.Whenmanyactorsfrompracticeareinvolveddesignersarefacedwithchallengestoorchestrate,facilitateandmoderatealltheirinputsandactivities.Raijmakers,VervloedandWierda(2015)describesuchorchestrationactivities,e.g.buildinginvolvementandsteeringlargerprocesses,andsuggestthattheseactivitiescontinuebeyondtheclassicaldesignprocessthatendswhenasolutionisproduced.Inthispaper,wefocusonRtDprojectsinvolvingmultipleactorswithvariyingexpertiseinresearch,indesign,andinthedomainwheretheprojectisconducted.WeaddressthequestionofhowtoorganisethecollaborativeRtDprocess.WedescribeanRtDproject,MyFutures,inwhichvariouspartiesandexpertisewereinvolved(seetable1).Theprojectrequiredcollaborationofallinvolvedparties,andaimedatbothnewknowledgegenerationandpragmaticguidelinesforimprovingthecurrentsituation.Participatingactorsbroughtdifferentcapabilitiesandskillsregardingdesignresearch,domainknowledge,anddifferentamountsoftimeavailablefortheproject.Thechallengewastointegrateallexpertiseandstructurethecollaborativecasestudiesinthisproject.Atthestartoftheprojectdetailsofcollaborationcouldnotbeplanned,astopics,needs,andopportunitiesemergedanddevelopedastheprojectunfolded.InthenextsectionwereviewliteratureonRtDmethodologyandpositionourprojectwithinit.
Table1 KeydataabouttheMyFuturesproject.Aim Tosupportpeopleinarrangingtheirownolderfuturelivesonourchangingsociety
Phenomenon Thinkingaboutandanticipatingonyourownpersonalfutureliveswhengettingolder,whilethesocietalcontextischangingfromstate-drivencaretoself-organisedcare
Researchquestions
1.Howdopeople(not)dealwiththeirownfuturesintheireverydaylives?
2.Howcannotionsofpeople’sownfuturesbestretchedtowardsseeingpluraloptionsandmoreawarenessofownneedsandwishes?
Method Literaturestudiesanddesignresearch(in-homeinterviews)toanswerthefirstresearchquestion.Casestudiesinpracticewithdesigninterventionstogaininsightsforbothresearchquestions.
Involvedparties 6designresearchersfromuniversityanddesignschool,allwithdesignanddesignresearchexpertise(throughbackgroundordesignresearchpractice)
3designresearchersfromagenciesspecialisedindesignresearchanddesigningforcare-relatedsocietalchallenges
10practitionersfrominstituteslikepublicservices(municipalities),healthinsurancesandcare-relatedinstitutions
Startingpointforcollaboration
A2-yearresearchprojectfundedbynationalscienceorganisationoftheNetherlands.Partiescontributedin-kindthroughparticipationandsomeofthemreceivedpartialfunding.
2. ResearchthroughDesigncategoriesInRtDresearchanddesignactivitiesarecloselyrelated,butdifferent.Bothareintentionalactivitieswiththegoalofcreatingsomethingnew(StappersandGiaccardi,2017),butwhereresearchaimstocreatenewknowledgewithgeneralapplicability,designaimstocreatenewsolutionssuitableforaparticularsituation.Thedifferencesandoverlapsofresearchanddesignarewidelydiscussedinliterature(Sanders,2005;Cross,2007;Stappers,2007;Koskinen,Zimmerman,Binder,RedströmandWensveen,2011).BothKoskinenetal(2011)andStappers&Giaccardi(2017)reflectonavarietyofexampleRtDprojects,andtheroleofprocessandoutcomes.Still,mostauthorsremarkthatthereisnoclearlydefined,singular,methodbywhichRtDisconducted(MattelmäkiandMatthews2009;WensveenandMatthews2015).Mostauthorsagreeonthedefinitionofresearchasa‘systematicinquiry,thegoalofwhichisknowledge’asstatedbyArcher(1981).However,areviewofawiderangeofreportedRtDprojectsshowsthatthe‘systematic’aspectisinterpretedquitedifferently.
Koskinenetal(2011)categorizedRtDapproachesinthreetypes:‘lab’,‘field’and‘showroom’.Inthe‘lab’hypothesesarestudied,throughprototypesincontrolledsettings.The‘field’approachisconductedinthe‘real’world,andinvolvesstakeholdersbeyondresearchersanddesigners.Inthe‘showroom’approachinstantiationsofnewprototypesareproducedtodemonstrateaparticularphenomenonornewtechnology.StappersandGiaccardi(2017)suggestanothercategorisationofRtDprojectsbasedonoutcomeorientation:
1. generatingcollectionofexampleswithoutanexplicittheoryorapplicationgoal
2. iterativesuccessiveprototypesofincreasingqualitywithoftenanapplicationgoal
3. testinghypothesesofconceptsundercontrolledscientificmethods
4. pursuingaprogrammewithaninquirydrivenapproach,inwhichprototypesarepartofexperimentsmeanttoexploreandopenupnewdesignspaces.
BothoverviewsofcategoriesshowhowdifferentRtDtypescanbedistinguished,butdonotprovideguidelineshowthesystematicinquirycanbeorganised.MoreovertheirreviewsofRtDprojectsmostlycoversoloresearchprojects,withlimitedmulti-partycollaboration.TheRtDprojectwediscussinthispaperfollowsaninquirydrivenapproach,thefourthtypeofStappersandGiaccardi,andthe‘field’typeofKoskinenetal(2011).InlinewithBinderandRedström(2006)westructuredtheprojectas‘aprogramme’consistingofaseriesofquestionsandexperiments.The‘programme’istheorganisationoftheentireproject;thecombinationofgainingknowledgefromliterature,fieldworkanddesignexplorations,andavisiononhoweachoftheseactivitieshelptoanswerthemainresearchquestion.Through‘experiments’,intheformofconcreteactivities,suchasco-creationworkshops,prototypesandfieldtesting,contributionstotheoryaredeveloped,consolidatedanddisseminated.
ToconcludeweusethetermRtDtoindicateastudyinwhichknowledgeisgeneratedonaphenomenon(inquirydriven)byconductingdesignactivities,drawinginsupportknowledgefromdifferentdisciplines,andreflectingonbothdesignactivitiesandevaluationsofthedesigninterventionsinpractice.Ourmainaimisageneralunderstandingofthephenomenonthatdrivesapplicationbeyondthecreatedprototypesintheproject.Thenewknowledgehasatheorycomponentandanimpactcomponenttoimprovecurrentpractice.
3. ResearchthroughDesignchallengesOrganisinganRtDprojectwithmulti-partycollaborationcanbechallengingonanumberoffronts.Wediscussthreewhicharerelevanttothecollaboration;interplayofresearchanddesign,documentationandcollaboration.
InterplayofResearchandDesignTheverytermsresearchanddesigncanalreadybeproblematicwithinasinglediscipline,butcanbedownrightconfusingforpractitionerswithdifferentbackgrounds.Theapproachtoresearchinthisprojectisthroughaprocessofdiscovery,bringinginasmuchrelevantdifferentperspectivesaspossibletostudythephenomenoninanintegratedsettingofcurrentpracticesineverydaylife(Stappers,SleeswijkVisserandKeller,2014).Manyparticipantswithoutanacademicdesignresearchtraining,havemoreformalexpectationsofhowresearchisdone.Likewise,theirperceptionof‘design’canbetraditional,e.g.,theformgivingofanobject.Butthe’material’tocreatenewsolutionsforsocietalproblemsinvolvepeople,mindsets,behaviourandorganisationalchange.Designinterventionscovermoreandmoretheorchestrationofhowpeopleinteract,forexamplethroughscripts,toolsandstaging(Laurel,2003)whichmightbelessconcretethanatraditionaldesignresultandnotevenrecognizedasadesignresult.Peopleinateamcanhavedifferentideasaboutdesign,letalonetheinterplayofresearchanddesign.InourRtDprojectweaimedtoexplicitlydefinewhatweregardasresearchanddesignoutcomes,withtheintentiontocreateasharedreferencewithallpartiesinvolved.Inaprocessofvariousiterationsofresearchanddesignactivities,
loopsofreflectioninactiontakeplace,andthegenerationofprototypesservestosimultaneouslyexploretheproblemspaceaswellasthesolutionspace(Koskinenetal,2011).BasballeandHalskov(2012)havetriedtodescribetheirRtDprocessatamicrolevelbyaddressingthedynamicinterplayofresearchanddesignastheyunfoldthroughouttheprocess.Throughtheexampleofthedesignofaprojectinstallationanditsusetheyreviewedhowthisinterplayhappened,whichgivesaninsightfulviewintotheirRtDprocessandhelpsunderstandingtheirinterplayofresearchanddesignactivities.Nevertheless,theiractivitiesarerathergenerallydividedinresearchordesign,notemphasizingthevarietyindesignorinresearchactivities.
Weneededastructuretoframeourmethodandexplaintheinterplayofresearchanddesigninunderstandablewaystosupportfruitfulinvolvementofallactors.
DocumentationStappersandGiaccardi(2017)suggestthat‘the’knowledgethatemergesfromRtDisnotobvious,socommunicatingwhatitiswhatislookedfor,howtocapturethatandframetheresultisachallenge.Documentationandcommunicationofinsightsandfindingsshouldsupportunderstandingofallinvolvedactors.Moreoverrecognizingwhichdataisrelevant,selectingitduringalltheactivitiesinacollaborativeiterativeprocessismorecomplicatedthanwhentheseactivitiesareplannedandconductedincontrolledlabsettings.Forexample,apractitionerexplaininginhisownwordswhataprototypedoescanbeseenasrelevantdatabytrainedresearchers,butpractitionersmightnotrealisethisandmaynotbetriggeredtorecordthatexplanation.Anotherexampleofrelevantdatathatgoesmissingisdesigndecisionsmadeduringthedesignprocessforcreatingprototypes.Theseareoftennotwelldocumentedbutcapturerichinsightsaboutthephenomenon(Stappers,2007;HöökandLöwgren,2012).
ReflectiveJournalsareamethodusedinactionresearchtodocumenteachactor’sthoughts.ForexampleSleeswijkVisser(2009)usedthismethodincasesstudiesofanRtDprojectinwhichshetookondifferentrolestorecordandanalysethoughtsanddecisionsduringtheprocessfromtheperspectiveofresearcher,designeranduserresearcher.Thejournalwasusedasprocessdatatounravelwhathadhappenedduringthecourseofthecasestudy,recordingswhichotherwiseafterwardswouldhavebeenrememberedas‘obviouspractice’ratherthanbeingrecognizedasnewandrelevantinsights.VanAsseldonk,ScheepersandRaijmakers(2016)usedatrailofevidencetechniquetocapturedesignstudents’processesandmakeintermediateactionsanddecisionsexplicit,leadingtojointreflections.AlsoDalsgaardandHalskov(2012)developedadigitaltool,‘theProcessReflectionTool’,todocumentreflectionsofvariousinvolvedactorstoeacheventandsub-event.
Altogether,insettingupRtDcasestudies,weneedsuchtypeofdocumentationtools,tocapturetheotherwisehiddeninsightsnexttoparticipatorymeetings.
CollaborationIntheareasofsocialsciencesanddesignresearch,collaborativewaysofconductingresearchhavebeenreportedbefore,asinactionresearch(Avison,Lau,MyersandNielsen,1999),participatorydesign(SchulerandNamioka,1993),andco-design(SandersandStappers,2008).However,thewayhowpeoplecollaborateinRtDprojectsisoftenlessexplicitlydescribed,sinceprojectsettingsandaimsdiffergreatly.Inparticipatorysettings,SleeswijkVisser,Stappers,vanderLugtandSanders(2005)promotetoinvolveeverydaypeople(‘end-users’)indesignprocessesas‘expertsoftheirexperiences’andinthatroletheycontributetothedesignprocess.Again,wetakethisstance,wherenotonlyeverydaypeopleareregardedasexpertsoftheireverydayexperiences,butallinvolvedprofessionals.Thisapproachhelpedplanningandorganisingelementsoftheprocess,suchasco-creationworkshopsoftheprogramme,butdidnotprovidedetailoninvolvingpractitionersasproducersofsharedknowledgegeneratorsinsteadofmerelydomaininformationproviders.Inourproject,casesemergedfromopportunitiesinpractice,buthowthedesignresearchers,designers
andpractitionerswouldgofromtherewasaratherintuitivepathwhereexpertiseandtasksneededtobeoptimallycombined.
Weneededinsightsonhowtoorchestratethecollaborativeprocessanddefinerolesinthis.
ToconcludetherearevariousapproachestoconductingRtD,butlittleguidanceonhowsuchprojectsshouldbeconducted,especiallyiftheyarebuiltaroundamultidisciplinaryteamratherthanindividualresearcher.Howcanwebenefitfromallstakeholdersontherightmomentsintheprocessandseizeknowledgetogether?Inwhatrolescanstakeholderscontribute,collaborateandgenerateinsightsrelevantanduseableforeachparty?Afterthemethodsection,wedescribeinsectionfivehowwedealtwiththesequestionsinrunningourcasestudies.Insectionsix,wereflectontheobservationsandinterventionsofinterplayofresearchanddesign,documentationandroles.
4. MethodWereviewedthecollaborationofthreecasestudiesinthisproject.Theauthorjoinedcollaborativemeetings,observedtheprocessofcollaboration,theexchangeofinformation(whenenoughexplicittopointat)andtheassignmentofroles,tasksandexpertisethatwasdividedbetweenactors.TheauthorconductedinterviewsattheendofeachcasestudywitheachactorontheirindividualexperiencesoftheinterplayofrolesandexpertisealongtheprocessandonhowtheyexperiencedtheRtDapproachfromtheirpointofview.Twosessions,onehalfwayandoneattheendofeachcasestudy,wereorganisedtocollaborativelyreflectin-andontheactionsandoutputtoevaluatetheworkingstructureoftheteamcollaborations.Relevantinsightsweredirectlyimplementedtoimprovethecollaborationprocesses,asiscommoninActionResearch(Avisonetal1999).Adocumentationtool,theReporterKit(seefigure2),servedasabackboneforthesereflectivesessionssinceitprovidedinsightineachdistinctroleactorstook.Thecombinationofobservations,interviews,reporterkitdataandcollaborativereflectionshalfwayandaftereachcasestudyhelpedtotriangulatefindings(Denzin,2006).
5. CollaborationinthecasestudiesTable2showsanoverviewofthecasestudiesunderexamination.Thecasesstartedwhentherewasamatchofresearchfocus,designexplorationandopportunityinpracticetointervene.Foreachcaseamainresearchquestionandanappliedresearchquestionwereformulated.
Table2 SummaryofthreecasestudiesintheMyFuturesproject.Case Domain Researchquestions Appliedresearch
questionDesigninterventions Domainpractitioners
1 Carerequestconversationsbetweencareplannerandcaretaker
Whatdopeople(not)considerwhenarrangingin-homecare?
Canwestretchtheirthinkingfromnextdaytonextyear?
Howcanpeoplebesupportedindiscussingmoreholisticmattersnexttopracticalplanningofin-homecareandtakethisintoaccountincareplanning?
Seriesofco-creationworkshops.Redesignofconversationscript,threeiterationsoftemplatestoolstosupportcarerequestconversations,andanewdatabasetool.
1careinstituteactedasproblemownerduringentirecase.Theircurrentconversationswithclientsaboutplanningcarewereusedtotestthedesigninterventions.
2 Familyconversationsabout>10yearsahead
Whatareneeds,motivationsanddynamicsinandaroundsuchfamilyconversations?
Canpeoplediscussfutureissues(>10yrs)thatarenoturgentnow?
Howcanfamilymembersbesupportedinsharingthoughtsandexpectationsinrelationtoeachotherwhenthereisnourgentissue(yet)?
Seriesofco-creationworkshops.Fivedesigniterationsofafamilydiscussiontoolconsistingofscript,templatesandgameelements.
6parties(municipalities,healthinsurances,andHRinstitutions)actedasdomainexperts.2ofthesepartiesactedasproblemownersandusedthelasttoolversionintheirpractice.
3 Elderlypeoplespeculatingaboutthefuturetogether
Whatdynamicsplayarolewhenpeoplespeculatetogetheraboutthefutureiftheythinktheydon’thavemuchfutureleft?
Howcanwechallengepeopletolookaheadtogetherfurtherthantomorrowandseemoreoptionstowardstheirownfutures?
Seriesofco-creationworkshops.Seriesofstagedsocialactivitiesinwhichfutureisaddressedtoprovokespeculativefuturethinking.
1careinstituteactedasproblemownerduringentirecase.Theinvolvedpersonsare‘socialinnovators’withintheirinstitute.
Thecasesevolvedthroughopportunitiestointerveneinpracticeandhappenedinchronologicalorder.Whileformingteams,wediscussedprocess,output,roles,andrelevantdeliverablesandallfeltaneedtobringclarificationtotheseissues.TorespondtothisneedtheresearcherscreatedvisualsofwhatstagesandactivitiesanRtDcasestudycompelsandproposedthateachteamneedstohaveatleastoneoftherolesinfigure1fulfilledbyteammembers(actors).Theinitialdescriptionoftheseroleswasafirstorderingintheprocess.Oneactorcouldtakemoreroles,andmultipleactorscouldtakeonerole.
Figure1FirstsuggestionofdifferentrolesthatcouldexistinanRtDcasestudyinpractice(latertwootherroleswereaddedtotherolestemplate)
Furthermorewedevelopedatool,theReporterKit,basedontheworkofSleeswijkVisser(2009),vanAsseldonketal(2016)andDalsgaardandHalskov(2012),todocumentreflectionsanddecisionsofeachteammemberalongtheprocess(seefigure2).Wedeliberatelychooseforasimpleform,withonlythreequestions;‘Whathappened?’,‘WhatdecisionsdidImakeandwhy?’,and‘Doubts,ideas,expectations,considerations,plans…?’Thisreporterkitwasalsointendedtogaininsightinhoweachoftheactorsexperiencedthecollaborationwhileconductingthecasestudiesandbeingabletointerveneinrolestooptimiseaproductiveprocess.
Figure2TheReporterKitisajournalingtoolinwhicheachactorreflectsonhis/herrole(s)duringtheprocess.Eachcolourpresentsonespecificrole.Forexamplethelightyellowrepresentsthedesignerresearchersroleandthedarkyellowthedesignerrole.Thispictureshowsareflectivesessionofcasetwo,wheresomeoftheactorsfulfilledmultipleroles.
ExploringdifferentconfigurationsofrolesFigure3showshowtherolesweredistributedoverthethreecasesasthecasestudiesunfolded.Thefigureshowsthatnewroleswereaddedtotheinitialsuggestionofrolesinfigure1.Foreachcasetheteamsweredifferentlycomposedbasedonthepresentexpertiseandavailability.ActorsAandBrepresentresearcherswithdesignresearchexpertisefromacademiaordesignschool.ActorC,D,Erepresentpartiesfrompractice,e.g.,careinstitutionsordesignagencies,ofwhichactorsChadmostsubstantialhourstodedicateineachcaseaspartofthefundingstructure.OverthecasesdifferentpeoplewereinvolvedasactorsA,B,C,DandE.
Figure3Dependingoninvolvedactors,theirexpertiseandstartingpointforcasestudy,therolesweredifferentlyassignedineachcase.
IncaseoneitwasinitiallyplannedthatactorCwouldtakethelead,butwhensettingupthecase,thispersondidn’tfeelcomfortabletakingthedesignresearcher’anddesigner’roles.Thisactorhadextensiveexperienceinconductingfieldworkandwaswellacquaintedwiththedomain,butdidn’thavedesignexpertiseoroverviewoftheRtDprocess;
‘Youneedtotakemeonthehandwithsuchmethodologiesandsetupthecase,soIcanfollowyou,andIcanexecuteuserresearchactivities(recruiting,conductinginterviews,observations)’
‘Iamnotadesigner,Ican’tfacilitatetheseco-creationworkshopsordesigntheinterventions’
Theresearchers(actorsAandB)realisedthatoneofthemwasneededtotakethelead.Allthreediscussedwhattaskseachofthemfeltcomfortablewith,andwhatwaspracticallypossible.Therolestemplateservedasapointofreferenceforneededexpertiseandtheymadedecisionsoncollaboration:ActorAtookthetheoryresearcherroleandwouldonlybeinvolvedincollaborativesessions.ActorBtookthedesignresearchleadroleandactorCwouldassistinorganisingthefieldwork.Assigningthesetasksalreadyyieldedfortwotypesofdesignresearchroles;onemainlyfocusingongeneratinginsightsandtheotheroneonorganisingfieldwork.Furthermoretheyrealisedthatdesigncapacitywouldbemissing,becauseeachofthemwouldbefullytakenbymoreresearchorientedroles.Adesignagency(actorD)gotinvolvedtoexplicitlydesigntheseriesofco-creationworkshopsanddesigninterventions.ActorEtooktheroleofproblemowner(seetable2).
Thesecondcasedidn’tstartwithaconcretechallengefromoneproblemowner,butwithasharedinterestinpossibleoutcomesofthecasestudyofsixdifferentparties.Theywereinvolvedasdomainexpertsinaseriesofinsightssharingandco-creationworkshopsandtwoofthemwereinvolvedintestingthelastdesigniterationintheirownpractices.Adesignagency(actorC)ledthecasestudyasprojectleadandfulfilledthreeotherroles;thedesignerroleandbothdesignresearcherroles.TherolestemplatewasusedasaninstrumentforactorsA,BandCtodefinetheircollaborationatthestartofthecase(seefigure4).DiscussingthismadeexplicitthatactorsA,BandChadlargeoverlaps
incapabilities.Realisingthesecapabilitiesandexpertisehelpedplanningtheentireprojectandtheircollaboration.Forexampleeachtookresponsibilityforfacilitatinganddocumentingworkshopswithdomainexperts,fordifferentuserresearchactivitiesandplannedwhenjointexpertisewouldbeneeded.Anexplicitnewrole‘projectlead’(lastrowinfigure3)wasaddedtotherolestemplate(alreadyhalfwayduringthefirstcase)toexplicitlyextracttasksofprojectmanagement,suchasprojectplanningandteamwork.ActorCtooktheprojectleadrole,andactorBwouldtakethisrolewhenactorCwouldbelessavailable.
Figure4Oneoftheactorsreflectingontasksandresponsibilitiesshewouldfeelcomfortablewithinrelationtotheotherteammembersusingarolestemplate.
Theteamcompositionofthethirdcasewasagainverydifferentfromthefirsttwocases.ActorsCweredomainexpertsbutalsosocialinnovatorswithintheircareinstitute.Allwantedtocollaboratebutdidn’tknoweachothers’exactexpertise,whichmadeitdifficulttodirectlyassignroles.ActorBtooktheprojectleadandtookmultiplerolesofdesignresearcheranddesigner.TherolestemplatehelpedactorBtodiscusswithactorsCwhatwasexpectedfromconductinganRtDcasestudytogetherandproposedseveraloptionsofhowactorsCcouldcontributetodifferenttypesofresearchanddesignactivities.ThishelpedinassigningdedicatedtasksforactorsC,inwhichtheyfeltcomfortable,suchasorganisationaltasksandwhattocollectasdata.
UseofreporterkitinhalfwaysessionsThereporterkitwasnotalwaysconsistentlyfilledwithannotationsofeachteammember,butenoughtogatherrelevantinsightsoncasecontentandcollaboration.Weadaptedthereporterkitassoonaswhennewroleswereadded.Afterthefirstcasewealsochangeditstemplatetogivethethirdquestion(Doubts,ideas,expectations,considerations,plans…?)morespacesincethisquestionrevealedmostinterestingdata.
Splittingrolesanddocumentingthoughtsoneachrolehelpedinstickingto‘yourtask’.Forexamplethepersoninthedesignerroleexpressedthoughtsas:
‘Shouldwereallytranscribealltheseconversations?Itisquitesomework,Iwoulddothisdifferentlywithmydesignagency,Ithink.ButmaybeIcanalsolearnfromthisandseewhatitbrings.FornowIfocusonproducingthenexttemplatesdesignbyFriday.’
Thereporterkitoftheproblemownersdocumentedalotofinsightintheirthoughtsalongthecasestudyprocess.Incontrasttotheotherroles,peopleintheproblemownerroledidhardlyreflectonprocessissues,butsharedtheirthoughtsontheireverydayworkinthereporterkits.Forexampleoneproblemownerreflectedonherownroleinherdailywork.
‘MaybeIshouldproposethis[…]earlierwithclientB….’
‘Iamgoingtochangetheevaluationforms,whereclientsnotonlyevaluatethecareprovider,butalsoourrole’
Suchreflectionsprovidedrichinsightsonhowlowhangingfruitideaswereimmediatelyimplementedduringthecasestudy.
Furthermoreweobservedthatdesigndecisionswerenotwelldocumentedinthereporterkitsandconcludedthattheform(oneA4printedpaperwiththreequestions)didn’tstimulatethisenough.Attheendofthefirstcasewedecidedthatweneedbetterdocumentationofdesigndecisionsbeyondreporterkitandcreatedanonlinedocumenttokeeparecordofdesigndecisions.Intheothercasesthisshareddocumentwithdesigndecisionswasexperiencedasveryhelpfulafter,butespeciallyduringtheprocess,becauseactorsinthedesignerrolehadmorededicatedconversationstogetherwhattodocument.Thismadethemmoreawareofthemanylittledecisionstheymadethateventuallyhadlargeeffectsontheactualdesignthatwasusedintheinterventions.
Usingthereporterkitannotationsasdatatoevaluatetheprocessofcollaborationthroughtheassignedroleshalfwaythecasestudieshelpedinadjustingfruitfulcollaboration.ForexampleincaseonetheteamnoticedthatthereporterkitofactorBonlyshowedthoughtsonprojectmanagementlevelandmissedresearchfocus.Whenobservinganddiscussingthis,itbecameclearthatorganisingthecasestudyasaprojectwasalargetaskthatoverruledthetaskofgeneratingresearchinsights.EventhoughactorChelpedinorganisingthefieldwork,doingfieldobservations,joiningdesigniterations,analysing,organisingsessions,updatingeveryoneandmanagingalloverruledthefocusofgeneratingrelevantresearchinsights.Theteamaddedanexplicitnewroleofprojectleadintherolestemplateandinthereporterkit.Theyalsoplannedmorefrequentmeetingsbetweenactorsinthetheoryresearcherroleanddesignresearcherroletodiscussresearchquestionsandanalysisdevelopments.Asaresultincasetwoandthreethefocusofactorsinthedesignresearchroleswasmoreevenlybalancedbetweenresearchandapplicationoutcome.
6. InsightsoncollaborationinResearchthroughDesignThroughtheseriesofthesethreecasestudieswehaveexperiencedhowassigningroleshelpedorganisingtheRtDcasestudies.FindingopportunitiesinpracticefordesigninterventionsthroughanRtDapproachisaprocesswhichisdifficulttoplanaheadorcontrolfromthestart.Beingawareofdifferentroleshelpsinplanning,integratingexpertise,dividingresponsibilitiesandcollaborationofallinvolvedstakeholders.Fromtheexperienceofthesethreecasestudiesandtheadaptationswemadeonthewayduringthecasestudies,wehavelearnedinsightsthatmightberelevanttootherRtDpracticethatfollowaprogrammeapproach(Binder&Redström,2006).Hereweshareourfindingsontheinterplayofresearchanddesign,documentationandtakingrolesincollaboration.
OntheinterplayofResearchandDesignThroughthecasestudiesweintervenedinthephenomenon(peopleplanningtheirownfuturelives)withtheaimsof(1)describingthephenomenonincontextand(2)basedonthisunderstandingtoformulatedirectionsforimprovement.Intable3wesummarisedfivelevelsofoutcomesweidentifiedthroughthisproject.Fromtoptobottom,theoutcomesrangefromresearchorientedtomoreapplicationoriented.Theselevelsofoutcomerelatetothedifferentroles,butonlyintermsofmainfocusforeachrole.Bydiscussingtheselevelsgeneratingoutcomeshasbecomeasharedresponsibilityforallteammembers.
Themainaimoftheprojectwasresearchdriven;generatingnewknowledgeaboutthephenomenon.However,thesocietalcontextofthisphenomenonisunderchange:municipalities,organisations,andcitizensintheNetherlandsaredealingwithatransformationfromawelfarestatetoalocal‘participationsociety’.Thereforedescribingthephenomenoninthischangingcontext(fourthlevelintable3)wasmorerelevantforthisprojectthanproducingpuretheories.Guidelines(systemlevel)andconcepts(servicelevel)werefurtherdevelopedasdeliverablestoimpactpractitionersandpolicymakersbeyondtheparticipatingstakeholdersintheassignedproject.Small-scalesolutionsservedasdemonstratorstoillustrateinsightsonthephenomenon.Severalsmall-scalesolutionswerealsodirectlyinfusedinpracticeofinvolvedparties.Forexampleinthefirstcasenumerousinsightsandlowhangingfruitimprovementsweredirectlyimplementedbytheinvolvedproblemowners.
Table3FivelevelsofoutcomerangingfromresearchorientedtoapplicationorientedweidentifiedinourRtDproject,whichhelpedincreatingavocabularyforwhatisaimedatinamultidisciplinaryteam.OutcomeofRtD
Whatitis Examplefromfirstcasestudythatstudiedcarerequestconversations
Knowledge Theoryconstructsofphenomenon Theoryframeworkpresentingtheoryvariablesandhowtheyrelatetoeachother
Contextualknowledge
Betterunderstandingofphenomenonthroughcombiningknowledgefromvariousdisciplines,trendsinpoliticalsystem,futurethinkinganduserresearchandprototypinginvariouspractices.
Timelineshowingmomentswherepeoplearemorereceptivetothinkaboutpersonalfuturesandstrategieshowtostretchtheirfuturethinking.
Guidelines Directionsforinnovationstrategiesforserviceprovidersandpoliticalinstitutionsbeyondtheinvolvedpartiespresentedinvisualisationssuchasdesigndocumentaries,opportunitymaps,andseriesofworkshopsetc.
Journeymappresentingidealcareconversationsindifferentmomentsofpeople’slives.
Concepts Conceptideasthatemphasiseanaddedvalueforusersandprovidersinthesystem.
Businessmodelfornewserviceaspre-careplanningconversations
Solutions Directlyapplicableconceptsimmediatelyimplemented
Templatesandscriptsforcareplanningconversations
Researchanddesignactivitieswerecloselyinterwoven.Weexperiencedthatcollaborationofallactorsindesignactivitieswasveryfruitful.Throughcollaborativelyframingtheproblemandsolutionspace,manyinsightswerebroughtinbydomainpractitioners,butalsoweredirectlyfedbacktothemondifferentlevels.Inresearchactivitiesthecollaborationwithdomainexpertswasslightlymorestaged.Domainexpertsjoinedinfieldworkandanalysissessions,butdesignresearchersconductedin-betweenactivitiessuchaspreparing,articulatingandvisualisingrelevantdatacategoriestofacilitatejointproductionofinsights.Toconclude,domainexpertswereinvolvedinvariousdesignactivities,whiletheirinvolvementinresearchactivitieswasmorethoughtfullystaged.
OndocumentationTheReporterKitdocumentedprocessdatafromtheperspectiveofeachroleandmadevisiblehowthingshavechangedalongthecase.UsingatoollikethereporterkitwithonlythreesimplequestionsononeA4formatdidnotdocumentallrelevantprocessdata,butbyjointlysharingeachperspectivehalfwayduringthecase,ithelpedtheteamtocommunicateanddiscussaspectswhichotherwisewouldhaveremainedtacit.Especiallyhavingdocumentedthoughtsoftheactorsinproblemownerrolesondirectlyapplicableaspectsofthedesignedprototypeswashelpfulincoiningresultsofacasestudyonasolutionslevel.Anotherpositiveeffectwasthatitremindedeachteammembertobeawareoftheirrole(s)intheprocess.Teammemberswhofulfilledmultiplerolesweresupportedtodeliberatelyshiftbetweenrolesandfocuswithinthecasestudies.Italsohelpedtheentireprojectteamtoevaluatethemethodologyandimprovethecollaboration.
Toconclude,thereporterkitisatoolthatrequireslittleworkforallinvolvedmembersandtracksenoughinterestingthoughtstosteerjointreflectionandtoremindeachoneontheirroleinrelationtotheothers.
OncollaborationDefiningandassigningroleshelpedmakingavailableexpertiseandassumedcontributionandresponsibilitiesmoreexplicit.Personaltraitsandexpertisevarygreatlyfrompersontoperson,regardlesspositionortitle.Throughthisopenwayofcollaboratingbutmeanwhileframingexpertisethroughroleshelpedmappingopportunisticallyeachteammember’scontributionandadjustwhenneeded.
Therolesweimplementedinthisprojectarenotanoff-the-shelf,one-size-fits-allsolutionforRtDprojects,butdistinguishingroleshelpedstructuringthecollaboration,whileaffordingopennesstobuildonpersonaltraits,skillsandemergingopportunitiesinthedomainpractice.Itisaflexibleyetsystematicapproach.WealsonoticedthattheprojectleadrolewasalwayscombinedwithatleastoneoftheotherrolesandimagineitwouldberatherdifficulttomanageanRtDprojectwhilenotbeinginvolvedinthecomplexprocessthroughotherroles.Eachprojectwillformitsownteamcomposition,butapplyingtherolesincombinationwiththereporterkittoolhelpedstructuringthecollaboration.
AlthougheachRtDprojectcanhaveadifferentsetuporbepartofanothercategory,androlesmaydiffer,wewouldliketoshareourobservationsabouttheroleofdesignresearcher,becausethatroleincludedmanydifferentcapabilities.Weidentifiedseveralcomponentstothedesignresearcherrole:
• Organizingskills,gettingpeopleonboard;• Shiftingbetweenabstractionlevels;• Shiftingfromknowledgetosolution;• Facilitatingallactorsintheprocess,workingwithpeople,talkingtheirlanguage;• Usingvisualsandaestheticstopinpointatintermediateresults;• Makingpropsincollaborationwithdesigner’srole;• Conductinguserresearch,recruitment,fieldwork,observation,interviewing,analysing.
Thelastone,conductingactualresearchwork,isalargetimeconsumingtaskthatshouldbemademoreexplicit.Welearnedthatthistaskeasilydrawsattentionfromothertasks.Arrangingandorganisinguserresearchactivitiesjustabsorbstimeandfocuseasily.Tohighlightthispitfall,weproposedtodistinguishtworolesofdesignresearcher;onefocusingongeneratinginsightsandoneonpracticalitiesoffieldwork.Inthesecondandthirdcasestudiestheactorsfulfillingtheserolesalsotooktheprojectleadrole.Bybeingawareofthedifferentrolestheywerebetterabletofocusontheactivitiesthatweremostimportantandcollaboratefruitfully.Theassignmentsoftherolesarenotdistinct,theyhavelargeoverlapsofexpertise,responsibilities,activitiesandtasks.Toconclude,definingroleshelpedtheteampercasetodiscusseachteammember’scontributionandbeingabletoflexiblyadaptthesealongtheprocess.Throughpositioningexplicitroles,thoughtheyoverlapgreatly,wewereabletoorganisecasestudieswiththemaintaskofgeneratingknowledgethroughdesigninterventions.Thedivisionofrolesprovidedstructuretotheprocessandsupportedincollaborativelygeneratinginsightsonthedifferentlevelsofknowledge,guidelinesandsolutions.
7. ConclusionInthispaperweexploredtheprocessofthreecasestudiesinwhichdomainpractitioners,designers,designresearchersandresearcherscollaboratedindifferentways.WeillustratedhowcollaborationinacomplexRtDprojectcanbestructuredthroughexplicitlyassigningrolesandusingtoolstointegrateperspectivesofallinvolvedactors.
AcknowledgementsTheprojectMyFuturesispartoftheresearchprogrammeResearchthroughDesignwithprojectnumber14608,whichis(partly)financedbytheNetherlandsOrganisationforScientificResearch(NWO)andTaskforceforAppliedResearchSIA.www.myfutures.nl
ReferencesArcher,L.B.(1981)AViewoftheNatureofDesignResearch.InR.Jacques&J.Powell(Eds.),Design,Science:
Method,WestburyHouse,Guildford,UK.Avison,D.E.,Lau,F.,Myers,M.D.,&Nielsen,P.A.(1999).Actionresearch.CommunicationsoftheACM,42(1),
94-97.vanAsseldonk,A.,Scheepers,R.&Raijmakers,B.(2017)TrailofEvidence.CumulusREDOConference
Proceedings.KoldingJune2017.(http://cumuluskolding2017.org/proceedings/)Basballe,D.A.,&Halskov,K.(2012).Dynamicsofresearchthroughdesign.InDis’12ProceedingsofDesigning
InteractiveSystemsConference.ACM,58-67.Binder,T.&Redström,J.(2006)ExemplaryDesignResearch.PaperpresentedattheDRSwonderground
conference,November1-4,2006.Cross,N.(2007)DesignerlyWaysofKnowing.BirkhauserVerlagAGBasel.Dalsgaard,P.,&Halskov,K.(2012)Reflectivedesigndocumentation.InProceedingsoftheDesigning
InteractiveSystemsConference(428-437).ACM.Denzin,N.(2006).SociologicalMethods:ASourcebook.AldineTransaction.Dorst,K.(2011)Thecoreof‘designthinking’anditsapplication.DesignStudies32,521-532.Höök,K.&Löwgren,J.(2012)StrongConcepts:Intermediate-levelknowledgeininteractiondesignresearch.
ACMTransactionsonComputer-HumanInteraction(TOCHI),19(3),23.Jones,P.H.,&vanPatter,G.K.(2009).Design1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0:Theriseofvisualsensemaking.New
York:NextDesignLeadershipInstitute.Manzini,E.(2015)Design,WhenEverybodyDesigns:AnIntroductiontoDesignforSocialInnovation.
CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Mattelmäki,T.,&Matthews,B.(2009)Peelingapples:PrototypingDesignexperimentsasResearch,In
ProceedingsofNordes2009,Oslo.Kimbell,L.(2011)RethinkingDesignThinking:Part1.DesignandCulture3(3),285-306.Koskinen,I.,Zimmerman,J.,Binder,T.,Redstrom,J.&Wensveen,S.(2011)Designresearchthroughpractice:
Fromthelab,fieldandshowroom.Elsevier.Laurel.B.(Ed)(2003)DesignResearch,methodsandperspectives.CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Norman,D.A.(2010)LivingwithComplexity.CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Raijmakers,B.,Vervloed,J,&Wierda,K.J.(2015)Orchestration:Jazzitup.In:vanErp,J.,deLille,C.,Vervloed,
J.,&denHollander,M.(Eds)CRISPMagazine#5ThisisCRISP,June.Rygh,K.(Ed)(2015)Super-Maker.Eindhoven:TheDesignAcademy.Sanders,E.B.N.(2005)Information,inspirationandco-creation.The6thInternationalConferenceofThe
EuropeanAcademyofDesign,Bremen,Germany.Sanders,E.B.N.&StappersP.J.(2008)Co-creationandthelandscapesofdesign.Journalofcodesign4(1),5-18.Sanders,L,&StappersPJ(2014)Fromdesigningtoco-designingtocollectivedreaming:threeslicesintime.
ACMInteractions21(6),24-33.Schuler,D.&Namioka,A.(1993)ParticipatoryDesign:Principlesandpractices.Hillsdale:Erbaum.SleeswijkVisser,F.,Stappers,P.J.,vanderLugt,R.,&Sanders,E.B.N.(2005)Contextmapping:Experiencesfrom
practice.Journalofcodesign1(2),119-149. SleeswijkVisser,F(2009).Bringingtheeverydaylifeofpeopleintodesign.DoctoralthesisDelft.Sleeswijk
Visser,Rotterdam.Stappers,P.J.(2007)Doingdesignaspartofdoingresearch.In:Michiel,R.(Ed.),Designresearchnow:essays
andselectedprojects.Basel:Birkhauser,81-91.Stappers,P.J.,SleeswijkVisser,F.,&Keller,A.I.(2014)Theroleofprototypesandframeworksforstructuring
explorationsbyresearchthroughdesign.InP.Rodgers&J.Yee(Eds)TheRoutledgeCompaniontoDesignResearch.Taylor&Francis.
Stappers,P.J.andGiaccardi,E.(2017)ResearchthroughDesign.Chapter43InA.Zahirovicetal.(Eds.)TheEncyclopediaofHuman-ComputerInteraction,Denmark,InteractionDesignFoundation.http://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/research-through-design
Sustar,H.,&Mattelmäki,T.(2017).WholeinOne:DesigningforEmpathyinComplexSystems.InDesign+PowerNo7.Nordes2017.
Wensveen,S.&Matthews,B.(2015).Prototypesandprototypingindesignresearch.InP.Rodgers&J.Yee(Eds)TheRoutledgeCompaniontoDesignResearch.Taylor&Francis.
AbouttheAuthor:
FroukjeSleeswijkVisserisassistantprofessorwithafocusonsocialdesignandservicedesignandindependentdesignresearcher
Related Documents
