Emerging design: Integrating learning, practice and research | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Design, Business & Society
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2055-2106
  • E-ISSN: 2055-2114

Abstract

Emerging design is an approach to solving multidimensional and multidisciplinary problems. It describes design as an evolutionary activity with no projected steps, in which plans for taking steps and using tools gradually emerge from participants’ reflections. This study explores emerging design through a three-year activity that initially had a pedagogical nature but gradually turned into a practical and research-based activity in which design students along with small businesses and start-ups came up with a problem-based approach for defining and solving real-world problems. The three cycles of activity were studied with a reflective lens and various sources of data were used. The Engeström framework for activity theory was used to reduce and display data in qualitative data analysis. Through the three cycles of activity, few design proposals were implemented by the involved small businesses and start-ups. In addition, most businesses benefited from the research findings produced during the students’ projects. Some unexpected outcomes were also observed, including emergence of a collaborative network of experts and clients. The results suggest that first, the quality of collaboration among the participants was more important than instruments and rules for achieving the main objectives of the activity. Second, a reflective approach to design practice can continuously improve the design processes and tools used in each cycle of the activity, and third, design practice does not only produce design solutions, it also creates collaborations, reflections and networks.

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00005_1
2020-03-01
2024-04-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ackoff, R. L.. ( 1974), Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Programs, New York:: Wiley;.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Agarwal, B. B.,, Tayal, S. P., and Gupta, M.. ( 2010), Software Engineering and Testing, Sudbury:: Jones & Bartlett Learning;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Alford, J., and Head, B. W.. ( 2017;), ‘ Wicked and less wicked problems: A typology and a contingency framework. ’, Policy and Society, 36:3, pp. 397–413.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barcellini, F.,, Détienne, F.,, Burkhardt, J. M., and Sack, W.. ( 2008;), ‘ A socio-cognitive analysis of online design discussions in an Open Source Software community. ’, Interacting with Computers, 20:1, pp. 141–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Batie, S. S.. ( 2008;), ‘ Wicked problems and applied economics. ’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90:5, pp. 1176–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baynes, K.. ( 2010;), ‘ Models of change: The future of design education. ’, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 15:3, pp. 10–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, V., and Clarke, V.. ( 2006;), ‘ Using thematic analysis in psychology. ’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, pp. 77–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Broadbent, J. A., and Cross, N.. ( 2003;), ‘ Design education in the information age. ’, Journal of Engineering Design, 14:4, pp. 439–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, T., and Katz, B.. ( 2011;), ‘ Change by design. ’, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28:3, pp. 381–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown, V. A.. ( 2010;), ‘ Collective inquiry and its wicked problems. ’, in J. Harris,, V. A. Brown, and J. Russell. (eds), Tackling Wicked Problems: Through the Transdisciplinary Imagination, London:: Earthscan;, pp. 79–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Buchanan, R.. ( 1992;), ‘ Wicked problems in design thinking. ’, Design Issues, 8:2, pp. 5–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Burckhardt, L.,, Blumenthal, S., and Schmitz, N.. ( 2017), Design is Invisible: Planning, Education and Society, Basel:: Birkhauser;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Camillus, J. C.. ( 2008;), ‘ Strategy as a wicked problem. ’, Harvard Business Review, 86:5, p. 98.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Coghlan, D.. ( 2019), Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization, London:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Coyne, R., and Snodgrass, A.. ( 1993;), ‘ Cooperation and individualism in design. ’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 20:2, pp. 163–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cristoloveanu, A.,, Basangova, A.,, Hawchar, K.,, Mason, C., and Kovacevic, A.. ( 2016;), ‘ An insight into the use of problem-based learning within distributed design student projects. ’, in E. Bohemia,, L. Buck,, K. Eriksen,, A. Kovacevic,, N. Ovesen,, C. Tollestrup. (eds), DS 83: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (E&PDE16), Design Education: Collaboration and Cross-Disciplinarity, Aalborg, Denmark, 8–9 September, Glasgow:: The Design Society;, pp. 638–43.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Cross, N.. ( 2002), Design as a Discipline: The Inter-Disciplinary Design Quandary Conference, Milton Keynes:: De Montfort University;, http://nelly.dmu.ac.uk/4dd//DDR3-Cross.html. Accessed 15 June 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cross, N.. ( 2007;), ‘ From a design science to a design discipline: Understanding designerly ways of knowing and thinking. ’, in R. Michel. (ed.), Design Research Now, Basel:: Birkhäuser;, pp. 41–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cross, N.. ( 2011), Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work, Oxford:: Berg;.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. da Silva, I. A.,, Chen, P. H.,, Van der Westhuizen, C.,, Ripley, R. M.,, and Van Der Hoek, A.. ( 2006;), ‘ Lighthouse: Coordination through emerging design. ’, in M. Burke,, A. Orso, and M. Robillard. (eds), Proceedings of the 2006 OOPSLA Workshop on Eclipse Technology Exchange, eclipse ’06, New York:: ACM;, pp. 11–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. DIS, I.. ( 2010), 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of Human System Interaction-Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems (Formerly Known as 13407), Switzerland:: International Standardization Organization (ISO);, https://www.iso.org/standard/52075.html. Accessed 15 June 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Dorst, K.. ( 2011;), ‘ The core of “design thinking” and its application. ’, Design Studies, 32:6, pp. 521–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Engeström, Y.. ( 2000;), ‘ Activity theory as a framework for analysing and redesigning work. ’, Ergonomics, 43:7, pp. 960–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Fallows, S., and Steven, C.. ( 2013), Integrating Key Skills in Higher Education: Employability, Transferable Skills and Learning for Life, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Friedman, K.. ( 1997), Design Science and Design Education, Oslo:: Norwegian School of Management;.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Frisendal, T.. ( 2012;), ‘ Design thinking for business analysis. ’, in T. Frisendal. (ed.), Design Thinking Business Analysis, Berlin and Heidelberg:: Springer;, pp. 15–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Frost, P.. ( 2002;), ‘ Principles of the action research cycle. ’, in R. Ritchie,, A. Pollard,, P. Frost,, and T. Eaude. (eds), Action Research: A Guide for Teachers: Burning Issues in Primary Education, Birmingham:: National Primary Trust;, pp. 24–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gharajedaghi, J.. ( 2011), Systems Thinking: Managing Chaos and Complexity: A Platform for Designing Business Architecture, Burlington, VT:: Elsevier;.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Giacomin, J.. ( 2014;), ‘ What is human centred design?. ’, The Design Journal, 17:4, pp. 606–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gray, D. E.. ( 2013), Doing Research in the Real World, Los Angeles, CA:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Gurung, R. A. R., and Schwartz, B. M.. ( 2011), Optimizing Teaching and Learning: Practicing Pedagogical Research, Chichester:: John Wiley & Sons;.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hands, D.. ( 2017), Design Management: The Essential Handbook, London:: Kogan Page Publishers;.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Head, B. W., and Alford, J.. ( 2015;), ‘ Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. ’, Administration & Society, 47:6, pp. 711–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Innes, J. E., and Booher, D. E.. ( 2016;), ‘ Collaborative rationality as a strategy for working with wicked problems. ’, Landscape and Urban Planning, 154:1, pp. 8–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Johansson-Sköldberg, U.,, Woodilla, J., and Çetinkaya, M.. ( 2013;), ‘ Design thinking: Past, present and possible futures. ’, Creativity and Innovation Management, 22:2, pp. 121–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones, P.. ( 2014;), ‘ Systemic design principles for complex social systems. ’, in G. S. Metcalf. (ed.), Social Systems and Design, Tokyo:: Springer Japan;, pp. 91–128.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Jones, P.. ( 2015;), ‘ Design research methods for systemic design: Perspectives from design education and practice. ’, in G. R. Midgley. (ed.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2014, Washington DC, July 2014, Washington DC:: The International Society for the System Sciences;, pp. 151–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaptelinin, V., and Nardi, B. A.. ( 2006), Acting with Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Katoppo, M. L., and Sudradjat, I.. ( 2015;), ‘ Combining participatory action research (PAR) and design thinking (DT) as an alternative research method in architecture. ’, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184:1, pp. 118–25.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Kemmis, S.. ( 2010;), ‘ What is to be done? The place of action research. ’, Educational Action Research, 18:4, pp. 417–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Koshy, V.. ( 2005), Action Research for Improving Practice: A Practical Guide, Los Angeles, CA:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Krippendorff, K.. ( 1995;), ‘ Redesigning design: An invitation to a responsible future. ’, in P. Tahkokallio, and S. Vihma. (eds), Design: Pleasure or Responsibility, Helsinki:: University of Art and Design;, pp. 138–62, http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/46. Accessed 15 June 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Krippendorff, K.. ( 2016;), ‘ Design, an undisciplinable profession. ’, in G. Joost,, K. Bredies,, M. Christensen,, F. Conradi, and A. Unteidig. (eds), Design as Research: Positions, Arguments, Perspectives, Berlin and Boston, MA:: De Gruyter;, pp. 197–206.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Kvelland, L. M. L., and Høiseth, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ Is the “user” term adequate? A design anthropology perspective on design for social welfare services. ’, in DS 85-1: Proceedings of NordDesign 2016, Trondheim, Norway, 10–12 August, vol. 1, Glasgow:: The Design Society;, pp. 247–57, http://www.designsociety.org/publication/39302/is_the_%E2%80%98user%E2%80%99_term_adequate_a_design_anthropology_perspective_on_design_for_social_welfare_services. Accessed 15 June 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Laszlo, E.. ( 1996), The Systems View of the World: A Holistic Vision for Our Time, Cresskill, NJ:: Hampton Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Lawson, B., and Dorst, K.. ( 2013), Design Expertise, New York:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Loch, C. H., and Kavadias, S.. ( 2008;), ‘ Managing new product development: An evolutionary framework. ’, in C. H. Loch, and S. Kavadias. (eds), Handbook of New Product Development Management, Amsterdam:: Elsevier;, pp. 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Lurås, S.. ( 2016;), ‘ Systemic design in complex contexts: An enquiry through designing a ship’s bridge. ’, doctoral thesis, Oslo:: Oslo School of Architecture and Design;.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Manzini, E.. ( 2015), Design, When Everybody Designs: An Introduction to Design for Social Innovation, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Manzini, E.. ( 2016;), ‘ Design culture and dialogic design. ’, Design Issues, 32:1, pp. 52–59.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Melles, G.,, Anderson, N.,, Barrett, T., and Thompson-Whiteside, S.. ( 2015;), ‘ Problem finding through design thinking in education. ’, in P. Blessinger, and J. M. Carfora. (eds), Inquiry-Based Learning for Multidisciplinary Programs: A Conceptual and Practical Resource for Educators, Bingley:: Emerald;, pp. 191–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Mertens, D. M.. ( 2014;), ‘ Mixed methods and wicked problems. ’, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9:1, pp. 3–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Mettas, A. C., and Constantinou, C. C.. ( 2008;), ‘ The technology fair: A project-based learning approach for enhancing problem solving skills and interest in design and technology education. ’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18:1, pp. 79–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Miettinen, R., and Hasu, M.. ( 2002;), ‘ Articulating user needs in collaborative design: Towards an activity-theoretical approach. ’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 11:1&2, pp. 129–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Miles, M. B., and Michael Huberman, A.. ( 1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Los Angeles, CA:: Sage;.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Mills, J. E., and Treagust, D. F.. ( 2003;), ‘ Engineering education – is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. ’, Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3:2, pp. 2–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Morgan, T., and McMahon, C.. ( 2015;), ‘ Design as the resolution of paradoxes: An exploratory study. ’, in C. Weber,, S. Husung,, G. Cascini,, M. Cantamessa,, D. Marjanovic, and M. Bordegoni. (eds), DS 80-11 Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 15) Vol 11: Human Behaviour in Design, Design Education, Milan, Italy, 27–30 July, Glasgow:: The Design Society;, pp. 215–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Mosely, G.,, Wright, N., and Wrigley, C.. ( 2018;), ‘ Facilitating design thinking: A comparison of design expertise. ’, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 27:1, pp. 177–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Nelson, H. G., and Stolterman, E.. ( 2003), The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Norman, D.. ( 2010;), ‘ Why design education must change. ’, Core 77: Design Magazine and Resource, 26 November, https://www.core77.com/posts/17993/why-design-education-must-change-17993. Accessed 15 June 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Norman, D., and Stappers, P. J.. ( 2015;), ‘ DesignX: Complex sociotechnical systems. ’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1:2, pp. 83–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. O’Brien, W.,, Soibelman, L., and Elvin, G.. ( 2003;), ‘ Collaborative design processes: An active- and reflective-learning course in multidisciplinary collaboration. ’, Journal of Construction Education, 8:2, pp. 78–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Page, T.,, Ha, J. G., and Thorsteinsson, G.. ( 2007;), ‘ Technology enhanced learning in design education through the use of virtual reality learning environments. ’, Journal of Korea Design Knowledge, 4, pp. 213–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Pärttö, M., and Saariluoma, P.. ( 2012;), ‘ Explaining failures in innovative thought processes in engineering design. ’, Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 41:1, pp. 442–49.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Peters, B. G.. ( 2017;), ‘ What is so wicked about wicked problems? A conceptual analysis and a research program. ’, Policy and Society, 36:3, pp. 385–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Philpott, C.. ( 2014), Theories of Professional Learning: A Critical Guide for Teacher Educators, Norwich:: Critical Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Poggenpohl, S.. ( 2009a;), ‘ Time for change: Building a design discipline. ’, in S. Poggenpohl, and K. Sato. (eds), Design Integrations: Research and Collaboration, Bristol:: Intellect;, pp. 3–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Rittel, H. W., and Webber, M. M.. ( 2009b;), ‘ Practicing collaborative action in design. ’, in S. Poggenpohl, and K. Sato. (eds), Design Integration: Research and Collaboration, Bristol:: Intellect;, pp. 137–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Rittel, H. W., and Webber, M. M.. ( 1973;), ‘ Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. ’, Policy Sciences, 4:2, pp. 155–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Robles, M. M.. ( 2012;), ‘ Executive perceptions of the top 10 soft skills needed in today’s workplace. ’, Business Communication Quarterly, 75:4, pp. 453–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Romme, A. G. L.. ( 2004;), ‘ Action research, emancipation and design thinking. ’, Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 14:6, pp. 495–99.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Ryan, A.. ( 2014;), ‘ A framework for systemic design. ’, FormAkademisk – Research Journal of Design and Design Education, 7:4, pp. 1–14, https://journals.hioa.no/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/787. Accessed 15 June 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Saitta, L., and Zucker, J. D.. ( 2007;), ‘ Abstraction and complexity measures. ’, in I. Miguel, and W. Ruml. (eds), International Symposium on Abstraction, Reformulation, and Approximation, Whistler, Canada, 18–21 July, Berlin and Heidelberg:: Springer;, pp. 375–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Saitta, L., and Zucker, J. D.. ( 2013), Abstraction in Artificial Intelligence and Complex Systems, vol. 456, New York:: Springer;.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Savin-Baden, M.. ( 2000), Problem-Based Learning in Higher Education: Untold Stories, Buckingham:: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Savin-Baden, M., and Major, C. H.. ( 2004), Foundations of Problem-Based Learning, Buckingham:: The Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Self, J. A.. ( 2016;), ‘ Problem or solution focused? Ill-defined design problems and the influence of design ability. ’, in D. Marjanović,, M. Štorga,, N. Pavković,, N. Bojčetić, and S. Škec. (eds), DS 84: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2016 14th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, 16–19 May, Glasgow:: The Design Society;, pp. 67–76.
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Simon, H. A.. ( 1996), The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Souleles, N.. ( 2017;), ‘ Design for social change and design education: Social challenges versus teacher-centred pedagogies. ’, The Design Journal, 20:1, pp. S927–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Swann, C.. ( 2002;), ‘ Action research and the practice of design. ’, Design Issues, 18:1, pp. 49–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Telenko, C.,, Camburn, B.,, Hölttä-Otto, K.,, Wood, K., and Otto, K.. ( 2014;), ‘ Designettes: New approaches to multidisciplinary engineering design education. ’, in American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) (ed.), Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Buffalo, NY:: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection;.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Vandenbosch, B.. ( 2003), Designing Solutions for Your Business Problems: A Structured Process for Managers and Consultants, San Fransisco:: John Wiley & Sons;.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Van der Westhuizen, C.,, Chen, P. H., and van der Hoek, A.. ( 2006;), ‘ Emerging design: New roles and uses for abstraction. ’, in J. Kramer, and O. Hazzan. (eds), Proceedings of the 2006 International Workshop on Role of Abstraction in Software Engineering, Shanghai, 20–28 May, New York:: ACM;, pp. 23–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. van Weert, T. J.. ( 2006;), ‘ Education of the twenty-first century: New professionalism in lifelong learning, knowledge development and knowledge sharing. ’, Education and Information Technologies, 11:3&4, pp. 217–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Vogel, C. M., and Wang, X.. ( 2019;), ‘ Observations on the state of design education: Past, present, future. ’, Design Management Review, 30:1, pp. 26–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Wright, N., and Wrigley, C.. ( 2019;), ‘ Broadening design-led education horizons: Conceptual insights and future research directions. ’, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29:1, pp. 1–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Wrigley, C., and Straker, K.. ( 2017;), ‘ Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder. ’, Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54:4, pp. 374–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  88. Yang, C. F., and Sung, T. J.. ( 2016;), ‘ Service design for social innovation through participatory action research. ’, International Journal of Design, 10:1, pp. 21–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Aryana, Bijan. ( 2020;), ‘ Emerging design: Integrating learning, practice and research. ’, Journal of Design, Business & Society, 6:1, pp. 71–107, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00005_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00005_1
Loading
Emerging design: Integrating learning, practice and research
Journal of Design, Business & Society 6, 71 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00005_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00005_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00005_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): action research; activity theory; design discipline; emerging design; multidimensional problem; problem-based learning

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error