An inventive practice perspective on designing · An inventive practice perspective on designing...

Aninventivepractice

perspectiveondesigning

LucyKimbell

SubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftheawardofPhDinDesignatLancaster

UniversityinSeptember2013.ExaminedbyvivavoceinDecember2013byDr

DanielaSangiorgi(UniversityofLancaster)andDrThomasBinder(Danish

DesignSchool,Copenhagen).

Declaration

Iconfirmthisdocumentismyownwork,andhasnotbeensubmittedbymein

substantiallythesameformfortheawardofahigherdegreeelsewhere.

Signed

LucyKimbell,16September2013

1

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

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

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

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

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):


Kimbell,L.(2011)DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigningServices.

InternationalJournalofDesign,5(2):41-52.

8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

analysiswithotherresearchersandwithpractitionersinservicedesignand

designforsocialinnovation.Despitethis,thedescriptionsofcontemporary

designingofferedhereremainsonlyapartialaccount.Ratherthanseeingthisas

aweakness,however,theautoethnographicapproachpromptsmetorecognize

myownlocatednesswithinthesefieldsandinthisresearch,whichiswhythere

areoccasionalcommentsaboutmyownrole.

83

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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),


Paper2



Paper3

Kimbell,L.(2011)DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigningServices.

InternationalJournalofDesign,5(2),41-52.

144

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

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

28

7

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

28

9

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

29

1

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

29

3

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

29

5

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

29

7

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

29

9

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

30

1

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

30

3

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

30

5

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

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

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

13

1

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

13

3

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

13

5

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

13

7

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

13

9

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

14

1

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

14

3

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

14

5

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

14

7

Des

ign

and

Cul

ture


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

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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -., /)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.&%.//#$%)%*8*&#9)&0,%)1):8*0*%./%<')&%0*%01".:"#+%01%+#*021012%*#$"0,#*%&')&%+$)<*%#;&#1*0"#:8%.1%3.&'%+#*021%)1+%*#$"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$1):% ,.1&#1&-% #;,#(&% <'#$#% .&'#$<0*#% 1.&#+-% 0*% :0,#1*#+% 41+#$% )* 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+%&#9(.$):%)1+%&'.42'&%./%"):4#%)*%,$#)&#+%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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -:, /)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%&#1*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-%./&#1%:),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:)$5-%CGGAD%)1+%*8*&#9*%+#*021%=Q'1%?%hV<2$#1-%CGGHD6%\#*,$0(&0.1*%./% +#*021%./&#1%'012#%.1%+0//#$#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%)&&#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#$)&#%0+#)*-%)1+%#12)2#%(.&#1&0):%4*#$*%)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*&#9*% .$%.$2)10I)&0.1*%=J4,')1)1-%ABBCD6%@.,0.:.20*&*%)1+%)1&'$.(.:.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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -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%<$0&&#1%38%($),&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#:% &')&%)$#%()$&%./%)%*#$"0,#-%./&#1%,)::#+%&.4,'(.01&*6%N#*#)$,'#$*%')"#%

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%)&&#1&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&)$8%()$&*%./%)%*#$"0,#%*8*&#96%>.$#::0%=ABBGD%+0*,4**#*%&'#%&#1*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*&#9% .$%)$,'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%&#1*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,%,)&#2.$8%01%,.1&$)*&%&.%2..+*6%d.$%b)$2.%)1+%h4*,'-% *#$"0,#% 01".:"#*% +81)90,% ($.,#**#*%<0&'01%<'0,'% "):4#%

?%@(.'$#$-%ABBPD6

189

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, --, /)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&% $#*#)$,'#$*%')"#%()0+%)&&#1&0.1%&.%&'#%+#*021%./%&'#%*#$"0,#%+#:0"#$8%*8*&#9%)1+%&'#%*#$"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/.$9)&0.1% *8*&#9*% ')*% :#+% &.% ,)::*% /.$% )%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)$3.1#%)1+%])#,5#:%=CGGLD%,:)09%&')&%()8012%2$#)&#$%)&&#1&0.1% &.% &'#%+#&)0:*%./% &'#%9)&#$0):%)$&0/),&*% 01".:"#+% 01% )% *#$"0,#% #;(#$0#1,#% <0::% $#*4:&% 01% 2$#)&#$%,4*&.9#$% *)&0*/),&0.16% d4$&'#$% #;&#1+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%*#$"0,#%,.1,#(&*%=R.:+*&#01-% M.'1*&.1-% \4//8-% ?% N).-% ABBAD% )1+% )% ($.(.*):% &.%,$#)&#% )%1#<% /41,&0.1%,)::#+%,4*&.9#$%#;(#$0#1,#%9)1)2#9#1&-%$#*(.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*%#;&#1+#+%&.%,."#$%):9.*&%#1&0$#:8%&'#%+#"#:.(9#1&%./%1#<%*#$"0,#*6%

E.2#&'#$-%&'#*#%,.1,#(&*%k%&'#%+#*021%./%&'#%*#$"0,#%+#:0"#$8%*8*&#9-%,.1&014.4*:8%+#*021012%($.,#**#*%&.%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&%&#1*0.1*6%

190

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -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*%)%&#1*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#%()$&0,4:)$%,)&#2.$8%./%)$&#/),&%&.%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$0&&#1% 4(% 01% &'$##% ,)*#*-% &'#% *&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#$*%#12)2#+%<0&'%&'#0$%&#9(.$)$8%,:0#1&*%01%*090:)$%<)8*%):&'.42'%#),'%,)*#%0*%<$0&&#1%4(%&.%'02':02'&%+0//#$#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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -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%')+%),,#**%&.%LB%'.4$*%./%"0+#.%/..&)2#%)*%<#::%)*%98%1.&#*% /$.9% 98% .3*#$")&0.1*% ./% &'#% +#*021#$*% )1+% &'#% )$&0/),&*%,$#)&#+% 38% &'#% +#*021#$*% )1+% 38%<.$5*'.(% ()$&0,0()1&*6%!1#% ./%&'#%,')::#12#*%')*%3##1%&.%$#($#*#1&%*4,'%)%:)$2#%,.::#,&0.1%./%+)&)%01%&'$##%*'.$&%,)*#*6%E'#%+)&)%<#$#%,.::#,&#+%3#&<##1%\#,#93#$%ABBP%)1+%!,&.3#$%ABBH6%71):8*0*%<)*%*')(#+%)3+4,&0"#:8%38%&'#%94:&0+0*,0(:01)$8% ,.1"#$*)&0.1*% &')&% #9#$2#+% 01% &'#% <.$5*'.(*%)1+%38%$#"0#<012%&'#%:0&#$)&4$#%=J:)050#-%ABBBD6%

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,#%&.%(.&#1&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%<'#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%&.%_$.*.10;^*%(.&#1&0):%,:0#1&*%&'#% *.$&*% ./% 011.")&0.1*% (.**03:#% 4*012% &'#% ,.9()18^*% ()$&0,:#%#1201##$012% *#$"0,#*6% !1#-% )09#+% )&% (.&#1&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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -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$012%&'0*%9##&012-%&'#%+#*021#$*%<#$#%):*.%)&&#1&0"#%&.%&'#%)$&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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -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&% &#9(:)&#-% <'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+% #;&#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$#)&%)&&#1&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*#+% #;&#1*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% ].<#"#$-% <'0:#% &'#8%()0+%)&&#1&0.1%&.%9)18%)$&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.&'% $#:)&0.1):% )1+% &#9(.$):% )*% 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<.$5% #9(')*0I#+% &'#% &#9(.$):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&% &'#% $#:)&0.1):% )1+%&#9(.$):%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*&#1&%<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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, -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+%

)&&#1&0.1%&.%&<.%)*(#,&*%./%*#$"0,#%+#*021%k%<')&%0*%3#012%+#*021#+%01% &'#% +#*021% ./% *#$"0,#*% )1+% '.<% +#*021#$*% 2.% )3.4&% *#$"0,#%+#*0216%

E'#%$#*#)$,'%/.41+%&')&% &'#%+#*021#$*%)&&#1+#+%,:.*#:8% &.%)%<0+#%$)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,#%)*%$#:)&0.1):%)1+%&#9(.$):%)*%"):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+% &'#%*&$)&#20#*%./% &'#%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%)&&#1+#+% &.%($),&0,#*%)1+%"):4#%$#:)&0.1*% 01".:"012%)$&#/),&*%)*%+0"#$*#%)*%(.*&#$*-%<#3*0&#*%)1+%*&)//%&$)01012%9)14):*-%*422#*&012%&')&%+#*021012%/.$%*#$"0,#%0*%)%*&$)&#20,%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.% )&&#9(&% &.%)**#**%<'#&'#$%&'#%)(($.),'%($),&0,#+%38%&'#*#%+#*021#$*%<.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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, 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*&#9% #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(:#&#1#**6% E%0&"'Y&#'("*=#,?'$/-%:Z

196

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, 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*&#9*%38%3$0+2012%&'#%S/$.1&%*&)2#U%)1+%S3),5%*&)2#U6%!"-(%4&#'("*=D/#$4/*T7@,/'"$//*K&"&0$4$"#B*W

fA6%R.:+*&#01-%@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% @#$"0,#% *8*&#9*-% *#$"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,&[*#$"0,#% *8*&#9*Z% 7%9#&'.+.:.20,):%#;(:.$)&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&#$),&0"#%*&$)&#28Z%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

!!!"#$%&'#()"*+(, 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+)$8% .3a#,&*Z% 79)&#4$*% )1+%($./#**0.1):*% 01%J#$5#:#8^*%94*#49%./% "#$&#3$)&#% 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&#2$)&0"#%)(($.),'%&.%+#*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&#2$)&012%*#$"0,#%*8*&#9*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&%($),&0,#% )1+% /4&4$#% &$#1+*% 01% 01&#2$)&#+% 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%_$.3:#9*% )1+% *&$)&#20#*% 01% *#$"0,#*% 9)$5#&0126% +(,%"&)* (-*K&%L$#'"0-%SZ

CBf6% .9#$+0a5-% h6-% ?% b.**-% K6% =ABCBD6% @#$"0,#% +#*021% /.$%+(,%"&)* (-* =$%3'9$* O$/$&%9A-%

MX

198

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“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

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

- 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

- 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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


howanexcessofdata,

affectandthesensory

canopenuppossibilities

andleadtonew

configurations.

Emphasisesthataffect

andthesensoryrelating

tothelivesofolder

people,befrienders,

carersandstaff,area

resourcefordesigningthe

newservice.

294

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- Shiftsawayfromindividualcapacities,skillsandneedsandhighlights

howtheseareco-constitutedrelationally,consideredboththroughthe

lensesofdesign-as-practiceandindesigns-in-practice.

Inconclusion,then,itisarguedthattheinventivepracticeperspectiveis

productive.Itdoesnotreplaceexistingmodesorstylesofanalysis,butrather

servestocombinedifferentintellectualtraditionsinarecombinantformulation

thatopensupnewpossibilities,whileneverclaimingtobedefinitiveandfinal.

303

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

writingthistext,Ihavebeeninvolvedinreconfiguringmyownprofessional

work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DundeeUniversity.2013.MasterofDesignforServices.

http://www.dundee.ac.uk/postgraduate/courses/design_for_services_mdes.htm,


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

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

Futuregov.(2012).Benefitscamp.

http://wearefuturegov.com/2012/01/benefits-camp-read-all-about-it/,


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

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

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

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

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

Kimbell,L.(2011a).RethinkingDesignThinking:Part1.DesignandCulture,3(3),

285-306.

Kimbell,L.(2011b)DesigningforServiceasOneWayofDesigningServices.

InternationalJournalofDesign,5(2),41-52.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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/


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

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/,


Shostack,G.L.(1982)Howtodesignaservice.EuropeanJournalofMarketing,

16(1),49-63.

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

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

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

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

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

An inventive practice perspective on designing · An inventive practice perspective on designing...

Documents

Transcript of An inventive practice perspective on designing · An inventive practice perspective on designing...