Participatory Action Research and design pedagogy: Perspectives for design education | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education
  4. Volume 19, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 19, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1474-273X
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0896

Abstract

Design’s scope of practice has grown from one that was traditionally defined by materials and processes to one where designers are working on some of the most pressing challenges of our times. Once a reactive, artefact-based practice (e.g. poster, typeface, chair, etc.), design is now being situated as a proactive, social and participatory practice focused on outcomes as much as artefacts. Historically, as an academic subject, professional practice and research area, design has suffered from a lack of formal, established research frameworks and theoretical practices. By drawing on established literature, this article makes the case for the use of methods and practices developed in Participatory Action Research (PAR) to inform and enrich design practice, research and particularly education. The article identifies three shared areas between PAR and design that offer an opportunity for further interrogation; these are: a central concern of working with people; the use of iteration and reflection; and the measuring of success through change.

© 2020 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00013_1
2020-04-01
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AIGA ( 2017;), ‘ AIGA designer 2025: Why design education should pay attention to trends. ’, AIGA, 22 August, https://educators.aiga.org/aiga-designer-2025/. Accessed 15 July 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bennett, A., and Vulpinari, O.. (eds) ( 2011), ICOGRADA Design Education Manifesto 2011, Montreal:: Icograda IDA;.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bilandzic, M., and Venable, J.. ( 2011;), ‘ Towards participatory action design research: Adapting action research and design science research methods for urban informatics. ’, The Journal of Community Informatics, 7:3, http://ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/786. Accessed 13 November 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Burns, C.,, Cottam, H.,, Vanstone, C., and Winhall, J.. ( 2006), Transformation Design, London:: Design Council;, http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/red. Accessed 25 May 2018.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Canniffe, B.. ( 2011;), ‘ Designing in and for communities: Breaking institutional barriers and engaging design students in meaningful and relevant projects. ’, Iridescent, 1:1, pp. 202–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Canniffe, B.,, Adams, D., and Wiley, B. M.. ( 2013;), ‘ Bringing the university into the rural community, the value and dangers of taking design education out of the classroom. ’, INTED2013 Proceedings, Valencia, Spain, 4–5 March, Valencia:: INTED;, pp. 6008–13.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Carroll, J. M.. ( 2006;), ‘ Dimensions of participation in Simon’s design. ’, Design Issues, 22:2, pp. 3–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Carson, T. R.. ( 1986;), ‘ Closing the gap between research and practice: Conversation as a mode of doing research. ’, Phenomenology+Pedagogy, 4:2, pp. 73–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheatham, D. M.. ( 2017;), ‘ A multiple intelligences model for design: Developing the ways designers think as design disciplines expand. ’, Dialectic, I:2, pp. 75–100.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Crouch, C., and Pearce, J.. ( 2014), Doing Research in Design, London:: Bloomsbury;.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Davis, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Relevance in a complex world. ’, in A. Bennett, and O. Vulpinari. (eds), ICOGRADA Design Education Manifesto 2011, Montreal:: Icograda IDA;, pp. 72–75.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Davis, M.. ( 2017), Teaching Design: A Guide to Curriculum and Pedagogy for College Design Faculty and Teachers Who Use Design in Their Classrooms, New York:: Allworth Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Frascara, J.. ( 1988;), ‘ Graphic design: Fine art or social science?. ’, Design Issues, 5:1, pp. 18–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Frascara, J.. ( 2007;), ‘ Hiding lack of knowledge: Bad words in design education. ’, Design Issues, 23:4, pp. 62–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Frascara, J., and Noël, G.. ( 2012;), ‘ What’s missing in design education today?. ’, Visible Language, 46:1, pp. 36–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Gardien, P.,, Djajadiningrat, T.,, Hummels, C., and Brombacher, A.. ( 2014;), ‘ Changing your hammer: The implications of paradigmatic innovation for design practice. ’, International Journal of Design, 8:2, pp. 119–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Gelb, D.. ( 2014;), ‘ Social media, constructivism and design studio: Lessons learned. ’, DesignEd Asia Conference 2014, Hong Kong, China, 2–3 December.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Guba, E. G., and Lincoln, Y. S.. ( 1994;), ‘ Competing paradigms in qualitative research. ’, in N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln. (eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks:: Sage Publications Inc;., pp. 163–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Hagey, R. S.. ( 1997;), ‘ The use and abuse of participatory action research. ’, Chronic Diseases in Canada, 18:1, http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/webarchives/20071212035854/http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/cdic-mcc/18-1/a_e.html. Accessed 18 November 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Hall, B.. ( 1981;), ‘ Participatory research, popular knowledge and power: A personal reflection. ’, Convergence, 14:3, pp. 6–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Hecht, K. M., and Maass, S.. ( 2008;), ‘ Teaching participatory design. ’, in J. Simonsen,, T. Robertson,, and D. Hakken. (eds), PDC ’08 Proceedings of the 10th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, Indiana University, 1–4 October, Bloomington:: CPSR;, pp. 166–69.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Jones, J. C.. ( 1979;), ‘ Designing designing. ’, Design Studies, 1:1, pp. 31–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Katoppo, M. L., and Sudradjat, I.. ( 2015;), ‘ Combining participatory action research (PAR) and design thinking (DT) as an alternative research method in architecture. ’, Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 184, pp. 118–25, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.069. Accessed 30 March 2020.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kimbell, L.. ( 2011;), ‘ Rethinking design thinking: Part I. ’, Design and Culture, 3:3, pp. 285–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Kimbell, L.. ( 2012;), ‘ Rethinking design thinking: Part II. ’, Design and Culture, 4:2, pp. 129–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kock, N.. ( 2013;), ‘ Action research: Its nature and relationship to human-computer interaction. ’, in M. Soegaard, and R. F. Dam. (eds), The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, , 2nd ed.., Aarhus: Interaction Design Foundation:, n.pag.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Koskinen, I., and Krogh, P. G.. ( 2015;), ‘ Design accountability: When design research entangles theory and practice. ’, International Journal of Design, 9:1, pp. 121–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Lincoln, Y. S., and Guba, E. G.. ( 1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Beverly Hills, CA:: Sage Publications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. MacDonald, C.. ( 2012;), ‘ Understanding participatory action research: A qualitative research methodology option. ’, The Canadian Journal of Action Research, 13:2, pp. 34–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Marx, K.. ( 1969;), ‘ Theses on Feuerbach. ’, in K. Marx. (ed.), Marx/Engels Selected Works, Moscow:: Progress Publishers;, pp. 13–15, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1469-5812.1992.tb00227.x. Accessed 23 November 2015.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. McCoy, K.. ( 2003;), ‘ Design as a social and political force. ’, in S. Heller, and V. Vienne. (eds), Citizen Designer: Perspectives on Design Responsibility, New York:: Allworth Press;, pp. 2–8.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. McTaggart, R.. ( 1991;), ‘ Principles for participatory action research. ’, Adult Education Quarterly, 41:3, pp. 168–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. McTaggart, R.. ( 1994;), ‘ Participatory action research: Issues in theory and practice. ’, Educational Action Research, 2:3, pp. 313–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Norman, D.. ( 2010;), ‘ Why design education must change. ’, Core77, 26 November, http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp. Accessed 31 January 2011.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Norman, D.. ( 2014;), ‘ Why designX? The role of designers in complex problems. ’, 13 December, http://www.jnd.org. https://jnd.org/why_designx/. Accessed 5 March 2019.
  36. Norman, D. A., and Stappers, P. J.. ( 2015;), ‘ DesignX: Complex sociotechnical systems. ’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1:2, pp. 83–106.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Parker, S.. ( 2009;), ‘ Social animals: Tomorrow’s designers in today’s world. ’, RSA Design & Society, n.pag.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Pierri, P.. ( 2018;), ‘ Participatory design practices in mental health in the UK: Rebutting the optimism. ’, Design Issues, 34:4, pp. 25–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Rowe, A.. ( 2013;), ‘ Design pedagogy and cultural interrogation: Considering the international and the anthropological. ’, Design Principles and Practices an International Journal: Annual Review, 6, p. 12.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Rowe, A.. ( 2014;), ‘ The idea of the other: Using culture as an internalizing and externalizing focus in design education. ’, in A. Rowe, and B. Sadler Takach. (eds), Design Education: Approaches, Explorations and Perspectives, Edmonton:: A&D Press;, pp. 45–54.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Sanders, E. B. N., and Stappers, P. J.. ( 2008;), ‘ Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. ’, CoDesign, 4:1, pp. 5–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Schein, E. H.. ( 1996;), ‘ Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a model of managed learning. ’, Systems Practice, 9:1, pp. 27–47.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Simon, H. A.. ( 1969), The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA:: MIT Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Swann, C.. ( 2002;), ‘ Action research and the practice of design. ’, Design Issues, 18:1, pp. 49–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Thomas, D., and Brown, J. S.. ( 2009;), ‘ Learning for a world of constant change: Homo Sapiens, Homo Faber and Homo Ludens revisited. ’, unpublished conference paper, 7th Glion Colloquium, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, June.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Ward, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Rapid prototyping politics: Design and the de-material turn. ’, in W. Jonas,, S. Zerwas, and K. von Anshelm. (eds), Transformation Design: Perspectives on a New Design Attitude, Basel:: Birkhauser;, pp. 227–45.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Rowe, Aidan. ( 2020;), ‘ Participatory Action Research and design pedagogy: Perspectives for design education. ’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 19:1, pp. 51–64, doi: https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00013_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00013_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): design education; design futures; design pedagogy; Participatory Action Research; participatory design; social practice

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

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