Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education
  4. Volume 22, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 22, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1474-273X
  • E-ISSN: 2040-0896

Abstract

Inclusivity is the explicit and ultimate aim of Inclusive Design. Although the field continues to develop, it remains heavily influenced by product design logic and practices. Drawing on current discussions on how to educate designers for real-world challenges, we argue that Service Design offers a complementary knowledge set that supports novice inclusive designers in engaging with increasingly complex design problems. To this end, we describe how a Service Design workshop was introduced into an ongoing inclusive design project. The participants’ self-reported experiences were captured throughout and results show the workshop’s impact in five key aspects: re-framing the problem-solution space; encouraging a new design logic; challenging a heuristic approach to designing by systematizing the process; shifting views on disability from individual to structural and systemic levels; its effectiveness for student learning. We discuss how these findings have direct implications for building capacity to address increasingly complex design problems and for the future of Inclusive Design education.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • Loughborough University (Award UID/04509/2020)
  • FCT/MCTES
© 2023 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00076_1
2023-11-28
2025-12-10
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ball, L. J., Evans, J. ST. B. T. and Dennis, I. (1994), ‘Cognitive processes in engineering design: A longitudinal study’, Ergonomics, 37:11, pp. 1753–86, https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139408964950.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Becermen, B. and Simeone, L. (2021), ‘Current and future trajectories for Service Design education: Views from educators in academia’, in Y. Akama, L. Fennessy, S. Harrington and A. Farago (eds), ServDes.2020 Tensions Paradoxes Plurality: Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia, 2–5 February, Melbourne: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 369–83.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Bijl-Brouwer, M. van der (2019), ‘Problem framing expertise in public and social innovation’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5:1, pp. 29–43, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.01.003.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bogdescu, O., Biskjaer, M. and Rooij, A. de (2022), ‘Implementation intention as a debiasing intervention for a bias blind spot among UX practitioners’, DRS Biennial Conference Series [preprint], https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2022/researchpapers/6. Accessed 14 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006), ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3:2, pp. 77–101, https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Buchanan, R. (1992), ‘Wicked problems in design thinking’, Design Issues, 8:2, pp. 5–21, https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Busciantella-Ricci, D. and Aceves-Gonzalez, C. (2021), ‘Framing design for inclusion strategies for Service Design’, in C. S. Shin, G. Di Bucchianico, S. Fukuda, Y.-G. Ghim, G. Montagna and C. Carvalho (eds), Advances in Industrial Design, Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 371–79, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80829-7_46.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Busciantella-Ricci, D., Rizo-Corona, L. and Aceves-Gonzalez, C. (2020), ‘Exploring boundaries and synergies between Inclusive Design and Service Design’, in G.Di Bucchianico, C. S. Shin, S. Shim, S. Fukuda, G. Montagna and C. Carvalho (eds), Advances in Industrial Design, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 55–61, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51194-4_8.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Clarkson, P. J. and Coleman, R. (2015), ‘History of Inclusive Design in the UK’, Applied Ergonomics, 46b, pp. 235–47, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2013.03.002.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Clarkson, P. J., Keates, S., Coleman, R. and Lebbon, C. (2013), Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population, London: Springer Science & Business Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Cooper, A. (1999), The Inmates Are Running the Asylum, Indianapolis, IN: Sams.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Costa, A. and Kallick, B. (1993), ‘Through the lens of a critical friend’, Educational Leadership, 51, pp. 49–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Cross, N. (2004), ‘Expertise in design: An overview’, Design Studies, 25:5, pp. 427–41, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Daalhuizen, J., Person, O. and Gattol, V. (2014), ‘A personal matter? An investigation of students’ design process experiences when using a heuristic or a systematic method’, Design Studies, 35:2, pp. 133–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2013.10.004.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Deininger, M., Daly, S. R., Sienko, K. H. and Lee, J. C. (2017), ‘Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design’, Design Studies, 51, pp. 25–65, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.002.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Dewey, J. (1933), How We Think: A Restatement of the Relation of Reflective Thinking to the Educative Process, Boston, MA: D.C. Heath.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Dong, H. (2010), ‘Strategies for teaching Inclusive Design’, Journal of Engineering Design, 21:2&3, pp. 237–51, https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820903262330.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), ‘Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution’, Design Studies, 22:5, pp. 425–37, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Downe, L. (2020), Good Services: How to Design Services that Work, Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Fook, J., Collington, V., Ross, F., Ruch, G. and West, L. (2015), Researching Critical Reflection: Multidisciplinary Perspectives, London and New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Frascara, J. (2017), ‘Design, and design education: How can they get together?’, Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 16:1, pp. 125–31, https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.16.1.125_1.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Huan, Y., Arvola, M. and Holmlid, S. (2020), ‘Three perspectives on inclusive Service Design: User-centred, adaptive systems, and service logics’, in Y. Akama, L. Fennessy, S. Harrington and A. Farago (eds), ServDes.2020 Tensions, Paradoxes and Plurality Conference Proceedings, Melbourne, Australia, 2–5 February, Melbourne: Linköping University Electronic Press, pp. 36–55, https://ep.liu.se/en/conference-article.aspx?series=ecp&issue=173&Article_No=4. Accessed 14 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kimbell, L. and Blomberg, J. (2017), ‘The object of Service Design’, in D. Sangiorgi and A. Prendiville (eds), Designing for Service: Key Issues and New Directions, London and New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp. 81–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Kuzmina, K. and Lofthouse, V. (2023), ‘Sustainable design education in higher education and implementation’, Sustainability, 15:6, p. 5002, https://doi.org/10.3390/su15065002.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Landa-Avila, I. C. and Aceves-González, C. (2019), ‘Inclusive human-centered design: Experiences and challenges to teaching Design Engineering students’, in S. Bagnara, R. Tartaglia, S. Albolino, T. Alexander and Y. Fujita (eds), Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018): IEA 2018, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Florence, Italy, 26–30 August 2018, Cham: Springer, pp. 1558–70, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_160.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Loughborough University (2020), ‘Evolving Inclusive Design’, YouTube, 20 October, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzl1dKCMGLw. Accessed 15 August 2022.
  27. Luojus, S. and Tossavainen, P. (2019), ‘New insights in higher education: Leading Service Design’, in INTED2019 Proceedings: 13th International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain, 11–13 March, Valencia: IATED, pp. 2972–80, https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2019.0784.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Meyer, M. W. and Norman, D. (2020), ‘Changing design education for the 21st century’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6:1, pp. 13–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.12.002.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Morelli, N., Götzen, A. de and Simeone, L. (2021), Service Design Capabilities, Cham: Springer Nature, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56282-3.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Redström, J. (2020), ‘Certain uncertainties and the design of design education’, She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 6:1, pp. 83–100, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2020.02.001.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Risdon, C. and Quattlebaum, P. (2018), Orchestrating Experiences: Collaborative Design for Complexity, Rosenfeld Media.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. (1973), ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences, 4:2, pp. 155–69, https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Shostack, G. L. (1984), ‘Designing services that deliver’, Harvard Business Review, January, pp. 133–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Sufi, S., Nenadic, A., Silva, R., Duckles, B., Simera, I., Beyer, J. A. de, Struthers, C., Nurmikko-Fuller, T., Bellis, L., Miah, W., Wilde, A., Emsley, I., Philippe, O., Balzano, M., Coelho, S., Ford, H., Jones, C. and Higgins, V. (2018), ‘Ten simple rules for measuring the impact of workshops’, PLOS Computational Biology, 14:8, p. e1006191, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006191.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Trigueiros, P. and Burrows, A. (2007), ‘Thinking better…creating for all’, Proceedings of Include 2007: The 4th International Conference on Inclusive Design: Include 2007, Royal College of Art, London, UK, 2–4 April.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Vargo, S. L. and Lusch, R. F. (2016), ‘Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44:1, pp. 5–23, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-015-0456-3.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Wetter-Edman, K., Sangiorgi, D., Edvardsson, B., Holmlid, S., Grönroos, C. and Mattelmäki, T. (2014), ‘Design for value co-creation: Exploring synergies between design for service and service logic’, Service Science, 6:2, pp. 106–21, https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2014.0068.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Wilson, N., Thomson, A., Thomson, A. and Holliman, A. F. (2019), ‘Understanding Inclusive Design education’, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Delft, the Netherlands, 5–8 August, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 619–28, https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.66.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Yu, E. and Sangiorgi, D. (2018), ‘Service Design as an approach to implement the value cocreation perspective in new service development’, Journal of Service Research, 21:1, pp. 40–58, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517709356.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Zomerdijk, L. G. and Voss, C. A. (2010), ‘Service Design for experience-centric services’, Journal of Service Research, 13:1, pp. 67–82, https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509351960.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00076_1
Loading
Educating for complexity in Inclusive Design: From products to service systems
Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education 22, 241 (2023); https://doi.org/10.1386/adch_00076_1
/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00076_1
/content/journals/10.1386/adch_00076_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): design education; inclusion; novice designers; project-based learning; service design; workshop

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
Please enter a valid_number test