Blurring disciplinary boundaries in the design studio: Bringing architecture, business and arts students together to prototype new solutions for palliative care | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Design, Business & Society
  4. Volume 8, Issue 2
  5. Article
Design Education: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
  • ISSN: 2055-2106
  • E-ISSN: 2055-2114

Abstract

As complex global problems increasingly require the knowledge and skills of a broad array of disciplines, existing pedagogical approaches need to shift to support graduates to develop the skills necessary for innovation. This article reports on an experimental design studio that asked students from the disciplines of architecture, business and arts to work collaboratively to propose innovative solutions to complex real-world problems. While bringing other disciplines into the design studio is not new, in previously reported examples students were provided well-defined parameters for assessment tasks, alongside clear expectations for how disciplines should work together. The studio reported here provided students with the agency to define their own artefacts in response to the problems facing palliative care, and to decide how they would work together in the process of that production. Within this context, students were forced to examine their own disciplinary limitations and to find strategies for working beyond those, and in doing so, move beyond the recognized limitations of inter- and multi-disciplinary approaches to problem solving. To understand the value of this learning experience, extensive data were gathered from students in addition to educator observations. This article provides advice for design educators wanting to augment the studio learning environment through transdisciplinary collaboration, as well as those beyond the design disciplines who may be interested in utilizing this learning approach.

© 2022 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00039_1
2022-12-22
2024-04-24
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bjögvinsson, E.,, Ehn, P., and Hillgren, P.. ( 2012;), ‘ Design things and design thinking: Contemporary participatory design challenges. ’, Design Issues, 28:3, pp. 101–16.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Blevis, E., and Stolterman, E.. ( 2009;), ‘ The confluence of interaction design and design: From disciplinary to transdisciplinary perspectives. ’, in Undisciplined! Design Research Society Conference 2008, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK, 16–19 July, pp. 1–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Business Models Inc. ( 2018;), ‘ Business model canvas tool. ’, 9 April, https://www.businessmodelsinc.com/about-bmi/tools/business-model-canvas/. Accessed 9 April 2018.
  4. Cains, R.,, Hielscher, S., and Light, A.. ( 2020;), ‘ Collaboration, creativity, conflict and chaos: Doing interdisciplinary sustainability research. ’, Sustainability Science, 15:6, pp. 1711–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act ( 1999), Section 160 .
  6. DiSalvo, C.. ( 2009;), ‘ Design and the construction of publics. ’, Design Issues, 25:1, pp. 48–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Donnelly, S.,, Dean, S.,, Razavy, S., and Levett-Jones, T.. ( 2019;), ‘ Measuring the impact of an interdisciplinary learning project on nursing, architecture and landscape design students’ empathy. ’, PLoS ONE, 14:10, pp. 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Dunne, A., and Raby, F.. ( 2001), Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects, Basel:: Birkhauser;.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Edelson, D. C.. ( 2002;), ‘ Design research: What we learn when we engage in design. ’, The Journal of Learning Sciences, 11:1, pp. 105–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Etkind, S. N.,, Bone, A. E.,, Lovell, N.,, Cripps, R. L.,, Harding, R.,, Higginson, I. J., and Sleeman, K. E.. ( 2020;), ‘ The role and response of palliative care and hospice services in epidemics and pandemics: A rapid review to inform practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. ’, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60:1, pp. e31–40.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Harris, H.. ( 2015;), ‘ Introduction. ’, in D. Freud, and H. Harris. (eds), Radical Pedagogies: Architectural Education and the British Tradition, Newcastle:: RIBA Press;, pp. xii–vi.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Hunt, J.. ( 2012;), ‘ Letter from the editor. ’, Journal of Design Strategies, 5:1, pp. 5–10.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Kapur, M.. ( 2015;), ‘ Learning from productive failure. ’, Learning: Research and Practice, 1:1, pp. 51–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Kimbell, L.. ( 2009;), ‘ Beyond design thinking: Design-as-practice and designs-in-practice. ’, in Proceedings of the CRESC Conference, Manchester, UK, 2–5 September, pp. 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Markauskaite, L., and Goodyear, P.. ( 2016), Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education: Innovation, Knowledgeable Action and Actionable Knowledge, Dordrecht:: Springer;.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. McLaughlan, R., and Chatterjee, I.. ( 2020;), ‘ What works in the architecture studio? Five strategies for optimising student learning. ’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 39:3, pp. 550–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. McLaughlan, R., and Lodge, J. M.. ( 2019;), ‘ Facilitating epistemic fluency through design thinking: A strategy for the broader application of studio pedagogy within higher education. ’, Teaching in Higher Education, 24:1, pp. 81–97.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. McLaughlan, R.,, Pert, A., and Lodge, J. M.. ( 2021;), ‘ Productive uncertainty: The pedagogical benefits of co-creating research in the design studio. ’, International Journal of Art & Design Education, 40:1, pp. 184–200.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Moreno, L. A., and Villalba, E. R.. ( 2018;), ‘ Transdisciplinary design: Tamed complexity through new collaboration. ’, Strategic Design Research Journal, 11:1, pp. 42–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Nicolescu, B.. ( 2014;), ‘ Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, indisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity: Similarities and differences. ’, RCC Perspectives, 2:1, pp. 19–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Noordegraaf, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Risky business: How professionals and professional fields (must) deal with organizational issues. ’, Organization Studies, 32:10, pp. 1349–71.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Panozzo, S.,, Bryan, T.,, Collins, A.,, Marco, D.,, Lethborg, C., and Philip, J. A.. ( 2020;), ‘ Complexities and constraints in end-of-life care for hospitalized prisoner patients. ’, Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 60:5, pp. 984–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Perkins, D.,, Tishman, S.,, Ritchhart, R.,, Donis, K., and Andrade, A.. ( 2000;), ‘ Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of intellectual traits. ’, Educational Psychology Review, 12:3, pp. 269–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Rodgers, R., and Bremner, C.. ( 2013;), ‘ Exhausting discipline: Undisciplined and irresponsible design. ’, Architecture and Culture, 1:1, pp. 143–62.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Rosing, K.,, Frese, M., and Bausch, A.. ( 2011;), ‘ Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership–innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. ’, The Leadership Quarterly, 22:5, pp. 956–74.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Savransky, M., and Rosengarten, M.. ( 2016;), ‘ What is nature capable of? Evidence, ontology and speculative medical humanities. ’, Medical Humanities, 42:3, pp. 166–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Stevens, S., and Knoblauch, J.. ( 2021;), ‘ Call for papers: Special issue on health. ’, Journal of Architecture, 17:1, https://www.jaeonline.org/pages/health#/page2/. Accessed 28 July 2021.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Tuckwell, D.. ( 2017;), ‘ (Still) educating design thinking. ’, Communication Design, 5:1, pp. 131–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Ungaretti, T.,, Chomowicz, P.,, Canniffe, B. J.,, Johnson, B.,, Weiss, E.,, Dunn, K., and Cropper, C.. ( 2009;), ‘ Business + design: Exploring a competitive edge for business thinking. ’, SAM Advanced Management Journal, 74:3, pp. 4–11.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Weingart, P., and Stehr, N.. ( 2000), Practising Interdisciplinarity, Toronto:: University of Toronto Press;.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Wrigley, C., and Mosely, G.. ( 2022), Design Thinking Pedagogy: Facilitating Innovation and Impact in Tertiary Education, London:: Routledge;.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Yuille, J.,, Varadarajan, S.,, Vaughan, L., and Brennan, L.. ( 2015;), ‘ Leading through design: Developing skills for affinity and ambiguity. ’, Design Management Journal, 9:1, pp. 113–23.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. McLaughlan, Rebecca, and Lodge, Jason M.. ( 2022;), ‘ Blurring disciplinary boundaries in the design studio: Bringing architecture, business and arts students together to prototype new solutions for palliative care. ’, Journal of Design, Business & Society, 8:2, pp. 191–209, https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00039_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00039_1
Loading
Blurring disciplinary boundaries in the design studio: Bringing architecture, business and arts students together to prototype new solutions for palliative care
Journal of Design, Business & Society 8, 191 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1386/dbs_00039_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00039_1
/content/journals/10.1386/dbs_00039_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): design thinking; epistemic fluency; innovation; interdisciplinary; productive failure; transdisciplinary

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