Enabling metadesign through an exploration of misinterpretation: Design process verification focusing on the role of objects in the actual production process | Intellect Skip to content
1981
Volume 15, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 1753-5190
  • E-ISSN: 1753-5204

Abstract

This case study analyses the role that writing and verbal communication plays when using objects in the collaborative metadesign process. It is common for co-design practices to be introduced in the ideation and other early stages of the design process. In these processes achieving consensus among participants may be critically important. Our research shows that an appropriate physical object can help not only in the initial phase of the process but also in the later stages of designing and production. In this article, we focused on the co-design process carried out by a Japanese craftsman and a group of designers and explored how the artefacts created along the way affected the process of communication. By examining misunderstandings and consensus between the participants, we learnt more about the possible role of objects in bridging the different viewpoints. The results of this study will contribute to the active introduction of metadesign methods in later design phases and, thus, improve the inclusiveness within metadesign projects.

Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • JSPS KAKENHI (Award 18K11972)
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jwcp_00029_1
2022-01-01
2024-02-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Binder, T.,, Brandt, E.,, Ehn, P., and Halse, J.. ( 2015;), ‘ Democratic design experiments: Between parliament and laboratory. ’, CoDesign, 11:3&4, pp. 15265, https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081248. Accessed 21 May 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bowker, G. C.,, Timmermans, S.,, Clarke, A. E., and Balka, E.. (eds) ( 2016), Boundary Objects and Beyond: Working with Leigh Star, Cambridge:: The MIT Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brown, V. A.,, Harris, J. A., and Russell, J. Y.. (eds) ( 2010), Tackling Wicked Problems through the Transdisciplinary Imagination, New York:: Earthscan;.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Dant, T.. ( 2005), Materiality and Society, Maidenhead:: Open University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Ehn, P.. ( 2008;), ‘ Participation in design things. ’, in D. Hakken,, J. Simonsen, and T. Robertson. (eds), Participatory Design Conference (PDC), Bloomington, IN, 1–4 October, New York:: ACM Digital Library;, pp. 92101.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Eriksen, M. A.. ( 2012;), ‘ Material matters in co-designing: Formatting & staging with participating materials in co-design projects, events & situations. ’, doctoral thesis, Malmö:: Malmö University.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Giddens, A.. ( 1990), The Consequences of Modernity, Cambridge:: Polity;.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Halskov, K., and Hansen, N. B.. ( 2015;), ‘ The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. ’, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 74, pp. 8192.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Harris, R.. ( 1990), Language, Saussure and Wittgenstein: How to Play Games with Words, London and New York:: Routledge;.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hormess, M.,, Lawrence, A.,, Schneider, J., and Stickdorn, M.. ( 2018), This Is Service Design Doing, Sebastopol, CA:: O’Reilly Media Inc;.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Kleinsmann, M., and Valkenburg, R.. ( 2008;), ‘ Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. ’, Design Studies, 29:4, pp. 36986.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. McKim, R. H.. ( 1972), Experience in Visual Thinking, Monterey, CA:: Brooks and Cole Pub Co;.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Redström, J.. ( 2008;), ‘ RE: Definitions of use?. ’, Design Studies, 29:4, pp. 41023.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Sanders, E. B.-N., and Stappers, P. J.. ( 2008;), ‘ Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. ’, CoDesign, 4:1, pp. 518, https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068. Accessed 21 May 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Sennett, R.. ( 2008), The Craftsman, New Haven, CT and London:: Yale University Press;.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Star, S. L.. ( 1989;), ‘ The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. ’, in L. Gasser, and M. Huhns. (eds), Distributed Artificial Intelligence, vol. 2, San Francisco, CA:: Morgan Kaufman;, pp. 3754.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wood, J.. ( 2007;), ‘ Win-win-win-win-win-win: Synergy tools for metadesigners. ’, in Inns, T.. (ed.), Designing for the 21st Century, Interdisciplinary Questions and Insights, Aldershot:: Gower Publishing;, pp. 11428.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Tomohide, Mizuuchi,, Eizo, Okada, and Daijiro, Mizuno. ( 2022;), ‘ Enabling metadesign through an exploration of misinterpretation: Design process verification focusing on the role of objects in the actual production process. ’, Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 15:1, pp. 4972, https://doi.org/10.1386/jwcp_00029_1
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jwcp_00029_1
Loading
/content/journals/10.1386/jwcp_00029_1
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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