Determining the Related Individuals' Competencies

Page 30 of 420 the main barrier that affects collaboration between designers and anthropologists: while many designers base their work on their own perceptions of what people’s problems might be, anthropologists try to elicit these problems directly from consumers.

There appear to be similar barriers to successful collaboration between designers and engineers as between designers and anthropologists. For example, a designer’s distinctive way of communicating through two-dimensional sketches contrasts with the technical drawings of engineering or the written material of anthropologists. The designers’ pragmatic and subjective approach distinguishes them from the engineers’, which is rational and methodical, and from the anthropologists’, which is deep and reflective. It seems that the differences between the participants’ fundamental assumptions and values can be a more significant obstacle in these cases than in collaboration between designers and other disciplines. For example, while engineers are driven by rationality, processes and scientific data, designers are more intuitive, less structured and tend to rely on their own views and opinions while taking professional decisions. Anthropologists proceed rigorously and methodically, in contrast to designers’ pragmatism and flexibility.

Page 31 of 420 and scientists, since solving problems is an important part (but not the only part) of design activity. Crilly [2010] argues that “many studies of creativity examine the work of artists and scientists in an attempt to uncover the cognitive processes that are common to both. Such studies seldom make reference to design, but like design, both artistic creativity and scientific discovery can be considered as problem solving activities” (p.4). However, designers and artists are different in many respects and the nature of their collaborative efforts with scientists may be also very different. Due to the similarities between artists and designers, special care needs to be taken to understand which aspects of collaboration are related to the particular characteristics of designers and which are not. As Hafner claims (cited in Crilly 2009), “while distinguishing artists from scientists is an intuitively obvious thing to do, doing so with any precision is a difficult task because each requires a combination of knowledge and skill, each proceeds through processes of creation and discovery, each is sustained by aesthetic and structural sensitivities, and each demands discipline while benefiting from fortune”.

Although collaboration between artists and scientists is widespread across the globe, academic work that looks at interdisciplinary collaboration between artists and scientists is hard to find. Shanken [2005] argues that “there is scant metacritical research that studies best practices, working methods and contextual support and hindrances” p. 417. However, the available literature is useful to help understand some important aspects of collaboration such as motivation, contribution, barriers and outcome focus.

Page 32 of 420 Artists’ involvement in interdisciplinary collaboration with scientists can be motivated by their interest in using science and technology as the medium through which they produce art; in this case, they instrumentalise science, employing it as a means for artistic production. As Hauser [2008] explains, this is “art that utilizes biotechnology but does not necessarily address thematically linked issues.” Artists can also focus their work on science related issues by incorporating scientific imagery or techniques or by letting their artistic creation be inspired by or reflect on science; in this case science becomes the subject of their artistic production. This is the case with bio-artists, in whose work the use of “biological metaphors and symbols serves to fuel biopolitical discussion and which can get along fine with conventional techniques” (Hauser [2008] p.84). As a result of this, artists collaborating with scientists can have an impact on the public perception of science: artistic output can foster “questions about development in science and technology, and the stories by which science comes to be “appreciated” by society”

(Mayeri [2008] p. 80).

It appears that artists’ inclination to interact with scientists is motivated by a genuine interest in research (as a tool or as a subject). In contrast, as Shanken [2005] suggests, scientists collaborate with artists for other reasons. They may collaborate to “enrich their public image by an association with the arts” or to redeem a stained public image of the business they work for. Shanken also suggests that scientists may be interested in using artistic collaborative work to “communicate abstract and complex scientific concepts to broader

Page 33 of 420 audiences”, especially those associated with public debate or to research that uses public funding, and has no foreseeable output or application.

Shanken [2005] p.416 also outlines another aspect that characterises collaboration between artists and scientists: it needs to be supported “from within institutional frameworks”. He also suggests that this support mainly occurs when there is a subject from the science side (either in industry or academia) who has a personal conviction in the project.

It emerges that collaboration between artists and scientists is formed by an addition instead of an integration of disciplinary interests. It is also apparent that collaborations between artists and scientists are not motivated by research needs (especially on the scientists’ part) but from institutional or particular individual interests.

EVL (University of Illinois Electronic Visualization Laboratory) director Dan Sandin describes artists’ and scientists’ contributions to collaborative engagement by stating that “artists offer their knowledge, communication-design and project-management skills. Scientists provide the content and design challenge and the means to raise money to give artists access to high-end technologies” (cited in Pearce et al. [2003] p.124).

Similarly, Pearce et al. argue that artists contribute in art-science collaboration by:

Page 34 of 420

 Providing lateral thinking about technology and science

 Socializing and humanising technologies

 Challenging dominant structures in this process

 Engaging in actual invention

It seems that the type of contribution that artists can make in collaboration with scientists is similar to that which designers can make. However, it remains to be seen if designers will “challenge dominant structures in the process” as artists apparently do.

Pearce et al. [2003] (p.125) reports that possible barriers to collaboration between artists and scientists are the use of different disciplinary languages and the lack of disciplinary recognition and reward career structures for scientists or artists engaged in interdisciplinary research. Although the language barrier has also been identified as a problem in collaboration between designers and scientists, the lack of career reward for interdisciplinary engagement has not.

One last feature of the collaboration between artist and scientists is that it tends to be centred on artistic output. As Barnett & Whittle [2006] point out,

“the main focus of science/art collaborations often lies within the world of art rather than science”. This may be different to what would happen in collaboration between designers and scientists. Further research that provides empirical evidence is needed to confirm this.

Page 35 of 420 Tables 2.1 and 2.2 summarise the main findings of existing literature regarding collaboration between designers and scientists. They show the different potential contributions of designers to research, identify the roles or tasks that designers are set to develop while collaborating with scientists, and recapitulate the main potential barriers to a successful collaboration. For this last point, Table 2.2 groups the barriers according to the categories set by Pearce, as previously explained in this chapter.

These tables will serve as a point of reference to identify the findings of this thesis, and its contribution to knowledge.

Page 36 of 420 Table 2.1 Summary of Designers’ Contribution and Role in Collaboration with Scientists

Page 37 of 420 Table 2.2 Summary of Barriers to Collaboration between Designers and Scientists

Page

38