Mapping the Structure of Capability

Gault & Kogan [2010] examine collaboration between designers and scientists by looking at their commonalities and differences. They argue that designers and scientists both “share identical values such as innovation, creation of new products and knowledge” (p.2), but they differ in the way that they relate to their “created objects”. While designers and scientists both “surprise” with their creations, designers “seduce” with them and scientists “explain” with them.

Gault & Kogan [2010] also look at the function that drawings, sketches, models and 3-dimensional objects have as mediation resources or “tools” in designer and scientist collaboration. They argue that designers use these tools when collaborating with scientists as a means of explanation and persuasion.

The tools open routes to dialogue and action. In addition, Gault & Kogan point out how designers can use these tools to emulate scientific thinking, by transcribing an opinion expressed by one of their interviewed scientists: “The designer’s drawings echo the scientist’s experiments”. Conversely, the scientists appropriate these tools and use them to improve communication effectiveness with the designers. As a consequence of this, scientists can be perceived as designers. Thus, in this exchange of tools, disciplinary boundaries blur and designers and scientists affect each other’s working methods and thinking. Gault & Kogan state that “the seductive aspect of the designer’s tools seems to become more demonstrative and scientific, whilst at the same time the scientist’s tools evolve towards the seductive”. The authors see a commonality between the work of designers and of scientists, using Annie

Page 21 of 420 Gentes’ explanation of how both scientists and designers use a “creative mediation” process.

However, they qualify designers and scientists’ approaches as complementary rather than equal. While designers “try to put technology into context”, scientists “highlight its limits”. Also, designers identify the contribution of scientists as filling gaps in their knowledge (or as the scientists themselves identifies as a “scientific token”) whereas scientists describe designers’

contribution as repositioning their scientific findings into a new context. The authors argue that “The designer will not push the boundaries of a technology, but will put it in a context that will open up new frontiers for the researcher to study”. From this it is apparent that designers’ interventions bring divergent rather than convergent thinking into scientific research.

Gault & Kogan’s paper offers a very valuable range of ideas about collaboration between designers and scientists. It seems however that their contribution is limited to only two aspects of collaboration. On the one hand it examines disciplinary boundaries and on the other it explains how similar and complementary the designers’ and scientists’ approaches can be.

A different contribution to the subject of designers and scientists collaborating has been found in two papers written by Chris Rust [2004; 2007]. In his first paper, Rust claims that although scientific pursuit (discovery) is different from that of design (invention), it may be possible to initiate collaboration between both “traditions” which serves both of their aims. Rust proposes that the

Page 22 of 420 designers’ abilities to “image new scenarios” and to create a “practical environment” and “experimental artefacts” may be useful for scientists in selecting or even generating routes of scientific enquiry. He states that there is a “creative dimension” in scientific research and that designers can contribute to it. Rust cites examples of collaboration between scientists and designers, and concludes that designers can contribute to scientific research by:

 Constructing models of representation and simulation that allow scientists to unlock their tacit or implicit knowledge. These are artefacts that can be collected and organised; they allow researchers to have a holistic view of their research process to perform a detailed review of their projects and to reflect on them, facilitating once again the use of tacit knowledge.

 Finding ways to apply scientists’ underlying theories and to prototype ideas meeting the different project stakeholders’ agendas.

 Developing prototypes that permit either quick or rigorous testing of ideas.

 Challenging scientists’ perceptions of their data by being exposed to designers’ representations, which can become a catalyst for new research routes or ideas.

 Producing models that free up tacit knowledge and stimulate new ideas.

Lastly, Rust highlights two barriers to effective collaboration with scientists:

 A poor “designer self-image”: designers may think that their role within a scientific research project is not related to its core business (generating

Page 23 of 420 knowledge) and as result of this they can be relegated to a “subsidiary role”

 “Possible collaborators” may not recognise designers’ contributions.

Even though Rust offers an interesting perspective on interdisciplinary collaboration by identifying both opportunities and barriers to designers in collaborative research, he does not present empirical or first-hand evidence to support his claims. Although he reflects on research outputs and research methods, his study does not look at the specifics of interdisciplinary collaboration, or reflect on the experiences of the researchers in the context of interdisciplinary work.

In his most recent paper on this topic, Rust [2007] reflects on how creative disciplines (art and design) can contribute to scientific research. Emphasising that designers may be better suited to undertaking research activities than artists are, Rust argues that “the concept of investigating/evaluating the outcomes of their work is embedded in the culture of many design disciplines”. Amongst other examples, Rust presents a collaborative project between a design group composed of a filmmaker, a product designer, and a group of scientists. Their collaboration aims to develop video material that communicates to the public certain “molecular actions of nanotechnology”.

Rust offers an explanation as to how it is necessary to create visual metaphors that the general public can understand. At the same time these visual metaphors ought to “remain true to the physicists’ scientific understanding” of the phenomenon. The author points out the communication difficulties the

Page 24 of 420 participants had due to the lack of “any shared formal language”. He concludes his paper by outlining “tentative principles” for interdisciplinary research between creative people and scientists:

 Some research outcomes can be valid but not easily recognised or stated by the researchers.

 Some contribution to research can be “generative” and not necessarily

“specific”. “Generative” in the sense that creative people can contribute to research with material that helps scientists to take their research in new directions, and non “specific” in the sense that creatives shouldn’t make

“strong judgements” about how “significant” their findings are for the research.

 Regardless of the type of contribution made by creative people and of how intentional and purposive it is, only the “audience can determine” what is relevant.

 Methods of creative research reveal “tacit” knowledge, but also tacit knowledge is used to shape those methods.

 In order to be recognised as researchers, artists and designers should:

Specify their research subject and their motivation; Show a good understanding of their research state of affairs (past and present) in their subject of study; Make use of an appropriate research method; and be able to communicate their findings to the wider community.

Although Rust has a good insight into what can be perceived as an inexplicit or tacit contribution by creative people to research, a substantial part of the

Page 25 of 420 evidence that supports his claims (personal conversations with artist and designers), is not presented or accessible. At the same time, it is noticeable that conclusions have been mainly drawn from the views of the participant designers; the conclusions could have been different had the views of the scientists been considered to a greater extent. Rust also claims that there are differences between artistic and designer contributions, but no explicit details of these differences are presented.

To summarise Rust’s view, it may be concluded that designers can contribute to scientific research in different ways by:

 Unlocking “tacit” knowledge

 Connecting scientists with the non-scientist, and helping to disseminate scientific knowledge amongst the general population

 Facilitating the advancement of scientific research, by providing means of experimentation and reflection

 Challenging scientists’ perceptions and encouraging the pursuit of new research directions.

It can also be concluded that the designer’s role in scientific research can be defined by the task they are asked to perform (the role-task). This includes:

 Constructing models of representation and simulation

 Designing artefacts for testing and experimentation

 Ideating scenarios

Page 26 of 420

 Finding applications for scientific research outcomes

 Visualising scientific ideas.

2.3 Designers collaborating with professionals of disciplines other