materiality and ecology of the rubber from the Amazon rainforest
3 Enhancing capabilities through the materiality of the artefacts
4.7 Need for further methodologies
A number of design scholars such as Borges (2012; 2011a), Oosterlaken (2009), Thackara (2005), Ken Friedman (2003), Sylvia Margolin and Victor Margolin (2002) identify the need for further research to improve design practice within the challenges and opportunities of complex social contexts. Dees and Anderson (2006: 39) affirm that the impact of social innovation and social entrepreneurship ventures are difficult to measure. They indicate the necessity of further practice-‐based theories that can support professionals in this area, such as designers, policy makers, researchers, funders and entrepreneurs (Dees and Anderson, 2006: 39). In relation to social
practices, Margolin and Margolin (2002: 24) argue that design education and research have not progressed enough, and also indicate the need for further theories and methodologies. Borges (2012: 155) suggests that ethical and methodological parameters in design need to be developed in order to support social collaborative practices in an articulation of different and distinct contribution. American designer theorist Ken Friedman (2003: 520) recommends further theory-‐based knowledge in the profession in order to meet the needs of contemporary society. Design manager Tom Russ (2010: 104) questions how designers can assess the impact of social and environmental aspects of their work. These concerns indicate:
(i) a lack of a specific theories and methodologies able to support design practice and research within the context of the producer community;
(ii) the need for further comprehension in designers about the processes and the implications of their interaction with local populations that have an effect on issues of wellbeing.
4.7.1 Methods and tools
Collaborative design approaches comprise a number of methods and tools applied to generate synergy between them, motivating creativity through sharing explicit and tacit knowledge. An interaction of designer and artisan producers within community context for social change can be considered as human-‐centred design (HCD), which Buchanan considers as a means to contribute to human dignity and rights (2001). HCD also emphasizes other stakeholders in the process, which can include producers and their communities (Walters, 2005). A good definition is that human-‐centred design comprises ‘a creative exploration of human needs, knowledge and experience which aims to extend human capabilities and improve quality of life’ (Walters, 2005 in Zhang and Dong, 2008: 2). IDEO.org (2015) offers the Field Guide for HCD, a comprehensive set of tools and approaches to apply during immersion in fieldwork. This guide aims to help designers in their approach to communities, thus identifying the challenges, ideation and implementation of solutions. It is however, project-‐driven for the development of solutions for social problems, such as clean water, education, and shelter. Sanders and Stappers (2012) propose generative tools for a creative and responsive approach within social contexts in which people are agents of change.
In these approaches there is an abundance of research and tools design to support designers, other professionals and people in their social initiatives. DIY Toolkit (NESTA, 2014) and The Social Design Methods Menu (Kimbell and Julier, 2012) provide a range of examples: mapping, storytelling, drawing, questioning and connecting networks.
The application of these methods serves the purpose of promoting synergy and motivating creativity in workshops, group dynamics and teaching; they also serve to generate research data and encourage people to think out of the box about their problems.
Nevertheless, very little has been discussed about the practicality of designers working within community contexts – not just as researchers, nor as workshop leaders, but in supporting daily practices. Borges (2012: 138) argues that many designers interact with local artisans for a week and leave with beautiful artefacts – but they do not get involved enough to gain a deep understanding of the context or of the implications of their interactions. Many of the participatory methods in design teach and learn dynamics on short courses or workshops; these do not correspond to the professional reality of daily interactions with producers, stakeholders or community members.
Thackara (2005) recognizes that approaches to social contexts are highly intuitive, relational, and situational; this subjectivity makes the analysis of the processes and its implications difficult. In his book Design for Social Change, Andrew Shea (2012) offers a set of recommendations for designers to incorporate into their social approaches to community; his recommendations are related to the sense of community explored in Chapter 2, reinforcing the need for a designer to adopt a sensitive and responsive attitude to engage in trustful and respectful relationships with community members.
However, although empathy, humility and trust are fundamental to this approach, they are not enough in themselves to promote individual and collective
transformations. Shea suggests that a holistic designer approach with communities should operate at various levels, considering thoughts, processes, tools,
methodologies, skills, histories, and systems in order to meet the needs of society (2012: 7). Shea presents a series of case studies illustrating this approach, but he does not provide a methodology for reflecting upon the interactions between the designers and the community – and it is such reflection that is the objective of this thesis.
Methods can be useful, but it is important to understand their practicability within the community context. In many situations, the designer is not a workshop leader, but someone who may support local initiatives and production processes by engaging in learning and working within a community’s daily practices. In the community context, the designer accords with the local work routines, culture and productive methods of the artisan producers who live there. So the use of these tools is circumstantial, and their application needs to be well thought through, as they can if misplaced or misused create an undesirable sense of hierarchy. Grout (2013) makes the case that design is not a problem-‐solving activity in which ‘fixed’ methods need to be followed; he defends the experiential process in which the designer participates in the ‘flow of life’
within the environment with an approach where designers can be ‘most useful’ (Grout, 2013: 7). It is this approach that I defend here. It does not mean, though, that design tools are not important or useful, but that their application is related to the need of each particular project.
4.7.2 Teaching and learning
We need to prepare students to be relevant because of their point of view, not because of a specific product that they have made
(Williams and Fletcher 2009: 1103)
The interviewees’ responses demonstrated that their collaboration with artisans took place through dialogue and mutual learning during co-‐creation and exchanging their practice methods. Design methods integrating the designer’s practices were a method of approach for these collaborations where work routines on materials and artefacts already existed. Most of the interviewees acted intuitively in their approaches, not rationalizing the process. Condor-‐Vidal and Williams had been differentiated from the other interviewees by attempting to develop a method in the designer and artisan producer approach. Condor-‐Vidal had developed a course in partnership with Toni Hicks that has been run at Brighton University. They also have worked with Cherwell College, Oxford, and in partnership with Tuula Salo at Hanover University in Germany.
Condor-‐Vidal’s course consists of preparing designers for the encounter with the artisan producers; the students get to know about the local techniques and prepare mood boards that can be used for their conversations with the artisans. During the exchange, the students’ first task is to learn from the artisan; then they can begin to discuss ideas and develop a collaboration. A tutor guides this collaboration; the idea is that they result in collections that use local resources, patterns and techniques. This mutual learning approach to collaboration encourages an exchange between the artisans’ and designers’ expertise. However, it never become clear whether this process was also extended to a reflection beyond collections.
Figure 4.19: Students working on colour trends (Trading for Development, 2014).
Figure 4.20: Artisans seeing the student’s trend research (Trading for Development -‐ Education, 2014).
As with Condor-‐Vidal’s proposition, the Shared Talent project led by Williams
stimulated tutored exchanges between students from the London College of Fashion and artisan producers in Johannesburg in 2007 (Figure 4.21), Ghana in 2008 and Delhi in 2009 (Figure 4.21). In these, three programmes were realised with MA students from the Centre for Sustainable Fashion (CSF) at the London College of Fashion (LCF), most of whom have not had any similar experiences. The learning approach for sustainability encouraged collaboration through the artefacts and reflective thinking through which the students should reflect upon the meaning of sustainability in these approaches (Williams and Fletcher, 2009: 1101–1102). The reflective approach in these three projects appears quite organic and in dialogue with the students, with no parameters or further guidelines for their reflection.
From my point of view, these learning experiences are crucially important to the development of future designers. The inclusion of disciplines and MA courses that can give guidance for ethical and ecological approaches to production can enhance the capabilities in the field of design for social change, consequently increasing the
benefits for local artisan producers and their communities. A reflective methodology that provided guidance in this approach could be a valuable tool for the learning approaches above, and others.
Figure 4.21: Johannesburg co-‐creation workshop with students and makers from UK and South Africa.
Shared Talent 1, CSF, 2007. Figure 4.22: Shared Talent India, CSF, 2009.
4.8 Summary
This chapter has investigated the interaction of designers within producer
communities in different countries. Evidence has shown that expansion of capabilities as means and ends of social change is a continuous and complex process which is difficult, or even impossible, to verify in the immediacy of short-‐term projects.
However, the similarities of the interviewees’ responses reveal that it should be possible to develop further methodologies that can contribute to the designers and artisan producers’ joint practices for the processes of social change. Given the
complexity of the interaction and the contexts involving projects and communities, the lack of reflection on this process, and the lack of registration in it, may limit the
valuable learning which could be shared with, expanded to and transferred between
artisan producers and designers. The following chapter addresses the development of a reflective methodology as a tool to be used by designers and artisan producers in their reflection upon the interactions, the context and the capabilities.