Summary of Effective and Ineffective Practices

Page

121

of 420

Page

122

of 420

 Under centralized executive control: carried out “under centralized administrative and operational control”, it delivers concrete results but they can be limited in terms of creativity.¹⁴

14 Bass proposes this example to explain the categories:”…a joint discussion of surgeons and engineers to consider an integrated approach to producing a new prosthetic device (Type II). The task may require general review of the diversity of skills needed (Type I). From this discussion, a consolidated program outline with a specific goal (Type III) might emerge. This effort, in turn, may be converted into a project proposal for outside support (Type IV). The activity will also include definition of objectives, justification of utility, designation of a project leader and other team members, a structured program, target date, and budget. In the end, an entrepreneurial manager will be needed with the authority to coordinate implementation (Type V)”.

Page

123

of 420 Diagram 6.1 Visualisation of Bass’s classification of interdisciplinary collaboration

Page

124

of 420 This classification is potentially useful to help to understand the nature of activities carried out in collaboration between designers and scientists, in relation to its orientation (research focus), structure (times/duration and participants role), constraints and leadership and organisational control. It also can help to understand whether these aspects have any influence on the potential success of collaboration and any issues or problems that may arise from it.

Bass’s model does not consider the level of integration, interaction and contribution between collaborators from different disciplines. For this, Klein [2005] explains a categorisation by Simon & Goodge relating to levels of interaction in projects between disciplines that favour the use of quantitative methods and disciplines which utilise qualitative methods. Simon & Goodge establish four models of collaboration according to the integration of their participants’ research methods:

 Background or context information in which contributions from researchers remain casual, are used only for reference, and are not part of the main study

 Elaboration or explanation of findings where qualitative results support quantitative as descriptive detail rather than findings

 Definition of important variables or categories in which qualitative research is employed to define parameters for quantitative research, but still remains as a subservient method to quantitative research

Page

125

of 420

 Creative combination of ethnography and multivariable approaches in research, analysis and interpretation where both approaches, quantitative and qualitative, are integrated in order to answer the main research questions.

This categorisation can be used to compare the level of integration between designers and scientists in a collaborative endeavour, and to describe the extent of the contribution to research in relation to each discipline’s approach.

Epstein [2005] presents John-Steiner’s [1998] categorisation of interdisciplinary work according to patterns of collaboration (see Diagram 6.2). This categorisation looks at the level of formality and duration of the collaboration, at the level of integration of its members, at the formation of working roles and at the level of interdisciplinarity in the research output.

Using these dimensions, Epstein proposed four different modes in which a collaborative activity might take place:

 Distributed: characterised by spontaneity, informality and centred on exchange of ideas and information. Roles of collaborators and working methods are spontaneous and responsive.

 Complementary: each individual contributes according to his/her own field of expertise. Roles are assigned according to individual strengths, knowledge and temperaments.

Page

126

of 420

 Family: people “interchange roles” outside their own disciplinary boundaries. Groups are integrated horizontally and take decisions by consensus. Teams share common expertise.

 Integrative: long-term collective undertakings in which the roles are set by research questions and people’s experience rather than by disciplinary identities. Ideas and results are perceived as the property of the group, not of single individuals. New models of thought are constructed.

Diagram 6.2 Collaborative Patterns based on John-Steiner [2000] (p.197)

Page

127

of 420 Although the previous models seem appropriate for looking at particular aspects of collaboration, they are generic and not specifically built to look at the potential particularities of collaboration between designers and scientists.

Nonetheless, these models can be adapted to reflect the particularities of collaborative engagement between designers and scientists. John-Steiner’s model seems to be especially adequate for this purpose.

As examined in Chapter 4, there are different factors that decide the way in which designers engage in collaboration. These factors are:

 The designer’s entry point into the project: before, during or after the project formulation (Paton & Doors [2011])

 The designer’s involvement in the identification of the problem (design opportunity) and/or in the formulation of the conceptual solution (design hypothesis) before the project concept development stage starts (Paton &

Doors [2011])

 Determining who the project initiator is: the designer, the client or both simultaneously (Parsons [2009]).

Another factor that determines designers’ engagement in collaboration is the role that the designers play in terms of their working function within the group. They can guide the group while giving design input (Design lead role), they can help the group to use design thinking (Teacher role), they can facilitate design work by setting an adequate work environment (Facilitator

Page

128

of 420 role) or they can orchestrate all design activity within the group (Director role) (Howard & Melles [2011]).

Following these factors, progression towards the highest levels of engagement, in which designers would be more integrated as researchers, disciplinary boundaries would tend to blur, and designers would have greater participation in deciding the research directions and a wider scope for their activity, would ideally imply: earlier designer entry into the project, greater designer involvement in both the definition of the problem and the formulation of the conceptual solution, and a shared responsibility in the initiation of the project.

Also, if designers and scientists are collaborating in the context of scientific research, it would be sensible to expect that the basic level of engagement would be similar to that of designers providing professional design services to the scientists, with the scientists acting as clients. Consequently, it would also be reasonable to imagine that the highest levels of engagement would imply both scientist and designers being integrated into a single research team, as suggested in Steiner’s model when passing from “complementary” to

“integrative” collaboration.

As a consequence of this, the following new model for collaboration between designers and scientists in the context of scientific research is introduced (see Diagram 6.3).

Page

129

of 420 Diagram 6.3 Aspects of collaboration between designers and scientists

The model is built upon three main aspects:

 Integration: the designer acts as an external design supplier during the collaboration or else becomes an integrated member of the research team, acting as an internal Designer or Researcher. This aspect establishes whether the designer becomes a member of the research group or remains as an external agent during the collaboration. While external agents may work on specific predetermined projects, integrated designers may have a wider scope in their activity within scientific research activity.

 Project Control: the extent of the influence that the designers have on the definition of design priorities and the design brief. This is determined by how early designers are involved in identifying the issues to be resolved and in the formulation of conceptual solutions. On the lower level of engagement, designers are involved at a later stage in the process when the design problem has been already identified and a conceptual solution has been outlined. On higher levels, the designer makes an early entry into the project, when design issues have not yet been determined. Additionally, project control establishes whether the project has been initiated by the designer, the scientist or both.

Page

130

of 420

 Nature of Activity: the extent to which design activity is focused on the resolution of issues directly related to the scientific enquiry or else geared towards the resources needed to conduct scientific research. It can range from the use of design tools and methods to address scientific research questions to the design of experimental equipment or laboratory spaces.

The nature of design activity determines the extent to which disciplinary identities remain distinct or to which disciplinary boundaries are blurred.

In the first extreme, designers design equipment, spaces, etc and keep their disciplinary identity (while scientists conduct scientific activity). In the second, designers would undertake scientific activity using design capability as a resource (and the scientist might integrate design tools and methods to conduct scientific activity)

An initial overview of this model, which follows a similar structure to the visualisation of Bass’s model created by the author of this thesis, underpins a hypothetical categorisation of designers’ engagement with scientists in scientific research. This categorisation is the basis for analysis and comparison with case studies in further chapters of this thesis (see Diagrams 6.4 to 6.7).

This model initially proposes four levels of research engagement. These levels are explained below, accompanied by diagrams for reference. On the left hand side of each diagram, there are three lines with circles that indicate the integration, project control and type of activity. This is done by locating the circles on the side closest to the concepts that best describe each of the aspects. On the right hand side, there is a descriptive pictogram of the

Page

131

of 420 collaboration. The figure in black represents the designer and the figures in white the scientists (at level 4, the figure in white wearing red glasses represents a researcher with a design background). The green area represents the team (team membership). The cube with the ‘D’ represents the design problem (issue) and the atom the scientific question (enquiry). The dotted line represents a boundary between researchers (right) and non-researchers (left).

Level 1 - Design Supplier: Collaboration in which the designers act as external “design suppliers” and in which the design issues and initial conceptual solutions are determined by the scientists from the research group.

The design tasks are not directly related to the research questions, and focus on improving the resources associated to the undertaking of scientific research. Designers have no research membership.

Diagram 6.4 Level 1 - Design supplier

Level 2 - Team Member: Designers are members of the research group, and have a wider scope in their activity within scientific research activity. Yet their role within the group is to be “the designer” and not a researcher. Tasks

Page

132

of 420 are still not directly related to the research questions, and scientists continue determining the design issues. Designers can formulate conceptual solutions.

Diagram 6.5 Level 2 - Team Member

Level 3 – Embedded Designer: Collaboration in which designers (or

In document The Wakefield District prolific and priority offender needs analysis and business case: final report (Page 40-45)