Human‐Centred Design Projects and Co‐Design in/outside the Turkish Classroom: Responses and Challenges

Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peer-reviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address.

show abstract

“…Human-centered design projects and co-design in/ outside the Turkish classroom: Responses and challenges (Emmanouil 2015).…”

Section: Case Study 16 (7%)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Activating social change together: A qualitative synthesis of collaborative change research, evaluation and design literature

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This causes the misbelief that designers are the only experts in the design process (Costanza‐Chock 2020; a.k.a. ‘big‐ego design’ [Manzini 2015, 66]) and results in design students' unwillingness to ‘share their authority with users’ (Emmanouil 2015). From another angle, although designers need to facilitate the active involvement of people in the design process, the risk called ‘post‐it design’ should be avoided (Manzini 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing Future Designers for their Role in Co‐Design: Student Insights on Learning Co‐Design

Örnekoğlu‐Selçuk,

Emmanouil,

Hasirci

et al. 2024

Int J Art Design Ed

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The state‐of‐the‐art literature indicates an increasing need for co‐design education as it is imperative to equip future designers with the co‐designing mindset. This derives from the significance of involving ‘people with lived experience’ in co‐design processes to better meet their needs. However, the traditional design education system seems to include mostly individual designing skills, causing a lack of skills in design students to facilitate the active participation of people in co‐design. This paper reports on a case study carried out in a third‐year Bachelor industrial design engineering course with design students (n = 32) and design educators (n = 4) to find an effective and efficient way of preparing future designers for their role in co‐design and to gain insights into design students' experience with learning about co‐design. As an instructional method, a co‐design workshop including the game‐play, game‐modding and game‐design approaches is introduced. The obstacles and confusion of the design students regarding co‐design and co‐design education, which they have documented throughout the year on their personalised logbooks, are explained to eliminate them in the future for smoother incorporation of co‐design education into design education curricula. Lastly, for future designers' mindfulness of co‐design and their role as facilitators suggestions are provided such as accreditation of curriculum activities regarding co‐design education.

show abstract

“…; Steen et al . ), although there have been some experimental studies in the educational environment (Emmanouil ; McDonagh‐Philp ). Therefore, this study aimed to explore practical issues in managing a co‐design curriculum and providing educational insights into teaching co‐design through an educational prototype experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐Design Education Based on the Changing Designer's Role and Changing Creativity

Lee¹,

Ahn²,

Kim³

et al. 2018

Int J Art Design Ed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of fashion design relies on the originality of fashion designers and information on design trends, and design education also focuses on the creative ideas of designers; in this field, design through co-design is a very limited area. However, with the proliferation of participatory culture, the need to diversify fashion design education methods has also emerged. The purpose of this study is to present an educational framework and an instructional strategy for co-design based on the changing role of the designer and to obtain educational insight through the implementation of an actual education prototype. To do this, we developed an educational prototype and implemented it with six undergraduate students. Through this study, the participants engaged in the process of design development with the consumer and analysed the instructional insight. As a result, this study redefines the roles and design methods of designers for co-design and identifies creativity characteristics through the co-design process. The results of this study can be used as basic data for co-design education and can contribute to the expansion of fashion design educational methods.

show abstract

Human‐Centred Design Projects and Co‐Design in/outside the Turkish Classroom: Responses and Challenges

Cited by 5 publications

References 13 publications

Activating social change together: A qualitative synthesis of collaborative change research, evaluation and design literature

Activating social change together: A qualitative synthesis of collaborative change research, evaluation and design literature

Preparing Future Designers for their Role in Co‐Design: Student Insights on Learning Co‐Design

Co‐Design Education Based on the Changing Designer's Role and Changing Creativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About