Towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design practice

CoDesign Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2009, 99–116

Towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design practice Thomas H. Dykesa, Paul A. Rodgersa* and Michael Smythb a Centre for Design Research, School of Arts and Creative Industries, Edinburgh Napier University, Merchiston, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, Scotland, UK; bCentre for Interaction Design, School of Computing, Edinburgh Napier University, Merchiston, 10 Colinton Road, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, Scotland, UK

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

(Received 20 May 2008; final version received 14 March 2009) This paper argues for a consistent and new design-specific disciplinary framework that will provide a better understanding of emergent design practice. Design today is characterised by a blurring of traditional design domains (Sanders 2006) and design activities that are backed by other subject specialist areas such as computing, electronics or bioengineering. In order to understand and facilitate collaborative working, a consistent disciplinary framework is required. Furthermore, in understanding complex disciplinary influences this framework provides a method of delineating and analysing emergent practice. To derive the framework this paper explores the existing literature on disciplinary terms. Contemporary creative design practice is then analysed via this taxonomy. To this end, the paper argues that through consistent use of the terms, ‘multidisciplinary design’, ‘crossdisciplinary design’, ‘interdisciplinary design’ and ‘transdisciplinary design’, distinctions can be made within the increasingly complex domain of contemporary design practice. Keywords: disciplinary framework; designers; hybrid design

Introduction Often contemporary design does not divide into the prominent disciplines or professions of the last century. Instead, a new capacity for collaboration has encouraged new types of design practice (Hight and Perry 2006). Encouraged by the rise of telecommunication technologies, new ‘interconnections’ and ‘configurations of knowledge’ have materialised (Gibbons et al. 1994) and presented new opportunities for creative engagement. This paper argues that to understand and facilitate collaborative working, a consistent disciplinary framework is required. Moreover, in understanding emergent forms of design practice, this framework can act as a method of delineating and understanding complex disciplinary influences. A framework based upon existing literature is proposed. Following this, an analysis of work across art and design disciplines applies the taxonomy. This framework is timely; divisions between historical domains have blurred; people not educated in

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] ISSN 1571-0882 print/ISSN 1745-3755 online Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/15710880902910417 http://www.informaworld.com

100

T.H. Dykes et al.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

design are designing; and there has been a shift from material concerns to experience and interaction (Sanders 2006). Collaborative working was encouraged by the Cox (2005) Review of Creativity in Business. This report argues for breadth of teaching within higher education as well as new centres that specialise in collaborative learning. Centres like the International Design Business Management in Finland bring together individuals from across art, design, technology and economics disciplines. Through exposure to outside disciplines, a breadth of knowledge and therefore an ability to communicate across domains will result (Cox 2005, Kelley 2006). Working with other specialists is to be encouraged within design practice; however, design research lacks an unambiguous design-specific framework that describes work with other disciplines. The emergent nature of contemporary design practice Growing evidence would suggest that design is in the middle of a great transformation (Sanders 2006). The market-driven years of the 1980s and 1990s have given way to a more people-centred era. Design today is characterised by the following: . People who are not educated in design are designing. For example, Hilary Cottam was somewhat controversially awarded the Designer of the Year in 2005, by the Design Museum, for her contribution to the regeneration of the Kingsdale building, once a rundown school in south-east London. Cottam, herself, admitted: ‘I am not a designer by trade . . . My background is in social science. But I’ve worked for 15 years in regeneration and social projects, and during that time I have taken an increasingly design-led approach’ (Dunn 2006). . The edges between product design and service design are increasingly fuzzy. For example, mobile phone companies now offer more than a mere physical artefact (i.e. phone). For instance, they offer users the opportunities to subscribe to their services of music and video downloads amongst many other things. . The boundaries between conventional design disciplines are blurring (Rodgers 2008). For example, the work of design companies and designers such as Hella Jongerius (Schouwenberg and Jongerius 2003), Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec (Bouroullec and Bouroullec 2003), Marti Guixe (van Hinte 2002) and IDEO (Myerson 2004) often transcend historical disciplinary borders such as interior design, product design and graphic design. Key amongst these changes is the realisation that an indeterminacy of professional boundaries now exists and fluid patterns of employment within and between traditional design disciplines is commonplace. Moreover, many modern day design pursuits have a core of designerly activity backed by other subject specialist areas such as fine art, technology, anthropology, computing and economics (Figure 1). Supported by contemporary organisations of knowledge and collaborative working, many practitioners work with alternative disciplines. Where collaboration and diverse disciplinary influences have become commonplace, a design-specific collaborative framework is required to fully understand how this facilitates innovative forms of design practice.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

CoDesign

101

Figure 1. Design backed by other subject specialist areas. HCI ¼ human–computer interaction.

New designer hybrids There are many hybrid forms of emergent practice arising out of new organisations of knowledge, with no single movement or philosophy enjoying supremacy (Fiell and Fiell 2008). Marshall (2008) frames a type of practice dependent upon sculpture, product design, building design and craft. Central to Marshall’s (2008) argument is that the use of computer-based design and fabrication technologies has encouraged the integration of these disciplines. Daniel West (2007) discussed an alternative form of practice prevalent in London, where a variety of practitioners are utilising digital technologies as a medium central to their practice. Unlike gaming or web design this practice explores physical interaction through objects that appear to integrate various 3-D disciplines. Antonelli et al. (2008) drew attention to new forms of practice through the MoMa exhibition ‘Design and the Elastic Mind’. The exhibition explored a new desire for connectivity between sub-disciplines within science and design; it highlights various forms of practice currently emerging: ‘this exhibition brings together a truly impressive range of current practices, reflecting a mutual interchange that is almost without precedent’ (Bergdol 2008, p. 8). Through diverse disciplinary influences, various forms of design practice, which escape traditional disciplinary categories, have emerged. This paper proposes a designspecific disciplinary framework, which can locate the activities of emergent practice. Designers are increasingly exposed to various disciplinary influences through diverse teams that coalesce for a project, dissolve and reform with different personnel and expertise (Bureau of European Design Associations 2004). It is increasingly common to find new hybrids of designers working on projects. Designers no longer fit neatly into categories such as product, furniture and graphics; rather, they are a mixture of artists, engineers, designers, entrepreneurs and anthropologists (West 2007). Recently, Richard Seymour went as far to suggest that design is beginning to show signs of splitting into two new disciplines and ultimately creating two different types of designers: (1) the ‘specialist executor’; (2) the ‘polymath interpolator’ (Seymour 2006).

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

102

T.H. Dykes et al.

Tony Dunne (West 2007), Head of Interaction Design at the Royal College of Art, London observed that: ‘New hybrids of design are emerging. People don’t fit in neat categories; they’re a mixture of artists, engineers, designers, thinkers. They’re in that fuzzy space and might be finding it quite tough, but the results are really exciting’. Table 1 highlights the diverse nature of emergent contemporary design. This recent hybridised design work is illustrated best by the following eight, somewhat lesser-known designers and design teams. The examples shown (Table 1) illustrate the range of creative projects currently emerging, this ‘broad bandwidth’, as Richard Seymour (Seymour 2006) calls it, represents the forefront of design practice. From electronic wallpaper to tools for armchair activists and robotic dresses to kinetic sculpture, designers of today and tomorrow are increasingly more likely to operate across and beyond the blurring edges of traditional creative disciplines such as product design, fine art, computing, graphic design and sculpture. Consequently, it is critically difficult to discern the activities and outputs of current work; however, through investigation emergent types of practice could impact or facilitate academic and professional models of design practice. This paper proposes a disciplinary framework specific to design that will provide a way to map knowledge of current practice, its impact and potential applications. Table 1.

New hybrid design examples.

Designer

Disciplines

Objectives

Outputs

Loop.ph

Technology Decorative design

Environmentally responsive textiles Electronic wallpaper

Troika

Art Graphic design Product design

Moritz Waldemeyer

Mechatronics Design

Simon Heijdens

Art Design

Greyworld

Spatial design Music Theatre design Graphic design Art Furniture design

Beginning a digital arts and crafts movement Linking technology to nature Socio-political interventions Subverting existing devices Exploiting technology to transform designed objects and spaces Eradicating divisions between art and design Create works that articulate public spaces Documentation of everyday objects presented in a non-standard way Link things together to make strong, simple images The emphasis is on the work being produced by a creative team

Daniel Eatock

Helmut Smits

Atelier van Lieshout

Sculpture Furniture design Spatial design Art Design Architecture

SMS ¼ short message service.

Tool for armchair activists SMS guerrilla projector Robotic dress Computer controlled chandelier Moving wallpaper Ceramic tableware Interactive railings Kinetic sculpture Graphics Furniture Art Furniture Public art Lighting Sculpture Furniture Mobile home units

CoDesign

103

It also offers a method of delineating and understanding the diverse disciplinary influences that have encouraged emergent types of design practice. The following literature review of types and models of collaboration across disciplines provides the basis for this framework. In addition, the literature proves to be ambiguous, the terms are often confused and frequently used in the wrong context. This situation reinforces the argument for a new consistent disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design practice. To conclude, an analysis of practitioners from across art and design disciplines illustrates this taxonomy.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

Literature review The first international conference for interdisciplinary studies was held in 1970, at which Erich Jantsch (1972) presented a set of hierarchical terms to describe forms of collaboration that involve alternative disciplines (Klein 2000). This framework is cited in key texts concerning knowledge production across disciplines and Jantsch is most commonly associated with the currently popular term ‘transdisciplinary’, which emerged during the conference (Klein 1998). The framework by Jantsch (1972) was intent on providing specific characteristics that discern the terms, thus making explicit the form of collaboration in question. This hierarchy begins with multidisciplinary, the simplest form of work proceeding the single discipline, and then proceeds with pluridisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary. Each term relates to the structure and complexity of group work across disciplines in a hierarchical fashion (Stein 2007). These terms are commonly used outside this framework. For example, interdisciplinary is often used in an unspecific manner and has become a common term for general collaboration across disciplines and crossdisciplinary is often used in adjectival form to describe movement between disciplines (Kotter and Balsiger 1999). Consequently, there is ambiguity when using the terms, they are often confused and not solidly defined within the literature. As such, and in order to describe the dynamics of emergent practice, this paper argues for a consistent and new disciplinary framework for design practice. Since the original disciplinary hierarchy by Jantsch (1972), there have been many attempts to distinguish between the terms (Gibbons et al. 1994). Consequently, a variety of different interpretations have developed across disciplines. The four versions of the framework used within this paper offer examples of the hierarchy in practice. Leinss (2007) brings the framework into design practice through case studies describing a variety of design teams and Nicolescu (2005) offers clear examples of the terms in a generic disciplinary sense. Here one finds that pluridisciplinary is rarely used. For example, Gibbons et al. (1994) place multidisciplinary and pluridisciplinary at the same level and nor do Nicolescu (2005), Leinss (2007) or Stein (2007) make use of the term. Disciplinary The discipline is considered an academic term; however, it also applies to professional domains, such as architecture and graphic design. Since a disciplinary framework is being discussed, the concept of a discipline must first be clarified. Chettiparamb (2007) provides an extensive literature review of the discipline, historically and geographically. This highlights many alternate definitions and

104

T.H. Dykes et al.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

complications. Within this paper, a discipline will involve concepts and methods for considering specific types of phenomena, which are particular to a professional domain (Gardner 2000). The discipline suggests shared aims, including a shared knowledge base, problems that are agreed upon and expected ‘skills and competencies’ (Harfield 2008). As part of a discipline, individuals should have expert knowledge of its content, show loyalty even when critical and understand where their discipline ends and others begin (Harfield 2008). According to Turner (2000), the discipline involves a title or ‘actual facts of employment’, where individuals educated in a specific discipline may seek employment in a particular profession. Within design practice, undergraduate education provides an understanding of the skills, materials, concerns and perspectives associated with a particular design profession. For example, an architect must understand structural engineering and a product designer must integrate manufacturing techniques. This type of classification arises from increasingly specialised technologies in design practice (Lawson 2004). Multidisciplinary Jantsch (1972) described multidisciplinary as a variety of disciplines, existing concurrently, but with no clear relationship between them. Gibbons et al. (1994) elaborate on this, suggesting that multidisciplinary is recognised by the independence of the involved disciplines, where no change to the ‘existing disciplinary and theoretical structures’ will occur. In this case, there will be a degree of cooperation between disciplines; however, this is prevalent within each individual disciplinary perspective (Gibbons et al. 1994). To clarify, Nicolescu (2005) states that although this form of collaboration adds another dimension to a project, there will be no change to the autonomy of the disciplines and this new understanding will remain limited to disciplinary work. For example, this type of collaboration may provide an alternative view of a specific topic, such as designed objects studied within sociology, history or design offering alternative perspectives, thus enriching design research knowledge. Crossdisciplinary Jantsch described crossdisciplinary as involving ‘the axiomatic of one discipline, imposed upon other disciplines at the same hierarchical level, thereby creating a ridged polarization across disciplines towards a specific disciplinary axiomatic’ (Jantsch 1972, p. 92). To clarify, this involves a dominant discipline collaborating in order to solve problems within their own domain (Leinss 2007). This will be achieved through existing knowledge, which facilitates communication across disciplinary boundaries and allows a leading domain to integrate the concepts of another discipline. For example, in order to fulfil the engineering requirements of a project, a product designer may have to consult with a mechanics expert (Leinss 2007). Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary occurs when a ‘common axiomatic for a group of related disciplines is defined at the next higher hierarchical level or sub-level, thereby introducing a

CoDesign

105

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

sense of purpose’ (Jantsch 1972, p. 92). In this case, problems will be a challenge for either discipline alone and hence two or more disciplines are clearly present (Gibbons et al. 1994). These disciplines have common methods and terminologies that transcend the involved disciplinary boundaries and knowledge is prevalent within both disciplines, though one is a primary concern (Gibbons et al. 1994). Often, problems are solved through shared methods or concepts from other disciplines (Nicolescu 2005); for example, the use of sociological methods within design practice (Sanders 2006). Interdisciplinary work may also form new disciplines (Nicolescu 2005); for example, product design. Transdisciplinary Transdisciplinary is the most complex form of collaboration, it is project focused and commonly concerned with a real-world problem or enquiry, such as sustainability (Ibrahim 2007, p. 91). These problems cannot be solved by any one discipline alone and require multiple disciplines with a shared theoretical understanding and an agreed interpretation of knowledge (Gibbons et al. 1994). Jantsch describes this as: ‘the co-ordination of all disciplines and interdisciplinary in the education/innovation system on the basis of a generalized axiomatic (introduced from the purposive level down) and an emerging epistemological pattern’ (Jantsch 1972, p. 92). In other words, the disciplinary perspectives and theories will be homogenised and the result will be a ‘newly unified whole’ (Klein, 2000), where individual components are indistinguishable from their original context. This combination of disciplinary components and perspectives in transdisciplinary work may represent an entirely new discipline with no obvious separation between the contributing domains (Klein 2000). Individuals in groups Zachary Stein (2007) argues that a major problem with Jantsch’s (1972) framework is focusing upon the group and not considering the individual’s ability to work across disciplines. Stein (2007) therefore proposes a hypothetical framework of individual competencies that can be refined through further study, as shown in Table 2. Since this determines their ability to communicate with other domains, an individual’s skills and knowledge are critical to the understanding of collaborative designing. Table 2 provides further clarity on the disciplinary framework; this can be adapted and used to consider the individual’s ability as a hybrid practitioner. This framework is a first step towards understanding disciplinary influences in contemporary design. Types and modes of collaboration in design practice Within a fluid and dynamic landscape, definitions are not possible (Buchanan 2001). However, the framework is more appropriate than applying multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary to all forms of design practice involving multiple disciplines. This framework can trigger debate as to where particular case studies belong within the hierarchy, fuelling further research into collaborative working or a designer’s skills set. When applied to emergent and complex practice, the framework can provide a method of delineating alternative types of design work. Where a practitioner or

106 Table 2.

T.H. Dykes et al. Stein’s (2007) disciplinary framework.

Form of inquiry

Competences of the individual

Disciplinary

Individuals demonstrate understanding of one set of conceptions and one methodological approach. They are able to generate unique questions and contribute new research and findings in this area. Individuals demonstrate disciplinary competence, and understand that their endeavours must be related to the endeavours of others in surrounding disciplines. They therefore come to know and use some concepts used in these disciplines. Individuals demonstrate disciplinary competence and know how concepts and methodologies from other disciplines relate to their own, having mastered some concepts therein. They are able to constructively communicate with those from other disciplines in a problem-focused manner. Individuals demonstrate at least two disciplinary competences. One is primary, yet they are able to employ the concepts and methodologies of other another discipline well enough to contribute to the questions and findings therein. New understandings of the primary discipline result. Individuals demonstrate at least two disciplinary competences, neither of which is primary. They work and contribute to both and generate unique findings, conceptions and artefacts as a result of an emergent trans-disciplinary perspective. They are able to communicate with those from a variety of disciplines in a synoptic manner.

Multidisciplinary

Crossdisciplinary

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

Interdisciplinary

Transdisciplinary

object escapes a traditional domain of expertise, one can place them in a category that makes explicit their relationship with the involved disciplines. Kees Dorst (2008) argues that design research has mounting anomalies that lie in one’s limited understanding of the designer and the context and product of their work. Through developing this framework, the present authors wish to address the anomaly of disciplinary terms in order to understand the dynamics of modern design practice and suggest that the framework can be refined through further study and specific case studies of design practitioners. This framework should be perceived as fluid and evolving. Over time, experience and collaboration will introduce alternative disciplinary influences. Designers tend to experiment with different mediums; hence, they may move between categories. Education provides further clarity: undergraduate work may provide disciplinary knowledge and further education may then afford interdisciplinary skills. The framework is evolutionary and may change over time. This framework classifies the work of individual designers. Obviously, individual designers work with other external stakeholders during a design process, which might include manufacturers, marketing and press, clients and curators. In some cases, these individuals may also originate from within a larger design team and hence this classification will prove valuable in understanding the dynamics of group work. The following provides the categories of cooperation within a design context. Here, the terms ‘multidisciplinary design’, ‘crossdisciplinary design’, ‘interdisciplinary design’ and ‘transdisciplinary design’ provide a method of delineating forms of

CoDesign

107

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

design practice through disciplinary perspectives. By analysing existing practice via this framework, this paper will now explore how this framework can apply to design practice. Disciplinary design Disciplinary design involves work within a specific singular domain, using one set of methods and abiding by the concepts of one design discipline. Disciplines will fall neatly within meta-levels of the established design industries of built environment, manufacturing and visual communication, such as architecture, product design or graphic design. During undergraduate studies, students are taught specific skills, to use particular materials and to understand the technologies of their domain. Figure 2 represents individual disciplines, where A might be industrial design, B graphic design and C architecture. A disciplinary designer will be an expert within one of these disciplines. Companies such as Apple seek specialist industrial designers who preserve a design’s clarity, believing in aesthetics and functionality as well as the craft of manufacturing objects (Design Council 2006). Jonathan Ive studied industrial design at Newcastle Polytechnic and has since worked in this field (Fiell 2006). His specialist ability suggests a fanatical care for details right down to the cable and power adaptors of Apple computers (Design Museum 2007). Jonathan Ive works within industrial design alone, he makes use of methods and tools particular to this domain and is widely regarded as an expert in his field; at present, he works as a disciplinary designer. Multidisciplinary design Multidisciplinary group work will consist of disciplinary individuals who communicate with outside stakeholders. This involves consultation outside of a design discipline to provide an alternative understanding of a subject or to consider the work of other domains relevant to a project. For example, most applied design projects involve cooperation with anyone from curators, scientists or manufacturers in order to consider their work within a design project and vice versa (Leinss 2007). Tom Kelley (2006) describes someone with depth and breadth of knowledge as ‘T-shaped’. When working in a multidisciplinary manner, ‘T-shaped’ knowledge can allow a designer to understand how their work may relate to other disciplines (Kelley 2006). The previously mentioned Cox (2005) review is an advocate of this type of

Figure 2.

Disciplinary design.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

108

T.H. Dykes et al.

knowledge and working. So too are companies such as IDEO, Jump and Herbst Lazar Bell, with a strong focus on design thinking and innovation they seek individuals of a multidisciplinary nature (Design Council 2006). Multidisciplinary designers understand how other disciplines relate to their own work, allowing them to communicate with outside stakeholders. As a method of discerning practice, a second version of a multidisciplinary designer is suggested. This concerns disciplinary expertise and employment patterns. A multidisciplinary designer will be someone with knowledge in more than one discipline or domain, allowing him or her to act as the equivalent of two or more specialists. These disciplines remain within their original context; they may inform each other although they do not intersect. These individuals will be involved with fluid employment between the design disciplines. For example, Figure 3 represents fluid patterns of employment between the disciplines, A, B and C. These may range from packaging design to automotive design, where the common design element informs each type of practice. This framework is perceived as fluid and evolving; as such, a multidisciplinary designer is not condemned to working in this manner. A designer may collaborate, gain other skills and knowledge, which may then constitute another type of design practice. Philippe Starck’s work has a broad range covering furniture, product, transport and interior design (Figure 4). He has designed everything from household goods to houses. Each discipline shares a common design language yet remains independent; they may inform each other though do not directly intersect. To discern practitioners, it is suggested that Philippe Starck’s individual competences and employment patterns are multidisciplinary. Starck’s process will inevitably involve other stakeholders. However, by focusing on the individual one can differentiate this case within contemporary design. For example, Starck’s work is not assisted by other subject specialist areas such as electronics, computing or biology. Instead, it remains limited to clients across various design disciplines.

Figure 3.

Multidisciplinary design.

Figure 4. Philippe Starck (from left: juicy salif; toy chair; Voxan cafe´ racer super naked; Yoo Cape Yamu).

CoDesign

109

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

Crossdisciplinary design Crossdisciplinary design involves a design discipline that requires the knowledge of another domain in order to solve problems relevant to a project. It differs from multidisciplinary through constructive collaboration, going beyond communication between disciplines to active intersection and involvement. For example, in order to solve mechanics problems a design team may seek the expert knowledge of an engineer (Leinss 2007). A principal discipline will apply itself within another, as a means of facilitating knowledge transfer in order to solve problems or explore its potential. A designer working in a crossdisciplinary manner may have expertise in one or more disciplines, though seeks the knowledge of another domain in order to solve problems or explore the juncture between the disciplines. This temporary intersection informs the practice of specific projects. These individuals will understand how concepts and methodologies from other disciplines might relate to their work, allowing them to explore potential uses and constructively communicate in a problem-focused manner (Stein 2007). In Figure 5, an individual with industrial design knowledge (A) may have defined a concept using their existing knowledge. They now require a greater depth of understanding to define specific aspects of the product, which will involve specialist mechanical or electronic engineers represented by B and C. Ellio Caccavale studied product design at the Glasgow School of Art before moving to London to study design products at the RCA. His expertise is in product design, though he currently explores the juncture between design and science through collaboration with biomedical ethicists, social and natural scientists. He believes that art and design can explore possible futures with biotechnology, presenting scientific knowledge through the narrative of designed objects (Caccavale 2008). Through design scenarios, Caccavale investigates potential futures as a method of creating public debate. He seeks the knowledge of other domains in order to explore the juncture between the disciplines. Caccavale’s utility pet’s project addresses interspecies organ transplantation through crossdisciplinary working. Caccavale proposed that the recipient will live with a pig and look after it like a pet. Through this unique relationship emerge the objects shown in Figure 6. On the left is the toy communicator, this consists of a radio receiver and a pig toy embedded with a microphone (second from the left). This allows the owner to connect with the pig at all times. On the right, the smoke eater removes harmful toxins so the owner can smoke and not damage the health of the donor pig (Antonelli et al. 2008). Through crossdisciplinary design scenarios, Caccavale investigates potential futures as a method of creating public debate.

Figure 5.

Crossdisciplinary design.

110

T.H. Dykes et al.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

Interdisciplinary design In a crossdisciplinary relationship, a design discipline collaborates in a problemfocused manner. Instead, interdisciplinary design will clearly contain at least two different disciplines, with one being predominant (Leinss 2007). An interdisciplinary designer will demonstrate specialist knowledge in more than one field, with the ability to combine the methods and concepts of each at an expert level (Stein 2007). Their skills are sufficient to contribute to both domains and their use of dual disciplines will constitute a new form of practice that builds new knowledge of the primary discipline (Stein 2007). For example, Figure 7 shows the primary discipline A, which may represent a core of designerly activity with equal knowledge of computing or electronics (B and C). This may result in a new form of design practice. Electronic technologies have the ability to transform the way people interact with objects. As such, many established designers have begun to work with engineering professionals (West 2007). At the forefront of this trend is Moritz Waldemeyer, an engineering expert who has worked with Ron Arad, Zaha Hadid and Hussain Chalayan. In Waldemeyer’s own design work (Figure 8), specialist knowledge of engineering and design combine at an expert level. This practice represents an emergent domain, which explores the aesthetic and interactive potential of digital technologies. Waldemeyer’s methods and tools are less frequently dominant in a designer’s skill set; as such, he is able to facilitate the creation of a new genre of designed object. Nadja Swarovski, who worked with Waldemeyer, says that ‘he has the most up-to-date technology but also understands the aesthetics of design, and that is something one doesn’t encounter every day’ (Limnander 2007). Moritz Waldemeyer is an interdisciplinary designer who represents the intersection of engineering and design. This new form of practice creates uniquely crafted electronics unlikely to be produced by a specialist electronic engineer (Rogers 2008).

Figure 6. Ellio Caccavale, utility pet project (from left: toy communicator receiver; toy communicator; smoke eater).

Figure 7.

Interdisciplinary design.

CoDesign

111

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

Transdisciplinary design Transdisciplinary design will involve knowledge or concepts from at least two disciplines, none of which will be predominant (Stein 2007). This work will be innovative, represent new knowledge, conceptions and artefacts and will signify a new type of practice that is a combination of disciplinary expertise, fused to form a newly unified hybrid form. Transdisciplinary design avoids disciplinary concerns, such as the design of 3-D consumer goods. Instead, disciplines come together to focus upon a context, such as urban intervention. This context brings diverse disciplinary concepts together to explore new questions. Figure 9 suggests that the disciplines A, B and C have been combined through a particular context, A’. The resulting perspective (A’) is a total hybrid, at once between, across and beyond (Nicolescu 2005) any one of the individual disciplines. The artwork ‘the Source’ by Greyworld is a transdisciplinary object (Figure 10). Greyworld involves the work of Andrew Shoben, a hybrid practitioner who creates interactive sculptures designed to provide a form of expression within the urban landscape. The sculpture shown in Figure 10 was designed for the London Stock Exchange atrium, its aim to ‘make physical the ephemeral nature of the stock market’ (Shoben 2004). The sculpture consists of 162 cables that reach eight storeys up to the glass roof of the London Stock Exchange atrium. Connected to each cable are nine plastic spheres that are able to independently move up and down the cable’s length via small motors. Also integrated into the spheres are LEDs and an electronic circuit that allows computer control. The sculpture is controlled by a computer running the programme, Python (an object-orientated programming environment). The programme follows news feeds and the rise and fall of markets in an abstract manner, for example: ‘sometimes the shapes are in an abstract arrangement, and

Figure 8.

Moritz Waldemeyer (from left: by royal appointment; pong table; roulette table).

Figure 9.

Transdisciplinary designer.

112

T.H. Dykes et al.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

composed kinetically, while at other times the names and positions of currently traded stocks appear’ (Freyer et al. 2008, p. 132). By rising from a cubed formation, the sculpture opens the stock market in the morning; at the end of trading, the spheres return to their opening location (Freyer et al. 2008). The object represents an amalgamation of product design, architecture, computing and sculpture (Figure 11). Shoben told Landscape Journal that his aim was to ‘articulate public spaces, allowing some form of self-expression in areas of the city that people can see every day but would normally exclude and ignore’

Figure 10.

The Source by Greyworld.

Figure 11.

Combining disciplinary perspectives.

Industrial design

Transport Interior Product Furniture Product Design Biotechnology

Jonathan Ive

Philippe Starck

Design Mechatronics

Sculpture Architecture Product Music

Moritz Waldemeyer

Andrew Shoben (Greyworld).

Ellio Caccavale

Disciplines

Alternate forms of design practice.

Designer

Table 3.

Trans-disciplinary design

Inter-disciplinary design

Cross-disciplinary design

Multi-disciplinary design

Disciplinary design

Type

Critically explore social and ethical aspects of hybrid grounds such as advances in biotechnology. Exploiting technology to transform designed objects and spaces. Create works that articulate public spaces.

Aesthetics, functionality and the craft of manufacture Attention to detail Longevity, morality and honesty as integral to the design process (Fiell 2006)

Objectives

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

The Source. Interactive railings. Kinetic sculpture

Utility pets project (smoke eater, toy communicator). The future family’s project (Dummy tummy) Pong and roulette tables Robotic dress

Juicy Salif, lemon squeezer. Louis Ghost chair. Cafe´ Costes in Paris

IMac and the IPod

Outputs

CoDesign 113

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

114

T.H. Dykes et al.

(Aitch 2005). Through this context, Shoben avoids disciplinary concerns; instead, he is engaged with social and aesthetic aspects of public space (Rendell 2006, p. 6). Figure 11 explores this combination of disciplinary perspectives. Each discipline involves concepts that combine to form a hybrid object, such as ‘the Source’. For example, ‘the Source’ is on a large architectural scale, yet looks at social interaction from a product design perspective. ‘The Source’ requires Python code, yet includes physical interactive spheres that are designed, manufactured and integrated with electronics. These spheres tangibly represent digital information from the Internet in an abstract and ambiguous manner reminiscent of sculpture. ‘The Source’ would appear to represent a ‘newly unified whole’ (Klein 2000) that does not fit into any category of design or art practice alone. Various disciplinary perspectives have combined to form a new type of designed object, with new questions or concerns. This example suggests how future work can begin to create new criteria based on a combination of disciplinary perspectives. This does not reflect the practitioners themselves, though provides a proposition that requires further research. Table 3 provides an overview of the framework in practice along with the designer’s objectives and outputs. It provides a first step towards distinguishing forms of design practice through disciplinary perspectives. The terms highlight the activities and outputs of current practitioners, thus discerning both emergent practice and how disciplinary influences have facilitated its materialisation. Conclusions and future work This paper represents a first step towards a new disciplinary framework for contemporary creative design. This framework is timely due to critical transformations within the creative design field. Contemporary transformations include the emergence of work that integrates various disciplinary influences and new designer hybrids who are central to this practice. Such changes require a design-specific, unambiguous disciplinary framework to fully understand emergent practice and the manner in which collaboration facilitates innovative work. This framework can delineate the emergent and complex design field, allowing its activities and outputs to be located and understood more clearly. To derive this framework, an exploration of existing literature on disciplinary terms, which are often ambiguous and used inconsistently, was conducted. This literature review was then used to explore the terms within design practice, presenting its application within design research. It was shown that where design practice escapes a traditional domain of expertise, one can make explicit any relationship with the involved disciplines. Examples include Philippe Stark, who often works in a multidisciplinary manner. He creates objects within many of design’s sub-disciplines, each shares a common design language, yet concepts and perspectives are not integrated. This differs from Ellio Caccavale, who has expertise in product design, though integrates distinctly different disciplines (natural science, biomedical ethics and social science) through crossdisciplinary design. Caccavale understands how the concepts of these disciplines may relate to his work, allowing him to integrate alternative knowledge through collaboration. In contrast, Moritz Waldemeyer has expert knowledge of both engineering and design. By integrating the methods and tools of both disciplines, Waldemeyer explores the aesthetics of technology through a new form of practice. Finally, Andrew Shoben amalgamates various disciplinary perspectives through transdisciplinary design. This work is a

CoDesign

115

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

total hybrid, where constituent parts are indistinguishable from the original disciplines. Shoben’s work transgresses the involved domains through a motivating context, such as the articulation of public space. This paper has shown that each form of practice has distinct characteristics that are discerned through correct use of the terms ‘multidisciplinary design’, ‘crossdisciplinary design’, ‘interdisciplinary design’ and ‘transdisciplinary design’ as summarised in Table 3. Each term or disciplinary relationship forms a type of practice that is unique to that individual; however, this will also evolve depending on education and experience. This research is part of a larger study intent on understanding the emergence of new forms of practice, as well as the impact of contemporary influences on professional and academic models of design. Future work will involve case studies of designers who fit within these categories. This will enforce and expand the framework, providing a method of exploring the working practice, design philosophies, experiences, skills and knowledge that designer hybrids bring to bear upon their work. References Aitch, I., 2005. Power to the people. Landscape Journal, December. Antonelli, P., et al., 2008. Design and the elastic mind. New York: The Museum of Modern Art. Bergdol, B., 2008. Preface. In: P. Antonelli, H. Aldersly-Williams, P. Hall, and T. Sargent, eds. Design and the elastic mind. New York: The Museum of Modern Art, 8–11. Bouroullec, R. and Bouroullec, E., 2003. Ronan and Erwan Bouroullec. London: Phaidon Press Ltd. Buchanan, R., 2001. Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17 (4), 3–23. Bureau of European Design Associations, 2004. Design issues in Europe today. Barcelona: BEDA. ISBN: 1-905061-04-8. Caccavale, E., 2008. About Elio Caccavale [online]. Available from: http://www.eliocaccavale. com/about.html. [Accessed 20 June 2008]. Chettiparamb, A., 2007. Interdisciplinarity: a literature review. Southampton: The Interdisciplinary Teaching and Learning Group. Cox, G., 2005. Cox review of creativity in business: building on the UK’s strengths [online]. London: HM Treasury. Available from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/cox_review_ creativity_business.htm [Accessed 25 November, 2008]. Design Council, 2006. Lessons from America: Report on the Design Council: HEFCE factfinding visit to the United States [online]. London: The Design Council. Available from: http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/en/Design-Council/Files/System-Files/Download/ [Accessed 24 November 2008]. Design Museum, 2007. Jonathon Ive 25/25 – Celebrating 25 years of design [online]. London: Design Museum. Available from: http://www.designmuseum.org/design/jonathan-ive [Accessed 23 November 2008]. Dorst, K., 2008. Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Design Studies, 29 (1), 4–11. Dunn, S., 2006. We’ve got designs on you. Openmind, 137 (January/February), 6–8. Fiell, P., 2006. Industrial design A-Z. London: Taschen GmbH. Fiell, C. and Fiell, P., eds. 2008. Design now: Designs for life – From eco-design to design-art. London: Taschen GmbH. Freyer, C., Noel, S., and Rucki, E., 2008. Digital by design. London: Thames & Hudson. Gardner, H., 2000. The disciplined mind. New York: Penguin Books. Gibbons, M., et al., 1994. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications. Harfield, S., 2008. On the roots of undiscipline [online]. Design Research Society Biennial Conference. Available from: http://www3.shu.ac.uk/Conferences/DRS/Proceedings/ Authors/AuthorsH.htm [Accessed 1 December 2008]. Hight, C. and Perry, C., 2006. Collective intelligence in design. Architectural Design, 76 (5), 5–9. Ibrahim, R., Fruchter, R., and Sharif, R., 2007. Framework for a cross-border transdisciplinary design studio education. ArchNet, 1 (3), 88–100.

Downloaded By: [Smyth, Michael] At: 16:28 26 July 2010

116

T.H. Dykes et al.

Jantsch, E., 1972. Towards interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in education and innovation. In: G. Berger, A. Briggs, and G. Michaud, eds. Interdisciplinarity: Problems of teaching and research. Proceedings of seminar on interdisciplinarity in universities, organized by the center for educational research and innovation. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 97–121. Kelley, T., 2006. The ten faces of innovation. London: Profile Books Ltd. Klein, J.T., 1998. Notes toward a social epistemology of transdisciplinarity. Interactive Bulletin of the International Center for Research and Studies Transdisciplinary, February, 12. Klein, J.T., 2000. Integration, evaluation, and disciplinarity. In: M.A. Sommerville and D.J. Rapport, eds. Transdisciplinarity: Recreating integrated knowledge. Oxford: EOLSS Publishers Co. Ltd., 49–59. Ko¨tter, R. and Balsiger, P.W., 1999. Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity: A constant challenge to the sciences. Issues in Integrative Studies, 17, 87–120. Lawson, B., 2004. What designers know. Oxford: Architectural Press. Leinss, M., 2007. The role of designers in multidisciplinary teams. In: E. Salmi, ed. Cumulus working papers: schwa¨bisch gmu¨nd. Helskinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki, 84–88. Limnander, A., 2007. Star Tech [online]. The New York Times. Available from: http:// www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/style/tmagazine/04talk.waldemeyer.t.html [Accessed 1 December 2008]. Marshall, J.J., 2008. An exploration of hybrid art and design practice using computer-based design and fabrication tools. Thesis (PhD). The Robert Gordon University. Myerson, J., 2004. IDEO: Masters of Innovation. London: Laurence King Publishing. Nicolescu, B., 2005. Towards transdisciplinary education. The Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa, 1 (1), 5–16. Rendell, J., 2006. Art and architecture: A place between. London: I.B. Tauris & Co Ltd. Rodgers, P.A., 2008. Design now. In: J. Marshall, ed. Perimeters, boundaries and borders. Manchester: Fast-UK Publishers, 8–11. Rogers, J., 2008. I love digital. In: Product Scotland. Edinburgh: Product Scotland, 42–45. Sanders, E.B.N., 2006. Design research in 2006. Design Research Quarterly, 1 (1), 1–8. Schouwenberg, L. and Jongerius, H., 2003. Hella Jongerius. London: Phaidon Press Ltd. Seymour, R., 2006. Heads or tails. Design Week, 21 (36), 19. Shoben, A., 2004. Trading places. BBC NEWS AT 10 [online]. London: BBC. Available from: http://www.greyworld.org/#the_source_/v3 [Accessed 25 November 2008]. Stein, Z., 2007. Modeling the demands of interdisciplinarity: Toward a framework for evaluating interdisciplinary endeavors. Integral Review, 4, 91–107. Turner, B.S., 2000. What are disciplines? And how is interdisciplinarity different? In: P. Weingart and N. Stehr, eds. Practising interdisciplinarity. London: University of Toronto Press, 46–65. van Hinte, E., 2002. 1:1 Marti Guixe. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. West, D., 2007. Digital poets. ICON, 43 (January), 56–64.