太有趣了,现在怎么办?建立知识动态模型,解释共同设计的缺陷

IF 3.2 1区 工程技术 Q2 ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING Design Studies Pub Date : 2024-10-17 DOI:10.1016/j.destud.2024.101274
{"title":"太有趣了,现在怎么办?建立知识动态模型,解释共同设计的缺陷","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.destud.2024.101274","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Co-design workshops seek solutions to complex, multi-stakeholder issues. These ephemeral encounters bring together designers and uninitiated individuals who embark in a facilitated process that mobilizes a range of simplified design tools and methods. Despite co-design's benefits in terms of representation and acceptability, these workshops also come with limitations and often fall short of their intended goals. Proceeding from stylized facts informed by both our experience and the literature, this study investigates why co-design struggles at maintaining engagement and fails to consistently deliver innovative output regardless of the number of participants involved. Namely, we employ a model-building strategy to illuminate the main knowledge dynamics during workshops and to highlight a constrained ‘reactive expansion’ mechanism that explains known co-design's shortcomings. Implications for workshop facilitation and planning are offered in closing.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50593,"journal":{"name":"Design Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"That was fun, now what?: Modelizing knowledge dynamics to explain co-design's shortcomings\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.destud.2024.101274\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Co-design workshops seek solutions to complex, multi-stakeholder issues. These ephemeral encounters bring together designers and uninitiated individuals who embark in a facilitated process that mobilizes a range of simplified design tools and methods. Despite co-design's benefits in terms of representation and acceptability, these workshops also come with limitations and often fall short of their intended goals. Proceeding from stylized facts informed by both our experience and the literature, this study investigates why co-design struggles at maintaining engagement and fails to consistently deliver innovative output regardless of the number of participants involved. Namely, we employ a model-building strategy to illuminate the main knowledge dynamics during workshops and to highlight a constrained ‘reactive expansion’ mechanism that explains known co-design's shortcomings. Implications for workshop facilitation and planning are offered in closing.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Design Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Design Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X24000371\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"工程技术\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Design Studies","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0142694X24000371","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

共同设计研讨会旨在为复杂的、多方利益相关者的问题寻求解决方案。这些昙花一现的会议将设计师和未曾接触过设计的人聚集在一起,他们在一个简化的设计工具和方法的推动下开始工作。尽管共同设计在代表性和可接受性方面有其优势,但这些研讨会也有其局限性,往往达不到预期目标。本研究从我们的经验和文献所提供的典型事实出发,探讨了为什么无论参与人数多少,协同设计都难以保持参与度,也无法持续提供创新成果。也就是说,我们采用建立模型的策略来阐明研讨会期间的主要知识动态,并强调一种受限的 "被动扩展 "机制,以解释已知的协同设计缺陷。最后,我们还提出了对工作坊促进和规划的启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
That was fun, now what?: Modelizing knowledge dynamics to explain co-design's shortcomings
Co-design workshops seek solutions to complex, multi-stakeholder issues. These ephemeral encounters bring together designers and uninitiated individuals who embark in a facilitated process that mobilizes a range of simplified design tools and methods. Despite co-design's benefits in terms of representation and acceptability, these workshops also come with limitations and often fall short of their intended goals. Proceeding from stylized facts informed by both our experience and the literature, this study investigates why co-design struggles at maintaining engagement and fails to consistently deliver innovative output regardless of the number of participants involved. Namely, we employ a model-building strategy to illuminate the main knowledge dynamics during workshops and to highlight a constrained ‘reactive expansion’ mechanism that explains known co-design's shortcomings. Implications for workshop facilitation and planning are offered in closing.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Design Studies
Design Studies 工程技术-工程:制造
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
40 days
期刊介绍: Design Studies is a leading international academic journal focused on developing understanding of design processes. It studies design activity across all domains of application, including engineering and product design, architectural and urban design, computer artefacts and systems design. It therefore provides an interdisciplinary forum for the analysis, development and discussion of fundamental aspects of design activity, from cognition and methodology to values and philosophy. Design Studies publishes work that is concerned with the process of designing, and is relevant to a broad audience of researchers, teachers and practitioners. We welcome original, scientific and scholarly research papers reporting studies concerned with the process of designing in all its many fields, or furthering the development and application of new knowledge relating to design process. Papers should be written to be intelligible and pertinent to a wide range of readership across different design domains. To be relevant for this journal, a paper has to offer something that gives new insight into or knowledge about the design process, or assists new development of the processes of designing.
期刊最新文献
From an ethics of the eyes to ethics of the bodies: Rethinking ethics in design research through sensory practices Transforming mature design management to better firm performance: The importance of top management involvement Interior design ways of knowing: Embracing unpredictability That was fun, now what?: Modelizing knowledge dynamics to explain co-design's shortcomings Editorial Board
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1