structuring roles in research through design collaboration · structuring roles in research through...

ThisworkislicensedunderaCreativeCommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike4.0InternationalLicense.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

StructuringrolesinResearchthroughDesigncollaborationSLEESWIJKVISSERFroukje

ID-StudioLab,FacultyofIndustrialDesignEngineering,DelftUniversityofTechnologyF.sleeswijkvisser@tudelft.nldoi:10.21606/dma.2017.297

In Research throughDesign knowledge is generated, but not always captured andshared effectively. When working in a multidisciplinary team of, e.g. designers,designresearchers,academicresearchersanddomainpractitionersconfusionaboutroles, processes, and results easily occurs. In a series of three Research throughDesign cases we developed a set of role descriptions to help structuring thecollaboration in such projects, using different configurations of people, roles anddocumentationtools.Weconcludewithastructureforassigningrolesthatenablesmultidisciplinary teams to make their Research through Design process moreexplicit,reflectontheiractivitiesaspartofprocessdata,andproposemomentstocaptureknowledgefromallactorsinvolved.

Researchthroughdesign,collaboration,designdocumentation

1. IntroductionResearchthroughDesign(abbreviatedinthispaperasRtD)coversarangeofapproachesinwhichdesignandresearchactivitiesinformeachotherwiththeaimsofgeneratingnewinsightandnewsolutions.MostacademicdiscussionsofRtDconcernworkofacademicresearchers(inPhDpositionsorbeyond,oftenwithadesignbackground).WhenanRtDprojectinvolvesmultipleactorsinamulti-facetedproject,collaborationcanbecomeratherchallenging.Differentactorsareoftenstronglymotivatedanddedicatedinwillingtoimprovethecurrentsituation,comefromverydifferentbackgrounds,andbringinawidevarietyinexpertiseknowledge,skillsandlanguage.

Inthelasttwodecadesdesignisincreasinglyaddressingcomplexandsocialissues(Norman,2010;Kimbell,2011;Dorst,2011;SandersandStappers,2014;SustarandMattelmäki,2017).Thedesigndisciplinehasbroadenedfromtraditionalproductdesigntothedomainofsocialtransformations(e.g.transforminghealthcare;JonesandvanPatter,2008).Insocialdesignandservicedesignthedomainisoftencomplex,andprojectstypicallyinvolvemulti-disciplinaryteams.Thecomplexityofdesignproblemsexpandsanddesigner’spracticeischanging,requiringnewmethods,practicesandrolesandnewnetworkstocollaboratewith(Kimbell,2011).Stakeholdersindesignprocessesarenolongerdesigners’directclients,butratheranetworkofdifferentstakeholders.Rygh(2013)suggestsnewrolesfordesignerssuchasconnectorsbetweendiversestakeholders,facilitatorsofco-creation

andinstigatorstogetanideaforwardtowardsimplementation.Manzini(2015)suggestsseveralstructurestoorganisesocialinnovationwithdesignersandnon-designers,e.g.,citizens,wherenon-designersbecomethechangecatalysts,andwheredesignerstakeamoreresearch-orientedattitudeandfacilitatingrole.Whenmanyactorsfrompracticeareinvolveddesignersarefacedwithchallengestoorchestrate,facilitateandmoderatealltheirinputsandactivities.Raijmakers,VervloedandWierda(2015)describesuchorchestrationactivities,e.g.buildinginvolvementandsteeringlargerprocesses,andsuggestthattheseactivitiescontinuebeyondtheclassicaldesignprocessthatendswhenasolutionisproduced.Inthispaper,wefocusonRtDprojectsinvolvingmultipleactorswithvariyingexpertiseinresearch,indesign,andinthedomainwheretheprojectisconducted.WeaddressthequestionofhowtoorganisethecollaborativeRtDprocess.WedescribeanRtDproject,MyFutures,inwhichvariouspartiesandexpertisewereinvolved(seetable1).Theprojectrequiredcollaborationofallinvolvedparties,andaimedatbothnewknowledgegenerationandpragmaticguidelinesforimprovingthecurrentsituation.Participatingactorsbroughtdifferentcapabilitiesandskillsregardingdesignresearch,domainknowledge,anddifferentamountsoftimeavailablefortheproject.Thechallengewastointegrateallexpertiseandstructurethecollaborativecasestudiesinthisproject.Atthestartoftheprojectdetailsofcollaborationcouldnotbeplanned,astopics,needs,andopportunitiesemergedanddevelopedastheprojectunfolded.InthenextsectionwereviewliteratureonRtDmethodologyandpositionourprojectwithinit.

Table1 KeydataabouttheMyFuturesproject.Aim Tosupportpeopleinarrangingtheirownolderfuturelivesonourchangingsociety

Phenomenon Thinkingaboutandanticipatingonyourownpersonalfutureliveswhengettingolder,whilethesocietalcontextischangingfromstate-drivencaretoself-organisedcare

Researchquestions

1.Howdopeople(not)dealwiththeirownfuturesintheireverydaylives?

2.Howcannotionsofpeople’sownfuturesbestretchedtowardsseeingpluraloptionsandmoreawarenessofownneedsandwishes?

Method Literaturestudiesanddesignresearch(in-homeinterviews)toanswerthefirstresearchquestion.Casestudiesinpracticewithdesigninterventionstogaininsightsforbothresearchquestions.

Involvedparties 6designresearchersfromuniversityanddesignschool,allwithdesignanddesignresearchexpertise(throughbackgroundordesignresearchpractice)

3designresearchersfromagenciesspecialisedindesignresearchanddesigningforcare-relatedsocietalchallenges

10practitionersfrominstituteslikepublicservices(municipalities),healthinsurancesandcare-relatedinstitutions

Startingpointforcollaboration

A2-yearresearchprojectfundedbynationalscienceorganisationoftheNetherlands.Partiescontributedin-kindthroughparticipationandsomeofthemreceivedpartialfunding.

2. ResearchthroughDesigncategoriesInRtDresearchanddesignactivitiesarecloselyrelated,butdifferent.Bothareintentionalactivitieswiththegoalofcreatingsomethingnew(StappersandGiaccardi,2017),butwhereresearchaimstocreatenewknowledgewithgeneralapplicability,designaimstocreatenewsolutionssuitableforaparticularsituation.Thedifferencesandoverlapsofresearchanddesignarewidelydiscussedinliterature(Sanders,2005;Cross,2007;Stappers,2007;Koskinen,Zimmerman,Binder,RedströmandWensveen,2011).BothKoskinenetal(2011)andStappers&Giaccardi(2017)reflectonavarietyofexampleRtDprojects,andtheroleofprocessandoutcomes.Still,mostauthorsremarkthatthereisnoclearlydefined,singular,methodbywhichRtDisconducted(MattelmäkiandMatthews2009;WensveenandMatthews2015).Mostauthorsagreeonthedefinitionofresearchasa‘systematicinquiry,thegoalofwhichisknowledge’asstatedbyArcher(1981).However,areviewofawiderangeofreportedRtDprojectsshowsthatthe‘systematic’aspectisinterpretedquitedifferently.

Koskinenetal(2011)categorizedRtDapproachesinthreetypes:‘lab’,‘field’and‘showroom’.Inthe‘lab’hypothesesarestudied,throughprototypesincontrolledsettings.The‘field’approachisconductedinthe‘real’world,andinvolvesstakeholdersbeyondresearchersanddesigners.Inthe‘showroom’approachinstantiationsofnewprototypesareproducedtodemonstrateaparticularphenomenonornewtechnology.StappersandGiaccardi(2017)suggestanothercategorisationofRtDprojectsbasedonoutcomeorientation:

1. generatingcollectionofexampleswithoutanexplicittheoryorapplicationgoal

2. iterativesuccessiveprototypesofincreasingqualitywithoftenanapplicationgoal

3. testinghypothesesofconceptsundercontrolledscientificmethods

4. pursuingaprogrammewithaninquirydrivenapproach,inwhichprototypesarepartofexperimentsmeanttoexploreandopenupnewdesignspaces.

BothoverviewsofcategoriesshowhowdifferentRtDtypescanbedistinguished,butdonotprovideguidelineshowthesystematicinquirycanbeorganised.MoreovertheirreviewsofRtDprojectsmostlycoversoloresearchprojects,withlimitedmulti-partycollaboration.TheRtDprojectwediscussinthispaperfollowsaninquirydrivenapproach,thefourthtypeofStappersandGiaccardi,andthe‘field’typeofKoskinenetal(2011).InlinewithBinderandRedström(2006)westructuredtheprojectas‘aprogramme’consistingofaseriesofquestionsandexperiments.The‘programme’istheorganisationoftheentireproject;thecombinationofgainingknowledgefromliterature,fieldworkanddesignexplorations,andavisiononhoweachoftheseactivitieshelptoanswerthemainresearchquestion.Through‘experiments’,intheformofconcreteactivities,suchasco-creationworkshops,prototypesandfieldtesting,contributionstotheoryaredeveloped,consolidatedanddisseminated.

ToconcludeweusethetermRtDtoindicateastudyinwhichknowledgeisgeneratedonaphenomenon(inquirydriven)byconductingdesignactivities,drawinginsupportknowledgefromdifferentdisciplines,andreflectingonbothdesignactivitiesandevaluationsofthedesigninterventionsinpractice.Ourmainaimisageneralunderstandingofthephenomenonthatdrivesapplicationbeyondthecreatedprototypesintheproject.Thenewknowledgehasatheorycomponentandanimpactcomponenttoimprovecurrentpractice.

3. ResearchthroughDesignchallengesOrganisinganRtDprojectwithmulti-partycollaborationcanbechallengingonanumberoffronts.Wediscussthreewhicharerelevanttothecollaboration;interplayofresearchanddesign,documentationandcollaboration.

InterplayofResearchandDesignTheverytermsresearchanddesigncanalreadybeproblematicwithinasinglediscipline,butcanbedownrightconfusingforpractitionerswithdifferentbackgrounds.Theapproachtoresearchinthisprojectisthroughaprocessofdiscovery,bringinginasmuchrelevantdifferentperspectivesaspossibletostudythephenomenoninanintegratedsettingofcurrentpracticesineverydaylife(Stappers,SleeswijkVisserandKeller,2014).Manyparticipantswithoutanacademicdesignresearchtraining,havemoreformalexpectationsofhowresearchisdone.Likewise,theirperceptionof‘design’canbetraditional,e.g.,theformgivingofanobject.Butthe’material’tocreatenewsolutionsforsocietalproblemsinvolvepeople,mindsets,behaviourandorganisationalchange.Designinterventionscovermoreandmoretheorchestrationofhowpeopleinteract,forexamplethroughscripts,toolsandstaging(Laurel,2003)whichmightbelessconcretethanatraditionaldesignresultandnotevenrecognizedasadesignresult.Peopleinateamcanhavedifferentideasaboutdesign,letalonetheinterplayofresearchanddesign.InourRtDprojectweaimedtoexplicitlydefinewhatweregardasresearchanddesignoutcomes,withtheintentiontocreateasharedreferencewithallpartiesinvolved.Inaprocessofvariousiterationsofresearchanddesignactivities,

loopsofreflectioninactiontakeplace,andthegenerationofprototypesservestosimultaneouslyexploretheproblemspaceaswellasthesolutionspace(Koskinenetal,2011).BasballeandHalskov(2012)havetriedtodescribetheirRtDprocessatamicrolevelbyaddressingthedynamicinterplayofresearchanddesignastheyunfoldthroughouttheprocess.Throughtheexampleofthedesignofaprojectinstallationanditsusetheyreviewedhowthisinterplayhappened,whichgivesaninsightfulviewintotheirRtDprocessandhelpsunderstandingtheirinterplayofresearchanddesignactivities.Nevertheless,theiractivitiesarerathergenerallydividedinresearchordesign,notemphasizingthevarietyindesignorinresearchactivities.

Weneededastructuretoframeourmethodandexplaintheinterplayofresearchanddesigninunderstandablewaystosupportfruitfulinvolvementofallactors.

DocumentationStappersandGiaccardi(2017)suggestthat‘the’knowledgethatemergesfromRtDisnotobvious,socommunicatingwhatitiswhatislookedfor,howtocapturethatandframetheresultisachallenge.Documentationandcommunicationofinsightsandfindingsshouldsupportunderstandingofallinvolvedactors.Moreoverrecognizingwhichdataisrelevant,selectingitduringalltheactivitiesinacollaborativeiterativeprocessismorecomplicatedthanwhentheseactivitiesareplannedandconductedincontrolledlabsettings.Forexample,apractitionerexplaininginhisownwordswhataprototypedoescanbeseenasrelevantdatabytrainedresearchers,butpractitionersmightnotrealisethisandmaynotbetriggeredtorecordthatexplanation.Anotherexampleofrelevantdatathatgoesmissingisdesigndecisionsmadeduringthedesignprocessforcreatingprototypes.Theseareoftennotwelldocumentedbutcapturerichinsightsaboutthephenomenon(Stappers,2007;HöökandLöwgren,2012).

ReflectiveJournalsareamethodusedinactionresearchtodocumenteachactor’sthoughts.ForexampleSleeswijkVisser(2009)usedthismethodincasesstudiesofanRtDprojectinwhichshetookondifferentrolestorecordandanalysethoughtsanddecisionsduringtheprocessfromtheperspectiveofresearcher,designeranduserresearcher.Thejournalwasusedasprocessdatatounravelwhathadhappenedduringthecourseofthecasestudy,recordingswhichotherwiseafterwardswouldhavebeenrememberedas‘obviouspractice’ratherthanbeingrecognizedasnewandrelevantinsights.VanAsseldonk,ScheepersandRaijmakers(2016)usedatrailofevidencetechniquetocapturedesignstudents’processesandmakeintermediateactionsanddecisionsexplicit,leadingtojointreflections.AlsoDalsgaardandHalskov(2012)developedadigitaltool,‘theProcessReflectionTool’,todocumentreflectionsofvariousinvolvedactorstoeacheventandsub-event.

Altogether,insettingupRtDcasestudies,weneedsuchtypeofdocumentationtools,tocapturetheotherwisehiddeninsightsnexttoparticipatorymeetings.

CollaborationIntheareasofsocialsciencesanddesignresearch,collaborativewaysofconductingresearchhavebeenreportedbefore,asinactionresearch(Avison,Lau,MyersandNielsen,1999),participatorydesign(SchulerandNamioka,1993),andco-design(SandersandStappers,2008).However,thewayhowpeoplecollaborateinRtDprojectsisoftenlessexplicitlydescribed,sinceprojectsettingsandaimsdiffergreatly.Inparticipatorysettings,SleeswijkVisser,Stappers,vanderLugtandSanders(2005)promotetoinvolveeverydaypeople(‘end-users’)indesignprocessesas‘expertsoftheirexperiences’andinthatroletheycontributetothedesignprocess.Again,wetakethisstance,wherenotonlyeverydaypeopleareregardedasexpertsoftheireverydayexperiences,butallinvolvedprofessionals.Thisapproachhelpedplanningandorganisingelementsoftheprocess,suchasco-creationworkshopsoftheprogramme,butdidnotprovidedetailoninvolvingpractitionersasproducersofsharedknowledgegeneratorsinsteadofmerelydomaininformationproviders.Inourproject,casesemergedfromopportunitiesinpractice,buthowthedesignresearchers,designers

andpractitionerswouldgofromtherewasaratherintuitivepathwhereexpertiseandtasksneededtobeoptimallycombined.

Weneededinsightsonhowtoorchestratethecollaborativeprocessanddefinerolesinthis.

ToconcludetherearevariousapproachestoconductingRtD,butlittleguidanceonhowsuchprojectsshouldbeconducted,especiallyiftheyarebuiltaroundamultidisciplinaryteamratherthanindividualresearcher.Howcanwebenefitfromallstakeholdersontherightmomentsintheprocessandseizeknowledgetogether?Inwhatrolescanstakeholderscontribute,collaborateandgenerateinsightsrelevantanduseableforeachparty?Afterthemethodsection,wedescribeinsectionfivehowwedealtwiththesequestionsinrunningourcasestudies.Insectionsix,wereflectontheobservationsandinterventionsofinterplayofresearchanddesign,documentationandroles.

4. MethodWereviewedthecollaborationofthreecasestudiesinthisproject.Theauthorjoinedcollaborativemeetings,observedtheprocessofcollaboration,theexchangeofinformation(whenenoughexplicittopointat)andtheassignmentofroles,tasksandexpertisethatwasdividedbetweenactors.TheauthorconductedinterviewsattheendofeachcasestudywitheachactorontheirindividualexperiencesoftheinterplayofrolesandexpertisealongtheprocessandonhowtheyexperiencedtheRtDapproachfromtheirpointofview.Twosessions,onehalfwayandoneattheendofeachcasestudy,wereorganisedtocollaborativelyreflectin-andontheactionsandoutputtoevaluatetheworkingstructureoftheteamcollaborations.Relevantinsightsweredirectlyimplementedtoimprovethecollaborationprocesses,asiscommoninActionResearch(Avisonetal1999).Adocumentationtool,theReporterKit(seefigure2),servedasabackboneforthesereflectivesessionssinceitprovidedinsightineachdistinctroleactorstook.Thecombinationofobservations,interviews,reporterkitdataandcollaborativereflectionshalfwayandaftereachcasestudyhelpedtotriangulatefindings(Denzin,2006).

5. CollaborationinthecasestudiesTable2showsanoverviewofthecasestudiesunderexamination.Thecasesstartedwhentherewasamatchofresearchfocus,designexplorationandopportunityinpracticetointervene.Foreachcaseamainresearchquestionandanappliedresearchquestionwereformulated.

Table2 SummaryofthreecasestudiesintheMyFuturesproject.Case Domain Researchquestions Appliedresearch

questionDesigninterventions Domainpractitioners

1 Carerequestconversationsbetweencareplannerandcaretaker

Whatdopeople(not)considerwhenarrangingin-homecare?

Canwestretchtheirthinkingfromnextdaytonextyear?

Howcanpeoplebesupportedindiscussingmoreholisticmattersnexttopracticalplanningofin-homecareandtakethisintoaccountincareplanning?

Seriesofco-creationworkshops.Redesignofconversationscript,threeiterationsoftemplatestoolstosupportcarerequestconversations,andanewdatabasetool.

1careinstituteactedasproblemownerduringentirecase.Theircurrentconversationswithclientsaboutplanningcarewereusedtotestthedesigninterventions.

2 Familyconversationsabout>10yearsahead

Whatareneeds,motivationsanddynamicsinandaroundsuchfamilyconversations?

Canpeoplediscussfutureissues(>10yrs)thatarenoturgentnow?

Howcanfamilymembersbesupportedinsharingthoughtsandexpectationsinrelationtoeachotherwhenthereisnourgentissue(yet)?

Seriesofco-creationworkshops.Fivedesigniterationsofafamilydiscussiontoolconsistingofscript,templatesandgameelements.

6parties(municipalities,healthinsurances,andHRinstitutions)actedasdomainexperts.2ofthesepartiesactedasproblemownersandusedthelasttoolversionintheirpractice.

3 Elderlypeoplespeculatingaboutthefuturetogether

Whatdynamicsplayarolewhenpeoplespeculatetogetheraboutthefutureiftheythinktheydon’thavemuchfutureleft?

Howcanwechallengepeopletolookaheadtogetherfurtherthantomorrowandseemoreoptionstowardstheirownfutures?

Seriesofco-creationworkshops.Seriesofstagedsocialactivitiesinwhichfutureisaddressedtoprovokespeculativefuturethinking.

1careinstituteactedasproblemownerduringentirecase.Theinvolvedpersonsare‘socialinnovators’withintheirinstitute.

Thecasesevolvedthroughopportunitiestointerveneinpracticeandhappenedinchronologicalorder.Whileformingteams,wediscussedprocess,output,roles,andrelevantdeliverablesandallfeltaneedtobringclarificationtotheseissues.TorespondtothisneedtheresearcherscreatedvisualsofwhatstagesandactivitiesanRtDcasestudycompelsandproposedthateachteamneedstohaveatleastoneoftherolesinfigure1fulfilledbyteammembers(actors).Theinitialdescriptionoftheseroleswasafirstorderingintheprocess.Oneactorcouldtakemoreroles,andmultipleactorscouldtakeonerole.

Figure1FirstsuggestionofdifferentrolesthatcouldexistinanRtDcasestudyinpractice(latertwootherroleswereaddedtotherolestemplate)

Furthermorewedevelopedatool,theReporterKit,basedontheworkofSleeswijkVisser(2009),vanAsseldonketal(2016)andDalsgaardandHalskov(2012),todocumentreflectionsanddecisionsofeachteammemberalongtheprocess(seefigure2).Wedeliberatelychooseforasimpleform,withonlythreequestions;‘Whathappened?’,‘WhatdecisionsdidImakeandwhy?’,and‘Doubts,ideas,expectations,considerations,plans…?’Thisreporterkitwasalsointendedtogaininsightinhoweachoftheactorsexperiencedthecollaborationwhileconductingthecasestudiesandbeingabletointerveneinrolestooptimiseaproductiveprocess.

Figure2TheReporterKitisajournalingtoolinwhicheachactorreflectsonhis/herrole(s)duringtheprocess.Eachcolourpresentsonespecificrole.Forexamplethelightyellowrepresentsthedesignerresearchersroleandthedarkyellowthedesignerrole.Thispictureshowsareflectivesessionofcasetwo,wheresomeoftheactorsfulfilledmultipleroles.

ExploringdifferentconfigurationsofrolesFigure3showshowtherolesweredistributedoverthethreecasesasthecasestudiesunfolded.Thefigureshowsthatnewroleswereaddedtotheinitialsuggestionofrolesinfigure1.Foreachcasetheteamsweredifferentlycomposedbasedonthepresentexpertiseandavailability.ActorsAandBrepresentresearcherswithdesignresearchexpertisefromacademiaordesignschool.ActorC,D,Erepresentpartiesfrompractice,e.g.,careinstitutionsordesignagencies,ofwhichactorsChadmostsubstantialhourstodedicateineachcaseaspartofthefundingstructure.OverthecasesdifferentpeoplewereinvolvedasactorsA,B,C,DandE.

Figure3Dependingoninvolvedactors,theirexpertiseandstartingpointforcasestudy,therolesweredifferentlyassignedineachcase.

IncaseoneitwasinitiallyplannedthatactorCwouldtakethelead,butwhensettingupthecase,thispersondidn’tfeelcomfortabletakingthedesignresearcher’anddesigner’roles.Thisactorhadextensiveexperienceinconductingfieldworkandwaswellacquaintedwiththedomain,butdidn’thavedesignexpertiseoroverviewoftheRtDprocess;

‘Youneedtotakemeonthehandwithsuchmethodologiesandsetupthecase,soIcanfollowyou,andIcanexecuteuserresearchactivities(recruiting,conductinginterviews,observations)’

‘Iamnotadesigner,Ican’tfacilitatetheseco-creationworkshopsordesigntheinterventions’

Theresearchers(actorsAandB)realisedthatoneofthemwasneededtotakethelead.Allthreediscussedwhattaskseachofthemfeltcomfortablewith,andwhatwaspracticallypossible.Therolestemplateservedasapointofreferenceforneededexpertiseandtheymadedecisionsoncollaboration:ActorAtookthetheoryresearcherroleandwouldonlybeinvolvedincollaborativesessions.ActorBtookthedesignresearchleadroleandactorCwouldassistinorganisingthefieldwork.Assigningthesetasksalreadyyieldedfortwotypesofdesignresearchroles;onemainlyfocusingongeneratinginsightsandtheotheroneonorganisingfieldwork.Furthermoretheyrealisedthatdesigncapacitywouldbemissing,becauseeachofthemwouldbefullytakenbymoreresearchorientedroles.Adesignagency(actorD)gotinvolvedtoexplicitlydesigntheseriesofco-creationworkshopsanddesigninterventions.ActorEtooktheroleofproblemowner(seetable2).

Thesecondcasedidn’tstartwithaconcretechallengefromoneproblemowner,butwithasharedinterestinpossibleoutcomesofthecasestudyofsixdifferentparties.Theywereinvolvedasdomainexpertsinaseriesofinsightssharingandco-creationworkshopsandtwoofthemwereinvolvedintestingthelastdesigniterationintheirownpractices.Adesignagency(actorC)ledthecasestudyasprojectleadandfulfilledthreeotherroles;thedesignerroleandbothdesignresearcherroles.TherolestemplatewasusedasaninstrumentforactorsA,BandCtodefinetheircollaborationatthestartofthecase(seefigure4).DiscussingthismadeexplicitthatactorsA,BandChadlargeoverlaps

incapabilities.Realisingthesecapabilitiesandexpertisehelpedplanningtheentireprojectandtheircollaboration.Forexampleeachtookresponsibilityforfacilitatinganddocumentingworkshopswithdomainexperts,fordifferentuserresearchactivitiesandplannedwhenjointexpertisewouldbeneeded.Anexplicitnewrole‘projectlead’(lastrowinfigure3)wasaddedtotherolestemplate(alreadyhalfwayduringthefirstcase)toexplicitlyextracttasksofprojectmanagement,suchasprojectplanningandteamwork.ActorCtooktheprojectleadrole,andactorBwouldtakethisrolewhenactorCwouldbelessavailable.

Figure4Oneoftheactorsreflectingontasksandresponsibilitiesshewouldfeelcomfortablewithinrelationtotheotherteammembersusingarolestemplate.

Theteamcompositionofthethirdcasewasagainverydifferentfromthefirsttwocases.ActorsCweredomainexpertsbutalsosocialinnovatorswithintheircareinstitute.Allwantedtocollaboratebutdidn’tknoweachothers’exactexpertise,whichmadeitdifficulttodirectlyassignroles.ActorBtooktheprojectleadandtookmultiplerolesofdesignresearcheranddesigner.TherolestemplatehelpedactorBtodiscusswithactorsCwhatwasexpectedfromconductinganRtDcasestudytogetherandproposedseveraloptionsofhowactorsCcouldcontributetodifferenttypesofresearchanddesignactivities.ThishelpedinassigningdedicatedtasksforactorsC,inwhichtheyfeltcomfortable,suchasorganisationaltasksandwhattocollectasdata.

UseofreporterkitinhalfwaysessionsThereporterkitwasnotalwaysconsistentlyfilledwithannotationsofeachteammember,butenoughtogatherrelevantinsightsoncasecontentandcollaboration.Weadaptedthereporterkitassoonaswhennewroleswereadded.Afterthefirstcasewealsochangeditstemplatetogivethethirdquestion(Doubts,ideas,expectations,considerations,plans…?)morespacesincethisquestionrevealedmostinterestingdata.

Splittingrolesanddocumentingthoughtsoneachrolehelpedinstickingto‘yourtask’.Forexamplethepersoninthedesignerroleexpressedthoughtsas:

‘Shouldwereallytranscribealltheseconversations?Itisquitesomework,Iwoulddothisdifferentlywithmydesignagency,Ithink.ButmaybeIcanalsolearnfromthisandseewhatitbrings.FornowIfocusonproducingthenexttemplatesdesignbyFriday.’

Thereporterkitoftheproblemownersdocumentedalotofinsightintheirthoughtsalongthecasestudyprocess.Incontrasttotheotherroles,peopleintheproblemownerroledidhardlyreflectonprocessissues,butsharedtheirthoughtsontheireverydayworkinthereporterkits.Forexampleoneproblemownerreflectedonherownroleinherdailywork.

‘MaybeIshouldproposethis[…]earlierwithclientB….’

‘Iamgoingtochangetheevaluationforms,whereclientsnotonlyevaluatethecareprovider,butalsoourrole’

Suchreflectionsprovidedrichinsightsonhowlowhangingfruitideaswereimmediatelyimplementedduringthecasestudy.

Furthermoreweobservedthatdesigndecisionswerenotwelldocumentedinthereporterkitsandconcludedthattheform(oneA4printedpaperwiththreequestions)didn’tstimulatethisenough.Attheendofthefirstcasewedecidedthatweneedbetterdocumentationofdesigndecisionsbeyondreporterkitandcreatedanonlinedocumenttokeeparecordofdesigndecisions.Intheothercasesthisshareddocumentwithdesigndecisionswasexperiencedasveryhelpfulafter,butespeciallyduringtheprocess,becauseactorsinthedesignerrolehadmorededicatedconversationstogetherwhattodocument.Thismadethemmoreawareofthemanylittledecisionstheymadethateventuallyhadlargeeffectsontheactualdesignthatwasusedintheinterventions.

Usingthereporterkitannotationsasdatatoevaluatetheprocessofcollaborationthroughtheassignedroleshalfwaythecasestudieshelpedinadjustingfruitfulcollaboration.ForexampleincaseonetheteamnoticedthatthereporterkitofactorBonlyshowedthoughtsonprojectmanagementlevelandmissedresearchfocus.Whenobservinganddiscussingthis,itbecameclearthatorganisingthecasestudyasaprojectwasalargetaskthatoverruledthetaskofgeneratingresearchinsights.EventhoughactorChelpedinorganisingthefieldwork,doingfieldobservations,joiningdesigniterations,analysing,organisingsessions,updatingeveryoneandmanagingalloverruledthefocusofgeneratingrelevantresearchinsights.Theteamaddedanexplicitnewroleofprojectleadintherolestemplateandinthereporterkit.Theyalsoplannedmorefrequentmeetingsbetweenactorsinthetheoryresearcherroleanddesignresearcherroletodiscussresearchquestionsandanalysisdevelopments.Asaresultincasetwoandthreethefocusofactorsinthedesignresearchroleswasmoreevenlybalancedbetweenresearchandapplicationoutcome.

6. InsightsoncollaborationinResearchthroughDesignThroughtheseriesofthesethreecasestudieswehaveexperiencedhowassigningroleshelpedorganisingtheRtDcasestudies.FindingopportunitiesinpracticefordesigninterventionsthroughanRtDapproachisaprocesswhichisdifficulttoplanaheadorcontrolfromthestart.Beingawareofdifferentroleshelpsinplanning,integratingexpertise,dividingresponsibilitiesandcollaborationofallinvolvedstakeholders.Fromtheexperienceofthesethreecasestudiesandtheadaptationswemadeonthewayduringthecasestudies,wehavelearnedinsightsthatmightberelevanttootherRtDpracticethatfollowaprogrammeapproach(Binder&Redström,2006).Hereweshareourfindingsontheinterplayofresearchanddesign,documentationandtakingrolesincollaboration.

OntheinterplayofResearchandDesignThroughthecasestudiesweintervenedinthephenomenon(peopleplanningtheirownfuturelives)withtheaimsof(1)describingthephenomenonincontextand(2)basedonthisunderstandingtoformulatedirectionsforimprovement.Intable3wesummarisedfivelevelsofoutcomesweidentifiedthroughthisproject.Fromtoptobottom,theoutcomesrangefromresearchorientedtomoreapplicationoriented.Theselevelsofoutcomerelatetothedifferentroles,butonlyintermsofmainfocusforeachrole.Bydiscussingtheselevelsgeneratingoutcomeshasbecomeasharedresponsibilityforallteammembers.

Themainaimoftheprojectwasresearchdriven;generatingnewknowledgeaboutthephenomenon.However,thesocietalcontextofthisphenomenonisunderchange:municipalities,organisations,andcitizensintheNetherlandsaredealingwithatransformationfromawelfarestatetoalocal‘participationsociety’.Thereforedescribingthephenomenoninthischangingcontext(fourthlevelintable3)wasmorerelevantforthisprojectthanproducingpuretheories.Guidelines(systemlevel)andconcepts(servicelevel)werefurtherdevelopedasdeliverablestoimpactpractitionersandpolicymakersbeyondtheparticipatingstakeholdersintheassignedproject.Small-scalesolutionsservedasdemonstratorstoillustrateinsightsonthephenomenon.Severalsmall-scalesolutionswerealsodirectlyinfusedinpracticeofinvolvedparties.Forexampleinthefirstcasenumerousinsightsandlowhangingfruitimprovementsweredirectlyimplementedbytheinvolvedproblemowners.

Table3FivelevelsofoutcomerangingfromresearchorientedtoapplicationorientedweidentifiedinourRtDproject,whichhelpedincreatingavocabularyforwhatisaimedatinamultidisciplinaryteam.OutcomeofRtD

Whatitis Examplefromfirstcasestudythatstudiedcarerequestconversations

Knowledge Theoryconstructsofphenomenon Theoryframeworkpresentingtheoryvariablesandhowtheyrelatetoeachother

Contextualknowledge

Betterunderstandingofphenomenonthroughcombiningknowledgefromvariousdisciplines,trendsinpoliticalsystem,futurethinkinganduserresearchandprototypinginvariouspractices.

Timelineshowingmomentswherepeoplearemorereceptivetothinkaboutpersonalfuturesandstrategieshowtostretchtheirfuturethinking.

Guidelines Directionsforinnovationstrategiesforserviceprovidersandpoliticalinstitutionsbeyondtheinvolvedpartiespresentedinvisualisationssuchasdesigndocumentaries,opportunitymaps,andseriesofworkshopsetc.

Journeymappresentingidealcareconversationsindifferentmomentsofpeople’slives.

Concepts Conceptideasthatemphasiseanaddedvalueforusersandprovidersinthesystem.

Businessmodelfornewserviceaspre-careplanningconversations

Solutions Directlyapplicableconceptsimmediatelyimplemented

Templatesandscriptsforcareplanningconversations

Researchanddesignactivitieswerecloselyinterwoven.Weexperiencedthatcollaborationofallactorsindesignactivitieswasveryfruitful.Throughcollaborativelyframingtheproblemandsolutionspace,manyinsightswerebroughtinbydomainpractitioners,butalsoweredirectlyfedbacktothemondifferentlevels.Inresearchactivitiesthecollaborationwithdomainexpertswasslightlymorestaged.Domainexpertsjoinedinfieldworkandanalysissessions,butdesignresearchersconductedin-betweenactivitiessuchaspreparing,articulatingandvisualisingrelevantdatacategoriestofacilitatejointproductionofinsights.Toconclude,domainexpertswereinvolvedinvariousdesignactivities,whiletheirinvolvementinresearchactivitieswasmorethoughtfullystaged.

OndocumentationTheReporterKitdocumentedprocessdatafromtheperspectiveofeachroleandmadevisiblehowthingshavechangedalongthecase.UsingatoollikethereporterkitwithonlythreesimplequestionsononeA4formatdidnotdocumentallrelevantprocessdata,butbyjointlysharingeachperspectivehalfwayduringthecase,ithelpedtheteamtocommunicateanddiscussaspectswhichotherwisewouldhaveremainedtacit.Especiallyhavingdocumentedthoughtsoftheactorsinproblemownerrolesondirectlyapplicableaspectsofthedesignedprototypeswashelpfulincoiningresultsofacasestudyonasolutionslevel.Anotherpositiveeffectwasthatitremindedeachteammembertobeawareoftheirrole(s)intheprocess.Teammemberswhofulfilledmultiplerolesweresupportedtodeliberatelyshiftbetweenrolesandfocuswithinthecasestudies.Italsohelpedtheentireprojectteamtoevaluatethemethodologyandimprovethecollaboration.

Toconclude,thereporterkitisatoolthatrequireslittleworkforallinvolvedmembersandtracksenoughinterestingthoughtstosteerjointreflectionandtoremindeachoneontheirroleinrelationtotheothers.

OncollaborationDefiningandassigningroleshelpedmakingavailableexpertiseandassumedcontributionandresponsibilitiesmoreexplicit.Personaltraitsandexpertisevarygreatlyfrompersontoperson,regardlesspositionortitle.Throughthisopenwayofcollaboratingbutmeanwhileframingexpertisethroughroleshelpedmappingopportunisticallyeachteammember’scontributionandadjustwhenneeded.

Therolesweimplementedinthisprojectarenotanoff-the-shelf,one-size-fits-allsolutionforRtDprojects,butdistinguishingroleshelpedstructuringthecollaboration,whileaffordingopennesstobuildonpersonaltraits,skillsandemergingopportunitiesinthedomainpractice.Itisaflexibleyetsystematicapproach.WealsonoticedthattheprojectleadrolewasalwayscombinedwithatleastoneoftheotherrolesandimagineitwouldberatherdifficulttomanageanRtDprojectwhilenotbeinginvolvedinthecomplexprocessthroughotherroles.Eachprojectwillformitsownteamcomposition,butapplyingtherolesincombinationwiththereporterkittoolhelpedstructuringthecollaboration.

AlthougheachRtDprojectcanhaveadifferentsetuporbepartofanothercategory,androlesmaydiffer,wewouldliketoshareourobservationsabouttheroleofdesignresearcher,becausethatroleincludedmanydifferentcapabilities.Weidentifiedseveralcomponentstothedesignresearcherrole:

• Organizingskills,gettingpeopleonboard;• Shiftingbetweenabstractionlevels;• Shiftingfromknowledgetosolution;• Facilitatingallactorsintheprocess,workingwithpeople,talkingtheirlanguage;• Usingvisualsandaestheticstopinpointatintermediateresults;• Makingpropsincollaborationwithdesigner’srole;• Conductinguserresearch,recruitment,fieldwork,observation,interviewing,analysing.

Thelastone,conductingactualresearchwork,isalargetimeconsumingtaskthatshouldbemademoreexplicit.Welearnedthatthistaskeasilydrawsattentionfromothertasks.Arrangingandorganisinguserresearchactivitiesjustabsorbstimeandfocuseasily.Tohighlightthispitfall,weproposedtodistinguishtworolesofdesignresearcher;onefocusingongeneratinginsightsandoneonpracticalitiesoffieldwork.Inthesecondandthirdcasestudiestheactorsfulfillingtheserolesalsotooktheprojectleadrole.Bybeingawareofthedifferentrolestheywerebetterabletofocusontheactivitiesthatweremostimportantandcollaboratefruitfully.Theassignmentsoftherolesarenotdistinct,theyhavelargeoverlapsofexpertise,responsibilities,activitiesandtasks.Toconclude,definingroleshelpedtheteampercasetodiscusseachteammember’scontributionandbeingabletoflexiblyadaptthesealongtheprocess.Throughpositioningexplicitroles,thoughtheyoverlapgreatly,wewereabletoorganisecasestudieswiththemaintaskofgeneratingknowledgethroughdesigninterventions.Thedivisionofrolesprovidedstructuretotheprocessandsupportedincollaborativelygeneratinginsightsonthedifferentlevelsofknowledge,guidelinesandsolutions.

7. ConclusionInthispaperweexploredtheprocessofthreecasestudiesinwhichdomainpractitioners,designers,designresearchersandresearcherscollaboratedindifferentways.WeillustratedhowcollaborationinacomplexRtDprojectcanbestructuredthroughexplicitlyassigningrolesandusingtoolstointegrateperspectivesofallinvolvedactors.

AcknowledgementsTheprojectMyFuturesispartoftheresearchprogrammeResearchthroughDesignwithprojectnumber14608,whichis(partly)financedbytheNetherlandsOrganisationforScientificResearch(NWO)andTaskforceforAppliedResearchSIA.www.myfutures.nl

ReferencesArcher,L.B.(1981)AViewoftheNatureofDesignResearch.InR.Jacques&J.Powell(Eds.),Design,Science:

Method,WestburyHouse,Guildford,UK.Avison,D.E.,Lau,F.,Myers,M.D.,&Nielsen,P.A.(1999).Actionresearch.CommunicationsoftheACM,42(1),

94-97.vanAsseldonk,A.,Scheepers,R.&Raijmakers,B.(2017)TrailofEvidence.CumulusREDOConference

Proceedings.KoldingJune2017.(http://cumuluskolding2017.org/proceedings/)Basballe,D.A.,&Halskov,K.(2012).Dynamicsofresearchthroughdesign.InDis’12ProceedingsofDesigning

InteractiveSystemsConference.ACM,58-67.Binder,T.&Redström,J.(2006)ExemplaryDesignResearch.PaperpresentedattheDRSwonderground

conference,November1-4,2006.Cross,N.(2007)DesignerlyWaysofKnowing.BirkhauserVerlagAGBasel.Dalsgaard,P.,&Halskov,K.(2012)Reflectivedesigndocumentation.InProceedingsoftheDesigning

InteractiveSystemsConference(428-437).ACM.Denzin,N.(2006).SociologicalMethods:ASourcebook.AldineTransaction.Dorst,K.(2011)Thecoreof‘designthinking’anditsapplication.DesignStudies32,521-532.Höök,K.&Löwgren,J.(2012)StrongConcepts:Intermediate-levelknowledgeininteractiondesignresearch.

ACMTransactionsonComputer-HumanInteraction(TOCHI),19(3),23.Jones,P.H.,&vanPatter,G.K.(2009).Design1.0,2.0,3.0,4.0:Theriseofvisualsensemaking.New

York:NextDesignLeadershipInstitute.Manzini,E.(2015)Design,WhenEverybodyDesigns:AnIntroductiontoDesignforSocialInnovation.

CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Mattelmäki,T.,&Matthews,B.(2009)Peelingapples:PrototypingDesignexperimentsasResearch,In

ProceedingsofNordes2009,Oslo.Kimbell,L.(2011)RethinkingDesignThinking:Part1.DesignandCulture3(3),285-306.Koskinen,I.,Zimmerman,J.,Binder,T.,Redstrom,J.&Wensveen,S.(2011)Designresearchthroughpractice:

Fromthelab,fieldandshowroom.Elsevier.Laurel.B.(Ed)(2003)DesignResearch,methodsandperspectives.CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Norman,D.A.(2010)LivingwithComplexity.CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Raijmakers,B.,Vervloed,J,&Wierda,K.J.(2015)Orchestration:Jazzitup.In:vanErp,J.,deLille,C.,Vervloed,

J.,&denHollander,M.(Eds)CRISPMagazine#5ThisisCRISP,June.Rygh,K.(Ed)(2015)Super-Maker.Eindhoven:TheDesignAcademy.Sanders,E.B.N.(2005)Information,inspirationandco-creation.The6thInternationalConferenceofThe

EuropeanAcademyofDesign,Bremen,Germany.Sanders,E.B.N.&StappersP.J.(2008)Co-creationandthelandscapesofdesign.Journalofcodesign4(1),5-18.Sanders,L,&StappersPJ(2014)Fromdesigningtoco-designingtocollectivedreaming:threeslicesintime.

ACMInteractions21(6),24-33.Schuler,D.&Namioka,A.(1993)ParticipatoryDesign:Principlesandpractices.Hillsdale:Erbaum.SleeswijkVisser,F.,Stappers,P.J.,vanderLugt,R.,&Sanders,E.B.N.(2005)Contextmapping:Experiencesfrom

practice.Journalofcodesign1(2),119-149. SleeswijkVisser,F(2009).Bringingtheeverydaylifeofpeopleintodesign.DoctoralthesisDelft.Sleeswijk

Visser,Rotterdam.Stappers,P.J.(2007)Doingdesignaspartofdoingresearch.In:Michiel,R.(Ed.),Designresearchnow:essays

andselectedprojects.Basel:Birkhauser,81-91.Stappers,P.J.,SleeswijkVisser,F.,&Keller,A.I.(2014)Theroleofprototypesandframeworksforstructuring

explorationsbyresearchthroughdesign.InP.Rodgers&J.Yee(Eds)TheRoutledgeCompaniontoDesignResearch.Taylor&Francis.

Stappers,P.J.andGiaccardi,E.(2017)ResearchthroughDesign.Chapter43InA.Zahirovicetal.(Eds.)TheEncyclopediaofHuman-ComputerInteraction,Denmark,InteractionDesignFoundation.http://www.interaction-design.org/literature/book/the-encyclopedia-of-human-computer-interaction-2nd-ed/research-through-design

Sustar,H.,&Mattelmäki,T.(2017).WholeinOne:DesigningforEmpathyinComplexSystems.InDesign+PowerNo7.Nordes2017.

Wensveen,S.&Matthews,B.(2015).Prototypesandprototypingindesignresearch.InP.Rodgers&J.Yee(Eds)TheRoutledgeCompaniontoDesignResearch.Taylor&Francis.

AbouttheAuthor:

FroukjeSleeswijkVisserisassistantprofessorwithafocusonsocialdesignandservicedesignandindependentdesignresearcher