critique as collaboration in design anthropology

CritiqueasCollaborationinDesignAnthropology

LauraForlanoandStephanieSmith

Abstract

Designanthropologyisanemergingfieldattheintersectionofdesignandanthropologywithadistinctstyleofknowing.Thispaperarguesthatinordertocreatetransdisciplinarypracticesaroundcollaborationfordesignanthropology,thefieldmustunderstandexistingpracticesofcritiqueinthefieldofdesign.Basedonatwo-yearNationalScienceFoundationfundedstudyofcollaborationwithdesignersanddesigneducatorsinfourcountries,thisarticledescribesthecultureofcritiquethatunderpinsthecollaborativepracticesofdesigners.Inparticular,designersoftenparticipateinastudio-basedcultureofcritique,whichislearnedinartanddesignschools,evenwhenitisnotexplicitlytaught.Finally,asthefieldofdesignanthropologymaturestoincludeglobalnetworksofscholarsandpractitioners,itisusefultoconsiderthewaysinwhichemergentpracticesofcritiqueascollaboration,supportedbydigitalplatforms,mightmovebeyondthedesignstudioandintodistributedcollaborations.

Keywordscritique,collaboration,design,anthropology,distributed

Page1of22JBA7(2):279-300Autumn2018©TheAuthor(s)2018ISSN2245-4217

www.cbs.dk/jba

JournalofBusinessAnthropology,7(2),Autumn2018

280

Introduction

Designanthropologyisatransdisciplinaryfieldthatincorporatestheories,methodsandpracticesfromthefieldofdesignandanthropology.Oneapproachthathasnotyetbeendiscussedindetailisstudio-basedcultureofcritiqueinthedesignfield,whichdifferssignificantlyfromthepracticeofpeerreviewinthesocialsciences,and,specificallyinanthropology.Basedonatwo-yearNationalScienceFoundationfundedstudyofcollaborationwithdesignersanddesigneducatorsinfourcountries,thispaperseekstomapthepracticesofcritiqueinthedesignfield,whichareoftenlearnedinartordesignschool.Finally,thispaperarguesthatinordertodeveloptrandisciplinarypracticesofcritiqueforthefieldofdesignanthropology,itisnecessarytomovebeyondthedesignstudiomodel.Specifically,inordertocultivateglobalresearchcommunitiesindesignanthropologylikethoseinotherscientificdisciplines,adistributedapproachtocritiqueascollaboration,enabledbydigitalplatforms,isessential.

Designanthropologyisaheterogenousfieldthatdrawsonthestrengthsofbothdesignandanthropology.Whiledesignisfuture-oriented,action-orientedandmaking-oriented,anthropologyistypicallyconcernedwithusingethnographytodescribe,documentandmakesenseoftherituals,processesandlivedexperiencesofpeopleandthewaysinwhichtheyunderstandtheireverydaylives.AccordingtoWendyGunn,TonOttoandRachelCharlotteSmith,designanthropologyofferstheopportunitytochangetherelationshipbetweentheoryandpracticeandtodevelopcriticalpracticesof“collaborativefuturemaking”(2013).Inparticular,theyechodiscussionsaroundpractice-baseddesignresearch(Agre,1997;Buchanan,2001;Ratto,2011;Redström,2017;Wakkary,Odom,Hauser,Hertz,&Lin,2015;Zimmerman,Forlizzi,&Evenson,2007)byaskingwhetheritispossibletodrawonpracticeinordertodeveloptheory.

Wearguethatthesocialpractices(Pickering,1995;Reckwitz,2002;Shove,Pantzar,&Watson,2012)embeddedwithinthestudio-baseddesigncritiqueofferopportunitiesforaction,interventionandreflection(Schön,1983)throughoutthedesignprocessthatcaneffectivelysupportthebuildingoftheory.Indesignprojects,theoryistypicallypartofaninitialsecondaryresearchphasebut,often,fadesintothebackgroundastheprojectsmoveintoprototyping(Redström,2017).Thus,inthestudio-baseddesigncritiquesetting,designanthropologistsmightparticipateinbuildingsharedknowledgebyintroducingexistingtheoreticalconceptsandexplanationsduringthelaterstagesoftheproject.However,suchaninterventionrequiresthatdesignanthropologistsabandonsomeoftheconventionalmodesofpeerreviewthatarecommoninthesocialsciencesand,instead,createnewhybridculturesofcritique.

Forlano&Smith/CritiqueasCollaborationinDesignAnthropology

281

Furthermore,designanthropologypresentsanopportunitytomovebeyondthestudiomodelandtowardsmoredistributeddesignpractices(Forlano&Maze,forthcoming)enabledbydigitaltools.WedrawontheNationalScienceFoundation’sdefinitionofdistributedcollaborationfromthe“BeyondBeingThere”report,whichemphasizescollaborationbetween“individualswhosemembersandresourcesmaybedispersedgeographicallyandinstitutionally,yetwhofunctionasacoherentunitthroughtheuseofcyberinfrastructure”(Cummings,Finholt,Foster,Kesselman,&Lawrence,2008,p.1).Accordingtothereport,virtualorganizations(VOs)includecollaboratories,e-Science,distributedteams,virtualenvironments,andonlinecommunities.Theyoftenshareresourcessuchastools,applications,dataandcomputing.WhilethereareawidevarietyofmodelsforVOs,themajoritysharethefollowingcharacteristics:distributedacrossspaceandtime;dynamicprocessesand,computationallyenabledandenhanced.VOsincludeawiderangeoffieldsanddisciplinesincludingscientificprojectsfocusingonearthquake,cancer,energy,andphysicsresearch.Inprinciple,VOssupportedbydigitaltoolsarealsopossibleinthehumanitiesandsocialsciencesaswellasinthefieldofdesign-forexample,TheHumanities,Arts,Science,andTechnologyAdvancedCollaboratory(HASTAC;http://www.hastac.org).However,thereportstatesthat“Whilecommunitieswillcertainlyadoptanewtoolthatadvancestheirscience,atoolmaynotbeenoughtomotivateacomplex,distributedcollaborationunlessthecollaborationisabsolutelynecessary,asinthecaseofhigh-energyphysics”(Cummingsetal.,2008,p.15).

However,despitethewiderangeofexamplesofdistributedcollaborationfromotherscientificdisciplines,thereportdoesnotdescribetheroleofcritiqueandfeedbackorthewaysinwhichthedigitalplatformssupportsuchengagements.Forexample,inthereport,therewereover120mentionsofthetermcollaborationbutnomentionsofthetermcritiqueandonlyonementionofthewordfeedback(Cummingsetal.,2008).Asaresult,webelievethatdesignanthropologymightdrawonthemeritsofstudio-baseddesigncritiqueinordertodeveloppracticesfordistributedcollaboration.Thesepracticescouldalsobeusedtosupportdistributedcollaborationinotherdisciplines.

Inordertomakethesearguments,first,thispaperwillgiveanoverviewofliteratureoncritiqueaswellasillustratethetypicalmodesofcritiquewithinthedesignfield.Second,thispaperwilldrawonempiricalexamplesfromarangeofdesigncritiquesettingsincludingeducationalsettingsandprofessionalpractice.Third,thispaperwilldiscusstheimplicationsofthesefindingsforthefieldofdesignanthropologyinthedevelopmentofdistinctpracticesofcritique.Finally,thispaperwillofferrecommendationsforthewaysinwhichtheseemergentpracticesofcritiquemightbeembeddedintodigitalplatformsinordertomovebeyondthestudio(Farías&Wilkie,2015)tosupportdistributed


282

collaborationinthefieldofdesignanthropology.

Background

Thissectionaimstogiveanoverviewoftheexistingliteratureaboutcritiqueandintroducecommon,establishedmodesoffeedbackandassessmentthatareusedinstudio-basededucationalsettingsintheartsaswellasthefieldofarchitectureanddesign.Whendonewell,designcritiquecanbeusedtomotivateandfocusstudents,moveforwardcreativework,articulatetheprojectinnewways,anddiscoverpossibilitiesfortransformingtheproject(Soep,2005).However,therestillexistsawidevariationintermsofthestructures,methodsandoutcomesofdesigncritique.Oftenthesedifferencesaretheresultofdistinctdisciplinaryorientations,specificstudiocultures,and,even,individualpersonalitiesandpreferences.

AccordingtoDannels,GaffneyandMartin,asuccessfuloutcomeofacritiqueistypicallyonewheretheprojectbeingdiscussedmovesforwardinsomeway,whetherthroughhelpful,pointedremarksorthroughacollaborativediscussionamongthestudent,facilitators,andotherparticipants(2011).Thisisdoneinavarietyofwaysincludingthedemonstrationofdesignprocess,athoroughexplanationoftheobjectcritiquedanddesignintent,narrativecommunicationstrategies,and“acarefulmanagementofcritiqueinteractions”(Dannelsetal.,2011).Theywritethatanunsuccessfuloutcome,ontheotherhand,preventsworkfrommovingforward,usuallyduetothenatureofthecommunicationclimateandcommunicationinstruction.

Therearefourtypesofdesigncritiquethattakeplaceinthestudioatdifferentstagesoftheproject:deskcritique(one-on-onemeetingatthedeskorinthestudiowhiletheprojectisin-progress);pin-upcritique(groupmeetingwherestudentsdisplayworkonalargewallorboard);juriesandreviews(mid-projectorendofprojectformalpresentations);and,openhouses(endofprojecteventswithinvitedguests)(Dannels,2005).

Figure1.Fourtypesofcritiqueheldthroughoutthedesignprocess

Someofthesetypesofcritiqueareinformalandsomearemoreformal;someareprivateandothersarepublic(Ohetal.,2013).These


283

fourtypesofcritiquescanbeusedtogetherindifferentsequences,typicallyalternatingbetweendeskcritiqueandpinupcritiquebeforethemoreformalmid-projectandendofprojectreviews.

Figure2.Relationshipbetweenthefourtypesofcritique

Thecritiquesession’ssuccessisshapedbythespecifictypologyaswellasbytheparticipants,includingfacilitatorsandleaders(Ohetal.,2013)..BusterandCrawford(2009)definealistofcritic“archetypes”thatdeterminethenatureofthecritiqueandaccountforthevariedmethods:Connoisseurs,Judges,Evaluators,Specialists,Narcissists,DrillSergeants,UnconditionalSupporters,andPhilosophersandTheorists.Ascritics,eachisdrivenbydifferentmotives,whichincludeaimsasdiverseasevaluatingtheworkbasedonaspecificsetofobjectivecriteriatoevaluatingtheworkbasedonitssimilarityordissimilaritytothecritic’sownwork.Havingsuchavariedgroupofcriticsincreasesthechanceofinconsistentexperiencesforparticipants.

Thelanguageofcritiqueisanotherelementcriticaltothesuccessofacritique.Fromastudent’sperspective,thecommunicativeclimateisdescribedasoneofsurvival,cooperation,disclosureanddetachment(Dannelsetal.,2011).Asoneguidetocritiquesays,“Thefirststeptosurvivingthecritiqueistoleaveyouregoatthedoor.Allcritiquestestyourabilitytooccupytheparadoxicalpositionofbeing,atonce,committedtoyourworkanddetachedincritique”(Buster&Crawford,2009).Unfortunately,thecommunicativeclimateexperiencedbystudentsisnotalwaysonethatisconducivetolearning.Forexample,


284

accordingtochoreographerLizLermanandJohnBorstel:

Critiquescomingfromthosewhohadtheprivilegeofholdingforth—teachers,elders,critics—oftenfeltlikeattacks,attacksimbuedwithapassionthatseemedintimatelyconnectedwiththeaestheticvaluesofthebeholder.(Eveninthecaseof“positivecriticism,”theartworksometimesfunctionedasalightningrodforunspokenideas,values,andassumptions.)Since“taking”thecriticismquietlywastheexpectedroutine,wehadnowayofstraighteningoutwhichvalueswerebeingusedasthestandard(2003).

Ontheotherhand,theyacknowledgethatfeedbackfrompeerswasoftenoverlypositiveandlackedusefulness.Theywrite,“Asafield,weneededawaytoexposethepreviouslyunspokenvaluesincriticismandtotalkaboutworksothatpeoplecouldinfacthaveadialogueandstrengthentheirownabilitytosolvetheproblemsinherentincreativeendeavors”(Lerman&Borstel,2003).TheirCriticalResponseProcessdrawsontheinteractions,qualities(respect,trust,specificity,clarity,insight,integrity)andapproachesthataretypicalofpositiveexperienceswithfeedbackandcritique,thosethatmotivatepeopletoimprovetheirprojects.Thisemphasisonthevaluespresentwithinpracticesofdesigncritiqueisimportantinunderstandingthedifferenttypesofcritiqueaswellastheaffordancesofdifferentstyles,languagesandsettings(Flanagan,Howe,&Nissenbaum,2008;Flanagan&Nissenbaum,2014;Friedman&Nissenbaum,1996).

SimilarlyaccordingtoDannelsetal.,studentspreferfeedbackthatisrelevant,suggestive,balanced,engaged,considerateandconsistent(2011).Fleming(1998)describesacontinuumoflanguageusedduringstudiocritiquesthatperformdifferentfunctionsbasedonthecurrentstateofthedesignprocess.Themajorityofthelanguageusedservestoestablishtheobjectbeingcritiquedwhileprovidingtheopportunityforthecritic(s)toshapetheeventualoutcome.Flemingcallsthis“mid-project,designer-to-designertalk.”Inthiscontext,Oak(2011)appliesSymbolicInteractionismandConversationAnalysistostudiocritiqueconversationstodeterminethenatureofdiscourseabouttheobjectspresentedandtheprocessofhownewobjectsemergefromthesediscussions.

Followinggraduationfromstudio-basedprograms,professionalscontinuetousethesemodesofcritiquewithintheirorganizations,includinginarchitecturefirms,designconsultanciesorfineartscollaboratives.Critiqueinthesecontextscanbechallengingbecauseitisdifficulttoincorporateprofessionalswithawidevarietyofcritiquestyles,formatsandtonesfromdiversedisciplines,institutionsandeducationalsettings.Asaresult,thereiseithertensionbetweendifferenttraditionsoramandatefromtheorganizationthatdeterminesthestructureand


285

methodofcritique.Whiletherearevariationsintheelementsofasuccessfulcritique,therearealsoopportunitiesfororganizationstoshapetheseoutcomes.Critiqueisavaluablepracticeandhasbeenshowntobeanimportantpartofthetraditions,ritualsandvaluesoftheinstitutionswheretheyarepracticed(Dannels,2005).

Inprofessionalsettings,designcritiqueispromotedasaprojecttool,and,asaresult,thereisdiscussioninmainstreammediaaboutthebestpracticesofdesigncritiqueandthereasonsforusingit.Forexample,thedesignconsultancyContinuumreferstotheirownviewofcritiqueasanimportantpartofacultureof“deliberativediscourse,”emphasizingconsensus,participationandcollaborationincludingaspectssuchasflatteninggrouphierarchy,discussingthereasonsonewouldsaynotoanother’sidea,embracingdiverseperspectives,focusingonacommongoal,andkeepingitfun(Sobol,2012).Thesedeliberative,participatoryandcollaborativequalitiescanalsobefoundinthehistoryofparticipatorydesignandcodesign(Sanders,2002;Sanders&Stappers,2008;Schuler&Namioka,1993).

Embeddedwithinthisperspectiveonparticipationandcollaborationisthevalueofcritique,dissensus,tensionsandfrictions(DiSalvo,2012;Hillgren,Seravalli,&Emilson,2011;Mouffe,2003).RooksbyandIkeya(2012)discusscollaborationinthecontextofdesignbylookingatpairsofdevelopersdesigningtrafficsimulationsoftware.Inthiscase,thefactorsthatproducedsuccessfulcollaborationincludedlisteningtoeachother,maintainingasharedfocus,beingopentoeachother'sideas,andseekingagreementandacknowledgingdisagreement,aligningwiththeelementsofdesigncritique.Similarly,inanarticleaboutworkingwithvirtual,multi-ethnicandglobalprojectteams,Neeleydiscussestheimportanceofcreatingcertaintypesofmomentssuchasforcingdisagreementsandstressingdifferencesinordertofacilitategroupwork(2012).Theseprojectscanoftengoalongtimewithoutbringingdisagreementstolightsinceparticipantsdonothavetheopportunitytodiscussissuesinaface-to-faceenvironment.Asaresult,itisimportanttogiveparticipantsopportunitiestodisagreewithoneanotherandtooffercritiqueandfeedback(Neeley,2012).

Whilethepracticesaroundcritiquearemodeledandlearnedinstudio-basededucationalsettings,therehavebeensomerecentpublicationsthatattempttoformalizetheprocessforprofessionalpractice.Forexample,inDiscussingDesign:ImprovingCommunication&CollaborationThroughCritique(2015),ConnorandIrizarrydescribethereasoning,process,androleofcritiqueasaformofcollaborationineverydaywork.Whilethemainpremiseofthebooksupportsthemindsetandfoundationofcritiquewithinorganizations,theyalsogiveexamplesofdigitaltoolsthatsupportvirtualandremotecollaboration.However,thesetoolsarenotnecessarilypairedwiththetypesofcritiquethattheysupportandnosingletoolsupportsallfacetsofcritiqueincollaboration.


286

Methodology

Theresearchpresentedinthispaperisbasedonatwo-year,qualitativestudyofdesigncollaborationthatranfromSeptember2010toAugust2012inwhichethnographicobservation(Glaser,1992;Marcus,1995;Strauss,1987)andopen-endedinterviewswereconductedwithdesignersanddesigneducatorsinfourcountries(UnitedStates,Canada,SpainandAustralia).Thispaperfocusesprimarilyonthefirstyearoftheresearchinwhich26one-hourinterviewswereconductedwithdesignersfromavarietyoffieldsincludingarchitects,graphicdesigners,productdesigners,designstrategists,servicedesigners,industrialdesignersandinteractiondesignersintheUnitedStatesandthemajorityofthemwerebasedinNewYork.However,severalofthesedesignerswerebasedinothercitiesincludingPasadena,CA,Pittsburgh,PA,Savannah,GA,Milan,ItalyandTelAviv,Israel.Approximatelytwo-thirdsofthedesignerswerepracticingprofessionalsandtheremainingone-thirdwereeducatorsbasedatanart,designorarchitectureschool.Exactly13participantsweremaleand13werefemale.Mostofthedesignerswereintheirearlytomid-40s,butonewasarecentgraduatefromadesignschool.NineteeninterviewswereconductedinpersonandsevenwereconductedviaSkype.Intervieweeswererecruitedviatheirpublicparticipationindesign-relatedeventsinNewYorkand/ortheiraffiliationwithadesignnetworkhostedbytheParsonsofDesignattheNewSchool.

Thefocusoftheresearchwastobetterunderstandthecoreactivitiesthatcomprisedesigncollaborationasthisrelatestoface-to-faceanddistributedformsofinteractionaswellastheuseofnetworkedcollaborationtools.Specifically,designerswereaskedtodescribetheirongoingcollaborativeprojects,theiruseofparticulardesignmethodsandprocessesandtheiruseoftechnologyandsocialmedia.Allinterviewswereaudio-recorded,documentedwithnotesandphotos,andtranscribed.Followingthecompletionoftheinterviewsandpreliminarycodingofthreetranscripts,acomprehensivecodingschemewasdevelopedtoidentifyemergingthemes.

Inadditiontousingdiscourseanalysisinordertocodethedataandidentifythemes,theMandalaBrowser1,arich-prospectinterfacethatallowsuserstoexploretext-baseddatavisuallybysearchingandextractinglinesoftextfromfilesbasedonkeywords,wasalsoused.Thebrowservisuallyrepresentsthefrequencyandconnectionbetweenkeywordswithintheuploadedtextfiles.Inthiscase,theinterviewtranscriptswereloadedintothebrowser,andthekeywords‘critique’,‘collaboration’,‘feedback’and‘evaluation’usedtoidentifypassagesintheinterviewsthatreferredtothosespecificterms.Byextractingthesepassagesfromthebrowser,itwaspossibletoverifythatthediscourseanalysishadcorrectlyidentifiedthemostrelevantquotesaswellasto

1Seemandala.humviz.org/.AccessedonJanuary28,2018.


287

integrateadditionalquotesthatmayhavebeenoverlookedandignoredduringthediscourseanalysis.Finally,thebrowsercreatesabrightlycoloredvisualmappingthatishelpfulforunderstandingtheprevalenceandrelationshipbetweenkeywordsintheinterviewdata(seebelow).

Figure3.TheresultoftheinterviewdataanalysiswiththeMandalaBrowser

Findings

Inthefollowingsection,wepresentexamplesoftheroleofcritiqueasaformofcollaborationinavarietyofeducationalandprofessionalcontexts.First,wediscussthetraditionofcritiqueinartstudiosanddesignworkshopsettings.Next,wepresentexamplesofcritiquefromprofessionaldesignpractices.Theseexamplesillustratetheroleofcritiqueasaface-to-facepracticeinbothformalandinformalsettings.


288

DesignCritiqueinStudio-BasedEducationalSettings

OurfirstexampleisbasedontheexperienceofaNewYorkCity-basedgraphicdesigner,Emma,whoattendedCooperUnionandsubsequentlyfoundedherowndesignstudiothatspecializesinexhibitiondesign.Shedescribesthecritiquesamongstudentsinaclassas“prettyharshandintense”foran18-yearoldartstudent.Anotherdesignstrategist,Alexa,withherownconsultancy,echoesthissentimentsaying,“Inthedesignworld,we'reoftenusedtothisideaofacritique.Yougetupthereandeverythinggetstorntoshreds.”

Whilethecritiquesweredifficultatfirst,theyweretransformativeinthattheyallowedhertoviewherworkfromalternativeperspectivesandintroducedhertodifferentideas.Shesays,“Ifyou'vegotareasonandyou'vegotaconceptualexplanation…thenitputsyouinastrongerplacetotalkaboutyourwork.”Inthisstatement,Emmaarticulatesthedifferencebetweenamerewhimandarationalethatisbasedoniterativetrialanderrorofmanydifferentapproaches.Sheexplainsthatthisisanimportantpartofeducatingaclientaboutthedesignprocessandthedecisionsthatarebeingmadeatanygiventime.

InEmma’sexperience,“critiqueiscollaboration.”Shegoesontosaythatitisa:

nascentwayoffeelingmorecomfortablewithsomebodysayingsomethingnegative,orthattheyactuallymakeamoreindepth,morenuancedcritiqueofyourwork,andtheygetinvolvedinitenoughthattheycouldactuallyalmosttakeovertheprojectandrunwithitanddevelopitinadifferentway…[therewas]alevelofinvolvementandcomfortwiththecritiquethatdeveloped,thatseemstomethatitmadecollaborationeasier.

AccordingtoEmma,inaneducationalcontext,oneofthemostimportantaspectsofenablingaproductivecultureofcritiqueandcollaborationisaccesstophysicalstudiospaceanddeskspaceforinformalcritiques.Forexample,shesays:

Iwouldevenbeputtingmyprintmakingandstuffoutonthedesk,andpeoplewouldbepinningstuffup,andpeoplewouldbeaskingopinionsandweighinginonit,completelyoutsideofanyclassroomcritique.Youknewwhateverybodyelsewasdoing.Therewasnohidinganything.Notthatthishappenedalot,butifsomebodywasstrugglingtoputsomethingtogetherforadeadline,youcouldasksomebodyelsetohelpyou.Youweren'taloneatnightat11PMnotknowinghowyouweregoingtodoit.

Thehighlyvisualnatureofartanddesignworkisafactorthatallowsittobedisplayedpublicly,whichattractspeopletoitandenablesthemtoprovidevaluablefeedbacktodesigners.Thissupportsthefindingsofanearlierstudyofdesignwork,whichshowedthatweb


289

designersworkinginpublicsettingssuchascafeswereabletogatherusefulfeedbackfromfutureaudiencesbydisplayingtheirworkvisually(Forlano,2008,2009).

Anotherexampleoftheimportanceofcritiqueincollaborationisfromanarchitecturalschoolcontext.Inthiscase,inthefirstpartofthesemester,theprofessor,Jane,requiredstudentstodesignspecificbuildingelements(forexample,doors,windows,roofsandcooling/heatingsystems)butprohibitedthemfromusingtheseelementsinthesecondhalfofthesemester.Instead,thegraduatestudentshadto“respondtopeople'scritiqueofthatelementinaveryopen-mindedwaytotransformitaccordingtothedesiresofotherstudents…Thisquestionofdesigningsomethingthatsomebodyelseuseslateronisreallyradicallydifferent,”saidJane.

Participationinacritiqueofone’sworkimpliesakindofopennessandtransparency.However,inthefieldofprofessionalarchitecturepractice,largefirmsinNewYorkarehesitanttomaketheirworkpublicuntilthelaterstagesinaproject.Accordingtoonearchitect,Mason,whorunsherownarchitecturestudio:

Thecultureisverymuch,“I'mgoingtohidethisdrawinguntilwepublicizethingsandIknowthatit'smyproject”becausepeopleareveryconcernedaboutthelookofaprojectbeingstolen…youdon'twanttotalkaboutthedealuntilthedealisdoneandthenyouwanttotalkaboutittoeverybody.

Shegoesontosaythat,inarchitecture,thereisafearthatifadesignergoespublicwithadrawingorrenderingthatsomethingcouldbemanipulated.Masonstates,“Themanipulationthatisfearedisnotevensomuchthatsomeonewillstealanidea;it'smorethatsomeonewillcritiqueanidea,”laughingattheironyofthisfactgiventheimportanceofcritiqueindesigntrainingandpractice.Forexample,accordingtoMason,inthecaseoftheplansfortheAtlanticYardsstadiuminBrooklyn,AmandaBurdan,thedirectoroftheNewYorkCityDepartmentofCityPlanning,hadacityplannerleakarenderingtotheNewYorkTimesinordertoexposetheprojecttopubliccritiqueandpressurethedevelopertochangeit.

Inthecaseofgraduatedesignprograms,and,inparticular,thosethatenrollavarietyofstudentswithdesignandnon-designbackgrounds,thereisaneedtoestablishabaselineofknowledgerelatedtothepurposeandnatureofcritiqueaswellastocreategroundrulesforcollaboration.Forexample,accordingtoRachel,thedirectorofanewdesignprograminNewYork,studentsexpressedconcernsanddoubtsaboutthemselves,theircolleaguesandteammatesandtheoverallcurriculum.Shecametotheconclusionthat“Thecurriculumwasnotpreparingthemtodosomethingthattheywerebeingaskedtodo.”Asaresult,theprogramcirculatedwrittenguidelinesabouthowtodocritiquesandwaysto


290

approachcritiquesandintegratedthisintothecurriculuminamoreformalmanner.Forexample,theguidelinesmightbeassimpleas‘raiseyourhandifyouhavefeedbackabouttheideathatIpresented’oramoreelaborateplanforhowafour-personteammightworktogether.Rachelofferedthefollowingguidelinesforcritiqueandmultidisciplinarycollaboration:

1. The idea isnot thedeliverable…[it] isathrowaway.Focusontheidea,butknowthatit[can]bediscarded.

2. Deliverappropriate feedbackabout thework, but know that you're workingtowardsalargergoal,whichisthegroupprojectandthegroupconsensus.

3. Stayopentoothers.Understandingthateach person has something tocontribute.

4. [Know]thatatanypointyoumayneedto take the lead to make your ideaheard…andtoworkhardertoseeitcometobear.

Atanotherdesignschoolacrossthecountry,asustainabledesignprofessor,Sam,emphasizestheimportanceofself-critiqueintermsof“busting…andchallengingone’sownassumptions,”asintegraltothedesignprocess.

AttheInstituteofDesignatIllinoisInstituteofTechnology,designcritiqueisincorporatedintotheFoundationclasses,particularlyinthecommunicationdesignandproductdesigncourses.Forstudentswhoenterthegraduateprogramwithoutabackgroundinformaldesigntraining,theygothrougharigoroustwosemesterfoundationalprogramthatteachescommunicationdesign,productdesign,multi-mediaanddigitaldesign,photography,andhistoryofdesign.Allfourformsofdesigncritiquediscussedintheprevioussectionareusedduringclassincludingdeskcritique,pin-upcritique,juries/reviewsandopenhouses.

Althoughdesigncritiqueispracticedintheseformalandinformalsituationsthroughoutthecourses,therearedifferencesinstyle,approach,climate,environmentandlanguagedependingonthefacultymember.Eachfacultymemberhasadifferentstyleoffacilitatingandparticipatinginthecritique,whichproducesadifferentexperiencewithintheclassandinthetypeofworkproduced.Boththemethodsaswellasthephysicalspaceusedforcritiquealsodifferacrossfacultymembers.Forinstance,pinupcritiquesinthecommunicationdesignclasstakeplaceinaclassroomwithaprojector,whereaspinupcritiquesintheproductdesignclasstakeplaceinanopenstudio.

Inaneducationalsetting,thereisanimposedhierarchybecausethefacultymemberplaystheroleofguidingandfacilitatingthecritiqueatvariousstagesofindividualandgroupprojects.Inthiscase,thefaculty


291

member,peersandinviteddesignprofessionalsprovideimportantfeedbacktohelpstudentsimprovethework.However,asstudentsgainfamiliaritywiththepracticesofdesigncritique,theyarealsoabletoprovidefeedbacktoeachotheraspeersoutsideoftheclassroomonindividualandgroupprojects,whichremovesthehierarchyassociatedwiththefaculty-studentcritiques.Atypicalteammightconsistofagroupofstudentswithdiverseage,gender,ethnicities,countriesoforiginandacademicbackgroundssuchasagraphicdesignerinherlate20s,amusician-turned-designerinhismid-30s,abusinessconsultantinhisearly40s,andaformermechanicalengineerfromthefoundationprograminhisearly20s.Withinthiscontext,studentteamsemployinformaldesigncritiquemethodsincludingdeskcritiquesandpin-upcritiquesinordertocollaborateeffectivelyonprojects.Forexample,whenusingadeskcritiqueastudentmightasktheirteammembersforfeedbackonpartoftheirworkandwhenusingapin-upcritiquetheymightdisplaytheworktheyhavedoneindividuallytotherestofthegroupanddiscussit.Asateam-basedproject,studentsarenotjudgingtheworkasindividuals,butasapartofthewhole.Inadditiontopeerfeedbackwithinteams,studentswillalsosharetheirworkwithotherteamsandreceivefeedback.Finally,facultymemberswillmeetwithteamsindividually.Formalcritiquemethodsareusedprimarilyduringmid-termreviewsandfinalpresentationssometimeswithanoutsideorganizationorsponsor.

DesignCritiqueinProfessionalPractice

Critiqueisequallyimportantineducationalsettingsasitisintheworldofprofessionaldesignpracticebutitmaybeappliedindifferentwaysdependingontheindividualfirm.Forexample,ratherthanadopttheharshcritiquecommoninthedesignschoolmodel,Alexa’sdesignconsultancyusesconceptsofdivergenceandconvergenceduringbrainstorming(Osborn,1953).Specifically,whiledivergentthinkingstressesthegenerationofasmanydifferentideasaspossible,convergentthinkingfocusesonnarrowingdowntherangeofoptions.

ForJeremy,anarchitectthatheadsanexhibitiondesignfirm,thedesignprocessfollowsa“creation,evaluation,andcuration”approach.Hestatesthatdesignersshouldbeopentoimprovementsintheirideasfromtheircolleaguesaswellasfromdialogueswiththeirclients.Inthisway,thedesignerisboth“ageneratorand/oraconsolidatorofdifferentideas.”Inparticular,themulti-disciplinarityofJeremy’sstudioallowsforanopen,collaborativeenvironmentwheredesignerscangetfeedbackfromavarietyofdesignpractitionersincluding3Ddesigners,graphicdesigners,motiondesigners,writers,researchers,animators,interactiondesigners,front-endcoders,andback-enddevelopers.

Ratherthanshowingclientsasingledesignsolution,whichsends


292

themessagethatthedesignercontrolseverything,Jeremy’sfirmworkscollaborativelywiththeirclientsbyshowingthemarangeofdifferentapproachestoaspecificdesignandaskingforfeedback:

Becausewewantthemtofeelempowered,andtounderstandourthinkingbehindchoosingacertainapproach.Furthermore,wewantthemtocriticize,anddeconstruct,andimproveourdesignapproaches…we'reconstantlyshowingthemawidevarietyofdesignsandmakingourpreferenceveryclear.Butalwaysshowingthemtheotheroptionsandgettingtheirinput…Andactually,moreandmoreofwhatwedoisnoteventellthemourpreference.Wejustsay,“We'renotevengoingtotryandswayyouinanydirection.We'rejustgoingtoshowyouhere'soptionA,B,andC;andyouinterpretforyourself,”…Wewanttheirfrankunadulteratedopinioninwhat'sworkingandwhat'snotworkingandthat'sthevalueoftheclientisthatthey'llseeitatsuchadifferentangle.

Infact,Jeremy’sfirmdoesnotworkwithclientsthatareunableoruninterestedinparticipatinginthedesignprocesseitherduetoalackofinterestoralackofknowledge.WhileJeremyinsiststhathisteamintegratehisdesignphilosophyandspecificcommentsintotheirdesignapproaches,hedoesnotwanttorestricttheircreativity.Hetellsthem:

Ifandwhenyoueverthinkthatyouhaveabetterideathanme,Iwanttoseethatidea.Iwantyoutoactivelydevelopparallelideasthatcancontradict,orundercutanyofmyapproaches…Evendowntothelastdayoffinaldesign.Ifyouthinkit'sbetter,Iwanttoknowaboutwhyyouthinkit'sbetter,andIwantyoutoprovetomethatit'sbetter.Iwantyoutoprovenotjusttomethatit'sbetter,Iwantyoutoprovetothewholestudio…Nothingwouldmakemehappierthantohaveanentirestudiofilledwithincrediblytalented,overachievingpeople,whoarecomingupwithsuchamazingandincredibleideas,thattheyeclipsemyownvision.

Similartotheimportanceofphysicalstudiospaceanddeskspaceinapedagogicalsetting,designfirmsemphasizetheimportanceoftheirmock-uproomsaswellasofprototypesandmock-upsmoregenerally.Infact,Jeremy’sstudiocreatesmock-upsduringthedesigndevelopmentprocessinordertopitchtheirworktopotentialclients.Hearguesthatmock-upsareimportant,“Forallclients,ithelpsreallyfocusthem,andthat'scritical.Itdrawstheirattention,anditgivethemsomethingtorallyaround,tounderstand,toapprove,tocriticize…”.AccordingtoJeremy,themock-upsbecome:

alightningrodfortheirdissatisfaction,whichisreallyhelpful.Whenweinviteclientstolookatourmock-ups,wedon'tinvitethemtosignoffonthings.Wewantthemtocriticizeit.Wewant


293

themtoimproveit.Wewanttobasicallydigoutanyandalloftheirnegativefeedbackatthatmoment,becauseit'smuchbetterthenthanwhenwelaunch.Onceit'sbuilt,it'sdone.Youdon'thaveanopportunitytochangeit.

Themock-upsenablethedesignteamtoquestiontheirassumptions,determinewhetherwhattheysetouttodoisactuallywhattheywanttodoandevaluatewhethertheirultimatesolutionmeetstheirdesigngoals.Bybringingavarietyofdifferentstakeholdersintothestudioandinvitingthemtoevaluate,refineandcriticizethemock-up,itispossibletosynchronizethedesignapproachwiththeclient’sactualneedsandwants.Itisparticularlyimportanttogetfeedbackfromtheclientasearlyaspossibleinthedesignprocessinordertoaligntheapproachwiththeclient’sgoals.Often,Jeremy’sfirmwillbuildamock-upintheirstudiofortheclienttoseeinordertoavoidproblemswhentheactualexhibitionisinstalledandlaunchedinapublicspace.Hesays:

webuiltacompletelyverbatimmock-up,downtotheinch,withallthehardware,allthegraphics.Itwasbuiltoutofplywoodontheoutside,butalltheinteractiondesignandtechnologywasexactlythesame…wewantallthecriticism,butwecan'thaveitwhenwegoto[thesiteoftheinstallation]becauseit'stoolatethen.

Jeremylikensdesigncollaborationtotheworkofsitcomscriptandcomedywriterssketchingoutideas;itis“agroupofpeoplepinningup30differentapproachesontothewallanddiscussingwhichonesworkordon'twork.It'sthatgroupofpeoplethrowingoutdifferentideasandjusthammeringaway,tryingtocomeupwithabunchofdifferentapproaches...it'sbasicallypeopleinthesamespacetogetherthrowingaroundideas.”

HeemphasizestheimportanceofphysicalspaceandsaysthatvirtualcollaborationisdifficultindesignworkbecauseitisdifficulttogettoknowpeopleandunderstandwhattheyarethinkingbyphoneorSkypebecausetheseinterfacestendtoreinforcesocialnormsofpoliteness.AccordingtoJeremy,“Youreallyneedtoknowthepeopleandtrustthemonadeeperlevelthanjusthearingtheirvoice…whenyou'recollaboratingwithpeople,youshouldn'tbepolite,youshouldbeenergetic,andsarcastic.Youshouldhavefun,butbeingrestrainedandpoliteisnothelpful.”Similarly,thegraphicdesigner,Emma,saysthat70-80percentoftheirworkislocallybasedinNewYorkbecauseitisstilldifficulttocoordinatedesignworkremotely.Forexample,foraSpanishclient,theyhadproblemsprovidingfeedbackandhavingadialogaboutphotographsofanexhibitioninstallationbecauseitwasdifficulttounderstandwhatlooksgoodonawallwithoutaccuratephotographs.Foranotherproject,Emmausedmock-upsofwhatthingswouldlooklikeinplaceinordertogetfeedbacksaying,“it'seasiertotalkaboutitwhenit


294

looks,forallintentsandpurposes,real,andgetfeedbackfromthemthatway.”

Accordingtoaproductdesigneratalarge,globaldesignconsultancy,Thomas,atwotofive-persondesignteamiscommonbutathree-personteamisideal:

Threeisamagicnumber[inWesternCulture].Likethere'sFather,SonandHolyGhost.There'sthreelittlepigs.There'sThreeStooges.There'sthreestrikesandyou'reout.But,intermsofthegroupdynamicisthere'skindofpoint,counterpointandalternateidea.Soyoucangetasortoftriangulateddiscussion…itofteninjectsjustenoughofanewideatokeepthingsfresh.

Whilediscussionsbetweentwopeoplecanstagnatequickly,athirdpersoniscriticaltomovetheideasforward.Inaddition,itisimportanttobringinadvisorsatdifferentpointstoprovidefeedback.

Discussion

Designanthropologyasafieldexistsattheintersectionofdifferingculturesaroundpeerreview,feedbackandcritique.Yet,thefielddoesnotyethaveanestablished,codifiedpracticeofcritiquethatmightallowforittobuildfoundationaltheories.Specifically,whileanthropologyincorporatesnormsthatarecommoninthesocialsciences,whichemphasizelong-termindividualprojects(Choyetal.,2009),designreinforcesshorter-term,collaborativeprojects.Inthesocialsciences,critiquetypicallyhappensthroughblindpeerreviewprocessesthatareintendedtoprovideanassessmentofthework,offerfeedbackand,ultimately,decidewhetheraparticulararticleisworthyofpublication.Indesign,critiquetypicallyhappensthroughawidevarietyofformatsinthestudio.Whileanindepthcomparisonofthevaluesandnormsassociatedwithcritiqueacrossdifferentfieldsisbeyondthescopeofthisarticle,ourfindingsprovideadeeperunderstandingofstudio-baseddesigncritiqueasabasisfortheemergentfieldofdesignanthropology.

Adeeperanalysisofourfindingssuggeststhreebroadclustersofvaluespresentwithindesigncritique:openness,multiplicityandcollaboration.First,ourinformantsemphasizedtheimportanceofopennessandrelatedconceptssuchastransparency,awareness,sharing.Second,ourinformantsreinforcedthevalueofmultiplicityincludingmulti-disciplinarityaswellasmultiplesolutions,approachesandimprovements.Thefocusonmultiplicityalongwithcontradictionsanddivergentideasresistshierarchicalcontrolofknowledgeand,rather,emphasizesthateachpersonhassomethingtocontributetoimprovingtheconversationaroundtheworkinlinewiththeoryaroundcodesignandparticipatorydesign.Third,ourinformantsemphasizedthatcritiqueisaprocessofcollaboration,whichrequiresinvolvementand


295

participation.Here,theaffectivequalitiesoftrust,comfort,energyand,even,sarcasmarenecessarytomaintainanatmosphereconducivetosupportingthedevelopmentofthework.Ratherthanleavingacritiquesessionfeelingdisillusionedordisappointed,designersseektoempowerparticipants(inpartduetotheirownnegativeexperienceswithharshcritiquesduringtheireducationsinart,designandarchitectureschools).

Basedonthisanalysis,wearguethatcritiquecanbeunderstoodasagenerousandgenerativecollaborativepracticeinwaysthatdiffersubstantiallyfromthenormsandvaluesthatarecommoninthesocialsciencesand,specifically,inanthropology.Inorderforthefieldofdesignanthropologytobegintocreatenewmodelsforbuildingtheory,itmustfirstdevelopusefulandeffectivenormsandculturesaroundthepracticeofcritique.Theseemergentnormsshouldbuildonstudio-baseddesigncritiqueandtraditionalmodelsofpeerreviewinthesocialsciencesaswellasmorenascentandexperimentalpracticesthataretakingholdinthesocialsciences.Forexample,theJournalofPeerProduction2andAda:AJournalofGender,NewMedia,andTechnology3aretwoopenaccessjournalsthathaveinstitutedalternativestotraditionalblindpeerreviewprocesses.TheJournalofPeerProductionbuildsonanargumentbyWhitworthandFriedman(2009a,2009b)thatsuggeststhatthenormsofacademicpublishingarerisk-averseandstiflethecreationofnewideas.Instead,thejournaladoptstheirproposedalternativeevaluationsystem,whichemphasizescommunityinvolvement,multiplemodesofevaluationaswellasinformalandformalevaluations.Asaresultofusingthismodel,thejournalpublishesthereviewsanda50-wordcommendationfromthereviewersalongwiththefinalarticle.Thisprocesspreservesthedouble-blindnatureofthereviewprocess,whichaimstoprovide“frankandfearless”feedbackbutofferstheoptionsofmakingthereviewersnamespubliconcethearticlehasbeenaccepted.Thepublicationofthereviewsreinforcesthenormthatthereviewersshould“usearespectfultone”regardingthearticlethattheyarereviewing.Similarly,Ada’sprocessisstatedas:“ContributionsarereviewedbyFembotCollectivemembersusingamulti-levelopenpeerreviewprocess.”Inthiscase,reviewsarenotanonymousbut,rather,comefromanidentifiedmemberoftheFembotCollective.Thesetwoexamplesillustratethatthereareemergentpracticeswithinthesocialsciencesthatseektocreatenewnormsaroundopenness,multiplicityandcollaboration,whichalignwiththecharacteristicsthatweobservedinourstudyofstudio-baseddesigncritique.

Finally,ourdataillustratethewaysinwhichdigitaltoolsaretypicallyinsufficienttosupportthevaluesandnormsassociatedwithstudio-baseddesigncritiquebecausetheytendtofavorpoliteness,2Seehttp://peerproduction.net/peer-review/process/.AccessedonJanuary29,2018.3Seehttp://adanewmedia.org/about/.AccessedonJanuary29,2018.


296

reservationandagreementratherthanfrank,unrestrainedconversationthatisfocusedonexposingcontradictionsanddisagreements,therebymakingwayformultiplepossibilities.Furthermore,whiletherehasbeensubstantialresearchonvirtualorganizationsanddistributedcollaboration,therehasbeenmuchlessattentiontodesigningdigitalplatformstosupportdissensus,tensionandfriction.Ourfindingssuggestthatitwouldbeusefultoconsiderthesevaluesinthedesignofplatformsintendedtosupportcollaborationacrossdistance.

Conclusion

Thisstudyillustratestheimportanceofpracticesarounddesigncritiqueasformsofcollaborationbasedonexamplesfromstudio-basededucationalsettingsandprofessionalpracticewithinarchitecturestudiosanddesignconsultancies.Abetterunderstandingofthesepracticesisvitalfortheemergentfieldofdesignanthropologybecausethenormsaroundpeerreview,feedbackandcritiquediffersubstantiallyacrossthefieldsofdesignandanthropology.Specifically,fordesignanthropologytosucceedinbuildingtheoryfrompractice-baseddesignmethods,itisnecessarytofindwaystointerveneandinterjecttheoreticalconceptsintostudio-basedculturesofcritiqueacrosstheentiredesignprocess(ratherthanmerelyatthebeginningasiscommoninmanyprojects).

Atthesametime,inordertoexpandthefield,designanthropologyhastheopportunitytomovebeyondtheconfinesofthestudioandtowardsthebuildingofcollaborativeglobalnetworkofscholarsandpractitionersasaretypicalinotherscientificdisciplinesthroughtheuseofdigitalplatforms.However,ourresearchshowsthattherearestillsignificantbarrierstocreatingdistributed,remoteandvirtualpracticesthatmaintainthevaluesandculturesofthedesignstudio.And,whiletheavailabilityofonlineplatformsisgrowing,therearestillnotoolsthatsupportthedifferentstyles,approaches,languagesandvaluesofcritiquethatarecommoninthestudiowithaspecificfocusonopenness,multiplicityandcollaboration.

Acknowledgements

ThisresearchwassupportedbytheUSNationalScienceFoundation’sDivisionofAdvancedCyberInfrastructureforaprojecton“DesignCollaborationsforSocio-technicalSystems”(Award#1025498).


297

References

Agre,Philip.(1997).Towardacriticaltechnicalpractice:LessonslearnedintryingtoreformAI.InBridgingtheGreatDivide:SocialScience,TechnicalSystems,andCooperativeWork,Mahwah,NJ:Erlbaum,131-157.

Buchanan,Richard.(2001).Designresearchandthenewlearning.DesignIssues,17(4),3-23.https://doi.org/10.1162/07479360152681056

Buster,Kendall,&Crawford,Paula.(2009).TheCritiqueHandbook:TheArtStudents'SourcebookandSurvivalGuide.Boston,MA:PrenticeHall.

Choy,TimothyK,Faier,Lieba,Hathaway,MichaelJ,Inoue,Miyako,Satsuka,Shiho,&Tsing,Anna.(2009).Anewformofcollaborationinculturalanthropology:Matsutakeworlds.AmericanEthnologist,36(2),380-403.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2009.01141.x

Connor,Adam,&Irizarry,Aaron.(2015).DiscussingDesign:ImprovingCommunicationandCollaborationThroughCritique.Sebastopol,CA:O'ReillyMedia.

Cummings,Jonathon,Finholt,Thomas,Foster,Ian,Kesselman,Carl,&Lawrence,KatherineA.(2008).Beyondbeingthere:Ablueprintforadvancingthedesign,development,andevaluationofvirtualorganizations.Washington,D.C.:NationalScienceFoundation.

Dannels,DeannaP.(2005).Performingtribalrituals:Agenreanalysisof"crits"indesignstudios.CommunicationEducation,54(2),136-160.https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520500213165

Dannels,DeannaP.,Gaffney,AmyL.Housley,&Martin,KellyNorris.(2011).Students'talkabouttheclimateoffeedbackinterventionsinthecritique.CommunicationEducation,Vol60(Issue1),pp.95-114.https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2010.487111

DiSalvo,Carl.(2012).Adversarialdesign.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Farías,I.,&Wilkie,A.(Eds.).(2015).StudioStudies:Operations,Topologies&Displacements.NewYork:Routledge.

Flanagan,Mary,Howe,Daniel,&Nissenbaum,Helen.(2008).Embodyingvaluesintechnology:Theoryandpractice.Informationtechnologyandmoralphilosophy,322-353.

Flanagan,Mary,&Nissenbaum,Helen.(2014).ValuesatPlayinDigitalGames.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Fleming,David.(1998).DesignTalk:ConstructingtheObjectinStudioConversations.DesignIssues,Vol14(No2),pp.41-62.https://doi.org/10.2307/1511850

Forlano,Laura.(2008).WhenCodeMeetsPlace:CollaborationandInnovationatWiFiHotspots.(Ph.D.),ColumbiaUniversity,NewYork.

Forlano,Laura.(2009).WiFiGeographies:WhenCodeMeetsPlace.The


298

InformationSociety,25,1-9.https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240903213076

Forlano,Laura,&Maze,Ramia.(forthcoming).DemonstratingandAnticipatinginDistributedDesignPractices.Demonstrations.

Friedman,Batya,&Nissenbaum,Helen.(1996).Biasincomputersystems.ACMTransactionsonInformationSystems(TOIS),14(3),330-347.https://doi.org/10.1145/230538.230561

Glaser,B.(1992).Basicsofgroundedtheoryanalysis.MillValley,CA:SociologyPress.

Gunn,Wendy,Otto,Ton,&Smith,RachelCharlotte.(2013).Designanthropology:theoryandpractice.NewYork:Bloombsbury.

Hillgren,Per-Anders,Seravalli,Anna,&Emilson,Anders.(2011).Prototypingandinfrastructuringindesignforsocialinnovation.CoDesign,7(3-4),169-183.https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.630474

Lerman,Liz,&Borstel,John.(2003).CriticalResponseProcess:amethodforgettingusefulfeedbackonanythingyoumake,fromdancetodessert.TakomaPark,MD:DanceExchange,Inc.

Marcus,GeorgeE.(1995).Ethnographyin/oftheWorldSystem:TheEmergenceofMulti-SitedEthnography.AnnualReviewofAnthropology,24,95-117.https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.24.100195.000523

Mouffe,Chantal.(2003).Pluralism,dissensusanddemocraticcitizenship.IISemináriointernacionaleducaçãointercultural,gêneroemovimentossociais.Identidade,diferença,mediações,1-10.

Neeley,Tsedal.(2012).GlobalTeamLeadersMustDeliberatelyCreate‘Moments’Retrievedfromhttp://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/global_team_leaders_must_delib.html

Oak,Arlene.(2011).Whatcantalktellusaboutdesign?Analyzingconversationtounderstandpractice.DesignStudies,32(3),211-234.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2010.11.003

Oh,Y.,etal..(2013).Atheoreticalframeworkofdesigncritiquinginarchitecturestudios.DesignStudies,34(3),302-325.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2012.08.004

Osborn,Alex(1953).AppliedImagination:PrinciplesandProceduresofCreativeProblemSolving.NewYork,NY:CharlesSchribner'sSons.

Pickering,Andrew.(1995).TheMangleofPractice:Time,Agency,andScience.Chicago:UniversityofChicago.https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226668253.001.0001

Ratto,Matt.(2011).Criticalmaking:Conceptualandmaterialstudiesintechnologyandsociallife.TheInformationSociety,27(4),252-260.https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819


299

Reckwitz,Andreas.(2002).TowardaTheoryofSocialPractices:ADevelopmentinCulturalistTheorizing.Europeanjournalofsocialtheory,5(2),243-263.https://doi.org/10.1177/13684310222225432

Redström,Johan.(2017).MakingDesignTheory.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.

Rooksby,John,&Ikeya,Nozomi.(2012).CollaborationinFormativeDesign:WorkingTogetherataWhiteboard.IEEESoftware,pp.56-60.https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2011.123

Sanders,ElizabethB-N.(2002).Fromuser-centeredtoparticipatorydesignapproaches.Designandthesocialsciences:Makingconnections,1-8.https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

Sanders,ElizabethB.-N.,&Stappers,PieterJan.(2008).Co-creationandthenewlandscapesofdesign.CoDesign,4(1),5-18.

Schön,D.A.(1983).TheReflectivePractitioner:HowProfessionalsThinkinAction.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Schuler,Douglas,&Namioka,Aki.(1993).Participatorydesign:principlesandpractices.Hillsdale,N.J.:L.ErlbaumAssociates.

Shove,Elizabeth,Pantzar,Mika,&Watson,Matt.(2012).Thedynamicsofsocialpractice:everydaylifeandhowitchanges:SagePublications.

Sobol,Daniel.(2012).Innovationisaboutarguing,notbrainstorming.Here’showtoargueproductively.Retrievedfromhttp://www.fastcodesign.com/1669329/dont-brainstorm-argue

Soep,Elisabeth.(2005).Whereartmeetsassessment.PhiDeltaKappan,Vol87(No1),38-63.https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170508700109

Strauss,A..(1987).Qualitativeanalysisforsocialscientists..Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Wakkary,Ron,Odom,William,Hauser,Sabrina,Hertz,Garnet,&Lin,Henry.(2015).Materialspeculation:Actualartifactsforcriticalinquiry.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsofTheFifthDecennialAarhusConferenceonCriticalAlternatives.

Whitworth,Brian,&Friedman,Rob.(2009a).Reinventingacademicpublishingonline.PartI:Rigor,relevanceandpractice.FirstMonday,14(8).https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i8.2609

Whitworth,Brian,&Friedman,Rob.(2009b).Reinventingacademicpublishingonline.PartII:Asocio-technicalvision.FirstMonday,14(9).https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v14i9.2642

Zimmerman,John,Forlizzi,Jodi,&Evenson,Shelley.(2007).ResearchthroughdesignasamethodforinteractiondesignresearchinHCI.PaperpresentedattheProceedingsoftheSIGCHIconferenceonHumanfactorsincomputingsystems.https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240704


300

LauraForlanoisAssociateProfessorofDesignattheInstituteofDesignandAffiliatedFacultyintheCollegeofArchitectureatIllinoisInstituteofTechnologywheresheisDirectoroftheCriticalFuturesLab.Herresearchisontheintersectionbetweendesignandtechnologyaroundthemesincludingethics,materialitiesandfuturesaroundtopicssuchassmartcities,distributedwork,computationalfashionandmedicaltechnologies.Forlano’srecentpublicationsinclude“PosthumanismandDesign,”(SheJi)“DataRitualsinIntimateInfrastructures”(Catalyst)and“DemonstratingandAnticipatinginDistributedDesignPractices”(Demonstrations)andshehaspublishedinjournalsincludingDesignIssues,Fibreculture,FirstMonday,JournalofUrbanTechnologyandDigitalCulture&Society.Forlanoisco-editorwithMarcusFoth,ChristineSatchellandMartinGibbsofFromSocialButterflytoEngagedCitizen(MITPress2011).ShehaspublishedchaptersforbooksincludingeditorMarkShepard’sSentientCity(MITPress2011).ShereceivedherPh.D.incommunicationsfromColumbiaUniversity.

StephanieSmithisanAdjunctFacultymemberandtheDirectorofCorporateandCommunityPartnerEngagementfortheInstituteofDesignatIllinoisInstituteofTechnology.Shehasalsoplayedrolesasanexperiencedesignmanagerinthehealthcareindustrywithexperienceindesign-ledinnovationconsultinganddesignresearchspanningmultipleindustriesincludingheavymanufacturing,financialservicesandproducts,insurance,andconsumerpackagedgoods.Sheisafrequentspeakerontheapplicationofdesignandinnovationinbusiness.Priortoworkingindesign,Stephanieworkedinthemusicindustryinpromotion,salesandmarketing,artistandrepertoire,andasapracticingmusician.Shealsoco-foundedatechnologystartupinthemeetingsindustry.ShereceivedherM.Des.attheInstituteofDesignandM.B.A.attheStuartSchoolofBusiness,bothatIllinoisInstituteofTechnology.

critique as collaboration in design anthropology

Documents