Value-creating practices and barriers for collaboration between designers and artisans: a systematic literature review

ABSTRACT

This study aims to map out the challenges of existing design collaborations in craft sectors and delineate different types of value associated with artisan and designer collaboration. A systematic literature review was undertaken, examining peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2000 and 2022. The results indicate three levels of sustainable value created from designer-artisan design collaboration, which include business growth, regional development, and autonomic capability development. However, collaborative value is often hindered by a lack of a clear understanding of the process of value coordination or shared value creation, the challenges of balancing different relationships, thinking patterns, and values, and a lack of understanding of different actors’ roles regarding materials, technology, and design processes. This study bridges knowledge gaps by offering a holistic depiction of designer-artisan design collaboration, mapping current challenges of practices, and defining future research agendas.

KEYWORDS:

• Traditional crafts
• designer–artisan design collaboration
• design-collaboration process
• value creation
• systematic literature review

1. Introduction

Craft features as one of the most important subsectors of the creative industry in developing countries, contributing to local financial growth, employment creation, preservation of a unique cultural identity, and environmental protection (Shafi, Sarker, & Junrong, 2019; Väänänen & Pöllänen, 2020). The term ‘value’ refers to the usefulness and importance that an ‘object’ (tangible or intangible) provides to a subjective entity (Li, Ho, & Yang, 2019; Yu, 2018). Accordingly, various craft values have gained more attention from design fields for their ability to facilitate various sustainability.

However, the disappearance of traditional crafts and artisans has become a global phenomenon, as reported by BBC and CNN (Alleyne, 2020; Gorvett, 2021), resulting from the impacts of excessive industrialisation and a lack of innovative practices by artisans, communities and the necessary infrastructure to support those practices. Traditional crafts are often perceived as old-fashioned (Zhan & Walker, 2018) leading to less recognition of their value, and designers often miss opportunities to capture the value of craft practice and cultural permanence due to the challenges associated with outsiders appreciating the value of craft (Altay & Öz, 2019).

In response, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation claims that designer–artisan collaborations could potentially allow the two types of practitioners to complement each other’s shortcomings and maximise their advantages in the pursuit of traditional craft revitalisation (United Nations Cultural Organization & UNESCO, 2003). For example, local fashion brands Norlha and Rocinante achieves win-win with outcomes with indigenous people by through collaborating with local artisans to produce fashion products. This successful combination of traditional crafts with modern desires has increased the incomes of rural artisans and attracted international luxury brands such as Hermès, Louis Vuitton, and Dior for wider collaborations (Holgate, 2023; Magnifissance Magazine, 2021). However, designer–artisan design collaborations in practice still face challenges because of insufficient mutual understanding (Kalkreuter, 2020; Lavin, 2019). Although several scholars have tried to formulate workable solutions, it is still unclear how to optimise value creation to achieve sustainability at its broadest interpretation, because of various human and nonhuman actors, changing conditions, and inconsistent relations between the professional and the artisanal (Noronha, 2018). Existing research is still fragmented, and a systematic review of designer–artisan design collaborations is therefore timely and of academic and practical relevance.

With objectives to (1) identify instances of value creation from designer–artisan design collaborations in traditional craft sectors; (2) analyse how, in the extant literature, designers and artisans create value for different types of sustainability – not only environmental but also cultural, social or economic – and (3) map out the limitations and challenges encountered by existing design collaborations in craft sectors, this systematic literature review identifies various types of designer–artisan design collaborations and provides a holistic view of the relevant practices, barriers, enablers and opportunities. This study identifies opportunities for designers and artisans to create synergy and develop the efficiency of their design collaborations for different purposes as well as existing gaps in knowledge and potential directions for further research.

2. Research method

As a form of efficient secondary study that enables scholars and practitioners to gain a holistic understanding of situations in their specific field, a systematic literature review (SLR) is used in this research to effectively develop a comprehensive understanding of the current state of designer–artisan design collaborations (Thorisdottir & Johannsdottir, 2019). As various design collaborations have been promoted since the late 1990s (Zamenopoulos & Alexiou, 2018), this study collected references from 2000 onwards, from Web of Science, EBSCO and Scopus.

‘Crafts’ and ‘design collaboration’, as well as their synonyms, were selected as search terms, shown with search scopes in Table 1. Initially, 1,429 papers were identified. The following studies were excluded: duplicated articles (n = 230); articles focused on out-of-scope fields such as chemistry and transportation (n = 580); abstracts focused on craft design without designer–artisan collaborations (n = 527); publications that do not belong to the SCImago Journal Rank Q1–Q3 of quality guarantee (n = 15); inaccessible sources (n = 2); and those with full texts only focused on service design, business management and economic performance (n = 23). In all, 52 references were selected for analysis by NVivo 12 Plus software (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Flow chart of literature search process.

Table 1. Research keywords and search scope.

Keyword	[crafts OR intangible heritage OR handmade] AND [design collaboration OR participatory design OR design partnership OR design cooperation OR co-design OR co-creation]
Database	Web of Science	EBSCO	Scopus
Search in	Topic	Topic	Title or abstract or keyword
Data range	2000–2022	2000–2022	2000–2022
Document type	Article	Article (academic publication, peer-reviewed)	Article
Language	English	English	English
Publication	All publications	All publications	All publications

3. Research results

3.1 Overview of research

The category to which each reference was assigned is based on the purposes of the value creation around which the respective craft design collaborations centred (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Number of published references by purpose.

The greatest emphasis is on the exploration of craft’s value as an instrument of sustainability and on the directions of design intervention (n = 12), followed by the focus on design collaborations for poverty alleviation (n = 8) and the development of individual capability through such means as knowledge transfer (n = 7), artisan entrepreneurship (n = 6), collaborative design relationship coordination (n = 6), and the varied contributions of actors (n = 4). This implies that attention has shifted from product design to a more wide-ranging interpretation of commercial value creation to a scale that approaches the boundaries of sustainable value creation. At the same time, the authenticity of traditional crafts (n = 3), encouraging local engagement (n = 3), and increasing the autonomic capabilities of artisans (n = 3) has received less attention.

Among these studies, the majority of them focus on costume and textile craft design (n = 30). Other specific disciplines that have been studied disciplines include general disciplines (n = 10), plant weaving (6), ceramic and pottery (n = 2), glass (n = 2), and metal (n = 2) (Figure 3). Therefore, costume and textile craft design have been widely recognised as areas with great potentials for value creation.

Figure 3. Focused disciplines in extant research.

Additionally, the majority of researched areas are developing regions (n = 35) such as Chinese mainland, Chili, and India, while fifteen studies focus on developed regions like the UK, Spain, and Italy, and two general studies are more general in nature. This implies that developing regions with rich traditional craft resources have recognised the traditional craft field as an opportunity for promoting further development.

3.2 Definition and domain

3.2.1 Traditional crafts and craftspeople

The concept of craft can be defined in various ways. The verb ‘craft’ refers to the skilful creation or fashioning of objects, particularly by hand. It encompasses activities that have traditionally been considered deserving of the label ‘craft,’ such as textile weaving, hand block printing, embroidery, silversmithing, jewellery making, bookbinding, furniture making, as well as fine arts such as painting or sculpture. The boundary between art and craft is often blurred (Campbell, 2005). In context of this research, craft refers to a process and practice of interactions between hands and materials, guided by specialised skills and knowledge. It reflects the creativity of makers as they intervene at different stages of actual production to achieve various goals (Bofylatos, 2017; Noronha, 2018; Temeltaş, 2017). In this regard, there are three interpretations of traditional crafts. Firstly, as a symbol of a specific local culture, craft is strongly related to the culture domain. Craft reflects a specific cultural identity in its products and practices by applying traditional skills and knowledge which are transferred verbally from one generation to the next (Lavin, 2019; Zhan, Walker, Hernandez-Pardo, & Evans, 2017). Secondly, traditional craft is viewed as a reflection of social contexts, which are born from communities and regions, and constructed to meet the needs of daily life in local society (Guo & Ahn, 2021). Thirdly, the thinking pattern of behaviours is an intelligent process of making things via thinking and sensing through the hands. It can even be transferred to other domains and times (Aakko, 2019; Delice, 2022; Sennett, 2008; Tung, 2012).

Accordingly, traditional craft artisans in this study are indigenous people with particular craft-related knowledge and skills that are based on techniques, materials, and traditional aspects of the practice of their craft (Tung, 2012).

From the perspective of value creation, design can be understood as a meaning-making activity, identifying possible futures, and creatively adapting to unspoken, subtle and dynamic social-cultural models (Ben-Jacob, Goldenfeld, Langer, & Schon, 1983; Bofylatos & Spyrou, 2017; Manzini & Rizzo, 2011). In craft design contexts, designers are professionals accepting systematic design training, to balance different values when developing crafts in contemporary societies (Jha & Narang, 2014; Wang, Bryan-Kinns, & Ji, 2016).

3.2.2 The value of traditional crafts

The above definitions of traditional craft lead to the identification of three perspectives on the value of traditional crafts and how craft can contribute to the development of business, the local community, and autonomic capability. From the perspective of business growth, the value of traditional crafts lies in the unique local culture, aesthetics, knowledge, identity and highly skilled labour that could be used as a tool of competitiveness in international markets (Keith & Silies, 2015; Zhang, Walker, & Mullagh, 2019). From the perspective of regional development, traditional crafts help to increase local income and enhance social relationships, collective identities, and a sense of belonging by supporting local commercial, religious and entertainment activities (Walker, Evans, & Mullagh, 2019). In traditional craft design context, sustainability refers to the harmony between the social ethic, traditional culture, personal spirit, the local economy and environmental development for the future with a long-term outlook (Aakko & Koskennurmi-Sivonen, 2013; Walker et al., 2019; Zhan et al., 2017). So, the value of traditional craft is related to the capacity to achieve such harmony.

3.2.3 Value creation from craft design collaboration

Interdisciplinary collaborations have gained more attention in various design collaborations because of the raising need to adopt multiple perspectives to address challenges, and the desirability of benefiting from the resulting wide-ranging opportunities. Consequently, design collaborators refer to stakeholders, whether experts or not, work together in sharing, negotiating, and integrating various knowledge and resources for success in common objectives (Poggenpohl & Sato, 2009).

There are three major value creation activities within designers–artisans collaborations: Firstly, artisans are viewed as cultural capital and technique advisers to increase product competitiveness with their skilful techniques, directed by designers (Kalkreuter, 2020; Temeltaş, 2017; Vacca, 2012). Secondly, designers act as listeners, creative mentors, interpreters, and problem solvers to encourage local engagement, and evoke cultural identities, increasing the innovative knowledge of local people and develop social well-being (Jha & Narang, 2014; Tung, 2012; Wang, Bryan-Kinns, & Sheridan, 2020). Thirdly, designers act as catalysts to support artisans in gradually gaining self-identification capability through equal collaborations, so that artisans could gain more influence, gradually transforming from producers to more independent design directors through absorbing design knowledge to achieve self-sufficiency (Atalay, 2015; Kang, 2016; Mamidipudi, 2018; Tung, 2021; Yair & Schwarz, 2011) (Table 2).

Table 2. Designer–artisan design collaborations: Roles and characteristics.

Purpose	Descriptions	Role of designers	Role of artisans	Reference
Business development	Apply traditional handicrafts to add emotional value and evoke empathy in consumers.	Director, integrator	Producer	Vacca (2012)
	Apply handicrafts to add the value of authenticity to luxury products.	Quality controller, bridge to an international market	Creative producer, cultural capital	Kalkreuter (2020)
	Develop a prototype for innovations in new product development.	Design director	Problem solver, risk-taker	Temeltaş (2017)
Regional development	Encourage local participation and mutual communication.	Listener	The jury, creative producer	Bryan-Kinns et al. (2022)
	Maximise available resources, add value to craft products, empower local women, provide more jobs for local people, and maintain local culture.	Mentor, problem solver	Artisan producer	Jha and Narang (2014)
	Contemporise traditional crafts with recognisable value in markets. Increase capabilities and knowledge of local artisans.	Craft language interpreter	Technical adviser, producer	Tung (2012)
Autonomic capability development	Support artisans in artisan entrepreneurship.	Designer, supporter	Creative producer, entrepreneur	Tung (2021)
	Activate the self-identification capability of artisans.	Facilitator, mediator, catalyst	Designer, entrepreneur, transmitter	Kang (2016)
	Blur the boundary between designers and artisans, promoting market trends and design culture transformations.	Facilitator, creative learner, teacher	Cultural mediator, trendsetter	Mamidipudi (2018)

Accordingly, the roles and values of designers and artisans, as well as recognition of craft value, can be transformed, and then rendered complementary through actions taken to create sustainable value (Table 3).

Table 3. Value creation from designer–artisan design collaborations.

Value of design collaboration	Design intervention value	Value of traditional crafts	Examples	Sustainable future
Democracy, social status, equality, fairness	Innovative value of design (function, decoration, technology, outlook, message, experience)	Environmental value	Natural/recycled materials, green making process, low waste, low pollution, environmentally friendly function	Sustainable value (transformation, openness, reciprocity, inclusion)
		Social value	Employment opportunities, social network bridge
Communication, knowledge innovation		Economic value	Increased income, other financial benefits, poverty reduction
		Cultural value	Aesthetics, cultural identity, cultural symbol, inheritance, lifestyle, originality, uniqueness, empirical development process, cultural diversity
		Spiritual value	Memory, fun, self-fulfilment, religion, emotion, handmade

4. Discussion

Although there are types of value creation from craft design collaboration discussed above, it is necessary to understand current barriers to collaboration, to reduce the risk of devaluing the meanings of traditional crafts for ensuring business growth, regional development, and autonomic capability development.

4.1 Barriers to designing collaboration practices for value creation

4.1.1 Barrier practices for business growth

Within barriers to design collaboration practices for value creation, emphasis is placed on knowledge exchange and the balance of market diversity and local culture continuity. Four communication barriers were identified that need to be overcome for knowledge exchange: Firstly, poor communication can result in the misinterpretation of craft value, the creation of final products of unprofessional design quality (Kalkreuter, 2020). For example, Tung & Chen, 2013 mention that designers with self-centred attitudes may perceive themselves as more important than artisans, leading to poor attitude that reduces artisans’ willingness to communicate. Secondly, unclear design briefs lacking detailed specifications such as sizes or colours can lead to misunderstandings of each other’s ideas (Tung & Chen, 2013). Thirdly, job specialisations, where designers control design directions and artisans focus solely on production, restrict individual competence to specific techniques and procedures, limiting comprehensive learning opportunities and hindering knowledge innovation between partners (Yair, Press, & Tomes, 2001). Finally, these designer-controlled modes can limit the freedom of expression for artisans (Kalkreuter, 2020).

Consequently, communication barriers hinder the balance of market diversity and cultural continuity. Kalkreuter (2020) asserts that design paradigms are often centred on market demand, neglecting the original meaning of traditional crafts. As most traditional craft practices involve material-based exploration, artisans understand materials and generate new ideas directly through iterations between their hands and materials (Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2001). Therefore, idea generation methods such as sketching may distort the true expressions of artisans because they are designed for designers rather than artisans. Furthermore, negotiating ideas in the early collaboration stage may require compromises, resulting in homogeneous responses that erase creative conflicts and limit innovation (Barcellos & Broega, 2018; Tung & Chen, 2013). The absence of design structures such as strategies or outside leaders creates challenges in resolving conflicts within the time constraints (Tung & Chen, 2013).

4.1.2 Barrier practices for regional development

Knowledge exchange and balancing market diversity and regional condition continuity are two major barriers to regional development. the non-reciprocity of authorship and profit impact long-term positive collaborations (Barcellos & Broega, 2018; Lavin, 2019). Short-term collaborations caused by reasons like time and geographic limitations may be another important factor in promoting effective communication for designers to address local issues, or for artisans to master enough design knowledge (Bhandari, 2017; Bryan-Kinns, Wang, & Ji, 2022). Furthermore, designers’ language or cultural barriers might make it harder to communicate with local artisans directly (Kang, 2016). From the perspective of artisans, they are not willing or confident to express ideas due to market concerns, leading to greater reliance on designers in design processes (Wang et al., 2020).

Within the barriers relating to the balance of market diversity and regional sustainability, greater focus is on tangible aspects of products as opposed to intangible local productivity. Additionally, the standardised and ‘Eurocentric’ training of designers often leads to oversimplification of complex social problems interwoven within traditional crafts, such as power inequality and differences in capabilities (Lavin, 2019).

4.1.3 Barrier practices for autonomic capability development

Activating artisans’ ownership of crafts and developing their autonomic capability is important for successful designer-artisan collaborations and the realisation of consistent diversity of crafts. Lavin (2019) asserts artisans often lack the creative potential to adapt to interdisciplinary design collaborations during knowledge exchange. Furthermore, because of communication barriers, artisans could confront the potential to ambiguous expressions of craft knowledge within an unfamiliar design collaboration process (Suib, Van Engelen, & Crul, 2020). In addition, artisan-controlled design processes are challenging for designers with limited capability or experience, since artisans may have limited market knowledge or awareness of the need to adhere to business schedules (Chuenrudeemol, Boonlaor, & Kongkanan, 2012; Jha & Narang, 2014). Table 4 summarises these barriers within designer-artisan design collaboration.

Table 4. Barriers to design collaboration practices for value creation.

Aspects	Design collaboration practices
	For business growth	For regional development	For autonomic capability development
Exchange of knowledge	Self-centred attitudes of designers. Unclear design briefs. Top-down methods. Job specialisation.	Non-reciprocity. Poor confidence of artisans. Short-term collaborations. Culture and language barriers.	Limited creative potentials and expressive skills of artisans.
Balance of market diversity and local situation	Completely market-centred design paradigm. Too many compromises. Limited design tools for artisans. Absence of project criteria.	Omission of intangible and complex issues around traditional crafts by designers.	1. Complete bottom-up processes. 2. Fragmented translations by designers. 3. Limited awareness to comply with delivery dates by artisans.

4.2 Enabler practices of design collaboration practices for value creation

Accordingly, barriers of designer-artisan design collaborations reflect the stereotype of craft value. Therefore, transforming the understanding of authentic value within traditional crafts could help to confirm corresponding enabler methods.

4.2.1 Enabler practices for business growth

Within business growth, enabler practices focus on adapting the traditional uniqueness of crafts to modern markets. ‘Glocalisation’ is the principle where products are born from local culture and directed towards global markets through cross-industry collaborations (Martínez Torán, Esteve Sendra, & Moreno Cuesta, 2017; Tung, 2021; Tung & Chen, 2013). Hereinto, promoting knowledge exchange and the balance of market diversity and local culture continuity are two directions.

Two knowledge exchange enablers have been identified, namely collaborative working, and task assignment. Collaborative working together helps to eliminate knowledge and technological barriers (Martínez Torán et al., 2017). By assigning tasks, artisans provide background knowledge in early design stages, and support 3D prototyping through holistic design approaches with ‘know-what’ and ‘know-how’ knowledge. In comparison, designers are responsible for the working plan, task assignment, idea generation, application of modern technology, and quality control, to monitor the whole process (Bryan-Kinns et al., 2022; Kalkreuter, 2020; Temeltaş, 2017; Tung, 2012).

To develop the products’ consistent diversity that is crucial for successful cultural products, on one hand, keeping unique identity of crafts through emphasising characteristics of traditional materials and hand-making (Tung, 2012); On the other hand, combine craft-derived processes with industrial methods as creative, because craft-derived processes stimulate ‘surprises’ to emerge compared with pre-determined industrial process, and industrial methods could expand the diversity of craft products (Yair et al., 2001; Zheng & Nitsche, 2017). E.g. the flexibility and productivity of digital semi-customised components could help to diversify the modern functions and fit for both mass reproductions and specific customisations (Altay & Öz, 2019; Tung, 2012).

4.2.2 Enabler practices for regional development

Increasing the innovative knowledge of local people and balancing market desires and regional capability are indispensable for regional well-being. Therefore, main focuses of enablers are knowledge exchange, and the balance of market needs and local productivity.

Within knowledge exchange, designers provide artisans with a caring-for-well-being work environment where designers in-situ working together with different types of artisans in the whole product design process could stimulate them to address situated problems, share knowledge and improve creativity (Sandhu, 2020; Tung, 2012; Wang et al., 2020). Additionally, applying ‘rethinking and making’ to extend evaluation in every stage for promoting communication and evoking cultural identity (Guo & Ahn, 2021; Wang et al., 2020).

For regional development, the ‘authenticity’ emphasises flexible adaptions of design intervention of traditional crafts to local situations (Falls & Smith, 2011); acknowledge the necessity of ‘value in exchange’, since monetary benefits are also tools to realise the personal, social, and cultural value in real-world (Klamer, 2017), visualisation of craft value as a bridge to make visible the contributions of actors and intangible craft values that are less understood by outsiders (Khaire, 2019).

To balance market desired ‘authenticity’ and local productivity, on one hand, maximising available raw materials, human resources, technical improvisations, extant crafts, and unused stocks to reduce waste, treasure crafts and sustain rural livelihoods (Barcellos & Broega, 2018; Jha & Narang, 2014; Sandhu, 2020). On the other hand, replacing materials for sustainable ones to reduce environmental damages and risks of raw materials’ shortage (Noronha, 2018; Rombe, 2020). And keeping both designers’ and artisans’ roles seen through signatures or equalised visible contributions (Altay & Öz, 2019; Jha & Narang, 2014).

To balance the diversity of products and artisans’ capability, increase their capability gradually and reduce local labour loss, enabler practices include differentiating design directions for small-batch customisation and mass production,(Jha & Narang, 2014) and provision of training for differently skilled artisans from novices to masters (Jha & Narang, 2014; Kadam et al., 2021). Other enabling practices include designers working with materials and techniques over several seasons, allowing time for designers to deeply understand the evolutionary process of crafts, and for artisans to develop their skills (Sandhu, 2020). Utilisation of digital techniques that support artisans and reduce production difficulties, improve production efficiency, and diversifying craft appearance (Altay & Öz, 2019).

4.2.3 Enabler practices for autonomic capability development

Increasing the innovation capability of craftspeople in design collaborations enables making crafts as a sustainable culture to guide craftspeople to localise problems, ask questions, and find solutions independently (Sennett, 2008, p. 274; Kang, 2016; Noronha, 2018). Hereinto, ‘authenticity’ refers to the appropriation of continuously changing knowledge and ‘living’ intelligence of artisans, rather than that of ‘living’ labour into ‘dead’ symbol or reproductive process (Delice, 2022); and pay attention to personal transcendental values, rather than complete market value (Noronha, 2018; Zhan & Walker, 2019).

Therefore, to support artisans gaining a holistic view and conceive ownership of their crafts, enabler practices include involving artisans in the whole value chain through equal relationships, so, partners create consensus and artisans learn about how to run their own business (Kang, 2016; Tung, 2021). And designers help artisans to construct fragmented craft knowledge into thematic structures, for sharing the knowledge among stakeholders in simple and systematic manners (Suib et al., 2020).

To enable artisans to keep the market diversity and culture continuity, artisans need to be opened to firstly, improvisation and experimenting with new forms (Noronha, 2018; Zheng & Nitsche, 2017). Secondly, changing traditional techniques gradually, corresponding to their capabilities and knowledge evolution (Noronha, 2018). Thirdly, applying craft-derived methods to an industrial plan with an initial goal, to guide artisans to increase design knowledge and proficiency for entering modern productions (Kang, 2016). Table 5 summarises these enabler practices.

Table 5. Enabler practices of design collaboration practices for value creation.

Co-design based framework	Aspects	Design collaboration practices
		For business growth	For purpose of regional development	For autonomic capability development
	Exchange of knowledge	Working together. Task assignment.	In-situ working together. ‘Rethinking and making’. Supportive working environment. Artisans’ participation in the whole product design process.	Artisans’ participation in the whole value chain. The thematic construction of craft knowledge.
	Balance of market diversity and local situation	‘Glocalisation’ Craft-derived process & industrial methods. Emphasis on traditional textures.	Utility of all available local resources. Differentiate design. Differentiate training. Supportive modern technology. Considered technique requirement. Equal visualisation of creators’ contributions.	Adapted innovation of crafts. Improvisations. The combination of craft-derived process and industrial brief plan.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Research contribution and future research agendas

This study contributes the first systematic analysis of value creation within existing designer–artisan design collaborations and sustainable development of traditional crafts. We have critically compared various research disciplines in existing studies, and the results show that design collaborations between fashion designers and textile artisans have emerged as a significantly important field for future research and have the potential to leverage diverse types of value. This study can ultimately offer valuable guidance for practitioners in the fields of fashion, textile design, and craft. Furthermore, this study bridges knowledge gaps and provide research direction for scholars by demonstrating the relationships among different value-creation practices and corresponding practices in existing designer–artisan collaborations, which can guide designers and artisans in understanding the necessity for collaboration. (Figure 4).

Figure 4. The summary of designer–artisan design collaborations for value creation.

Although the relationship between the three levels of traditional craft value is constantly progressive, researchers and practitioners apply fragmented or even opposite practices at different levels respectively. There are limited tools to support artisans in idea generation and an insufficient understanding of interconnections between craft elements and thinking patterns of practitioners in existing collaborative design methods.

Key directions for future research to facilitate designer and artisan collaboration include (1) development of a framework or tool to support artisans in design collaboration, especially their involvement in idea generation; (2) approaches to activate the hidden traits of materials to support partners to communicate better; (3) diverse criteria of authenticity in traditional crafts; (4) customised design collaboration approaches for specific traditional crafts and regions; (5) interconnections between craft elements to leverage the thinking pattern of practitioners; (6) quantitative research to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of design collaboration activities.

Given the increased attention to fashion and textile craft design in this research area, the findings of this study can provide valuable insights for overcoming the challenges associated with collaborative practices between fashion designers and textile artisans. The results can also increase the understanding of artisan collaborations’ value by defining the enabling factors and future directions for developing tools that fashion designers can use when collaborating with artisans. In addition, the results will provide implications for fashion design education that facilitates interdisciplinary collaborations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Leeds (Leeds, GB).