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

Figures & data

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

Figure 2. Number of published references by purpose.

Figure 3. Focused disciplines in extant research.

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)

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

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.

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.

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

Vacca, F. (2012). Silent witnesses innovation through tradition in Italian fashion companies. Research Journal of Textile and Apparel, 16(4), 48–58. doi:10.1108/RJTA-16-04-2012-B006

 Google Scholar

Kalkreuter, B. (2020). Anyone’s heritage? Indian fashion design’s relationships with craft between local guardianship and valorization of global fashion. Fashion Practice, 12(2), 264–287. doi:10.1080/17569370.2020.1769361

 Google Scholar

Temeltaş, H. (2017). Collaboration and exchange between “craftsman” and “designer”: symbiosis towards product innovation. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S3713–S3723. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1352876

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bryan-Kinns, N., Wang, W., & Ji, T. (2022). Qi2He: A co-design framework inspired by eastern epistemology. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 160, 1–21. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102773

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jha, B., & Narang, V. (2014). Co-design initiatives: Linking crafts and fashion for sustainable practices. In N. Rajaram, G. Prasad, & S. K. M. Belli (Eds.), Contemporary issues and trends in fashion, retail and management (pp. 612–623). Hyderabad: National Institute of Fashion Technology. www.bspbooks.net

 Google Scholar

Tung, F. W. (2012). Weaving with rush: Exploring craft-design collaborations in revitalizing a local craft. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 71–84. www.ijdesign.org

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tung, F. W. (2021). An entrepreneurial process to build a sustainable business for indigenous craft revitalization. The Design Journal, 24(3), 363–383. doi:10.1080/14606925.2021.1883790

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kang, L. (2016). Social design as a creative device in developing countries: The case of a handcraft pottery community in Cambodia. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 65–74. www.ijdesign.org

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mamidipudi, A. (2018). Constructing common knowledge: Design practice for social change in craft livelihoods in India. Design Issues, 34(4), 37–50. doi:10.1162/desi_a_00510

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar