Welcome to the first issue of the 27 volume of the journal. Across the issue, authors expose where design is growing, where there is room for growth, and how research and pedagogy are used. They offer insight into how the discipline embraces its vulnerability and wrestles with the imposing climate challenges in (often) acute social and politically charged environments. They deliver insight into how stepping outside the familiar and daring to immerse oneself in new contexts with alternative values and behaviours brings worth. They question the basics and spotlight the value of design education.
Before introducing the first article, we take a moment to share the news and welcome 14 new editorial board members from across the globe in our continued efforts to become more inclusive and representative of the different contexts, forms, and stages of development in which design resides. It reflects the ever-growing nature of The Design Journal. The perspective with which we choose to practice, research, or conduct scholarship in design affects how we perceive and act. Ensuring a more diverse board will support further championing original knowledge and innovation through interdisciplinary and disciplinary exchange and exemplary pedagogical practices from a more varied representation of design globally.
We also celebrate new leadership for the European Academy of Design, with Professor Leon Cruickshank (UK) as the incoming President. Professor Deana McDonogh (USA) and Professor Heitor Alvelos (Portugal) are joining him as Vice Presidents. They are supported by four European-based and international early career researchers, Drs. Marzia Mortati, David Perez, Beatrice Gisclard and Spyros Bofylatos. Together, the team is continuing to redesign and deliver service innovation for global conferences and networking events with new opportunities for learning and publishing.
A fresh provocation in our ‘Design is…’ series opens this issue. Professor Chris Speed, RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, eloquently brings into focus a proposition to rethink why, how, and what we measure in design research. ‘Redefining measurement in design’s confrontation with climate catastrophe: Beyond objectivity and toward regenerative impact’ posits a challenge to ‘reimagine measurement…as a catalyst for change’. To explore the conventional boundaries of design with their intricate relations in pursuit of a transformation worthy of meeting the impending climate crisis. As succinct as it is incisive, this piece shares an idea about the purpose and nature of this era of design research. It rhetorically offers questions that encourage us to read twice, arguably to ensure we understand the responsibility and consider the manner and degree with which to engage: dynamic or docile? There is no middle ground yet, is there?
The ever-growing presence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is investigated through one of its subsets, Machine Learning (ML), in Sara Colombo and Camilla Costa’s paper, ‘Can designers take the driver’s seat? A new human-centred process to design with data and machine learning.’ They argue for creating new design innovation processes befitting this era of technological advance and where ML is a material. This paper examines ML in the context of UX design, and the discussion focuses on designers acquiring ML knowledge and capabilities, adopting toolkits to ignite more creativity, learning to design with data, understanding performance and how to measure it, and recognizing the ethical dimensions to minimize the bias(es). They aim to support design-led entrepreneurship and how designers innovate in this space, with robust support from a global design research community.
The second paper qualitatively examines how data is used, engaged with, and for what benefits in mobile and wearable technologies. ‘Design premise and diary study exploring felt senses as data for self-reflection’ by Heekyoung Jung argues for an integrated approach to managing mental and physical data. The method of diary study is used to investigate how people reflect through their senses, which are felt but difficult to track. The paper gives food for thought about how people can enhance their wellbeing by intentionally curating more self-awareness. It intends to expand how we foster dialogue to strengthen the practice of self-reflection by design.
What is the difference between hierarchical and co-acting networks, and why is one arguably more effective for social issues in healthcare? Wenjin Wei authors the paper, ‘Using actor–network theory to revisit a digitalised tool in social design’ and shares an example from China that draws on the pandemic. It describes concerns about how design should develop and promote skills for social innovation and problem-solving in an ever more digitized world. It offers observations about ethics and insight into relationship dynamics, including the role of antagonism as a strength and a weakness.
How we are failing and the degree to which we are falling short of responsibilities in design to be inclusive are brought to the fore by Valerie Watchorn, Richard Tucker, Danielle Hitch and Patsie Frawley. Their paper, ‘Co-design in the context of universal design: An Australian case study exploring the role of people with disabilities in the design of public buildings,’ contributes to the broader discussions about leading with inclusivity and argues for a review of co-design as a method. It spotlights bias in the process and dissonance in participant co-design experiences between theory and practice. It calls for more significant consideration of the ethical dimensions of codesign if it is to meet its potential as a social change agent.
Co-design is also the focus of attention in Jaipei Zou, Zhensheng Liu and Chao Zhao’s paper, ‘Co-design for active ageing: An approach to stimulating creativity of the young elderly in urban China.’ It describes the process of co-design undertaken to investigate how to inspire young elderly people. It aims to support behaviour change and increase the endeavours of an actively ageing society.
‘Design heuristics cards for the circular economy to support generating ideas,’ by Xin Cao, Yen Hsu, and Honglei Lu, isolates the front end of the design process where ideas are conceived. It argues for a better understanding of this to enhance product innovation sustainability in the circular economy context. It discusses its use of AI to support a literature review and data collection and how the results further developed a Design Heuristic method called Circular Economy Design Heuristics Card (CEDHC). Testing of the revised innovation method with a control group and an experimental group is shared. They aspire to offer systematic design guidelines for idea generation in the circular economy.
The following paper is the second in this journal issue concerned with inclusive design and how people with health conditions or impairments are considered in the design process. ‘User-driven product development: Designed by not designed for Affordances of construction toys’ by a team of researchers in Illinois, USA – Joseph Peters, Adam Bleakney, Annika Sornson, Elizabeth Hsiao-Wecksler and Dean McDonagh – provide an empathetic framework for better inclusivity in the design and development of assistive technology. It showcases a pioneering approach to offering design in higher education with intentionally less biased and sustained interdisciplinary principles at its core.
A qualitative study of the craft of handwoven textiles is the subject of the final article in this issue. ‘Obstacles, solutions and creative agencies: How forces and agencies shape the learning process of weaving,’ by Bilge Merve Aktaş, Anniliina Omwami, Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen and Maarit Mäkelä argue for better awareness of the skill of learning through creative woven textile practice which is a socially dynamic process despite being an individually executed product. It describes what it demands (and nurtures) regarding mindset, environment, practical dexterity, and complicated problem-solving. It hopes to clarify the skill of creative agency developed through learning to be a woven textile designer and its value as a generic skill.
The PhD article that closes this issue is, ‘Can we build trust by service design? A theoretical approach on multidisciplinary integration,’ by Wanqiang Li. It details a completed doctoral thesis investigating how service design can and should construct trust to develop long-lasting service economy partnerships and sustainable business practices. It shares insights into three categories of service trust and the need to create a theoretical model, with an overview of the research questions and methodology used in the inquiry. It is comprehensive, and in doing so, it offers a teaching tool for presenting an overview of a rigorous PhD Plan or proposal and indicating where the original contributions to knowledge were made.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.