Making it better together: a framework for improving creative engagement tools

References

• Baibarac, C., and D. Petrescu. 2019. “Co-design and Urban Resilience: Visioning Tools for Commoning Resilience Practices.” CoDesign 15 (2): 91–109. doi:10.1080/15710882.2017.1399145.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, E., T. Binder, and E. B.-N. Sanders. 2012. “Tools and Techniques: Ways to Engage Telling, Making and Enacting.” In Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, 165–201. New York: Routledge
   Google Scholar
• Bratteteig, T., K. Bødker, Y. Dittrich, P. H. Mogensen, and J. Simonsen. 2013. Organising Principles and General Guidelines for Participatory Design Projects. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Büscher, M., S. Gill, P. Mogensen, and D. Shapiro. 2001. “Landscapes of Practice: Bricolage as a Method for Situated Design.” Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 10 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1023/A:1011293210539.
   Google Scholar
• Cockton, G. 2014. “You Must Design Design, Co-Design Included.” Wer gestaltet die Gestaltung? 189–213. doi:10.14361/transcript.9783839420386.189.
   Google Scholar
• Cramer-Petersen, C. L., B. T. Christensen, and S. Ahmed-Kristensen. 2019. “Empirically Analysing Design Reasoning Patterns: Abductive-deductive Reasoning Patterns Dominate Design Idea Generation.” Design Studies 60: 39–70. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.001.
   Google Scholar
• Cruickshank, L., G. Coupe, and D. Hennessy. 2013. “Co-Design: Fundamental Issues and Guidelines for Designers: Beyond the Castle Case Study.” Swedish Design Research Journal 10: 48–57. doi:10.3384/svid.2000-964X.13248.
   Google Scholar
• Cruickshank, L., and M. Evans. 2012. “Designing Creative Frameworks: Design Thinking as an Engine for New Facilitation Approaches.” International Journal of Arts and Technology 5 (1): 73–85. doi:10.1504/IJART.2012.044337.
   Google Scholar
• Cruickshank, L., R. Whitham, G. Rice, and H. Alter. 2017. “Designing, Adapting and Selecting Tools for Creative Engagement: A Generative Framework.” Swedish Design Research Journal 15: 42–51. doi:10.3384/svid.2000-964X.17142.
   Google Scholar
• Davidoff, P. 1965. “Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning.” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4): 331–338. doi:10.1080/01944366508978187
   Google Scholar
• De Waal, G. A., and Knott, P. 2013. “Innovation Tool Adoption and Adaptation in Small Technology-based Firms.” International Journal of Innovation Management 17 (03): 1340012. doi:10.1142/S1363919613400124
   Google Scholar
• Dix, A. 2007. “Designing for Appropriation.” Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI... But Not as We Know it-Volume 2, Lancaster, September 3–7.
   Google Scholar
• Donetto, S., P. Pierri, V. Tsianakas, and G. Robert. 2015. “Experience-based Co-design and Healthcare Improvement: Realizing Participatory Design in the Public Sector.” The Design Journal 18 (2): 227–248. doi:10.2752/175630615X14212498964312.
   Google Scholar
• Ehn, P. 2008. “Participation in design things.” In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008, 92–101. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University
   Google Scholar
• Forester, J. 1999. The Deliberative Practitioner : Encouraging Participatory Planning Processes. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hooper, Kristina. 1986. “Architectural Design: An Analogy.” In User centered system design : new perspectives on human-computer interaction, edited by Donald Norman and Stephen Draper, 9–23. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates
   Google Scholar
• Iaione, C. 2016. “The CO‐City: Sharing, Collaborating, Cooperating, and Commoning in the City.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 75 (2): 415–455. doi:10.1111/ajes.12145.
   Google Scholar
• Illich, I. 1973. Tools for Conviviality. London: Calder and Boyars.
   Google Scholar
• Johansson-Sköldberg, U., J. Woodilla, and Ç. Mehves. 2013. “Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures.” Creativity and Innovation Management 22 (2): 121–146. doi:10.1111/caim.12023.
   Google Scholar
• Kensing, F., and K. H. Madsen. 1992. “Generating visions: future workshops and metaphorical design.” In Design at work, edited by Joan Greenbaum and Morten Kyng, 155–68. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc
   Google Scholar
• Lee, J.-J., M. Jaatinen, A. Salmi, T. Mattelmäki, R. Smeds, and M. Holopainen. 2018. “Design Choices Framework for Co-creation Projects.” International Journal of Design 12 (2): 15.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y. 2008. “Design Participation Tactics: The Challenges and New Roles for Designers in the Co-design Process.” CoDesign 4 (1): 31–50. doi:10.1080/15710880701875613.
   Google Scholar
• Levina, N., and E. Vaast. 2005. “The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems.” MIS Quarterly 29 (2): 335–363. doi:10.2307/25148682.
   Google Scholar
• Manzini, E. 2015. Design, when everybody designs : an introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press
   Google Scholar
• Marttila, S., and A. Botero. 2013. “The'Openness Turn'in co-design. From usability, sociability and designability towards openness.” In Co-create 2013 : the Boundary-Crossing Conference on Co-Design in Innovation, edited by Riitta Smeds and Olivier Irrmann, 99–111. Espoo, Finland: Aalto University
   Google Scholar
• Morris, L., and L. Cruickshank. 2013. “New Design Processes for Knowledge Exchange Tools for the New IDEAS Project.” Paper presented at the The Knowledge Exchange: an interactive conference, Lancaster, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Murphy, E., and D. Hands. 2012. “Wisdom of the Crowd: How Participatory Design Has Evolved Design Briefing.” Swedish Design Research Journal 8: 28–37. doi:10.3384/svid.2000-964X.12228.
   Google Scholar
• NESTA, National Endowment for Science Technology and the Arts. 2014. DIY - development impact & you : practical tools to trigger & support social innovation. New York: The Rockefeller Foundation
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A., and S. W. Draper. 1986. User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Pedersen, S. 2020. “Staging Negotiation Spaces: A Co-design Framework.” Design Studies 68: 58–81. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2020.02.002.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, D., L. Loke, and N. Ahmadpour. 2020. “Toolkits, Cards and Games–a Review of Analogue Tools for Collaborative Ideation.” CoDesign ahead-of-print (ahead–of–print). doi:10.1080/15710882.2020.1715444.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E., E. Brandt, and T. Binder. 2010. “A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design.” In Proceedings of the 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference, 195–8. Sydney, Australia: Association for Computing Machinery
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E., and P. Stappers. 2012. Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research for the Front End of Design, Edited by P. J. Stappers. The Netherlands: Amsterdam.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, Elizabeth. 2002. “Scaffolds for experiencing in the new design space.” In Information Design, edited by Institute for Information Design, 1–6. Tokyo: Graphic-Sha Publishing Co
   Google Scholar
• Stephen, Kemmis, and Robin McTaggart. 2005. “Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere.” In The Sage handbook of qualitative research, 3rd edition, edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 559–604. London: SAGE Publications Ltd
   Google Scholar
• Swann, C. 2002. “Action Research and the Practice of Design.” Design Issues 18 (1): 49–61. doi:10.1162/07479360252756287.
   Google Scholar
• Tassoul, M. 2009. Creative Facilitation. 2rd ed. ed. Delft: VSSD
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. 2001. “PERSPECTIVE: User Toolkits for Innovation.” The Journal of Product Innovation Management 18 (4): 247–257. doi:10.1016/S0737-6782(01)00090-X.
   Google Scholar
• Von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wates, N. 2000. The Community Planning Handbook: How People Can Shape Their Cities, Towns and Villages in Any Part of the World. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Whitham, R., L. Cruickshank, G. Coupe, L. E. Wareing, and P. David. 2019. “Health and Wellbeing: Challenging Co-Design for Difficult Conversations, Successes and Failures of the Leapfrog Approach.” The Design Journal 22 (sup1): 575–587. doi:10.1080/14606925.2019.1595439.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, S., A. Roper, J. Marshall, J. Galliers, N. Devane, T. Booth, and C. Woolf. 2015. “Codesign for People with Aphasia through Tangible Design Languages.” CoDesign 11 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.997744.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R. K. 2018. Case study research and applications : design and methods. Sixth edition. ed. Thousand Oaks, California ; London: SAGE Publications
   Google Scholar
• Zamenopoulos, T., and K. Alexiou. 2018. Co-design as Collaborative Research, Connected Communities Foundation Series. Bristol: Bristol University/AHRC Connected Communities Programme.
   Google Scholar