Supporting collaborative biodesign ideation with contextualised knowledge from bioscience

References

• Aarts, T., L. K. Gabrielaitis, L. C. De Jong, R. Noortman, E. M. Van Zoelen, S. Kotea, S. Cazacu, L. L. Lock, and P. Markopoulos. 2020. “Design Card Sets: Systematic Literature Survey and Card Sorting Study.” In DIS 2020 - Proceedings of the 2020 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 419–428. doi:10.1145/3357236.3395516.
   Google Scholar
• Agapakis, C. M. 2014. “Designing Synthetic Biology.” ACS Synthetic Biology 3 (3): 121–128. doi:10.1021/sb4001068.
   Google Scholar
• Barati, B., E. Karana, and P. Hekkert. 2019. “Prototyping Materials Experience: Towards a Shared Understanding of Underdeveloped Smart Material Composites.” International Journal of Design 13 (2): 21–38. http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/viewFile/3255/856
   Google Scholar
• Benony, M., and N. Maudet. 2020. “From Guests and Guides to Collaborators: Negotiating Roles in Design and Biology Collaborations.” Design Journal 23 (4): 1–18. doi:10.1080/14606925.2020.1762339.
   Google Scholar
• Brandt, E., J. Messeter, and T. Binder. 2008. “Formatting Design Dialogues – Games and Participation.” CoDesign 4 (1): 51–64. doi:10.1080/15710880801905724.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. 2019. Consequence Scanning Manual Version 1. London: Doteveryone. https://doteveryone.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Consequence-Scanning_Agile-Event-Manual_TechTransformed_Doteveryone.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bucciarelli, L. L. 2003. “Designing and Learning: A Disjunction in Contexts.” Design Studies 24 (3): 295–311. doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00057-1.
   Google Scholar
• Calvert, J., and P. Schyfter. 2017. “What Can Science and Technology Studies Learn from Art and Design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics’.” Social Studies of Science 47 (2): 195–215. doi:10.1177/0306312716678488.
   Google Scholar
• Chieza, N. 2018. “Reflections from Ginkgo’s First Creative-In-Residence.” Gingko Bioworks Blog. https://www.ginkgobioworks.com/2018/04/11/creative-in-residence/
   Google Scholar
• Collet, C. 2020. “Designing Our Future Bio-Materiality.” AI and Society, no. 0123456789. doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01013-y.
   Google Scholar
• Crilly, N., and C. Cardoso. 2017. “Where Next for Research on Fixation, Inspiration and Creativity in Design?” Design Studies 50: 1–38. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.02.001.
   Google Scholar
• Dalsgaard, P. 2017. “Instruments of Inquiry: Understanding the Nature and Role of Tools in Design.” International Journal of Design 11 (1): 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Department for Business Energy & Industrial Strategy. 2018. “Growing the Bioeconomy.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bioeconomy-strategy-2018-to-2030
   Google Scholar
• Dindler, C., and O. S. Iversen. 2007. “Fictional Inquiry—design Collaboration in a Shared Narrative Space.” CoDesign 3 (4): 213–234. doi:10.1080/15710880701500187.
   Google Scholar
• Dorst, K. 2018. “Mixing Practices to Create Transdisciplinary Innovation: A Design-Based Approach.” Technology Innovation Management Review 8 (8): 60–65. doi:10.22215/timreview/1179.
   Google Scholar
• Driver, A., C. Peralta, and J. Moultrie. 2011. “Exploring How Industrial Designers Can Contribute to Scientific Research.” International Journal of Design 5 (1): 17–28. doi:10.17863/CAM.34129.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, A., and F. Raby. 2013. “Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming.” Speculative Everything: Design, Fiction, and Social Dreaming. doi:10.1093/jdh/epv001.
   Google Scholar
• Ertürkan, H., E. Karana, and R. Mugge. 2022. ”Is This Alive? Towards a Vocabulary for Understanding and Communicating Living Material Experiences.” In DRS2022: Bilbao, edited by D. Lockton, S. Lenzi, P. Hekkert, A. Oak, J. Sadaba, and P. Lloyd. doi:10.21606/drs.2022.796.
   Google Scholar
• Esat, R., and S. Ahmed-Kristensen. 2018. “Classification of Bio-Design Applications: Towards a Design Methodology.” Proceedings of International Design Conference, DESIGN 3: 1031–1042. doi:10.21278/idc.2018.0531.
   Google Scholar
• Flus, M., and A. Hurst. 2021. “Design at Hackathons: New Opportunities for Design Research.” Design Science 7. doi:10.1017/dsj.2021.1.
   Google Scholar
• Forlizzi, J., and S. Ford. 2000. “Building Blocks of Experience: An Early Framework for Interaction Designers.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS, 419–423. doi:10.1145/347642.347800.
   Google Scholar
• Freach, J. n.d. Behold and Beware, Design Toolkits. University of Texas Austin, School of Design and Creative Technologies. https://designcreativetech.utexas.edu/behold-and-beware-designtoolkits
   Google Scholar
• Future Today Institute. 2020. Tech Trends Report. New York: Future Today Institute. www.futuretodayinstitute.com
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, A. D., J. Calvert, P. Schyfter, A. Elfick, and D. Endy. 2014. Synthetic Aesthetics: Investigating Synthetic Biology’s Designs on Nature. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, A. D., and N. Chieza. 2018. “Editorial: Other Biological Futures.” Journal of Design and Science. doi:10.21428/566868b5.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, P., J. Forman, P. Pataranutaporn, L. A. Hepburn, C. Ramirez-Figueroa, C. Cooper, A. Vujic, et al. 2021. “Speculating on Biodesign in the Future Home.” In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings, 11–15. doi:10.1145/3411763.3441353.
   Google Scholar
• Gough, P., S. Yoo, M. Tomitsch, and N. Ahmadpour. 2021. “Applying Bioaffordances Through an Inquiry-Based Model: A Literature Review of Interactive Biodesign.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 37 (17): 1583–1597. June. doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1898846.
   Google Scholar
• Grimaldi, S., S. Fokkinga, and I. Ocnarescu. 2013. “Narratives in Design: A Study of the Types, Applications and Functions of Narratives in Design Practice.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, DPPI 2013, 201–210. doi:10.1145/2513506.2513528.
   Google Scholar
• Groth, C., M. Pevere, P. Kääriäinen, and K. Niinimäki. 2019. “When Art Meets Science : Conditions for Experiential Knowledge Exchange in Interdisciplinary Research on New Materials.” In International Conference of the Design Research Society Special Interest Group on Experiential Knowledge (EKSIG), 2019 Tallinn, Estonia, September 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Groth, C., M. Pevere, K. Niinimäki, and P. Kääriäinen. 2020. “Conditions for Experiential Knowledge Exchange in Collaborative Research Across the Sciences and Creative Practice.” CoDesign 16 (4): 328–344. doi:10.1080/15710882.2020.1821713.
   Google Scholar
• Haidamous, T. 2017. “Rethinking the Role of Design Within the Technological Advancements in Biomimetics and SynBio.” Design Journal 20 (sup1): S4009–18. doi:10.1080/14606925.2017.1352903.
   Google Scholar
• Halskov, K., and P. Dalsgaard. 2007. “The Emergence of Ideas: The Interplay Between Sources of Inspiration and Emerging Design Concepts.” CoDesign 3 (4): 185–211. doi:10.1080/15710880701607404.
   Google Scholar
• Halskov, K., and P. Dalsgård. 2006. “Inspiration Card Workshops.” In Proceedings of the Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, DIS 2006, 2–11. doi:10.1145/1142405.1142409.
   Google Scholar
• Haritaipan, L., M. Saijo, and C. Mougenot. 2019. “Impact of Technical Information in Magic-Based Inspiration Tools on Novice Designers.” International Journal of Technology and Design Education 29 (5): 1153–1177. doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9476-x.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H. F., and S. E. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
   Google Scholar
• Inie, N., and P. Dalsgaard. 2017. “How Interaction Designers Use Tools to Manage Ideas.” In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI EA ’17, 2668–2675. New York: ACM. doi:10.1145/3365104.
   Google Scholar
• Ito, J. 2016. “Design and Science.” Journal of Design and Science. doi:10.21428/f4c68887.
   Google Scholar
• Kääriäinen, P., and L. Tervinen. 2017. Lost in the Wood (S): The New Biomateriality in Finland. Helsinki: School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto Arts Books.
   Google Scholar
• Kääriäinen, P., L. Tervinen, T. Vuorinen, and N. Riutta. 2020. The CHEMARTS Cookbook. Espoo: Aalto University. https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/handle/123456789/44165
   Google Scholar
• Karana, E., B. Barati, and E. Giaccardi. 2020. “Living Artefacts: Conceptualizing Livingness as a Material Quality in Everyday Artefacts.” International Journal of Design 14 (3): 37–53.
   Google Scholar
• Karana, E., B. Barati, V. Rognoli, and A. Zeeuw van der Laan. 2015. “Material Driven Design (MDD): A Method to Design for Material Experiences.” International Journal of Design 9 (2): 35–54.
   Google Scholar
• Keshwani, S., T. A. Lenau, S. A. Kristensen, and A. Chakrabarti. 2013. “Benchmarking Bio-Inspired Designs with Brainstorming in Terms of Novelty of Design Outcomes.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 7 DS75-07 Seoul, Korea, August, 21–30.
   Google Scholar
• Kleinsmann, M., and R. Valkenburg. 2008. “Barriers and Enablers for Creating Shared Understanding in Co-Design Projects.” Design Studies 29 (4): 369–386. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.03.003.
   Google Scholar
• Kurtzberg, T. R., and T. M. Amabile. 2001. “From Guilford to Creative Synergy: Opening the Black Box of Team-Level Creativity.” Creativity Research Journal 13 (3–4): 285–294. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_06.
   Google Scholar
• Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives). Learning in Doing. doi:10.2307/2804509.
   Google Scholar
• Lenau, T. A., S. Keshwani, A. Chakrabarti, and S. Ahmed-Kristensen. 2015. “Biocards and Level of Abstraction.” In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED 2 (DS 80-02) Milan, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Lloyd, P. 2000. “Storytelling and the Development of Discourse in the Engineering Design Process.” Design Studies 21 (4): 357–373. doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(00)00007-7.
   Google Scholar
• Lucero, A., K. Halskov, and J. Buur. 2016. “Designing with Cards.” In Collaboration in Creative Design: Methods and Tools, edited by P. Markopoulos, J.-B. Martens, J. Malins, K. Coninx, and A. Liapis, 75–95. Springer International Publishing. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29155-0.
   Google Scholar
• Maudet, N., S. Asada, and M. Pennington. 2020. “Treasure Hunting: An Exploratory Study of How Designers and Scientists Identify Potential Collaborative Projects.” DRS2020: Synergy 1. doi:10.21606/drs.2020.126.
   Google Scholar
• Melville-Richards, L., J. Rycroft-Malone, C. Burton, and J. Wilkinson. 2020. “Making Authentic: Exploring Boundary Objects and Bricolage in Knowledge Mobilisation Through National Health Service-University Partnerships.” Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice 16 (4): 517–539. doi:10.1332/174426419X15623134271106.
   Google Scholar
• Meng, F., and T. Ellis. 2020. “The Second Decade of Synthetic Biology: 2010–2020.” Nature communications 11 (1): 1–4. doi:10.1038/s41467-020-19092-2.
   Google Scholar
• Metcalfe, D. J. 2015. “Multispecies Design.” University of the Arts London and Falmouth University. https://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/id/eprint/13351/
   Google Scholar
• Mora, S., F. Gianni, and M. Divitini. 2017. “Tiles: A Card-Based Ideation Toolkit for the Internet of Things.” In DIS 2017 - Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 587–598. doi:10.1145/3064663.3064699.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, W. 2018. Bio Design: Nature – Science – Creativity. Thames & Hudson. https://thamesandhudson.com/bio-design-9780500294390
   Google Scholar
• Nimkulrat, N., C. Groth, O. Tomico, and J. Valle-Noronha. 2020. “Knowing Together–Experiential Knowledge and Collaboration.” CoDesign 16 (4): 267–273. doi:10.1080/15710882.2020.1823995.
   Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I., and H. Takeuchi. 1995. “Knowledge-Creating Company.” Harvard Buisiness Review. doi:10.1016/S0969-4765(04)00066-9.
   Google Scholar
• Ocnarescu, I., F. Pain, C. Bouchard, A. Aoussat, and D. Sciamma. 2011. “Improvement of the Industrial Design Process by the Creation and Usage of Intermediate Representations of Technology, ‘TechCards’.” In DPPI’11 - Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, Proceedings, no. c. doi:10.1145/2347504.2347559.
   Google Scholar
• Oxman, N. 2016. “Age of Entanglement.” In Design and Science, MIT Media Lab, 1–11. MIT Press. doi:10.21428/7e0583ad.
   Google Scholar
• Park, D., and M. Bechthold. 2013. “Designing Biologically-Inspired Smart Building Systems: Processes and Guidelines.” International Journal of Architectural Computing 11 (4): 437–463. doi:10.1260/1478-0771.11.4.437.
   Google Scholar
• Peters, D., L. Loke, and N. Ahmadpour. 2020. “Toolkits, Cards and Games – A Review of Analogue Tools for Collaborative Ideation.” CoDesign 17 (4): 1–25. doi:10.1080/15710882.2020.1715444.
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, M. 1975. The Tacit Dimension/Michael Polanyi. Philosophy Today.
   Google Scholar
• Pschetz, L., and M. Bastian. 2018. “Temporal Design: Rethinking Time in Design.” Design Studies 56: 169–184. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.10.007.
   Google Scholar
• Ramirez Figueroa, C. 2018. Bio-Material Probes: Design Engagements with Living Systems. Newcastle University. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.765309
   Google Scholar
• Rust, C. 2007. “Unstated Contributions - How Artistic Inquiry Can Inform Interdisciplinary Research.” International Journal of Design 1 (3): 69–76.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E.B.-N, and P. J. Stappers. 2013. “Chapter 3, How It Works: Generative Tools and Techniques.” In Convivial Toolbox, Generative Research for the Front End of Design, BIS Publishers. https://www.bispublishers.com/convivial-toolbox.html
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B. N., and P. J. Stappers. 2014. “Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three Approaches to Making in Codesigning.” CoDesign 10 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.888183.
   Google Scholar
• Sawa, M. 2016. “The Laboratory Life of a Designer at the Intersection with Algal Biotechnology.” Architectural Research Quarterly 20 (1): 65–72. doi:10.1017/S1359135516000191.
   Google Scholar
• Sayuti, A., C. A. Montana-Hoyos, and E. Bonollo. 2015. ”A Study of Furniture Design Incorporating Living Organisms with Particular Reference to Biophilic and Emotional Design Criteria Biophilic Design View Project Mangroves of Sungai Merbok View Project.” 04 (01): 75–106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313858346
   Google Scholar
• Schindler, J. 2015. “Expertise and Tacit Knowledge in Artistic and Design Processes: Results of an Ethnographic Study.” Journal of Research Practice 11 (2): 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Schön, D. 1991. The Reflective Practitioner - How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Routledge of Taylor & Francis Group. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781351883160
   Google Scholar
• Shneiderman, B., P. Jennings, G. Fischer, B. Myers, E. Edmonds, and M. Eisenberg. 2006. “Creativity Support Tools : Report from a U. S.” International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 20 (2): 61–77. doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc2002_1.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, T., A. Gupta, and M. Buchanan. 2011. “Innovation in R & D: Using Design Thinking to Develop New Models of Inventiveness, Productivity and Collaboration.” Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 17 (4): 301–307. doi:10.1057/jcb.2011.25.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L., and J. R. Griesemer. 1989. “Institutional Ecology,translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39.” Social Studies of Science 19 (3): 387–420. doi:10.1177/030631289019003001.
   Google Scholar
• Stompff, G., F. Smulders, and L. Henze. 2016. “Surprises are the Benefits: Reframing in Multidisciplinary Design Teams.” Design Studies 47: 187–214. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2016.09.004.
   Google Scholar
• Tahir, R., and A. I. Wang. 2020. “Transforming a Theoretical Framework to Design Cards: League Ideation Toolkit for Game-Based Learning Design.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 12 (20): 1–25. doi:10.3390/su12208487.
   Google Scholar
• Valkenburg, R. 2000. The Reflective Practice of Design Teams. Delft University of Technology. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:8bbe62ab-e761-46f7-b386-3ead14a9d56d
   Google Scholar
• Välk, S., and C. Mougenot. 2020. “Generative Boundary Objects as Integral Parts of Framing in Design and Bioscience Collaborations.” In Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, 1135–1144. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/dsd.2020.106.
   Google Scholar
• Vasconcelos, L. A., and N. Crilly. 2016. “Inspiration and Fixation: Questions, Methods, Findings, and Challenges.” Design Studies 42: 1–32. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2015.11.001.
   Google Scholar
• Villalba, C., A. Jaiprakash, J. Donovan, J. Roberts, and R. Crawford. 2021. “Testing Literature-Based Health Experience Insight Cards in a Healthcare Service Co-Design Workshop.” CoDesign 17 (1): 70–82. doi:10.1080/15710882.2018.1563617.
   Google Scholar
• Vincent, J. F. V. 2009. “Biomimetics - a Review.” Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H: Journal of Engineering in Medicine 223 (8): 919–939. doi:10.1243/09544119JEIM561.
   Google Scholar
• Wakkary, R. 2021. Things We Could Design: For More Than Human Centred Worlds. Hawthorne, CA, U.S.A.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yargın, G. T., R. M. Firth, and N. Crilly. 2018. “User Requirements for Analogical Design Support Tools: Learning from Practitioners of Bio-Inspired Design.” Design Studies 58: 1–35. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2017.11.006.
   Google Scholar
• Zeigler, E. F. CB, Corbin, HM, Eckert. 1990. “Don’t Forget the Profession When Choosing a Name!” The Evolving Undergraduate Major.
   Google Scholar