Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T18:53:51.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GENERATIVE BOUNDARY OBJECTS AS INTEGRAL PARTS OF FRAMING IN DESIGN AND BIOSCIENCE COLLABORATIONS

Part of: Design Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

S. Välk  and
C. Mougenot
S. Välk*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
C. Mougenot
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
*
*sander.valk@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Collaborations between design engineers and bioscientists offer novel opportunities that could help solving some of the biggest challenges organisations and societies are facing. Combining design and bioscience has the potential to create responsible and desirable products/services, however such ventures come with challenges rising from boundaries between practices. This research explores boundary objects as sources of framing in multidisciplinary collaborations. The results are based on a descriptive study with synthetic biologists and design engineers working on an innovation-driven task.

Keywords

collaborative designboundary objectsmulti-/cross-/trans-disciplinary approachesdesign creativity
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1135 - 1144
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Agapakis, C.M. (2014), “Designing synthetic biology”, ACS Synthetic Biology, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 121–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aurisicchio, M., Bracewell, R.H. and Wallace, K.M. (2013), “Characterising the information requests of aerospace engineering designers”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balint, T.S. and Pangaro, P. (2017), “Design space for space design: Dialogs through boundary objects at the intersections of art, design, science, and engineering”, Acta Astronautica, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 134 No. January, pp. 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, R. (2011), “Drop that pipette: Science by design”, Cell, Elsevier Inc., Vol. 147 No. 3, pp. 496–497.Google ScholarPubMed
Bucciarelli, L.L. (2003), “Designing and learning: A disjunction in contexts”, Design Studies, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 295–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calvert, J. and Schyfter, P. (2017), “What can science and technology studies learn from art and design? Reflections on ‘Synthetic Aesthetics’”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 195–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carlile, P.R. (2002), “A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development”, Organization Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 442–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P. and Gonçalves, M. (2017), “Information-triggered Co-evolution: A Combined Process Perspective”, In: Christensen, B.T., Ball, L.J. and Halskov, K. (Eds.), Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, pp. 501–520. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Chieza, N. (2018), “Reflections from Ginkgo's first creative-in-residence”, Gingko Bioworks Blog.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2001), “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline Versus Design Science”, Design Issues, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution”, Design Studies, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driver, A., Peralta, C. and Moultrie, J. (2011), “Exploring how industrial designers can contribute to scientific research”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 17–28.Google Scholar
Keshet, Y., Ben-Arye, E. and Schiff, E. (2013), “The use of boundary objects to enhance interprofessional collaboration: Integrating complementary medicine in a hospital setting”, Sociology of Health and Illness, Vol. 35 No. 5, pp. 666–681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991), Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive and Computational Perspectives), Learning in Doing, available at:https://doi.org/10.2307/2804509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maher, M.L. (2006), “A Model of Co-evolutionary Design”, No. 2000, pp. 195–208.Google Scholar
Marsick, V.J. and Watkins, K.E. (2001), “Informal and Incidental Learning”, New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, Vol. 2001 No. 89, p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahon, C. et al. (2013), “Perspectives on design creativity and innovation research”, International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
Melville-Richards, L. et al. (2019), “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, Vol. xx No. xx, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar
Reymen, I.M.M.J., Dorst, K. and Smulders, F.E.H.M. (2009), “Co-evolution in design practice”, About : Designing. Analysing Design Meetings, Taylor & Francis, London, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Rietzschel, E.F., Nijstad, B.A. and Stroebe, W. (2007), “Relative accessibility of domain knowledge and creativity: The effects of knowledge activation on the quantity and originality of generated ideas”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 933–946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabin, A.J.E. and Jones, P.L. (2018), LabStudio: Design Research between Architecture and Biology, Routledge of Taylor & Francis Group, New York.Google Scholar
Sawa, M. (2016), “The laboratory life of a designer at the intersection with algal biotechnology”, Architectural Research Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schon, D.A. (1988), “Designing: Rules, types and worlds”, Design Studies, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1997a), The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd Ed.), Computers & Mathematics with Applications, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-1221(97)82941-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. (1989), “Institutional Ecology,Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”, Social Studies of Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stompff, G., Smulders, F. and Henze, L. (2016), “Surprises are the benefits: reframing in multidisciplinary design teams”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd, Vol. 47, pp. 187–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Storm, R., van Maanen, J. and Gonçalves, M. (2019), “Reframing the Design Process: Integrating Goals, Methods and Manifestation into the Co-Evolution Model”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 359–368, Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.39Google Scholar
Szymanski, E. and Calvert, J. (2018), “Designing with living systems in the synthetic yeast project”, Nature Communications, Springer US, Vol. 9, p. 1, available at:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05332-zGoogle ScholarPubMed
Välk, S., Maudet, N. and Mougenot, C. (2019), “Exploring How Boundary Objects Can Support Multidisciplinary Design and Science Collaboration”, International Association of Societies of Design Research, Manchester, UK, Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/73564Google Scholar
Välk, S. and Mougenot, C. (2019), “Towards Creativity Stimulating Design Intervention for Multidisciplinary Innovation Teams”, Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 239–248, https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.27.Google Scholar
Webster, A. (1991), Science, Technology and Society, Red Globe Press, Available at: https://www.macmillanihe.com/page/detail/Science-Technology-and-Society/?K=9780333510650Google Scholar