methodology and philosophy of their world investigations into the
design lab, yielding more ambitious and stronger investigations in
design” (Poggenpohl, 2002, p. 1).

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AND CO-CREATION// This is where
qualitative and participatory research methods come into play. To
educate is to foster the development of critical thinking, personal
initiative and the conscious adoption of values. Co-creation is par-
ticipatory design; all the stakeholders are direct participants in the
design process. As a method, it opens up new learning spaces for
understanding the cognitive, emotive and sensory dimensions
of human experience. Co-creation activities act as mediating
influences between identities and value systems within commu-
nities, companies, organizations, business partners, and between
companies and the people they serve. Co-creation in its many
applications and adaptations to disruptive technologies (YouTube,
Creative Commons, Flickr®, Facebook®, Home- Depot®, Rona,
DIY Design, Make, iPhone®, Acumen Fund, Aid To Artisans) is
an external force re-shaping design practice from the inside out.
Whether the design proposition focuses on monetary, experience
or social values (or all three simultaneously), “co-creation puts
tools for communication and creativity in the hands of the people
who will benefit” (Sanders and Simons, 2008, p. 5). Co-design is
co-creation applied to the whole design process.

Co-creation tools include: collages, journals, diaries, skits, role
playing and play acting, scenario drafting, storytelling, mind
and concept-mapping, and 3D prototyping using ambiguous and
generic shapes as building blocks.

CO-CREATION AND DESIGN RESEARCH// Imagine that you’ve
been commissioned to design an environmental wayfinding
system for a small, regional hospital. As a pre-design phase you
might invite representatives from the hospital’s stakeholders to
a workshop where you ask them to create collages of their actual
and ideal wayfinding scenarios. Each participant would be given
a kit that might include a series of words, symbols, and images
that describe different viewpoints of the hospital experience such
as that of a patient, a nurse, and a visitor. The more simple and
ambiguous the components, the easier it is for participants to
express their memories, dreams, fears, and unmet needs. The kit
would also include a glue stick, scissors, colourful paper shapes,
coloured pens and markers, Velcro construction pieces, and large
sheets of paper for visualizations. “These collages are then used
for inspiration by the design team and [...] the respondents also
present their collages to each other. By focusing on both social
and material relations we become responsible not only for our-
selves but for others as well, and arguably that lies at the heart of
social and cultural interaction as ‘belonging’ in and to the world”
(Galloway, 2007, p. 7).

Broadly speaking, design affects contemporary culture in four
domains: symbolic and visual communication (publications and
computer interfaces); material objects (domestic items and tools);
activities and organized services (integrated workflow and strate-
gic planning), and systems or environments for living, learning,
working, and playing. These domains are interconnected (Bucha-
nan 2001, p. 11-12). Co-creation activities, because they combine

research, play and learning can assist the designer in broadening
her perspective and in developing new insights.

“When one designs objects or communications one has to
be aware that users do not come empty and naked. People use
products in very many ways that are often unrelated to their
intended purposes. People come to a product with guesses and
expectations derived from their personal experiences and needs”
(Frascara and Winkler, 2008, p. 6). Co-creation, because it often
acts as a design intervention at the front end of the design proc-
ess, is akin to action research in the social sciences. As a method
for both inspiration and information gathering, it requires the
designer to be skilled at facilitating, listening, and observing
without imposing personal filters. “To conceive the best strategy to
confront a complex problem, we need to go beyond existing mod-
els and see the wider picture, working interdisciplinary and with
intelligence” (Frascara and Winkler, 2008, p. 13).

Co-creation precedents can be seen in the work of MakeTools,
IDEO, Philips Design, the ID-Studio Lab at the University of
Delft, Copenhagen Co’ creation and the d.School at Stanford. +

REFERENCES//

1. Bonsiepe, Gui. (2007). The uneasy relationship between design and
design research. In Ralf Michel (Ed.), Design research now: essays and
selected projects. (p. 25-39). Basel: Birkhauser Verlag AG.

2. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design
Issues. 17 (4), p. 11-12.

3. Designer of 2015 competencies: defining the designer of 2015: Educa-
tion: AIGA (2007). Retrieved March 20, 2010 from http://www.aiga.org/
content.cfm/designer-of-2015-competencies

4. Frascara, Jorge. (1999). Cognition, emotion, and other inescap-
able dimensions of human experience. Visible Language. 33.1. Retrieved
March 5, 2010 from http://trex.id.iit.edu/visiblelanguage/Feature_Art-
icles/Frascara

5. Frascara, Jorge. (Ed.) (2002). Design and the social sciences: making con-
nections. London: Taylor and Francis.

6. Frascara, Jorge. (2008). Global interaction in design education: a golden
opportunity. Retrieved March 20, 2010 from http://glideo8.org/proceed-
ings/download/FrascaraGlideo8_Press.pdf

7. Frascara, Jorge and Winkler, Dietmar. (2008). Jorge Frascara and Diet-
mar Winkler on design research. Design Research Quarterly, V. 3.3, p.G.

8. Galloway, Anne. (2007). “Design research as critical practice.” 29"
Annual Seminar, Carleton University School of Industrial Design, 12-13
January, 2007, Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved March 20, 2010 from http://
www. purselipsquarejaw.org/papers.html

9. Lupton, Ellen. (2005). Design and social life. Retrieved March 15, 2005
from http://www.designwritingresearch.org

10. Poggenpohl, S. H. (2002). Design moves: approximating a desired
future with users. In Jorge Frascara (Ed.), Design and the social sciences:
making connections. (p. 66-81). London: Taylor and Francis.

11. Rodgers, P.A. (2008). Design now. In J. Marshall, ed. Perimeters,
boundaries and borders. Manchester: Fast-UK Publishers, 8 — 11.

12. Sanders, Elizabeth, B., N., and Stappers, Pieter, Jan. (2008). Co —Crea-
tion and the new landscapes of design. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from http://
maketools.com/pdfs/CoCreation_Sanders_Stappers_o8_preprint.pdf

13. Sanders, Elizabeth, B. N. and Simons, George. (2009). A social vision
for value co-creation in design. Open Source Business Resource. Retrieved
March 20, 2010 from http://www.maketools.com/

14. Shuen, Amy. (2008). Web 2.0: a strategy guide: business thinking and
strategies behind successful Web 2.0 implementations. Sebastapol: O'Reilly
Media, Inc.

CO-CREATION + CO-DESIGN 31