No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Co-production teatime
Abstract
Co-production Teatime is a prototype developed to support inquiry processes in co-production- the close collaboration and co-creation of knowledge between academic researchers and partners from industry and municipalities. In an attempt to bridge gaps between stakeholders with different interests, expectations and knowledge horizons, the teatime explores the use of artefacts and ritual in dialogue-based inquiry. The purpose is to prompt playful interactions, the sharing of diverse perspectives, and to deepen understanding about ways of co-producing.
... The teatime design drew inspiration from Escobar (2018) and relational ontological perspectives. A teatime is a dialogical tool that the authors have used and developed to prompt inquiry in various contexts and topics (see Gottlieb's 'A Space for Time' blog 1 , Gottlieb and Schaeffer 2018). It is an approach that involves commensalitythat is, eating with other people (Sobal and Nelson 2003). ...
In the design research community, diverse narratives and ontologies are discussed in relation to sustainability. Relational ontology is proposed as an alternative to the dominant dualist ontology as a way to reconnect people with their ecological embeddedness and responsibility. This work presents a dialogical tool called ‘teatime’ created to introduce diverse, immaterial perspectives on sustainability in a co-design project with youth and researchers. The study explores the role of the teatime design in eliciting diverse narratives and forming a dialogical space. The results show that the teatime supported reflections on immaterial perspectives, bringing out relational and social values related to the ecological crises. This study uses a systematic evaluation to reveal a micro-material perspective on ways in which the teatime design and facilitation supported the inquiry process. We propose that the design practitioners take on the role of crafting dialogical spaces that support social relationships and evoke immaterial perspectives.
Knowledge production is increasingly made in broader Mode 2 (Gibbons, 1994) networks of stakeholders and contributing actors, e.g. in the form of participatory, interactive and action research. Historically this has always been an important part of scientific and academic activity, particularly important in certain scientific fields of research, e.g. engineering, business administration, organization and working life research, pedagogics and social work studies, as well in methodological traditions like action research and participatory research (Reason & Bradbury, 2008). When roles in knowledge production are more interconnected traditional research ethics focused on ethical treatments of research objects when they also are subjects (e.g. information, consent, and confidentiality) need to be significantly supplemented. When knowledge is seen as co-produced in interaction between equal parties with different contributions to the process and knowledge interest, this creates the need for recognition and guidance of special norms and ethical codes as prerequisites for excellent practice. This paper is aiming to explore and discuss norms of excellence and ethical concerns in co-production between academia and enterprises and how collaboration could be organized to increase both validity and utility of the knowledge created in such settings. All parties in such collaborative setting have the responsibility to generate practical agreements as to form the ground for a beneficial co-production, however this includes rules for securing non-violation of rights, like confidentiality and intellectual property. The parties share responsibility in review and control of quality of processes and results in relation to these agreements, although it differs in what matters are considered important to address in academic traditions and enterprises cultures. The purpose of this paper is to develop an extended set of norms and ethical principles for co-production oriented research. The main focus is relational dimension between involved parties instead of how one party (the researcher) treats other affected parties. We have therefore developed a list of norms with clarification and argument as a basis for their use. Examples are: acknowledgement and respect should be given to different forms of knowledge, theoretical and practical, explicit and formal as well as implicit and tacit; care should be taken to provide space for expression of different perspectives of involved parties in order to secure validation and useful results. Open discussion on equal terms; democratic dialogue, is a core medium for good co-productive relations, different knowledge needs and interests of involved and concerned parties, practical as well as scientific; to the co-production should be considered in the aims and procedures, and that the parties have a mutual responsibility to develop sufficient understanding of the needs and interests of others. The proposed norms developed in this paper can be considered as a tool or a guideline for the development of ethical and excellence in co-produced research. 2
Objets fronti_re = s'adaptent pour prendre en compte plusieurs points de vue et maintenir une identité entre eux Cet espace de travail se construit grâce à des objets-frontières tels que des systèmes de classification, qui relient entre eux les concepts communs et les rôles sociaux divergents de chaque groupe professionnel. Les objet-frontière contribuent à la stabilité du système de référence en offrant un contexte partagé pour la communication et la coopération. Les objets peuvent être considérés comme frontière (Star et Griesemer, 1989) en tant qu’ils contribuent à la stabilité du système de référence en offrant un contexte partagé pour la communication et la coopération.
Scientific work is heterogeneous, requiring many different actors and viewpoints. It also requires cooperation. The two create tension between divergent viewpoints and the need for generalizable findings. We present a model of how one group of actors managed this tension. It draws on the work of amateurs, professionals, administrators and others connected to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at the University of California, Berkeley, during its early years. Extending the Latour-Callon model of interessement, two major activities are central for translating between viewpoints: standardization of methods, and the development of `boundary objects'. Boundary objects are both adaptable to different viewpoints and robust enough to maintain identity across them. We distinguish four types of boundary objects: repositories, ideal types, coincident boundaries and standardized forms.
The present work develops ideas first presented in
Studies in Logical Theory. "All logical forms (with their characteristic properties) arise within the operation of inquiry and are concerned with control of inquiry so that it may yield warranted assertions." "Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole." After an introductory section, the three remaining parts of the treatise deal successively with the structure of inquiry and the construction of judgments, propositions and terms, and the logic of scientific method. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Artistically crafted novels, poems, films and paintings, and photography have the capacity to awaken us from our stock responses… (Eisner, 1995: 2)Is the researcher responsible for establishing a context for the "correct" interpretation of the artefact? In this paper we argue that artefacts lend themselves to multiple interpretations and that the role of the researcher can be to foster creative engagements rather than establish a context for “correct” interpretation. We believe that a more open and exploratory approach to art and design research more closely reflects the ambiguities and eccentricities of everyday people and how they think and feel. This offers an approach to research practice that provides room for the participants to actively contribute. By playing with anomalous objects and odd experiences it is possible to dramatically expand creative and interpretive engagement between people, providing platforms where diverse interpretations can be generated. We overview the notions of context-as-place, context-as-group and context-as-person, discussing how such notions represent a continuum where artefacts play multiple roles. The two experiences we discuss in this paper – the Pea Project and A Surrealist Encounter – share some common threads: that people are highly creative beings and that almost anything, removed from its original context, can stimulate creativity and collaboration. For example, in the Pea Project we used an everyday garden-variety green pea in a range of different settings to stimulate reflective awareness, curiosity, creativity and to prompt collaborative engagements. In A Surrealist Encounter we decontextualised a series of objects from a Magritte painting (1926) to elicit creative and collaborative encounters between strangers. These two experiences are drawn from notions of phenomenology (Bachelard, 1964; Dastur, 2000), art-based inquiry (Eisner, 1991; McNiff, 1998), symbolic constructivism (Barry, 1996), action research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001), heuristics and their open-ended outcomes (Moustakas, 1990), reflective and collaborative practice (Kolb, 1984; Schön, 1983; Collier, 1999;), anomalous objects and odd experiences, and the idea of everyday people as co-creators of meaning and art (Shotter, 1993). In both of these experiences elements were combined that were unexpected and unanticipated in the various contexts in which they were deployed. For example, peas on a plate are unremarkable whereas one pea offered by a stranger in the street is bizarre. What am I supposed to do with it? What does it mean? One may well ask.As France Morin (2000:7) suggests “artists have the capacity to make a lasting positive impact on peoples lives by helping them to see for themselves the dignity, beauty, and sacredness of the activities of their everyday life: the creative spirit, a powerful agent of transformation, that lies within everyone” – the two projects discussed in this paper aimed at evoking a creative spirit in each and every person with whom we worked. In this paper we use the above-mentioned examples to explore the notion of context in art and design research and to propose that there are multiple ideas of context that might inform, impact and affect the ways in which things are interpreted and how meaning can be created. Context-as-place, context-as-group, and context-as-person are the three key dimensions of context we discuss. These dimensions and the relationships between them represent a continuum between private and public domains in which artefacts can play multiple roles and be interpreted in multiple ways. In our work we use this understanding of context to trigger collaborative, creative and reflective engagements. This paper is divided into five sections covering: an introduction to the argument, an overview of theoretical and methodological influences, a discussion of the two projects, our multiple views on the notion of context and concluding remarks. We believe that context significantly contributes to the ways in which people understand and respond to artefacts. In our experience such responses can be multiple and creatively charged if the conditions are sufficiently ambiguous and the artefacts anomalous. This provides for a richer ground for research and for deeper understanding of people and their multiplicity. Does research demand new types of context, and what would they need to be like? The use of anomalous artefacts and odd experiences creates new types of contexts that elicit an understanding of people not possible via traditional research settings.
New York: Hold Rinehart and Winston
- John Dewey
The role of the context in the interpretations of artefacts and visual semantics in art and design
- Daria Loi
- Peter Burrows