Content uploaded by Luis Vega
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Luis Vega on Nov 28, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO
www.aalto.fi
Master of Arts thesis abstract
Author
Title of thesis
Department
Degree programme
Year Number of pages Language
Abstract
Keywords
Previous research has thoroughly investigated knowledge creation from various
perspectives and fields of expertise, although only a few studies have presented
integrated discussions on the topic. This thesis situates knowledge creation at the
intersection of two domains: organizational studies and craft and design research.
While theories in organizational studies outline how tacit knowledge can be explicitly
articulated through structured social practices, craft and design research inquires
into knowledge creation through the process of materializing artifacts. In arguing for
the integration of both perspectives, the present research examines collaborative craft
as an organized activity and highlights the agency of objects in social practices where
knowledge is articulated. Conceptually, this thesis draws on poststructuralist thinking
and materialist approaches to organization in order to propose a material-discursive
practice theory. Methodologically, it employs a multiple case study conducted in three
distinct geographies and cultural contexts, which allowed the designer-researcher
to collaborate with craftspeople, collect rich empirical data, and confirm that social
practices can yield knowledge via the production of artifacts. The research findings
reveal the type of knowledge that can be articulated when craftspeople and designers
collaborate, drawing attention to the relationship between the knowledge created
and the artifacts produced. The study also emphasizes the significance of materiality
in generating meaning and enacting discourse, especially in work settings where
communication is hindered by sociocultural phenomena.
International Design Business Management
Luis Vega
Objects of Knowing:
Collaborative Craft Analyzed as a Platform for Knowledge Articulation
Department of Design
2018 169 English
collaboration, craft and design, knowledge creation, materiality, organi-
zation, practice theory, tacit knowing.
Collaborative Craft Analyzed as a
Platform for Knowledge Articulation
Luis Vega
Objects of
Knowing
Objects of
Knowing
Luis Vega
Thesis submitted in fulllment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in International Design Business Management
Aalto University
School of Arts, Design and Architecture
Helsinki, Finland
September of 2018
Supervisor:
Peter McGrory
Advisors:
Maarit Mäkelä
Miikka J. Lehtonen
© Luis Vega
info@luis-vega.com
Layout and visualization by the author
Photography by the author unless otherwise stated
Typefaces: Extramediana and Lyon Text No. 2
Paper: 160 gr/m Extraprint White
Printed in Venice, Italy by Pixartprinting S.p.A.
Objects of
Knowing
Collaborative
Cra Analyzed as a
Platform for
Knowledge
Articulation
Abstract
Previous research has thoroughly investigated knowledge creation
from various perspectives and elds of expertise, although only
a few studies have presented integrated discussions on the topic.
This thesis situates knowledge creation at the intersection of two
domains: organizational studies and craft and design research. While
theories in organizational studies outline how tacit knowledge can
be explicitly articulated through structured social practices, craft
and design research inquires into knowledge creation through the
process of materializing artifacts. In arguing for the integration of
both perspectives, the present research examines collaborative craft
as an organized activity and highlights the agency of objects in social
practices where knowledge is articulated. Conceptually, this thesis
draws on poststructuralist thinking and materialist approaches to
organization in order to propose a material-discursive practice the-
ory. Methodologically, it employs a multiple case study conducted
in three distinct geographies and cultural contexts, which allowed
the designer-researcher to collaborate with craftspeople, collect rich
empirical data, and conrm that social practices can yield knowledge
via the production of artifacts. The research ndings reveal the type of
knowledge that can be articulated when craftspeople and designers
collaborate, drawing attention to the relationship between the knowl-
edge created and the artifacts produced. The study also emphasizes
the signicance of materiality in generating meaning and enacting
discourse, especially in work settings where communication is hin-
dered by sociocultural phenomena.
Keywords: collaboration, craft and design, knowledge creation, mate-
riality, organization, practice theory, tacit knowing.
This thesis is the result of numerous contributions. My gratitude goes
to all individuals and institutions who supported me in completing it.
I would like to start by thanking Professor Peter McGrory for ac-
cepting to supervise this work and giving me a chance to express my
points of view. My most sincere acknowledgements go to my advisors,
Associate Professor Maarit Mäkelä and Visiting Assistant Professor
Miikka J. Lehtonen, for accompanying me throughout this fascinating
journey and always being keen to ask the right questions. Your advice
has been crucial and I cannot thank you enough for your time and at-
tentiveness. The diligence and eciency of my academic coordinator,
Naoko Nakagawa, are greatly acknowledged as well.
Writing this thesis would not have b een possible without the nan-
cial support of several institutions. In that regard, I am grateful to the
Mexican National Council of Science and Technology ()
and the Mexican Foundation for Education, Technology and Science
() for having co-funded my two-year master’s degree studies
in Finland. In relation to the case studies, I thank Aalto University,
the Hong Kong Design Institute (), and the Kyoto Institute of
Technology () for providing optimal working conditions and con-
tributing to my academic and professional development.
Special thanks go to those friends and colleagues who supported
me during my studies and showed genuine interest in debating the
topic at issue. I also heartily thank my parents for believing in me
and encouraging me to believe in myself. Your warmth and caring are
truly appreciated.
Finally, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to all the
craftspeople in Latin America, Europe, and Asia with whom I have
had the opportunity to collaborate. You all have been inuential in
my thinking and my worldview has been immensely widened by the
experiences we have shared together. This thesis is dedicated to you.
London, August of 2018
Luis Vega
Acknowledgements
— Project Description, Ecology of Practice, and
Data Set
4.2.2 Case II: Notations
— How Much Materiality is Needed to Articulate
Knowledge?
— Context of the Study
— Craft Situation in Hong Kong
— Zi Zaat
— Project Description, Ecology of Practice, and
Data Set
4.2.3 Case III: Variations
— How can Materially Articulated Knowledge be
Reproduced?
— Context of the Study
— Glass Working in Finland
— Freehand Glass Blowing
— Project Description, Ecology of Practice, and
Data Set
Data Interpretation Criteria
— Units of Analysis
— Data Synthesis
5 Findings
6 Discussion
Limitations of the Study and Recommendations for
Future Research
— Limitations of the Study
— Recommendations for a Research Agenda
Conclusions
References
Appendices
Appendix 1: Translations
Appendix 2: Notations
Appendix 3: Variations
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Preface
1 Introduction
The Materiality of Knowledge
Matter and Meaning in Collaborative Craft
Objective and Framework
2 Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation
Knowing and its Dimensions
— Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Knowledge Articulation
— Knowledge Articulation in the Context of
Organizational Studies
— Knowledge Articulation in the Context of Craft and
Design Research
— Integrating Dierent Knowledge Articulation
Theories
Researching from a Multi-paradigm Perspective
Ecologies of Practice: Towards a Material-discursive
Practice Theory
3 Research Question
4 Methods and Data
Research Setting: Collaborative Craft in Practice
Case Description and Data Collection: Knowledge
Articulation through Collaborative Craft
— Notes on Research Ethics and Orthotypography
4.2.1 Case I: Translations
— How can Knowledge be Articulated through
Materiality?
— Context of the Study
— Traditional Japanese Craft
— Yamanaka Shikki
Table of Contents
·························································
············································
··························································
····················································
···························
············
································
··············
····························
····························
··································
···································
··········································
···················································
······
···········································
·············································
··············································
······
···············
·······
·······························
········································
·······························
························
··································
············································
·································
········································
·······························
·····················
··············································
············································
································
·······································
·······························
·························
··························
············································
······························
··········································
············································
·························································
······················································
···········································
··································
··············
···············································
······················································
·····················································
·································
····································
···································
July 24th, 2014
It is a hot summer day in the former town of Yamanaka. We are driving
through the village on our way to the local woodturning facility. From
afar, the woodlands look vividly green, and I can tell that it has been
raining by the fresh, earthy smell. The timber is now fully seasoned, so
the time has come for us to choose the right wood to work with. Upon
arriving at the workshop, Mr. Oshima picks a few pieces of cherry birch
and we proceed to examine them meticulously. We do not say a single
word; the language barrier has become rather evident and this whole
procedure demands silence and reection. However, we both realize
that we are having a fruitful conversation…
Preface
1
Introduction
1312
1.1
The Materiality of
Knowledge
Knowing allows us to negotiate a place in the world. As knowers, we
devise cognitive frames, communicate ideas, and produce meanings.
Accordingly, we make use of intangible devices such as theory, lan-
guage, and discourse to articulate what we know (Adlo et al., 2015;
Håkanson, 2007; Williams, 2001). However, it is the tangible dimen-
sion of these intangible devices what allows us to access them in the
rst place; it is through materiality that we can perceive, experience,
and transform the world. The means by which we acquire and transfer
knowledge are bound to objects, tools, instruments, practices, spaces,
environments, and material regimes in general (Orlikowski, 2002,
2006; Orlikowski & Scott, 2015). As knowers, we are framed within
the physical boundaries of the known (cf. Wittgenstein, 1921/1961).
We are embedded in an undeniably material reality and our ways of
knowing are also situated therein.
But even in the realization that our knowledge is inherently mate-
rial, articulating its materiality presupposes a fundamental dilemma:
articulation implies resorting to ideas, meanings, and, ultimately,
language. Referring to objects thereby requires transforming their
tangible aspects into elements of intangible representation. With the
purpose of addressing this issue, the present work aims at analyzing
materiality as a means of creating, explicating, and disseminating
knowledge. Specically, it sets out to investigate the process of knowl-
edge articulation through material-intensive practices.
As a starting point, I shall stress that inquiring through material-
ity means assuming a disadvantaged position (Barad, 2003; Gherardi,
2017; Orlikowski, 2002, 2006; Schatzki, 2001). Whereas the afore-
mentioned intangible devices have been aorded an instrumentality
of their own, tangible objects still remain largely overlooked as agents
in the formation of knowledge. In addition, the process of knowledge
articulation is normally perceived as the verbalization of ideas rather
than the handling of matter.
This conception is perhaps one of the consequences of modern
thought, which has reduced our understanding of the world to binary
oppositions. The problem with explaining phenomena based on such
a view resides in the tendency to favor one pole of these opposites
over the other. The dichotomy of discourse and materiality is no ex-
ception. Indeed, the dominance of the former over the latter demon-
strates how modern theory has put knowledge forward as a primarily
discursive construct.
In a similar manner, the habits of privileging mind over body, sub-
ject over object, agency over structure, and culture over nature typify
the dominance of meaning over matter in the humanities and social
sciences. In an attempt to overcome these dichotomies, this thesis
posits knowledge as a multidimensional entity of which very essence
is discursive and material at the same time. My intention in this work
is thus not to disregard the proposition of using discursive devices to
sustain knowledge. As a matter of fact, it is to acknowledge material
objects as inextricable components of this sustainment.
In order to do so, the research at hand draws on poststructuralist
thinking and successive orientations that contest the binary structures
of the modern world (e.g. Barad, 2003; Bennett, 2010; Bourdieu, 1977;
Gherardi, 2017; Hardy & Thomas, 2015; Knappett & Malafouris, 2008;
Latour, 1987, 2005; Orlikowski, 2002, 2006; Orlikowski & Scott, 2015;
Schatzki et al., 2001; Suchman, 1987). Even though poststructuralism
IntroductIon
1514
has no consolidated denition and is often associated with a series
of loose and ambiguous approaches, what characterizes all forms of
poststructuralist thinking is a shared stance against hierarchically
organized dichotomies. Subsequent philosophical undertakings have
built upon such stance to adopt new readings of matter in relation
to meaning. Most of them are inuenced by Foucault’s The Order of
Things (1966/1994) and The Archaeolog of Knowledge (1969/1972),
in which he resists hierarchical conceptualizations and contends that
“discourse does not preclude materiality” (Hardy & Thomas, 2015, p.
681; see also Barad, 2003; Bennett, 2010; Miller, 2005; Orlikowski &
Scott, 2015).
Taken together, these orientations support the treatment of
knowledge as a situational notion rather than a foundational truth.
All of them conceptualize knowledge as a contextual construct that
cannot exist in isolation but rather emerges in relationships. From
this point of view, relationships do not only involve individuals but
also encompass the material arrangements in which they participate
(Lehtonen, 2014, p. 16; Schatzki, 2001, p. 12). Subjects and objects can
therefore be acknowledged as co-acting agents in the constitution of
the world (Barad, 2003; Bennett, 2010; Latour, 1987, 2005; Schatzki,
2001; Schatzki et al., 2001; Wacquant, 2015), where agency is a distrib-
uted property rather than a xed attribute determined by hierarchy. In
short, subjects manipulate objects insofar as objects mediate the in-
tentions of subjects, whether enhancing or disrupting them (Kimbell,
2011a, p. 300; Malafouris, 2008, p. 35; Pickering, 1995, p. 15). This rela-
tional perspective extricates power from anthropocentric paradigms
and grants materiality an agency of its own (Knappett & Malafouris,
2008; Malafouris, 2008; Latour, 1987; 2005; Orlikowski, 2002, 2006;
Orlikowski & Scott, 2015).
Following these lines of thought, the present work conceives of
materiality as a relational constitution (Barad, 2003; Latour, 2005;
Miller, 2005; Orlikowski, 2006) rather than a mere quality of objects.
In other words, the concept of materiality goes beyond physical things
to encompass interactions, embodiments, and practices, thus shap-
ing experience and inuencing the production of meaning (Brownell,
2014; Groth; 2017; Nimkulrat et al., 2016).
By introducing the notion of the materiality of knowledge, I am
therefore exposing that knowledge is imbued with meaning to the
same extent as it is imbued with matter. Further, I am accentuating
that everything we know emerges in action, resides in relationships,
and depends on context. Knowledge comprises a multidimensional
entity which is built in discursive utterances but also in their material
embodiments and practices (Hardy & Thomas, 2015). Knowledge
transcends the subject-object dualism and must be investigated at the
interface of the human and the non-human.
objects of KnowIng IntroductIon
1716
1.2
Matter and Meaning
in Collaborative
Cra
As explained in the previous section, the work at hand aims at exam-
ining knowledge articulation through material-intensive practices.
To that end, the research design employs a multiple case study where
three collaborative craft projects led the investigative process. All
cases allowed for the collection of empirical data based on collabora-
tion between craftspeople and the designer-researcher, shedding light
on how craft and design practitioners create knowledge when they
materialize things together. The main research question of the study,
which will be further elaborated in Chapter 3, sets out to identify the
type of knowledge that can be articulated through collaborative craft.
Besides being based on knowledge work, craft comprises a socially
structured activity in which matter and meaning are held inextricably.
Generally driven by the production of artifacts, craftsmanship entails
the exercise of technical and cognitive abilities as well as the develop-
ment of an aesthetic expression (Adamson, 2007; Malafouris, 2008;
Sennett, 2008). Moreover, it serves as a means of interaction between
subjects and objects, drawing attention to the roles they perform in
the materialization of the world (Cook & Brown, 1999; Knappett &
Malafouris, 2008). Craft practices thereby provide an appropriate way
to study knowledge articulation as a process that is emergent in the
relationship between the social and the material.
Recent research in craft and design has studied knowledge articu-
lation from this perspective. In fact, the production of artifacts within
this eld has been inuential in the advancement of new design the-
ory (Biggs, 2002; Mäkelä, 2007; Nimkulrat, 2013). This is particularly
the case for practice-led research in craft and design or research through
design (Frayling, 1993; Friedman, 2008). Practice-led research consti-
tutes a method of inquiry that “highlights the active role of the design
practice in the research process” (Nimkulrat, 2013, p. 3), thus allowing
designer-researchers to utilize their creative practice as the platform
for investigation and to incorporate their material outcomes as part of
the research output (Groth, 2017; Jarvis, 1999; Mäkelä, 2007; Mäkelä &
Nimkulrat, 2011; Niedderer, 2007; Nimkulrat , 2013). One of the major
benets of the practice-led research approach is that it highlights the
instrumentality of matter in the formation of knowledge. However, it
has the disadvantage of focusing primarily on one’s own individual
activity (see e.g. Pedgley, 2007), thus overlooking the potential of col-
laborative practices as a means of knowledge articulation.
Conversely, other elds of inquiry focus on collaborative knowl-
edge articulation but do not account for creative or material-intensive
activity. Theories in organizational studies, for instance, outline how
structured social practices contribute to the creation of knowledge
(Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Organizational studies is
an academic eld concerned with the study of human activity and the
constitution of social processes, practices, and structures, focusing
on the relations created among individuals and how these relations
aect other individuals, groups, and institutions (see e.g. Argyris,
1999; Cook & Brown, 1999; Scharmer, 2000; Spender, 1996; Tsoukas
& Vladimirou, 2001). A recent research orientation in this eld is
emerging to emphasize the inuence of objects and material regimes
in social practices and systems of power. Such orientation, known as
the material turn (see e.g. Orlikowski, 2006), draws on poststructur-
alist thinking to oppose the discursive turn by questioning the privilege
of meaning over matter in the explication of social phenomena.
IntroductIon
18 Figure 1. Scope of this thesis
Knowledge
Articulation theories
In an attempt to grant a deeper understanding of knowledge artic-
ulation as a socially informed, material-based phenomenon, the scope
of this thesis lies at the intersection of organizational studies and craft
and design research (Fig. 1). Thus, the study conceives of collaborative
craft as a material-discursive practice (Barad, 2003, p. 822; Orlikowski
& Scott, 2015; see also Fry, 2007), entangling subjects and objects
and thereby dismantling the paradigm of human-centeredness that
has been predominant in the eld of design for at least the last three
decades. Before elaborating further, I consider it pertinent to provide
precise denitions for the terms knowledge articulation and collabora-
tive craft, both of which will be recurrent throughout the present work.
With knowledge articulation I refer to the “process through which
tacit skills and knowledge are made explicit” (Håkanson, 2007, p. 51)
and hence capable of systematic explanation. While theories in organ-
izational studies refer to this tacit-to-explicit conversion as externali-
zation (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), I have preferred
the word articulation due to its ubiquity in craft and design research
(see e.g. Cross, 1982, 1999, 2001; Doloughan, 2002; de Freitas, 2002;
Friedman, 2000, 2008; Groth, 2017; Jarvis, 1999; Mäkelä, 2007, 2016;
Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011; Margolin, 1989; Nimkulrat, 2007, 2013;
Nimkulrat et al., 2016; Norman, 2006; Pedgley, 2007; Ravetz et al.,
2013; Schön, 1983; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2000;
Sennett, 2008). The literature review contained in Sections 2.1 and 2.2
elaborates further on the tacit and explicit dimensions of knowledge.
Moreover, it distills how both elds (i.e. organizational studies and
craft and design research) treat these notions in relation to practice.
On the other hand, with collaborative craft I refer to the socially
organized activity by which craft and design practitioners produce
artifacts together, emphasizing that this practice does not only entail
the handling of matter but also involves a shared meaning-making
intention. Although I understand that craft embodies a whole category
of its own and it does not necessarily constitute a design-like activity,
the word craft is us ed throughout this work to describe craft and design
interchangeably. By integrating both domains into this denition, I
also infer that collaborative craft comprises a post-disciplinary prac-
tice in which dierent skills and knowledge need to be exchanged.
objects of KnowIng
Cra & Design
Research
Organizational
Studies
2120
Articulation plays a pivotal role in the development of theory as well
as in the advancement of practice. It does not only underpin the crea-
tion of new knowledge but also facilitates its dissemination over time
and across space (Håkanson, 2007). The main objective of this thesis
is to analyze craft and design practices as a platform for knowledge
articulation, thus aiming to contribute to the elds of practice-led
research and knowledge creation theory. To that end, the overall
structure of the study takes the form of six chapters, which are organ-
ized as follows:
Chapter 1 consists of three sections. First, Section 1.1 establishes
the context by introducing knowledge as a material-discursive con-
struct. The notion of materiality is emphasized to shed light on the
agency of objects in social practices where knowledge is created.
Then, Section 1.2 determines the scope, which is the study of knowl-
edge creation through the lenses of organizational theory and craft
and design research. A multiple case study is briey announced as
the overarching methodology, explaining that the research setting
comprises three projects involving organized collaboration between
1.3
Objective and
Framework
craft and design practitioners. Lastly, Section 1.3, which is the present
one, states the general objective of the thesis and provides a brief
outline of its structure.
Chapter 2 is divided into four sections. Section 2.1 gives a detailed
overview of knowledge and its dimensions. Section 2.2 distills the
process of knowledge articulation as theorized in organizational
studies and craft and design research. Taken together, these two sec-
tions enclose an exhaustive review of the literature which covers mul-
tiple perspectives from established conceptions to state-of-the-art
approximations. Upon remarking some controversies and a general-
ized lack of consensus regarding the treatment of knowledge in the
literature, an argument is presented to explain the epistemological
stance adopted in this study. Later, Section 2.3 synthesizes the theory
and organizes it visually. Special emphasis is given to the implications
of analyzing knowledge articulation from a multi-paradigm perspec-
tive. Finally, Section 2.4 develops the conceptual foundation of the
thesis by proposing a material-discursive practice theory.
Chapter 3 presents the research question, which aims at identi-
fying the type of knowledge that can be articulated when craftspeople
and designers collaborate. The research question is then reformu-
lated into three sub-questions. Each sub-question relates to each case
study, thus facilitating the analysis of the same phenomenon from
three dierent perspectives.
Chapter 4 consists of three sections. Section 4.1 lays out the re-
search setting and presents the methodological framework. A visual
synopsis of the theoretical foundation is presented and integrated into
the research design. Section 4.2 deals with the description of the cas-
es and the data obtained from each of them. The cases report distinct
ways in which collaborative craft served as a platform for articulation.
Case I (Section 4.2.1) delves into the making process of traditional lac-
querware in Japan, Case II (Section 4.2.2) studies a bamboo technique
practiced in Hong Kong, and Case III (Section 4.2.3) covers a collab-
oration with a glassblower in Finland. Then, Section 4.3 revisits the
data collected to specify the units of analysis. A summary of the data is
provided, highlighting patterns and similarities observed among the
cases.
IntroductIon
22
Chapter 5 presents the ndings of the study and reveals the type
of knowledge that can be articulated through organized collabora-
tion in craft and design. All ndings are presented by following the
same structure of the cases. Therefore, the main research question
is answered rst and then each sub-question is illustrated with case-
specic examples.
Chapter 6 is organized into two sections, both of which open up a
general discussion about knowledge articulation through collabora-
tive work. Knowledge articulation is discussed based on its implica-
tions in craft and design contexts as well as in organizational views of
practice. First, Section 6.1 pinpoints the limitations of the study and
builds upon them to formulate a future research agenda. Then, Sec-
tion 6.2 presents the conclusion and wraps up with a reection upon
the research ndings.
The remainder of this work comprises two additional sections,
which cover the reference list and the appendices. The appendices
section compiles the visual documentation of each case study and is
therefore divided into three sub-sections. The purpose of outlining
the structure of this thesis is to give the reader a quick overview of its
organization and contents. Although the present work is an in-depth
study of very specic nuances about knowledge creation, I hope that
it is still broad enough to make a contribution and serve as a reference
for future research in the eld.
objects of KnowIng 2
Literature
Review and
Theoretical
Foundation
2524
2.1
Knowing and its
Dimensions
The debate on what knowing means is as old as philosophy itself.
Perhaps one of the most endorsed denitions of knowledge relates to
Plato’s tripartite theory, which conceives of it as a “justied true belief ”
(Gettier, 1966). Plato argued that knowing arises when a proposition is
(1) true, (2) believed to be true, and (3) justied as true, hence its tripar-
tite condition. His theory inuenced the development of a rationalist
conception of knowledge that postulates reason and logic as the foun-
dation of truth. Such conception is associated with the dualist tradition
initiated by Descartes, who famously claimed that thinking precedes
existing. Given the context of the present work, this view is question-
able because it treats mind and body as separate entities, thus implying
that knowledge emerges independently of action and experience.
This form of rationalism was criticized by more empirical accounts
of existence such as pragmatism and phenomenology, both of which
point out that thinking and existing are interdependent processes.
Pragmatism (e.g. Dewey 1934/2005; Peirce, 1986), on one hand, con-
ceives of knowledge as a situated construct, focusing on action and its
practical consequences. Phenomenology (e.g. Heidegger, 1927/1996;
Merleau-Ponty, 1945/1962), on the other hand, is concerned with ex-
perience and perception, thus accounting for being in the world as one
of the fundamental aspects of knowing. Although epistemologically
dierent, both strands have undoubtedly enriched our understanding
of knowledge by their critique of rationalist paradigms (Groth, 2017;
Håkanson, 2007). In fact, they have been inuential in the develop-
ment of more contemporary theories of knowing.
The present chapter encloses a review of some of these theories.
This section focuses on knowledge and its dimensions, whereas the
following ones build upon the dynamics of knowledge articulation.
Rather than extending philosophical disputes around the epistemolo-
gy of knowledge, I draw on the aforementioned empirical approaches
to formulate the theoretical foundation of this work.
Tacit and Explicit Knowledge
Scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi also contributed to the
critique of rationalist assumptions. In asserting that “we know more
than we can tell” (1966, p. 4), he distinguished two types, or dimen-
sions, of knowledge: (1) the tacit and (2) the explicit. Polanyi argues
that while explicit knowledge is declarative, factual, and explicable,
tacit knowledge is not. Tacit knowledge is personal, context-specic,
and usually practical or procedural; it is active within the mind of the
knower but not consciously accessible at the moment of knowing.
Hence, tacit knowledge is dicult to articulate. Two terms related to
tacit knowledge are knowing-how (Ryle, 1945) and embodied knowledge
(Merleau-Ponty, 1945/1962). The rst relates to knowledge exercised
through practice, whereas the second refers to a phenomenologi-
cal proposition that accounts for the body as a knowing entity in the
accomplishment of tasks, such as playing the piano or riding a bicycle.
Polanyi’s distinction between the tacit and the explicit comprises
the foundation of numerous knowledge articulation theories (see e.g.
Håkanson, 2007; Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Nonaka
& Takeuchi (1995), for instance, use such distinction to propose a
model for organizational knowledge creation (I will introduce the
model itself in Section 2.2), in which they explain tacit and explicit
LIterature revIew and theoretIcaL foundatIon
2726
knowledge with the analogy of baking bread. From this point of view,
propositional facts and direct information, such as the procedures
and ingredients required to bake bread, are examples of explicit
knowledge. The skills employed in baking bread, in turn, constitute
examples of tacit knowledge.
Based on the work of Polanyi and Merleau-Ponty, Scharmer (2000)
proposes one further distinction by introducing a diptychal reclassi-
cation of tacit knowledge, arguing that it can be either embodied or not-
yet-embodied. While his denition of embodied tacit knowledge con-
cerns the skills required to perform tasks, that of not-yet-embodied
tacit knowledge relates to the “incipient sources” of enacting the skills
required to perform such tasks (p. 36). Following this reasoning, he
uses Nonaka & Takeuchi’s analogy to contextualize how tacit knowl-
edge can be embodied or not yet embodied: “an example of embod-
ied tacit knowledge is the act or process of baking bread (Nonaka &
Takeuchi, 1995). An example of not-yet-embodied tacit knowledge is
the invention of baking bread in the rst place” (p. 38). Scharmer also
stresses that both forms of knowing are epistemologically contrast-
ing. Their phenomenological experience is dierent because embod-
ied knowledge relies on action, whereas not-yet-embodied knowledge
relies on reection (cf. Schön, 1983).
Besides the authors mentioned above, many other scholars have
recognized Polanyi’s oeuvre as one of the “most authoritative concep-
tualizations of knowledge” (Lehtonen, 2014, p. 68). In fact, the notion
of tacit knowledge has become widespread in various academic and
scientic circles over the last three decades (Håkanson, 2007). A
number of elds, ranging from pedagogy to science and technology
studies, have adopted the concept to scrutinize a vast yet heteroge-
neous array of phenomena. Tacit knowledge has thus become a topical
issue that no longer bears one unied meaning across such a wide
spectrum of domains (Ardichvili, 2000; Håkanson, 2007). The lack of
consensus upon one unique and exact denition, however, does not
imply that the concept is problematic per se nor unable to transgress
disciplinary frontiers (Adlo et al., 2015, p. 12). Instead, it might work
as a ubiquitous device to facilitate the study of phenomena from a
multi-paradigm perspective.
Throughout the present work, I take advantage of such ubiquity
to examine the relationship between knowledge and practice from
distinct approaches, all of which integrate the theoretical founda-
tion of the study. The list shown below synthesizes the key theoretical
propositions that I use in this thesis to study knowledge articulation
through collaborative craft. These ideas are further developed in the
following sections of the present chapter.
i Knowledge accounts for a contextual construct which is situ-
ated in practice, acquired through experience, and informed
by relationships.
ii The notions of practice and experience can be examined
through empirical approaches such as pragmatism and phe-
nomenology (e.g. Heidegger, 1927/1996; Merleau-Ponty, 1945
/1962; Polanyi, 1958, 1966; Schön, 1983).
iii The notion of relationality, in turn, demands the compre-
hension that knowledge does not only emerge in individual
practices but is also bound to specic social structures (e.g.
Bourdieu, 1977; Foucault, 1969/1972; Giddens, 1984).
iv The concept of tacit knowledge hence goes beyond skill and
dexterity to incorporate culture-sensitive tacit knowledge,
institutionalized forms of implicit knowing, and ways of
knowing embedded in disciplinary cultures (e.g. Adlo et al.,
2015; Julier, 2008; Knorr-Cetina, 1999; Reckwitz, 2002).
v The above mentioned propositions claim for the examination
of both individual and collective forms of tacit knowledge.
This includes the study of knowledge through dierent theo-
ries of practice (i.e. practice theory) and the consideration of
ways of knowing-in-practice (e.g. Gherardi, 2017; Orlikowski,
2002) and knowing-in-the-world (e.g. Maturana & Varela, 1992;
Wacquant, 2015).
vi Taken together, knowing-in-practice and knowing-in-the-world
entail the recognition of knowing as a constitutive process in
the materialization of the world, thus rendering the entangle-
ment of materiality and discourse (e.g. Barad, 2003; Kimbell,
2011b; Orlikowski, 2006; Orlikowski & Scott, 2015; Østerlund
& Carlile, 2005, p. 92; Schatzki, 2001).
LIterature revIew and theoretIcaL foundatIonobjects of KnowIng
2928
An extensive body of literature has discussed knowledge beyond
its theoretical implications to highlight its practical relevance. In
fact, much emphasis has been given to the tacit aspects of knowing
in recent studies of practice. This is perhaps because practices are
understood as largely tacit endeavors in which know-how is central
to the accomplishment of tasks (Ardichvili, 200o; Dormer, 1997;
Duguid, 2005; Groth, 2017; Håkanson, 2007; Loenho, 2015; Mareis,
2012; Schön, 1983; Sennett, 2008; Tsoukas, 2003; Wacquant, 2015).
Various approaches, including knowing-in-action (Schön, 1983) and
knowing-in-practice (Gherardi, 2017; Orlikowski, 2002), have emerged
to elucidate the role of tacit knowledge in the study of empirical
phenomena, ranging from individual activities to interactions within
and across entire social structures.
Even though these approaches have broadened our understanding
of practice, their focus on tacit knowledge has diverted attention from
the mechanisms by which it can become explicit. Says Håkanson,
“[tacit knowledge] has been associated with a tendency to downplay
the importance of explicit knowledge and with a near total neglect
of the signicance of articulation” (2007, p. 52). To counter this, the
following pages enclose a review of the literature on knowledge artic-
ulation, the general structure of which takes the form of three parts.
First, I focus on organizational studies by introducing an articulation
model developed in the eld of organizational knowledge creation.
Then, I move on to craft and design theory by presenting two articula-
tion tools employed in the eld of practice-led research. And nally,
I underline the similarities between both perspectives and propose a
theoretical framework to integrate them.
Knowledge Articulation in the Context of Organizational Studies
In the context of organizational studies, the concept of knowledge
articulation relates to a much larger body of work extant in the elds
of organizational learning, knowledge management, and information
systems (Dubberly & Evenson, 2011). Arguably the most important
contribution to the topic has been the SECI model of knowledge con-
version (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; see also Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et
al., 2008). Based on previous works by Nonaka, Nonaka & Takeuchi
(1995) introduced the SECI model to propose four stages of knowl-
edge conversion: (1) socialization, (2) externalization, (3) combination,
and (4) internalization; hence the acronym. The model outlines how
tacit knowledge can become explicit and how explicit knowledge can
become tacit, relating these four stages of knowledge conversion to
specic types of interaction between individuals. Also referred to as
knowledge creation model or knowledge creation spiral, the SECI model
has become the cornerstone of knowledge creation theory within the
elds of study mentioned above (Adlo et al., 2015; Argyris, 1999;
Lam, 2000; Lehtonen, 2014; Scharmer, 2000; Tsoukas, 2003; Tsoukas
& Vladimirou, 2001).
The four stages of knowledge conversion, as theorized by Nonaka
& Takeuchi (1995), can be dened as follows:
1Socialization (tacit-to-tacit) is the process by which one indi-
vidual acquires the tacit knowledge of another individual. This
means that skills and abilities are transferred through social
interaction. Transferring tacit knowledge, however, takes time
2.2
Knowledge
Articulation
LIterature revIew and theoretIcaL foundatIon
30
and demands the full involvement of individuals in their social
environments (Nonaka et al., 2008). In the context of craft,
socialization between practitioners typically occurs in activ-
ities such as observation, imitation, and repetition. Further,
the transfer of craft-related knowledge is primarily mediated
by the manipulation of matter, implying that socialization in
craft plays an active role in the conguration of its material-
discursive infrastructure.
2Externalization (tacit-to-explicit) is the process by which tac-
it knowledge is articulated “through [dierent] modes of ex-
pression” (Nonaka et al., 2008, p. 22), thus allowing it to be
converted, either verbally or nonverbally, into explicit and
transferrable devices. This process underpins the creation of
new knowledge by “rendering articulated knowledge in xed,
standardized, and easily replicable form” (Håkanson, 2007, p.
51). Images, codes, manuals, and documents typify forms or
articulated knowledge. The importance of articulation relies
on the fact that it allows knowledge to be accessed by others.
3Combination (explicit-to-explicit) is the process by which dif-
ferent types of explicit knowledge are merged to create new
explicit knowledge. This process permits the systematic trans-
fer of articulated knowledge between individuals, groups, and
entire social structures.
4Internalization (explicit-to-tacit) is the process by which ex-
plicit knowledge, regardless of its format, is acquired as new
tacit knowledge by an individual or a group. In the context
of organizational learning, the internalization phase sup-
ports the formation of a knowledge base, thus allowing social
structures to create value (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka et al., 2008;
Scharmer, 2000).
The SECI model conceives of knowledge creation as a dynamic,
innite process (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), thereby representing its
“iterative nature” (Dubberly & Evenson, 2011, p. 4) with a spiral (see
Fig. 2). Each loop of the spiral escalates gradually from the individual
to the organizational level. As outlined in the model, knowledge artic-
ulation (i.e. the conversion of tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge)
Figure 2. The SECI model Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995
objects of KnowIng
Tac i t
Explicit
Tac i t
Explicit
SOCIALIZATION
COMBINATION
EX TER NAL IZAT ION
INTERNALIZATION
3332
takes place in the externalization phase. However, in order to attain
articulation, some sort of socialization (i.e. tacit knowledge transfer
between individuals) has to occur rst. In light of this, I would like
to remark that the processes of combination and internalization fall
out of the scope of the present thesis. In any case, I have included all
stages of knowledge conversion in the above description to help visu-
alize the model contextually.
It is worth to note that Nonaka drew on Polanyi to develop his the-
ory of knowledge conversion (Nonaka, 1994; Lehtonen, 2014). Several
scholars in the eld have criticized the SECI model, arming that it
oversimplies Polanyi’s distinction between the tacit and the explicit
(see e.g. Bereiter, 2002; Gourlay, 2006; Li & Gao, 2003; Tsoukas, 2003;
Tsoukas & Vladimirou, 2001). Nonaka’s theory is also questionable
because it portrays an organizational narrative based on Japanese val-
ues, which might not be applicable across cultures. Nevertheless, I
would argue that the SECI model is only a framework and not a pre-
dictive protocol, so it might be helpful if used cautiously.
In spite of the criticism, other authors claim that the SECI model
is general enough to be applicable to virtually any domain. In fact,
the model has started gaining momentum in elds as diverse as edu-
cation, social theory, and service design (Dubberly & Evenson, 2011;
Hartley, 2007). However, there is still little, if not nonexistent, evi-
dence of its application in more traditional design practices (i.e. craft
and design, see e.g. Dubberly & Evenson, 2011, p. 3; Friedman, 2000,
p. 15; Niedderer, 2007, p. 7).
Knowledge Articulation in the Context of Craft and Design Research
The notion of knowledge articulation has also received recent atten-
tion in craft and design research. Remarkably, the term articulation
has become rather ubiquitous in the eld (see e.g. Cross, 1982, 1999,
2001; Doloughan, 2002; Dormer, 1997; de Freitas, 2002; Friedman,
2000, 2008; Groth, 2017; Jarvis, 1999; Mäkelä, 2007, 2016; Mäkelä &
Nimkulrat, 2011; Margolin, 1989; Nimkulrat, 2007; Nimkulrat et al.,
2016; Norman, 2006; Pedgley, 2007; Ravetz et al., 2013; Seitamaa-
Hakkarainen & Hakkarainen, 2000; Sennett, 2008). One of the main
endeavors of craft and design research is to acknowledge the active
role of practice in the production of theory (Biggs, 2002; Groth, 2017;
Jarvis, 1999; Mäkelä, 2007; Niedderer, 2007; Nimkulrat, 2013). In the
context of practice-led research, most studies on knowledge articu-
lation are concerned with the methods that craft and design practi-
tioners use to investigate their own practice. Designer-researchers
ascribed to this strand deal with “the task of making tacit knowledge
[…] researchable and explicable” (Groth, 2017, p. 7), and great part of
this process happens through the materialization of artifacts.
Producing artifacts as a means of articulating knowledge “has
brought a new dimension to design research” (Mäkelä & Nimkulrat,
2011, p. 1). It does not only interrogate the relationship between know-
ing and making but also considers the inclusion of professional prac-
titioners into the academic arena. Two key contributions to this eld
of research have been Polanyi’s concept of tacit knowledge (1966) and
Schön’s concept of reective practice (1983). The latter, in particular,
bears a pragmatist eort to counter the positivist attitude brought
about by the Design Methods Movement of the 60s (Bousbaci, 2008,
p. 38; Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995, p. 262; Mareis, 2012, p. 63; Groth, 2017,
p. 15), thus rejecting rationalism and arguing that knowledge is always
contextual.
Besides drawing on pragmatism, practice-led research in craft and
design has largely resorted to phenomenology (Biggs, 2002; Groth,
2017; Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011; Nimkultrat, 2013). Concepts such
as experiential knowledge, knowledge of the hands, or embodied knowl-
edge (Merleau-Ponty, 1945/1962) exemplify some of the terms that
designer-researchers have borrowed from phenomenology to discuss
knowing in relation to making. Further, the integration of pragmatism
and phenomenology into craft and design theory has inuenced the
emergence of other terms such as knowing-in-action (Schön, 1983),
knowing-through-making (e.g. Mäkelä, 2007; Olsen & Heaton, 2010;
Pasman & Boess, 2010), and thinking-through-making (e.g. Adamson,
2007; Carter, 2005; Ingold, 2013; Rajmakers & Arets, 2015), all of
which stress the role of material-intensive practices in the formation
of knowledge (Biggs, 2002; Mäkela, 2007; Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011;
Nimkulrat, 2012, 2013).
Literature review and theoreticaL foundationobjects of Knowing
3534
Although contrasting and at times even contradictory, these ideas
have come to constitute an important body of theory in craft and de-
sign, which emphasizes the signicance of tacit knowledge and, by
implication, of the tools that allow its articulation (Cross, 2001; Groth,
2017; Koskinen et al., 2011; Mäkelä, 2016; Mareis, 2012; Niedderer &
Reilly, 2010; Nimkulrat, 2013; Nimkulrat et al., 2015). Drawing on the
work of Cross (1982), Schön (1983), Scrivener (2002), and Friedman
(2008), Mäkelä & Nimkulrat (2011) have proposed a couple of tools
to help practitioners articulate their practices: (1) documentation and
(2) reection. Based on practices driven by the production of artifacts,
they assert that documentation facilitates the process of reection,
hence rendering tacit knowledge capable of articulation. A more elab-
orated description of these tools is presented as follows:
1Documentation is the process by which the creative practice
can be transformed into data. This process “can assist in cap-
turing the experiential knowledge during the creative prac-
tice” (Scrivener, 2002, p. 25) so that designer-researchers can
access it later. Typical forms of documentation include anno-
tations, working diaries, written text, photography, sketching,
and video recording (Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011). Hence, doc-
umentation implies transferring the tacit knowledge of the
practitioner into textual, visual, or material devices.
2Reection is the process by which practitioners give serious and
critical consideration to their actions in order to clarify their
thoughts (Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011). According to Schön
(1983), this process occurs in two dierent modes: (1) reec-
tion-in-action and (2) reection-on-action. The rst takes place
within practice, whereas the second occurs after it. Reection
allows for the externalization of knowledge by accessing what
has been documented earlier.
With these ideas, Mäkelä & Nimkulrat (2011, p. 8) argue that “doc-
umentation can function as a research tool for capturing reection on
and in action. When artist-researchers document their practice-led
research processes, they consciously reect on the current experienc-
es during the process (reection-in-action) and on the documented
experiences after the entire process (reection-on-action)”.
Integrating Dierent Knowledge Articulation Theories
The previous sections have reviewed knowledge articulation from the
perspectives of organizational studies and craft and design research.
Theories in organizational studies, based on the SECI model, outline
how tacit knowledge can be explicitly articulated through structured
social practices (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995; Nonaka et
al., 2008). Craft and design research, based on practice-led research
tools, inquires into knowledge creation through the process of mate-
rializing artifacts (Biggs, 2002; Mäkelä, 2007; Mäkelä & Nimkulrat,
2011; Nimkulrat, 2013). Although both perspectives may seem distant
from one another, they share three fundamental similarities, which
are listed as follows:
i Both perspectives dene the dynamics of articulation based
on Polanyi’s distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge,
ii both perspectives argue that articulation emerges in practice,
and
iii both perspectives suggest that articulation requires the com-
pletion of two successive knowledge creation phases: (1) the
tacit-to-tacit phase and (2) the tacit-to-explicit phase. Phase 1
(i.e. socialization and documentation) involves enacting, cap-
turing, and transferring tacit knowledge. Phase 2 (i.e. exter-
nalization and reection) implies accessing previously regis-
tered tacit knowledge to articulate it in explicit forms.
Having underlined the similarities between both perspectives,
I suggest their integration in a theoretical framework based on the
SECI model, emphasizing that collaborative craft can yield explicit
knowledge besides material artifacts. The proposed framework (see
Fig. 3) conceives of phase 1 (tacit-to-tacit) as the interplay of socializa-
tion and documentation, thus devising phase 2 (tacit-to-explicit) as
the reciprocity between externalization and reection. Additionally,
I propose the inclusion of an articulation mechanism to facilitate the
explication of knowledge through the use of metaphors. As elabo-
rated earlier, the research setting consists of three cases conducted
in dierent cultural contexts. Due to issues with language barriers,
each project employed a dierent metaphor to facilitate nonverbal
LIterature revIew and theoretIcaL foundatIonobjects of KnowIng
36
articulation. The articulation mechanisms employed in each project
comprise processes themselves, and they relate to the titles of the
projects analyzed in each case: ‘Translations’ (Case I), ‘Notations’
(Case II), and ‘Variations’ (Case III). Chapter 3 presents an overview
of these articulation mechanisms in relation to the sub-questions
derived from the main research question. Further, each articulation
mechanism is explained in detail throughout Section 4.2.
Figure 3. The SECI model revisited to integrate cra & design theory
objects of KnowIng
C
O
L
L
A
B
O
R
A
T
I
V
E
C
R
A
F
T
MATERIAL
OUTCOME
and
EXPLICIT
KNOWLEDGE
Tacit-to-tacit:
Socialization &
Documentation
Tacit-to-explicit:
Externalization
& Reflection
1. 2.
Tac i t
Explicit
AR TIC U L ATIO N
ME CHA N ISM
38
In the previous sections, I have reviewed the literature on knowledge
articulation from the perspectives of organizational studies and craft
and design research. Each eld has devised its own tools to scrutinize
the same phenomenon. The former, based on knowledge creation
models, outlines that socialization between individuals enables the
externalization of tacit knowledge into explicit, transferable devices.
The latter, based on practice-led research methods, stresses that
documentation facilitates reection, thereby allowing tacit knowl-
edge to be captured, explicated, and disseminated.
Upon underlining some similarities and pinpointing a potential
overlap between both research paradigms, the present work entwines
them to propose an integrated approach. Fig. 4 condenses the theory
contained in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, portraying knowledge articula-
tion as a byproduct of practice and visualizing it as a boundary object
(see Bowker & Star 1999, p. 297) between the elds of organizational
studies and craft and design research.
2.3
Researching from a
Multi-paradigm
Perspective
Figure 4. Theory synthesis
Knowledge
Articulation
Knowledge
Creation Model
Practice-led
Research Tools
Cra & Design
Research
Organizational
Studies
PRACTICE
Socialization
and
Externalization
Documentation
and
Reflection
4140
The present thesis has proposed collaborative craft as a material-dis-
cursive practice in which matter and meaning are held inextricably.
This proposition implies two things. First, the study needs the inclu-
sion of social theory because the research setting is based on social
practices. And second, the inclusion of this social theory must allow
for the analysis of matter and meaning simultaneously. To that end,
practice theory (e.g. Bourdieu, 1977; Giddens, 1984; Schatzki, 2001)
oers a way to understand collaborative craft as a relational consti-
tution of materialities and discourses, opening up issues of the role
of objects with respect to subjects and vice-versa (Reckwitz; 2002;
Schatzki, 2001). However, practice theory alone does not grant equal
ontological status to subjects and objects, thus not accounting for the
agency of matter in the formation of knowledge.
Drawing on Bourdieu (1977), Schatzski (2001), and Orlikowski
& Scott (2015), I suggest a material-discursive practice theory instead,
emphasizing that the theoretical foundation of this study posits two
fundamental considerations: (1) the empirical aspects of knowledge,
and (2) the sociomaterial aspects of practice. Further, in reformulating
2.4
Ecologies of
Practice: Towards a
Material-discursive
Practice Theory
the ontological relationship between subjects and objects, I revisit
Wenger’s work on practice theory (1998) and his notion of commu-
nities of practice to develop the concept of ecologies of practice. This
concept is central to the work at hand because it moves the unit of
analysis beyond the social world to encompass material regimes and
natural environments.
As the research setting comprises distinct geographies and cultur-
al contexts (i.e. craft-based activities carried out in Japan, Hong Kong,
and Finland), the concept of ecology of practice provides a suitable
methodological device to analyze collaborative craft at the interface
of objects and subjects, matter and meaning, nature and culture, and
structure and agency. To clarify, with ecolog of practice I refer to the
spatiotemporal setting of a given practice in which social and mate-
rial agents are entwined, stressing the material-discursive condition
of this very infrastructure and thus claiming for a monist account of
constituting phenomena. Besides capturing the essence of organized
activity, the concept of ecology alludes to the dierent ecosystems in
which collaborative craft practices take place. These encompass the
natural and articial environments, instruments, infrastructures, in-
terfaces, and mediums of transaction that enable relationships be-
tween practitioners and the world.
The summary shown below concentrates on my decision to sug-
gest a material-discursive practice theory based on dierent theories
of practice. Moreover, it explains the logic behind devising the con-
cept of ecology of practice for methodological purposes. With this, I
aim to illuminate the connections between the theoretical foundation
of the study and the practice-led research setting. A comprehensive
description of the methodology employed in this thesis is included in
Chapter 4.
Theoretically:
i The literature suggests that a unied, clear denition of prac-
tice theory does not exist (Kimbell, 2011b; Reckwitz; 2002;
Schatzki, 2001). Instead, the concept refers to a body of work
concerned with the study of social practices beyond the social,
thus encompassing material arrangements and their inu-
ence on human activity. While dierent theories of practice
LIterature revIew and theoretIcaL foundatIon
4342
may vary in focus, all of them conceive of practice as a rela-
tional constitution, which means that none of its elements
can be studied in isolation (Kimbell 2011b, p. 132). Although
practice theory is generally perceived as a loose approach, it
might work well when used in conjunction with other theo-
retical orientations (Reckwitz, 2002).
ii This thesis analyzes practice with a theoretical framework
that integrates organizational studies and craft and design
research. Both elds situate knowledge articulation within an
epistemological stance based on pragmatism and phenome-
nology (Groth, 2017; Lehtonen, 2014). The notions of practice
and experience are central to this stance. However, pragma-
tism and phenomenology are heavily subject-oriented and
none of them accounts for the role of objects in the congura-
tion of practices.
iii I have emphasized the instrumentality of material objects in
the constitution of social activities, arguing that matter has
agency in the formation of knowledge. In the context of craft
and design research, this idea has its roots in the pragmatist-
phenomenological approach spearheaded by Schön (Groth,
2017, p. 15). Although Schön’s approach does not recognize
non-human agency, his concept of knowing-in-action (1983)
already portrays non-human objects, such as materials, pro-
cesses, and technologies, as potential co-agents of practice.
iv Other scholars have built upon similar ideas to examine prac-
tices as dialogical interactions between subjects and objects
(e.g. Barad, 2003; Bennett, 2010; Lehtonen, 2014; Kimbell,
2011b; Orlikowski, 2006; Scharmer, 2000; Sennett, 2008),
stressing that knowledge does not emerge from social or mate-
rial entities alone but from the relationship between them.
v An array of theories spanning the elds of sociology (see e.g.
Bourdieu, 1977; Giddens, 1984; Reckwitz, 2002; Gherardi,
2017), cultural studies (e.g. Foucault, 1966/1994, 1969/1972),
philosophy (e.g. Wittgenstein, 1921/1961), and science and
technology studies (e.g. Latour, 1987, 2005; Orlikowski, 2002,
2006; Orlikowski & Scott, 2015; Suchman, 1987) have devel-
oped similar understandings of knowledge based on the idea
of relationality. Some of them already grant a new ontological
status to objects, thus conceding materiality an agency of its
own. This is the case for Actor-network Theory (Latour, 2005),
Sociomateriality (see e.g. Gherardi, 2017; Orlikowski & Scott,
2015) and New Materialism (see e.g. DeLanda, 2006).
vi These theories could have oered appropriate lenses to under-
stand how materiality and discourse are entangled. However,
they would have provided only a general insight because not
all of their conceptual propositions are applicable to practices
as specic as collaborative craft.
Methodologically:
i The research setting comprises three projects involving orga-
nized collaboration between craft and design practitioners.
Even though various methodological frameworks have been
developed to analyze craft and design activity, this particular
research setting demands the connection of theory with prac-
tice from a multi-paradigm perspective.
ii This implies that practice-led research tools, although instru-
mental in the process, may not be sucient to analyze all
agents involved in the formation of knowledge.
iii I could have connected theory and practice with action re-
search, meaning that the analysis of individual activity could
have been extrapolated to collaborative scenarios. However,
the three projects to be studied have already been conduct-
ed, and “action research is research in which the process of
making or designing an artifact constitutes the methodology”
(Seago & Dunne, 1999, p. 11).
iv I could have used grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) as
well, but the literature review already delivered some precon-
ceived assumptions, and the research question is built upon
one of them (see Chapter 3). Additionally, this approach might
have fallen short in analyzing multiple cases cohesively and
simultaneously.
v Dierent theories of practice have developed their own tools
to study knowledge creation between individuals and their
LIterature revIew and theoretIcaL foundatIonobjects of KnowIng
44
ways of knowing-in-practice (see e.g. Duguid, 2005; Koliba
& Gajda, 2009). Most of these theories draw on the notion of
communities of practice introduced by Lave & Wenger (1991;
see also Wenger, 1998; Ostermann, 2008). The term refers to
groups of people who engage in processes of collective learn-
ing and shared knowing, and it has proven to be applicable in
the eld of organizational studies (Lehtonen, 2014; p. 22).
vi This orientation could have oered a proper analytical tool to
study collaborative craft as a platform for knowledge articu-
lation. However, it faces important limitations in explaining
how agency and power are distributed among practitioners
(Roberts, 2006). This also means that the concept of commu-
nities of practice is rather subject-oriented and ignores the
ontological signicance of objects.
In short, the proposition of moving towards a material-discursive
practice theory goes hand in hand with the notion of ecolog of practice.
While the former concept has been introduced as the theoretical foun-
dation of the study, the latter comprises a methodological tool devised
to suit the research setting.
objects of KnowIng 3
Research
Question
The general research question of this thesis, stated above, is based on
the assumption that collaborative practices can yield knowledge via
the production of artifacts. Therefore, instead of interrogating wheth-
er knowledge is articulable through materiality, the study focuses on
identifying the nature of this knowledge and the relationship it has
with the artifacts produced.
As mentioned earlier, the research design employs a multiple case
study based on three collaborative craft projects. This approach facil-
itated the study of knowledge articulation in three dierent, practical
settings. Further, it allowed to divide the main research question into
the following sub-questions: (1) How can knowledge be articulated
through materiality? (2) How much materiality is needed to articu-
late knowledge? and (3) How can materially articulated knowledge
be reproduced? Each sub-question relates to the articulation mecha-
nism used in its respective case: (1) translation, (2) notation, and (3)
variation (see Table 1). To remind, the term articulation mechanism
refers to any process that may facilitate the conversion of tacit knowl-
edge into explicit manifestations.
What type of
knowledge can be
articulated through
collaborative cra?
objects of KnowIng
46 Table 1. The three sub-questions and their relation to each case study
CASE ARTICULATION MECHANISMAPPROACH SUB–Q UESTION
Notation Representing
principles and
processes through
a standardized
symbol system
How much
materiality is
needed to articulate
knowledge?
Variation Iterating a concept
by repeating a
series of operations
How can materially
articulated
knowledge
be reproduced?
II
III
Translation Expressing the
same idea in a
different modality
How can knowledge
be articulated
through materiality?
I
4
Methods
and Data
5150
Designers and craftspeople are trained in a predominantly material
tradition. Besides granting condence in creative problem solving
and ability to formulate alternative types of logic, this training allows
design and craft practitioners to produce, reproduce, and understand
non-linguistic systems of representation (cf. Goel, 1995). Design and
craft practices thereby enable the exercise of technical and cogni-
tive abilities through the manipulation of objects. In collaborative
contexts, such abilities are socialized in various modalities, suggest-
ing that verbal language may not constitute the main agent in the
formation and dissemination of knowledge.
In line with the notion of the materiality of knowledge introduced
in Chapter 1, the present chapter describes three cases exemplifying
distinct ways in which collaborative craft served as a platform for
articulation. More specically, Case I delves into the making process
of traditional lacquerware in Japan, Case II studies a bamboo tech-
nique practiced in Hong Kong, and Case III covers a collaboration
with a glassblower in Finland. All three cases saw the production of
material artifacts along with knowledge yielded in explicit forms.
4.1
Research Setting:
Collaborative Cra
in Practice
An overview of the research setting is presented in Table 2, which
includes a brief description of the projects developed in each case,
their ecologies of practice, and the type of data captured from them.
The cases are described in detail in section 4.2.
As explained earlier, this thesis employs a multiple case study
(Yin, 1984; Eisenhardt, 1989) as its overarching methodology. This
decision was made primarily because the research setting allowed
the study of similar practices undertaken in dierent environments.
Besides facilitating various perspectives of analysis of the same
phenomenon, this methodological choice coheres with the proposi-
tion of utilizing a material-discursive practice theory as the founda-
tion of the research.
In presenting the case study methodology as the backbone of the
research design, I assert the qualitative nature of the present study.
While qualitative research does not aim at unveiling the ultimate
truth, it suggests multiple lenses to scrutinize certain phenomena. To
that end, the present thesis devises dierent methods of data collec-
tion and analysis, some of which have been developed to suit specic
criteria demanded by each case study. Fig. 5 visualizes the model of
this methodological framework, revisiting the theoretical foundation,
recalling the proposition of moving towards a material-discursive
practice theory, and establishing a connection between the theoreti-
cal foundation and the practice-led research setting.
Methods and data
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONRESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Socialization
and
Externalization
Documentation
and
Reflection
Collaborative
Cra
PRACTICE
DATA
ECOLOGIES OF PRACTICE
Case I
Knowledge
Creation Model
Practice-led
Research Tools
ANALYSIS
Case II Case III
Towards a Material-discursive Practice TheoryMultiple Case Study
Table 2. Research setting Figure 5. Research design
Knowledge
Articulation
CASE DETAILS CASE I CASE II CASE III
Time and place 05-11, 2014
Ishikawa, Japan
09-12, 2017
Kowloon
Peninsula &
Southern District,
Hong Kong
03-05, 2018
Helsinki, Finland
Ecology of
practice
11 participants
6 institution s
4 productio n
units
2 materials
5 processes
> 10 tools
1 geographical
setting
4 participants 3 participants
1 institution
1 production unit
1 material
1 institution
1 production unit
1 material
5 processes
< 5 tools
2 geographical
settings
5 processes
> 15 tools
1 geographical
setting
Type of practice Woodturning and
lacquer coating
Bamboo
handicraft
Free-hand glass
blowing
Articulation
mechanism
Translation:
Expressing the
same idea in a
different
modality
Notation:
Representing
principles and
processes
through a
standardized
symbol system
Variation:
Iterating a
concept by
repeating a series
of ope rations
Data collected Photography,
video,
material samples,
templates,
drawings,
prototypes, and
artifact s
Photography,
video,
material samples,
templates,
drawings,
notation system,
and artifacts
Photography,
video,
material samples,
drawings,
prototypes,
visual scores, and
artifact s
5554
4.2
Case Description
and Data Collection
The following cases report the development of three projects from
which empirical data were captured in a variety of formats. To unify
the study and facilitate its analysis, all case descriptions observe the
same unvarying structure. First, the case is introduced. Second, the
study is contextualized. Then, an overview of the craft technique in
question is presented. And nally, an explanation of the collaborative
project is detailed. A table organizing the ecology of practice is includ-
ed at the end of each case.
Notes on Research Ethics and Orthotypography
All participants gave informed consent to take part in the projects
described in the case studies and their respective documentation.
The participants’ real names are used except when they have asked
to be kept anonymous. Although the majority of the images presented
throughout this thesis (including the appendices) depict objects rather
than subjects, images depicting individuals are rather focused on the
manipulation of matter.
Cases I and II include proper names, word compounds, and tech-
nical terminology in Japanese and Cantonese. All proper names and
word compounds have been romanized with the Hepburn and the
Jyutping systems, respectively. Where ocial English names of insti-
tutions and agencies do not exist, personal translations have been
provided. All three cases use the Western proper name order, mean-
ing that family name follows rst name. Technical terms and craft jar-
gon reported throughout the cases have been italicized when intro-
duced for the rst time.
Methods and data
5756
4.2.1
Case I:
Translations
How can Knowledge be Articulated through Materiality?
The present case covers a work setting situated in a Japanese envi-
ronment. Specically, it describes a collaborative project developed
with a group of artisans in a small town famous for its lacquerware.
Technical sophistication and proximity to cultural values are two key
characteristics of Japanese workmanship that cannot be overlooked.
In other words, Japanese craft embodies an amalgam of the tradi-
tional and the technological, thus resulting in the materialization of
profound forms of situated tacit knowing.
In light of this, one could presume that Japan would provide
an ideal scenario for studying the implicit dimensions of making.
However, putting these ideas into practice was not as easy. Commu-
nication, for instance, was a complex issue. During the early stages
of the study, the whole collaborative process was somewhat inhib-
ited due to language barriers and other cultural factors which will
be explained later. Even though these relatively problematic circum-
stances were not unexpected, they seemed potentially surmountable.
As a result, the main task of the study became to examine materiality
as a mediating language in the context of cross-cultural work.
Context of the Study
‘Translations’ is the title of a broader project undertaken in this
context. Made possible with the support of the Kyoto Institute of
Technology (, Japan), the Japan International Cooperation Agency
(, Japan), and the National Council of Science and Technology
(, Mexico), the project was developed in the frame of JICA’s
fellowship program Modern Design and Traditional Craftsmanship,
an initiative incorporated into the Strategic Global Partnership
between Mexico and Japan. Through its cooperation programs, JICA
addresses “various needs that developing countries have by covering
a wide variety of subject areas” (Japan International Cooperation
Agency, 2017, Section 2), spanning traditional know-hows, cutting-
edge technologies, and recurring innovations in the government-
industry-academia framework. The main goal is to facilitate techni-
cal training, foster cross-cultural dialogue, and provide nancial aid
to promote social and economic development. The Mexico-Japan
Strategic Global Partnership celebrated its rst program in 1971, but
it was until 2006 that Modern Design and Traditional Craftsmanship
was incorporated into its annual cooperation agenda. From this year
onwards, the program has been handled by the Graduate School of
Science and Technology at the KIT. Its purpose is the exploration of
traditional Japanese craft techniques through self-arranged study
and hands-on learning.
Besides the funding received from the mentioned institutions, the
practical implementation of the project was enabled through the de-
liberate participation of about forty-ve craftspeople distributed in
more than thirty production units across Japan. With a duration of
eight months, ‘Translations’ comprehended the study of ve tradi-
tional techniques: lacquerware, pewterware, stoneware, wood join-
ery, and bamboo latticework. For the scope of the research at hand,
however, Case I focuses only on the rst on this list. More specical-
ly, it delves into the practice of Yamanaka shikki (‘shikki’ stands for
Methods and data
5958
‘lacquerware’ in Japanese) through a sub-project involving eleven
people, six institutions, and four manufacturing facilities. The rest of
the constituents of this ecology of practice will be distilled in the fol-
lowing pages, but before giving further details, some key facts about
the politics of craft in Japan will be provided along with a brief history
of the technique.
Traditional Japanese Craft
Already since ancient times, the purpose of craft in Japan has been
utilitarian to the same extent as it has been social. Traditionally, the
transfer of craft-related knowledge was strict, vertical, and generally
practiced on a familial lineage basis. The access to wisdom, especially
that of craftsmanship, was a social privilege yet a highly specialized
activity. Handmade artifacts were not only acknowledged as carriers
of strong social value but also resulted praiseworthy for the time,
care, and knowledge invested in their manufacture. Industrialization
brought turbulence to these perceptions and challenged the dynam-
ics of craft production. However, it could not completely revamp the
paradigm of verticality. This led Japanese craft to a foreseeable evolu-
tion: many techniques began to disappear, whereas others became
more precious and seized novel opportunities for innovation, trade,
and economic growth.
During the post-war economic expansion, numerous initiatives
were impulsed to overcome yet another crisis in which, as many other
guilds, craft struggled for years. Among these, arguably the most
fruitful was run by the Association for the Promotion of Traditional
Craft Industries (Densan Association) in cooperation with the Minis-
try of Economy, Trade and Industry (). A law, commonly known
as the Densan Act (Promotion of Ocially Designated Traditional Craft
Products Industry by its ocial name), was promulgated in 1974 to
promote traditional crafts nation-wide and grant them ocial recog-
nition as such. Five criteria were established by the METI in order to
concede ocial designation to craft products (Densan Association,
2000, pp. 6-7). According to these criteria, an artifact is eligible for
ocial designation if it:
i serves an utilitarian purpose in everyday life,
ii is primarily manufactured by hand,
iii has an established provenance of a hundred years or more,
iv is made of materials that have remained unchanged for a
hundred years or more, and
v is regionally produced to a certain scale by a certain number
of craftspeople.
Since the enactment of this law, the METI has resolved ocial
designation for 230 types of products (Densan Association, 2017), and
the list continues to grow. In parallel, the Densan Association has run
a number of programs to encourage the advancement of traditional
technologies, increase the global demand of local handmade prod-
ucts, and incorporate craft culture into the public agenda. As a result,
traditional crafts in Japan are nowadays favored with a comprehen-
sive political apparatus which allows their classication, legislation,
protection, and promotion to be ecient and transparent processes.
Additionally, while some specic items have been classied as
‘tangible cultural properties’, the tacit knowledge required for the
production of any traditional artifact constitutes an object of classi-
cation as well, but it rather comprises an ‘intangible cultural property’
(see Yagihashi, 1985, p. 79). This term alludes to “the human skills
themselves, which are embodied by individuals” (Japanese Agency
for Cultural Aairs, 2007, p. 2) and result absolutely necessary for the
creation or preservation of cultural products. Thus and so, master
artisans who possess the most rened skills and demonstrate excel-
lence in their trajectories receive the designation of ‘Living National
Treasures’ (for an overview, see Japanese Agency for Cultural Aairs,
2017, pp. 38-53). This aspect has entailed the emergence of social
personae in relation to certain types of material practices and their
practicing communities, thus reinforcing the rigor of knowledge dis-
semination through a politics of craft exercised in training schools,
apprenticeship models, and other kinds of socially institutionalized
schemata.
Both the tangible and intangible domains of cultural products
in Japan appear relevant to the thesis at hand, especially because
they entwine subjects and objects (cf. Orlikowski & Scott, 2015) and
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
6160
underpin the material-discursive nature of craft in twofold ways. On
one hand, the tangible domain determines the material signicance
of an artifact and the meanings it carries: in the Japanese context, this
domain resolves whether the criteria for its designation as a tradition-
al craft product is fullled, arranges the practicalities needed to sys-
tematize its methods of production, and establishes the mechanisms
for its acquisition by cultural repositories. In this thesis, it informs the
codes involved in the representation and production of knowledge;
pinpointing how this knowledge is materially rendered to a large ex-
tent. The intangible aspect, on the other hand, highlights the signi-
cance of craftsmanship in terms of human abilities, values, and sys-
tems of beliefs: in the Japanese context, it honors master craftspeople
for what they implicitly know, legitimizes the channels of knowledge
transfer, and situates craft and craft-related activities as a discursive,
social construct. In this thesis, it refers to the networks that enable the
socialization of knowledge, suggesting that collaborative practices
may dominate the bureaucracies of traditional craft.
All details included in the previous overview have been described
because Yamanaka shikki will be analyzed contextually. As stated be-
fore, the intention is to scrutinize its ecology through a material-dis-
cursive practice theory rather than solely analyzing its social artifacts.
Therefore, the dynamics of objects and subjects, matter and meaning,
nature and culture, and structure and agency embedded in it result in-
strumental for the comprehension of the research setting presented in
this case and the type of data captured from it. The same criterion ap-
plies to the next two cases.
Yamanaka Shikki
Yamanaka shikki has its origins in the latter decades of the 1500s (for a
historical overview of Japanese lacquerware, see Inumaru & Yoshida,
1992). Even so, its practice was formally established until the 18th
century, when a group of woodturners settled in the former town of
Yamanaka, now part of the city of Kaga, in the Ishikawa Prefecture.
The area was best known for its hot springs and traditional lodges.
A growing resort culture allowed the craft to develop, leading to the
production and trade of lifestyle household goods such as bowls,
trays, tea utensils, and tableware in general. Woodturners continued
to produce the same kind of items, and in 1975, Yamanaka shikki
was awarded ocial designation by the METI (Densan Association,
1975/2017), becoming one of the rst traditional techniques to be
recognized as such.
In accordance to the 5th criterion established by the METI, the
technique receives its name after the Japanese toponym ‘Yamanaka’,
which literally means ‘in the middle of the mountains’. Located in
a mountainous region covered with rich woodlands, this bygone
town aorded the ideal environment for woodworking. Turnery and
carving were preferred due to the technical properties of the wood
obtained from the area, and also because the humid climate allowed
the timber to be uniformly seasoned. Nowadays, Kaga is a merger
of ancient history and modernization. In addition to the economic
benets brought by its hot spring resorts, the city enjoys a well-
developed infrastructure and has managed to maintain sustainable
conditions for the traditional lacquerware industry.
The approach to sustainability is multiple-edged. Besides the pre-
occupation to ensure environmentally and economically safe futures,
the activities surrounding this practice are also socially and cultur-
ally oriented towards self-suciency. The wood used for turning and
carving is harvested from municipal forests, managed by regional
authorities, and processed in local production facilities. Craftspeople
are organized in cooperatives and the technique is taught in a special-
ized institute. The local government impulses Yamanaka shikki as
a productive activity and ensures its visibility in the cultural sphere.
Museums and craft centers play as well an important role in the quest
of sustainability: they contribute to the exploitation of a cultural asset
by exercising a healthy ecology of knowledge about this practice and
its impact in society. At the same time, they mobilize local talent and
educate the public on the technique and its products. All of these as-
pects have made this craft highly appreciated and actively demanded.
As a result, lacquerware from Yamanaka is ubiquitous throughout
Japan, and its consumers seem to be well informed about its origin
and characteristics.
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
6362
One feature that distinguishes Yamanaka shikki from other types
of Japanese lacquerware is the solidity of its wood. By trimming the
logs vertically instead of horizontally, artisans produce more durable
yet very thin-walled wares. Vertical trimming, commonly referred
to as tategi, implies orienting the artifact along the log with the grain
visible lengthwise. Although tategi makes a wood piece more dicult
to carve and produces considerably more waste, it prevents warping
and deformation during and after the process. This allows the result-
ing artifact to be more utilitarian and less decorative, guaranteeing
long-lasting endurance, impeccable quality, and an appealing look
that matches the popular taste.
Yamanaka lacquerware is crafted in a slow and steady pace.
Besides technical precision and qualied human capital, time and
patience are very much required. In some cases, it can take up to
twenty craftspeople and over a year to complete a single piece. The
process can be synthesized into “four major stages: [1] substrate, [2]
priming, [3] intermediate coating, and [4] top coating” (Ohba, 1985, p.
91). Stage one consists of wood work, while stages two to four consist
of lacquer work. Each stage is performed by a dierent craftsperson,
implying that the production chain requires a minimum of four
specialists, or even four production units, working in timely coordina-
tion. The following list summarizes the most signicant steps in each
stage of the process (for reference, see Mertz, 2011, pp. 58-63; Ohba,
1985, pp. 91-94):
1 Substrate: shaping the kiji (wood piece).
— Hardwoods such as keyaki (Japanese zelkova), mizume
(cherry birch), and hinoki (cypress) are extracted from
local forests and cut into logs. The stems are peeled and
the logs are either selected or discarded by a specialist.
— The selected logs are classied and cut into shorter pieces.
The length of these pieces depends on the height of the
desired artifact.
— The artifact is visualized and oriented in the stem tategi-
wise. Its general diameter is marked with a pencil on the
top side of the log. As the nal object will be turned on a
lathe, this mark is always a circle. The log is cut with a saw
following the mark and leaving enough space for subse-
quent maneuvering.
— The resulting chunk is turned on a lathe producing a cylin-
drical wood core. The wood core is boiled and set aside
for drying and seasoning. Drying takes place in a special
chamber and lasts from one to two weeks. Seasoning can
take as long as two years depending on the characteristics
of the material and the conditions of the weather.
— Once seasoned, the wood core is carved with hand-forged
metal tools and turned on the lathe until it roughly resem-
bles the shape of the desired artifact.
— After a drying period of two months, the wood core is
turned on the lathe again until a detailed, nal shape is
achieved. No standardized measuring units are employed
in shaping the nal object. Instead, lathe masters trust
their intuition and seldom use templates.
2 Priming: preparing the kiji for kyushitsu (lacquer coating).
— The piece is sanded and cleaned thoroughly before prim-
ing. If knots or cracks appear, the wood is repaired until
its surface becomes uniform and smooth. Two nishes are
possible: clear wood and lacquer. If the design demands
the piece to highlight the grain of the wood, several layers
of clear polyurethane coating are applied. Then, the piece
is polished and completed with these processes alone. If
the piece requires lacquer coating, the process continues
as indicated in the next steps.
— A mixture of urushi (a cured greyish resin exuded from the
sap of lacquer trees) and petroleum benzine are applied
with a brush to the wooden piece. As urushi is toxic in its
liquid state, special care is needed from this process on.
— Two layers of pulverized sawdust mixed with urushi are
applied with a spatula to thicken the base and make it
more resistant.
— A thin layer of urushi, ceramic powders, and water is
applied with a brush. Then, grinding powder is used to
burnish it.
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
6564
— Another layer of raw urushi is applied with a spatula,
rubbed down with charcoal, and polished with sandpa-
per. After repeating this process several times, any blunt
edges caused by continuous layering are sharpened and
polished.
— The piece is heated for about ten hours. Heating occurs in a
humid chamber at an increasing temperature that rises up
to 70 ºC. Once heating is completed, the urushi becomes
fully polymerized and the piece needs to be cooled down
for several hours.
3 Intermediate Coating: Applying several layers of kyushitsu.
— Raw urushi is the main material used for intermediate
coating, but cooked rice paste and grinding powder are
also employed. Water is added to knead the mixture; the
resulting pastry is applied with a spatula.
— A repeated sequence of coating and burnishing is per-
formed. Paper is used to remove excess material.
— Sequential layering continues until the surface becomes
uniform and meets the thickness required by the design.
If the design demands precise thicknesses, special con-
siderations need to be taken because too much layer-
ing may lead to undesired thickening. Tea boxes, which
often require an airtight seal, are submerged in hot water
until the temperature expands the piece so that the lid is
released from the box.
4 Top Coating: uwanuri (nal layer).
— Once the undercoating work has been completed, the nal
layers of lacquer are applied with a brush.
— During this stage, color is added to the urushi. Although
a rich chromatic variety is possible today, the colors em-
ployed traditionally were limited to the natural pigments
available in the past. Yamanaka shikki, in any case, is char-
acterized by its crimson-hued vermilion and deep black
tones, both of which are still produced traditionally. Using
either of those, the uwanuri master gives the nal hands
of pigmented urushi until the desired depth of the chosen
color is achieved.
— This process follows the same logic described in the two
previous stages, comprising a slow sequence of continu-
ous coating and polishing. The nal hand gives the nish,
which can be matte or glossy.
— Upon completion, the piece is set aside to dry and harden.
Drying times vary according to moisture and humidity
conditions, and special care is needed to prevent any dust
from sticking to the lacquered surface.
After the top coat is applied, some additional processes may
occur. These include sprinkling and burnishing golden powder for
decorative or artistic purposes. However, this will not be described
because the present case deals with the design of utilitarian rather
than decorative artifacts.
Project Description, Ecolog of Practice, and Data Set
The information detailed before was captured through a combina-
tion of observing, practicing, and reading about Japanese woodwork
and lacquerware (see e.g. Brommelle & Smith, 1985; Mertz, 2011).
Although the literature on the topic has become more extensive over
the last decades, craft skills are still preferred to be passed down on
a look-and-learn basis. In Japanese, this practice is called minarai,
which literally means ‘look and learn’ and contextually translates as
‘apprenticeship’. Worth to note, apprenticeship involves knowing-in-
practice (cf. Maturana & Varela, 1992; Orlikowski, 2002; Wacquant,
2015) and also stays in line with the process of socialization theorized
by knowledge creation scholars (e.g. Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) in the
eld of organizational studies.
‘Translations’ comprehended a project in which non-linguistic,
material-intensive modalities, such as minarai, steered the socializa-
tion of knowledge. The following paragraphs describe the course of
the project, detail the constituents of its ecology of practice, and set
the bases for the case analysis. This case study, as expressed before,
aims at explaining how collaborative craft yielded knowledge in mate-
rial forms. Findings from the case, detailed in Chapter 5, provide some
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
6766
concrete insights to the sub-question at issue: How can knowledge be
articulated through materiality?
Over the course of Modern Design and Traditional Craftsmanship,
some general knowledge on Japanese craft was gained. For instance, a
visit to the Fureaikan Museum of Traditional Crafts in Kyoto granted
deeper understanding of certain techniques and their distribution
across Japan. Lacquerware in particular was observed to be prevalent
in the prefectures of Kyoto and Ishikawa. During a eld trip to the
latter, I managed to arrange a studio visit to Japan Crafts Oshima
Co. Ltd., a company producing Yamanaka shikki since 1909. With an
illustrative tour to their facilities followed by a fruitful discussion on
the potential of collaborative practices, Mr. Toyoki Oshima, president
of the company, invited me to design a small collection of products in
cooperation with the craftspeople working for him. His son, Taro, who
is the fourth generation of a family of shikki artisans and now runs the
company, was appointed to coordinate the production and arrange all
the practicalities.
The project started in June of 2014 and took six months to be
completed. Nothing was particularly briefed, but some requirements
were made. First, the proposed designs had to serve utilitarian purpos-
es and be pursuant to the company’s product portfolio. Second, due to
time restrictions, the size of the products should match that of already
seasoned substrates. And third, some kind of novelty was expected.
During the course of the project, Mr. Oshima and his son showed
me around Kaga. The project covered visits to a total of four institu-
tions, four production units, and four master craftspeople. Kaga hosts
the Ishikawa Prefectural Technical Training Center for Yamanaka
Lacquerware, a craft institute devoted to teaching lathework, turn-
ery, and lacquer coating. Founded and directed by Living National
Treasure Ryozo Kawakita, the center trains lacquerware artisans,
technologists, and researchers, and it is the only institution of its kind
in Japan. Mr. Kawakita welcomed me in his school and taught me the
basics of kiji work on a Yamanaka-styled lathe. The other three insti-
tutions visited were the Yamanaka Lacquerware Traditional Industry
Exhibition Hall, the Yamanaka Lacquerware Cooperative Associa-
tion, and the Yamanaka Society for the Preservation of Woodturning
Technologies, all of which allowed for the collection of extensive
visual data.
The rest of the production units incorporated in the project includ-
ed the Yamanaka Wood and Timber Resources Management Facility,
the woodturning workshop Rokuro no Sato (literally ‘Lathe Village’),
and one additional workshop specializing in coating. On the rst visit
to the woodturning unit, master craftsman Kazuo Satake, also a mem-
ber of the Yamanaka Society for the Preservation of Woodturning
Technologies, showed interest in sharing his knowledge and joining
the collaboration. During subsequent visits, he focused on demon-
strating his skills through a combination of gesture and woodturning.
Special emphasis was made on the tools employed, yet every single
demonstration happened in absolute silence. Later in the project, Mr.
Satake and his apprentices stepped into the production of the wood
cores. On a similar basis, the master craftspeople at the coating facil-
ity strived to provide sucient information on their workshop dynam-
ics prior to their involvement in the project.
All information provided was systematic and indeed sucient.
However, personal approaches to the process resulted hard to explain .
Embodied thinking and experience-based decision making could be
observed but not verbalized. This happened partly due to language
barriers and partly due to the quiet style of their workmanship, but
primarily because such notions belong to the tacit dimension (Polanyi,
1966). After realizing so, I decided to proceed with the design phase
relying only on non-linguistic systems of representation, namely
images, drawings, templates, mock-ups, models, material samples,
and other codes alike, all of which comprised the visual and material
translations (see e.g. Fig. 6) of concepts that would have remained
inexplicable otherwise. Only after this coding process could a design
intention be resolved and agreed upon.
The project saw the production of a series of four items: a bowl, a
cup, a at box, and a lidded caddie with a circular handle (Yamanaka
Series, Fig. 7), all made of local mizume and crafted by means of the
original technique. The designs were based on archetypal references
of traditional lacquerware, and the series was produced in batches of
three colors: black, vermillion, and clear wood. Both nishes, matte
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
Figure 7. Black versions ‹matte and glossy› of the Yamanaka SeriesFigure 6. Translations
70
and glossy, were applied to all items in order to produce six stylistic
versions for each of them. The diculty level of the designs ranged
from very simple to moderately complicated: the clear wood, matte
version of the bowl constituted the simplest piece, while the glossy
black version of the caddie implied the greatest eort production wise.
The process was conscientiously documented, shedding light on
the interaction between objects and subjects in dierent processes
and through dierent modalities. Lists 1-3 enumerate all individu-
als, institutions, and production units involved in the project. Succes-
sively, Table 3 details the ecology of practice described throughout
the case. Note that rather than schematizing a division of labor, the
table intends to visualize relationships for further analysis. As this
study focuses on collaboration, specifying the limits of individual
activity serves only to identify the locus of distinct stages within the
whole process. For a more comprehensive visual documentation of
the project, refer to Appendix 1 at the end of this book.
objects of KnowIng
Lists 1-3. Individuals, institutions, and production units involved in Case I
LIST 1. INDIVIDUALS A ND THEIR ROLES IN THE PRACTICE
Toyoki Oshima
大島豊樹
Yamanaka Shikki master, decision maker
Taro Oshima
大島太郎
Prod uction coor dinator
Ryoz o Kawakita
川北良造
Kiji master, Living National Treasure
Kazuo Satake
佐竹一夫
Kiji master
Kiji apprentice 1
Kiji apprentice 2
Wood turners
Kyushitsu master
Kyushitsu app rentice 1
Kyushitsu app rentice 2
Priming/intermediate coating artisans
Uwanuri master Top co ating artisan
Me Par ticipant and observer
LIST 2. INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTED IN THE PRACTI CE
Ishikawa P refe ctural Technical Training Center for Yamanaka Lacquerware
石川県立山中漆器産業技術センター
Yamanaka Lacquerware Cooper ative Association
山中漆器連合協同組合
Yamanaka Lacquerware Traditional Industry Exhibition Hall
山中漆器伝統産業会館
Yamanaka Society for the Preservation of Wo odworking Technologies
山中木地挽物技術保存会
Kyoto Institute of Tec hnology
京都工芸繊維大学
Japan International Coop eration Agency
独立行政法人国際協力機構
LIST 3. PRODUCTION UNITS INVOLVED IN THE PR ACTICE
Japan Cras Oshima
株式会社大島東太郎商店
Yamanaka Wood and Timber Resources Management Facility
山中木材協同組合連合会
Rokuro No Sato Lathe Workshop
ろくろの里工芸の館
Coating Workshop
株式会社塗工房
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
A
B
C
D
E
F
>>
>>
>>
>>
73
4.2.2
Case II:
Notations
How much Materiality is Needed to Articulate Knowledge?
The following case covers a project conducted in a fairly distinct
scenario. Besides the territory, the culture, and the conditions of the
craft industry in which it took place, the design intention was what
made this project dierent from the previous one. To remind, Case I
reported some practices in which material and non-linguistic symbol
systems facilitated knowledge sharing. Case II also examines mate-
riality and its potential in that regard, but instead of delving into the
representation of already given principles and processes, it describes
a project which focused on localizing them rst.
Informed by ‘Translations’, ‘Notations’ continued to explore the
relation between objects and subjects, as well as the processes by
which their interactions are enabled. The project originated from the
study of Zi zaat, a bamboo craft technique practiced in Hong Kong.
Being overpopulated, mega-centralized, and heterogeneous, the city
and its dynamics inuenced the approach to collaboration in various
ways. From the multiplicity of ideologies to the conuence of dierent
Table 3. Ecology of Practice, Case I: ‘Translations’
INDIVIDUAL S–
INSTITUTIONS
PRODUCTION
UNIT / PLACE
PROCE SS STAGE MATERI AL TO OLS &
EQUIPME NT
MODALITY
1 — B, C
— E, F
Japan Cras
Oshima /
Ishikawa
Planning Initial
discussion
NoneNoneLinguistic
Invitation
1 — B, C
2
— E, F
OrganizingObserv ingLinguistic
and
non-linguistic
1 — B, C Technical
Traini ng
Center /
Ishikawa
Observ ing
and
practicing
MizumeLathe,
carvin g tool s
Non-linguistic
1 — B, C
4 — D
— E, F
Rokuro no
Sato /
Ishikawa
— E, F Studio /
Kyoto
DesigningAnalyzingMizume
and urushi
Annotations
2
— E, F
Japan Cras
Oshima /
Ishikawa
Coding S ketching
too ls, digital
drawing
— E, F Blueprinting
1 — B, C
2
— E, F
Wood
Resources
Mana gement
Facility /
Ishikawa
Woodwo rkingSubstr ateMizumeNo dataLinguistic
2
4 — D
5
6
— E, F
Rokuro no
Sato /
Ishikawa
Codes ,
pencil, sa w,
lathe, carving
too ls, b oiler,
drying un it
Non-linguistic
2
7
— E, F
Coating
Workshop &
Japan Cras
Oshima /
Ishikawa
Lacquer
coating
Priming Urushi Sand pape r,
brushes and
spatulas,
heating unit
2
8
9
— E, F
Intermediate
coating
Grinding
powder,
rice paper,
brushes and
spatulas
2
10
— E, F
Top co ating Codes,
pigment s,
brushes and
spatulas
— E, F
3 — A
7574
urban rhythms, the culture in which this project was inscribed allowed
us to establish a more plural practice, but also one that resulted more
hectic and chaotic.
Context of the Study
‘Notations’ was undertaken during a ve-month mobility program in
Hong Kong. This program was organized in the context of a bilateral
agreement between the Aalto University School of Arts, Design and
Architecture (Finland) and the Hong Kong Design Institute (,
Hong Kong), the purpose of which is to promote institutional coop-
eration, academic interchange, and cross-cultural understanding.
Through this scheme, the HKDI invites overseas scholars to enroll in
educational activities and conduct independent studies advised by
senior academics.
The project was supported by the Vocational Training Council
of Hong Kong and developed within the Visual Arts and Culture
Program at the HKDI’s Depar tment of Design Foundation Studies. Its
practical implementation was made possible through the deliberate
participation of one production unit, two craftspeople, and one exter-
nal collaborator. Before describing the rest of the case and detail-
ing its ecology of practice, a general outlook of the craft industry in
Hong Kong will be provided along with an explanation of the Zi zaat
technique.
Craft Situation in Hong Kong
Hong Kong struggles quite signicantly with the preservation of
traditional craft. It also has a rather short history in practicing proper
measures to do so. The following paragraphs recount how, besides
the politics of its national institutions, the reason for this relies on
cultural factors.
In 2004, the Chinese government ratied the Convention for the
Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, a treaty adopted by
the General Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientic
and Cultural Organization (). Later in the same year, the Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region () gave formal consent to
extend the treaty to its territory. The Convention entered into eect in
2006, after which the HKSAR government instituted the Intangible
Cultural Heritage Oce (, formerly Intangible Cultural Heritage
Unit) to work in compliance with the standards stipulated by the
UNESCO.
The ICHO undertakes all kind of eorts related to the “identi-
cation, documentation, research, preservation, promotion, and trans-
mission of intangible cultural heritage” (Intangible Cultural Heritage
Oce of Hong Kong, 2017, Section 1), where ‘intangible cultural
heritage’ is dened as a body of “practices, representations, expres-
sions, knowledge, [and] skills [...] that communities, groups and, in
some cases, individuals recognize as part of their [culture]” (United
Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization, 2003, Art.
2.1). In conformity with the Convention, certain social practices such
as traditional craftsmanship are also encompassed in the denition.
Following these criteria, the ICHO published the rst Intangible
Cultural Heritage Inventory of Hong Kong in 2014 (Hong Kong
Intangible Cultural Heritage Database, 2014). The publication gathers
a total of four hundred and eighty items illustrative of this asset, from
which more than one hundred are cataloged as ‘traditional crafts’. Zi
zaat products were included in this classication and later incorpo-
rated into the ‘Representative List’ of the inventory. The representa-
tive list comprises twenty items selected on the basis of their need for
urgent safeguarding measures.
As noted above, all eorts to promote and uphold the so-called
intangible heritage may be well ascribed to political agents and robust
institutional apparatuses. However, for the particular case of tradi-
tional crafts, the prognosis does not seem as promising as it should.
The problem appears to be related to ideology more than politics, part-
ly because the local craft culture is not as vivid, but mainly because
most techniques are still practiced with extreme jealousy: tradi-
tionally, master artisans overprotected their working methods and
did not transfer any knowledge to their employees in order to avoid
brain drain (Cheung, 2016), so most apprentices acquired their skills
in secrecy. This impeded the development of proper mechanisms to
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
7776
register and archive data, information, and knowledge related not to
the products, but to the techniques involved in the manufacturing of
these products; it also blocked the permeation of local craft knowl-
edge into the public domain.
On the other hand, when the mainland opened its markets, the
manufacturing costs in Hong Kong increased tremendously. The
made-in-China phenomenon impacted the Hong Kong economy and
brought manifold consequences to its craft industry. This aspect also
inuenced the belief that opting for a career in the eld was not the
brightest decision (Chan & Bok, 2013).
To summarize, while some institutional and political endeav-
ors are undertaken to uphold Hong Kong’s cultural heritage, it is an
ideological stance what maintains craftsmanship in turbulence. As a
result, traditional craft practices are not only suering from cultural
impoverishment, but they are also swiftly fading into obscurity.
Zi Zaat
Zi zaat is the Cantonese equivalent of the Mandarin word zhĭzhá
(roughly translated as ‘paper craft’). The term refers to the Taoist
tradition of building paper gures with supporting structures made of
bamboo. Such gures, namely oral tributes, lanterns, dragons, lion
heads, and egies in general, play an essential role in religious ritu-
als and festivities. Zi zaat objects are burnt as oerings to the deities
or the deceased in temples, graveyards, and other places of Taoist
worship. The practice dates back to the 11th century in China, and it is
believed to have replaced the living oerings used in ancient sacrice
ceremonies. The social purpose of modern Zi zaat is therefore meta-
phorical rather than practical, thus carrying a complex body of cultur-
al, historical, and religious implications.
Its building process resembles a miniature version of traditional
scaolding, perhaps because both practices share a common struc-
tural logic and employ the same main raw material. In Hong Kong,
bamboo ranks as the most widely used scaolding product (Hong
Kong Construction Industry Council, 2017). Its supply is therefore
constant and involves the participation of numerous industries. From
harvesting to construction, bamboo represents a protable commodi-
ty due to its fast growing pace and outstanding mechanical properties.
The material is hence widespread throughout the Chinese territory; it
is not only found in groves or farmlands but also routinely observed in
the urban context.
It is of no surprise that bamboo is largely used in craft products as
well. Since its origin, the practice of Zi zaat took great advantage of its
properties, developing a materially aordable technique that mainly
relied on manual labor and did not necessitate the intervention of any
sophisticated technology. The production of Zi zaat artifacts, howev-
er, is nowadays a fading tradition which seems neither economical-
ly rewarding nor environmentally sustainable (Chan & Bok, 2013).
Nonetheless, the craft has managed to survive and maintain its origi-
nal production process practically intact.
The process, as learned through rst-hand experience, consists of
three major stages: (1) cutting, (2) shaping and assembling the structure,
and (3) covering the structure with paper. The following list describes
each of the steps involved in them. Note that the third stage is not
described because the present case focuses only on the production of
the bamboo structures.
1 Cutting: preparing the bamboo strips.
— The bamboo is extracted and set aside to dry. No special
treatment is required because the artifacts are not intend-
ed to be long-lasting.
— A blade is used to cut the culms into at strips. Regardless
of the scale of the desired object, the strips are invaria-
bly about ve millimeters wide and one millimeter thick;
these features are predetermined by the cutting tools.
— Once cut, the edges are sanded to prevent splintering.
— The strips are trimmed according to the length, or recti-
ed length in the case of arcs, of each part specied in the
design. Although designing Zi zaat items does not entail
a systematic process, bamboo masters use drawings and
similar media to visualize all parts within the whole and
dene an assembly sequence. Due to the lack of further
systematization, this step takes a long time and is often
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
7978
performed on a trial and error basis.
2 Shaping and assembling: joining the strips together to build
the supporting structure of the egy.
— Once all parts have been trimmed, each one is numbered
according to the assembly sequence. Usually, every part
is dierent from the next one, so this sequence is deter-
mined intuitively and does not follow any predetermined
rules, patterns, or standardized conventions.
— All parts are pre-shaped before assembly. Pre-shaping is
achieved by carefully bending the strips by hand. Common
shapes include straight lines, arcs, and open curves; but
circles, ellipses, and other types of closed loops are pre-
ferred. Unlike open parts, closed loops make the assem-
bly easier because they already form two-dimensional g-
ures. When they are intersected, a three-dimensional ge-
ometry is produced, giving structural support to the object
and making it gradually steadier.
— To form a closed loop, the strip is bent so that both of its
ends overlap in an area of about two to three centimeters.
The contact area is bound with glue and fastened with rice
paper thread. To strengthen the joint, the same thread is
used to tie a knot around it. This procedure is made by
hand and occasionally assisted with a plier.
— Before assembling dierent parts together, a pencil mark
is traced on the strips where the joints will be located. Each
joint follows the same principle: gluing the contact area,
fastening the pieces together, and tying a knot. Two main
types of joints are employed: (a) binding the edge of one
strip to any point within the length of the other, and (b)
binding two strips by intersecting them at any point but
their edges. The orientation of the strips in a joint follows
no particular logic; however, perpendicular arrangements
are prevalent.
— The construction of the piece continues with the sequence
described earlier, yet each part needs test-tting before
gluing. As this step is also performed on a trial and error
basis, it is not uncommon to improvise. Completion time
varies according to the size and diculty of the design.
Once the structure is nished, paper coverings can be
immediately applied to it.
Project Description, Ecolog of Practice, and Data Set
As reported previously, Zi zaat relies primarily on manual skills and
often resorts to improvisation. The technique itself favors intuition
over rationality (cf. Schön, 1983), resulting in a generally loose prac-
tice which hardly allows systematic thinking. Establishing a collabo-
ration with Zi zaat artisans was thus expectedly tricky. As in the previ-
ous case, language barriers and the absence of verbal communication
worsened the situation. The lack of a systematized practice, however,
brought greater diculties: organizing work became the most serious
challenge faced throughout the project.
Cases I and II describe similar projects dealing with the develop-
ment of non-linguistic symbol systems. Still, the dierence between
them needs to be claried: in the previous project, a series of pre-
identied concepts were translated into codes to communicate prin-
ciples and processes related to the practice in question, whereas in the
present one, no concepts could be abstracted because no convention
existed about the practice in the rst place. The project led to a thor-
ough study of the technique, followed by a conceptualization phase in
which this aspect was countered. The focus, then, was not represent-
ing but localizing entities to later assign them meanings by conven-
tion. As the name suggests, ‘Notations’ resulted in the development
of a codication system intended to express, classify, and quantify the
components and procedures involved in the making of specic Zi zaat
objects.
Using the same structure as in the previous case, the following
paragraphs describe the course of the project, detail its ecology of
practice, and set the bases for a subsequent analysis. Further, Chapter
5 distills the ndings and provides relevant insights related to the sub-
question raised in the present case: how much materiality is needed to
articulate knowledge?
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
8180
The project did not run as smoothly as I would have hoped. Given
the current outlook of craft in Hong Kong, not many facts about the
industry could be gathered during my visiting period at the HKDI.
Finding opportunities to organize workshop visits and on-site explora-
tions constituted a dicult task as well. After several failed attempts,
I eventually managed to spot some workshops and plan a few eld
trips. Among all places visited, the one that drew my interest was Bo
Wah Paper Craft, a Zi zaat production unit located deep in the district
of Sham Shui Po, an area predominantly inhabited by working-class
citizens and immigrants from mainland China.
Bo Wah began operations in 1963, when master craftsman Wai-Kin
Au-Yeung founded an egy shop to seize the booming business of Zi
zaat. Nowadays, the establishment is run by his son Ping-Chi, and
it is one of the last standing businesses of its kind. Even though Zi
zaat has slowly become an obscure industry, Ping-Chi has managed
to maintain a well-reputed Bo Wah, recognizing that innovation is
much needed in order to keep its heritage alive. Ping-Chi obtained a
degree in design, but opted to take up his father’s craft. In acknowl-
edging innovation as the key to survival, he has gained recognition for
being open to work on unconventional projects, as well as for using his
design abilities to amaze his customers.
During my rst visit to the workshop, I approached Ping-Chi to
learn more about the technique. However, an immovable language
barrier impeded communication. I soon realized that my intention
was not even being understood, and the only thing I could think of
at that moment was the need for translation. As my knowledge of the
politics of craft in Hong Kong was limited, I was aware that even a
change of modality would not allow me to understand certain cultur-
al aspects embedded in it. So, instead of recurring to the method
employed in Japan, I decided to look for an interpreter. This process
was also complicated; fortunately, I could nd a timely solution.
Phoebe Hui, an HKDI scholar and interdisciplinary artist working in
the intersection of language and technology, oered a helping hand.
After she became fully acquainted with the objectives of the project,
we planned a workshop visit to communicate them to the craftsman.
By the time communication was established, I had already stud-
ied the technique via other sources, e.g. visits to other workshops and
intensive online searches (for reference, see Multimedia Information
System of Hong Kong Public Libraries, 2017). Practically speaking,
the project started during the conceptualization phase. The collabora-
tion began in October of 2017 and lasted for three months. ‘Notations’
involved the participation of two artisans, Wai-Kin and Ping-Chi,
and the interpreter, Phoebe, who also performed as an external advi-
sor. The practice took place in two separate settings: the workshop in
Sham Shui Po, located in the Kowloon Peninsula at the southern end
of the mainland, and a studio, located in the Southern District of the
Hong Kong Island.
The project saw the development of a notation method for basic
Zi zaat objects. Originally started as an alphabet, it evolved into a vis-
ual system for representing the components required to build stand-
ardized shapes. To make this system possible, a set of parameters
was used to dene object properties such as width, height, radius, arc
length, and space between components. Two values, minimum and
maximum, were assigned to each property, producing bi-dimensional
parts formed of straight lines, arcs, and a combination of the two (Fig.
8). All possible assemblages between parts were visualized in tables
organized by type of part and type of joint, resulting in an assem-
bly matrix for three-dimensional objects. Numerous gures were
blueprinted following these criteria and Ping-Chi prototyped ve of
them in bamboo: a wheel, a column, a frustum, a dome, and a bullet
(Kowloon Series, Fig. 9).
By doing so, it became possible to methodize the assembly
sequence, classify similar parts and processes, and quantify the
components and procedures required to build each gure. In other
words, apart from delivering tangible outcomes, the collaboration
yielded technical knowledge in the form of codied data (Fig. 10).
Coding allowed to express basic gures in a systematized manner,
whereas producing them in tangible form aorded a simple yet varied
palette to speculate on objects of greater complexity. Altogether, the
results could sample the constructive potential of the technique and
synthesize the material lexicon of Zi zaat into an archetypal craft
language.
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
Figure 8. Two-dimensional parts formed of lines and arcs Figure 9. Kowloon Series. Photography by Nils Håkon
85
The process was thoroughly documented. An extensive photo-
graphic record and over eighty minutes of video were captured from
this project. Lists 4-6 enumerate the individuals, institutions, and
production units involved in the project. Further, Table 4 details the
ecology of practice described throughout the case. For a more com-
prehensive visual documentation of the project, refer to Appendix 2 at
the end of this book.
Methods and data
Figure 10. Notations for some of the objects presented in Fig. 9
87
4.2.3
Case III:
Variations
How can Materially Articulated Knowledge be Reproduced?
Case III describes a project developed with a glassblower in Finland.
At rst glance, this case may appear homologous to its precedent one.
However, the projects covered in each case dier in their approach
towards articulation. The previous project aimed at codifying techni-
cal knowledge to facilitate the production of artifacts. This one, in
contrast, concentrated on the skills needed to reproduce such techni-
cal knowledge through the production of artifacts. In other words, the
focus escalated from organizing technical facts to capturing embodied
knowledge.
Although this study was as challenging as the former two, its work
setting was much more favorable. In the rst place, all communica-
tion was held in English. The absence of language barriers enabled
dialogue beyond mere verbalization. Additionally, the practice was
conducted in a university context, which did not only provide state-
of-the-art facilities but also a proper milieu for experimentation.
Table 4. Ecology of Practice, Case II: ‘Notations’
Lists 4-6. Individuals, institutions, and production units involved in Case II
INDIVIDUAL S–
INSTITUTIONS
PRODUCTION
UNIT / PLACE
PROCE SS STAGE MATERI AL TO OLS &
EQUIPME NT
MODALITY
1 — A
— A
Bo Wah
Paper Cra /
Kowloo n
Peninsula
Planning Initial
discussion
NoneNoneLinguistic
1 — A
3
— A
Interpretation
2
3
Authorizing Decision-
making
No dataNo data
3
— A
OrganizingObserv ing
and
practicing
Bamboo Writing and
sketching
too ls
Non-linguistic
— A Studio /
Southern
District
DesigningAnalyzingAnnotations
3
— A
Bo Wah
Paper Cra /
Kowloo n
Peninsula
Coding S ketching
too ls, digital
drawing
— A Studio /
Southern
District
Blueprinting
3
— A
Bo Wah
Paper Cra /
Kowloo n
Peninsula
PrototypingCutting Codes, blades
and kni ves,
pliers, paper
string, glue
Shaping and
assembling
LIST 4. INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR ROL ES IN THE PRACTIC E
Phoebe Hui Interpreter
Wai-Kin Au -Yeung
歐陽偉乾
Bamboo master, decision maker
Ping-Chi Au-Yeung
歐陽秉志
Bamboo master
Me Par ticipant and observer
LIST 5. INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTE D LIST 6. PRODUCTION UNITS INVO LVED
Hong Kong Design Institute
香港知專設計學院
Bo Wah Pa per Cra
寶華扎作
A >>
1
2
3
8988
Context of the study
‘Variations’ originated as an independent project during the course
of my master’s degree studies at the Aalto University in Finland. The
project was advised by lecturer Heikki Määttänen and made possible
with the cooperation of lecturer and glass artist Kazushi Nakada. All
tasks performed throughout the study took place at the Lasistudio
(literally ‘Glass Studio’) of the School of Arts, Design and Architecture
in Helsinki. As in the previous cases, a general overview of the practice
will be provided before giving any details about the project.
Glass Working in Finland
Unlike the two techniques described earlier, glass working is not
indigenous to any particular region or cultural territory. Nonetheless,
the style of the practice varies from place to place, resulting in technical
features and artistic manifestations which are either a consequence of
the technologies available or a mirror of cultural phenomena. As the
present case covers a glass project developed in Finland, the style in
focus is that of Scandinavian glass blowing. Although Finland does not
geographically belong to Scandinavia, such is the technical name of
the style taught and practiced in the country.
Glass design played an important role in shaping Finnish culture
(for a historical overview of Finnish design, see Korvenmaa, 2009).
With its origins heavily rooted in craft, design in Finland emerged
from the professionalization of applied arts. The history of Finnish
design narrates the gradual achievement of one national identity
championed by the cooperation of institutions and industries, in which
education and formal training in the eld constituted the essential
pillars. The key moment in this narration is perhaps the establishment
of the Craft School in 1871, which was later known as the University of
Art and Design Helsinki and incorporated into the Aalto University as
the School of Arts, Design and Architecture in 2010.
The professionalization of applied arts and crafts did not only
bring new industries, markets, and labor forces; it also propelled
the concept of ‘Finland’ within the continental Europe scene. In
reinforcing its presence at international fairs and world exhibitions,
the country attained the legitimacy of its design as both a discipli-
nary practice and a disciplinary culture. The latter aspect led to the
consecration of national heroes such as Alvar Aalto, Kaj Franck, Tapio
Wirkkala, and Timo Sarpaneva, all of whose work supported the
strengthening of nationalistic values and eventually became part of
the repertoire of classic Finnish design, including that of glass.
Even though arts and crafts left an important legacy for design-
ers, glassblowing practices in Finland operated in a strict industrial
design tradition: it was the designers who blueprinted the products
and the factory workers who executed them, not really allowing the
glass scene to mature as a craft. Despite the emergence of various
cultural movements which could have been inuential in changing
this paradigm (e.g. the North-american Studio Glass Movement of
the 60s), glass design in Finland continued to develop under the same
designer-to-industry basis.
Finnish design schools kept graduating professional designers,
and the major glass production centers in Finland continued to train
highly skilled glassblowers. However, the fragmentation of design
into multiple subdisciplines (Korvenmaa, 2009), added to the poor in-
tegration of designing and making, got the glass industry into trouble.
With “factories closing down and schools being uncertain about their
future” (van der Lei & Mavrostomos, 2014, p. 7), both the industry and
the academia have now acknowledged that the future of glass may
rely on collaboration.
Freehand Glass Blowing
Glass working can be classied into two general categories: cold and
hot work. The rst involves handling glass at room temperature, includ-
ing techniques such as cutting, grinding, engraving, and polishing.
Hot work, in turn, consists in manipulating the material at its plastic
temperature. Depending on its composition, glass liquies at approxi-
mately 1500 ºC and can be manipulated as the heat slowly decreases
(Aoyagi, 2002). Blowing, which means inating molten glass through
a blowpipe, constitutes the most common hot work method. Freehand
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
9190
glass blowing, or free-blowing, in contrast to mold-blowing, consists
in the transformation of the material by using hand tools instead of
casting methods. Freehand techniques are also more in line with the
craft philosophy than with the industrial design tradition.
Blowing red-hot glass freehand demands advanced skills and the
use of specialized instruments. As mentioned earlier, working styles
vary from place to place. What distinguishes Scandinavian glass-
blowing from other techniques is the way of using certain tools, which
also depends on how the work setting is organized. To facilitate the
comprehension of the freehand blowing process, a representative list
of the equipment and tools employed in this project will be presented
rst (for a detailed overview of these and other glassblowing tools, see
Aoyagi, 2002; Corning Museum of Glass, 1980). The list encompasses
the following:
1 Equipment:
—Furnace: an enclosed structure where previously prepared
batches of glass are charged and gradually heated. Furnaces
are equipped with large pots, called crucibles, from which
the molten glass is gathered.
—Glory hole: another furnace for reheating the glass when
needed.
—Annealer: an oven-like structure for cooling down nished
pieces and preventing cracks or breaks caused by thermal
stress. The process of cooling down a nished piece is re-
ferred to as annealing.
2 Tools:
— Gathering irons and blowing pipes: iron rods for gathering
glass and blowing it through. Both tools are about one
meter and twenty centimeters long, with the only dier-
ence that blowing pipes are hollow. When the glass is gath-
ered from the crucible, the piece to be blown is held from
the end of the pipe. A special type of iron, called pontil, is
used to transfer the glass from the pipe when the opposite
side of the piece needs to be worked.
—Marver: a table-like surface made of steel or brass. Marvers
are at areas for rolling and smoothening gathered glass
before blowing it.
—bench: the main workstation. Here, the glassblower sits
and organizes the rest of the hand tools. Benches are about
one meter wide and have two parallel rails in which the
blowing iron can roll back and forth.
—block: a solid, water-soaked piece of wood with a round
concave section and a handle. This ladle-like tool is used
to smoothen the glass, make its shape even, and help pre-
forming the object.
—jack: a large, tweezer-like tool with two parallel blades.
Jacks are used for shaping the object by pressing, stretch-
ing, and widening the glass piece.
—puer: a thin blowing conduit with a conical spout. Puers
are used to blow glass pieces which are already transferred
into pontils.
—caliper: a metal instrument with two hinged, adjustable
legs. Calipers are used for measuring the object and verify-
ing its size and proportion.
—shears and blades: cutting instruments mainly used for for
trimming the glass piece but also employed to make stress
marks on it.
— other tools and safety wear include heat-resistant gloves,
eyeglasses, and protective sleeves.
Free-blowing relies on a combination of dexterity and creativi-
ty. The process is highly performative and therefore enables reec-
tion-in-action (Schön, 1983). The possibilities of the technique are
thus practically endless. The following list describes the basic steps
for blowing a sphere and transforming it into a predetermined de-
sign (Fig. 11). As the title of this project suggests, the rest of the arti-
facts produced through the collaboration constitute variations of this
predetermined design. Therefore, their fabrication employs the same
tools and follows a similar process.
1 Blowing a sphere:
— The blowing pipe is introduced into the crucible to gather
a lump of molten glass. The glass is gathered by rotating
the blowing pipe until enough material accumulates and
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
93
sticks to the end of the rod. The pipe needs continuous and
uniform rotation at all times to prevent the red-hot glass
from dripping o.
— The gathered lump is evened and smoothened by rolling
the end of the rod over the marver.
— Once the lump becomes a uniform mass, the blower moves
to the bench and continues rolling the pipe on its rails with
the left hand. The right hand is used to manipulate the rest
of the tools.
— The glass is blown through the pipe, producing a small
bubble that will be evened with the lower end of the jack.
This process is repeated until more glass is needed.
— A second layer of glass is gathered from the furnace. The
blower moves back to the bench and shapes the resulting
lump with the block. In some cases, a piece of wet news-
paper can be used to smoothen the glass as well. Rotation
continues at all times by rolling the rod back and forth; the
blower’s body moves accordingly. The process of gathering
additional layers of glass can be repeated as many times
as necessary.
— The glass is blown through the pipe again, this time pro-
ducing a much larger bubble. Its diameter depends on the
amount of glass gathered and the pressure applied while
blowing. Its length, in turn, depends on the inclination of
the pipe. The bubble can be elongated by gravity and de-
formed by centrifugal motion; therefore, consistent rota-
tion, full control of one’s bodily movements, and atten-
tion to external forces are very much required to achieve a
uniform sphere. The resulting piece consists of three main
sections: (1) the mouth, which covers the area attached to
the rod; (2) the body, which includes the hollow part of the
bubble; and (3) the bottom, which comprises the round
end of the glass and generally becomes the base of the -
nal object.
— Once the bubble is formed, the piece is smoothened with
the block and tightened with the jack at its mouth end.
Methods and data
Figure 11. A drawing of the predetermined design
9594
— Finally, a constriction is made to close the sphere and help
the blower knock it o the pipe.
2 Transforming the sphere into the predetermined design:
— The design is usually presented to the glassblower in the
form of drawings or sketches. The object is measured with
the caliper directly from the drawing.
— Before shaping the object, the sphere needs to be trans-
ferred to a pontil. This task is assisted by a second blower
or a workshop apprentice.
— The piece is turned around by attaching it to the pontil and
releasing it from the blowing pipe. At this point, the glass
has started to cool down and needs to be reheated in the
glory hole.
— As the glass recovers its plasticity, the blower moves back
to the bench and uses the jack to open the constriction.
With continuous rotation, the sphere is slowly widened
until it becomes the desired object. This process is called
aring and also consists in smoothening the edges of the
piece.
— Depending on the complexity of the design, different
combinations of re-gathering, reheating, reshaping, and
aring may be needed. If the design demands additional
blowing, the puer is used for this purpose. Throughout
the process, the caliper is used to verify the proportions of
the piece as specied in the design. Shears and blades are
used for trimming excess material.
— Once the piece is achieved, a new constriction is made so
that the glass can be knocked o the pontil.
— The piece is released from the iron rod directly into the
annealer. Depending on the size of the piece and the type
of glass used, annealing time may vary from a few hours
to a few days.
— After annealing, the piece is ready for cold work, which
may include grinding any pontil mark, sanding the edges,
and polishing the piece.
Project Description, Ecolog of Practice, and Data Set
As reported earlier, free-blowing is a complex activity that requires the
integration of technical and embodied knowledge. The act of blowing
glass emulates an intricate choreography in which the correct inter-
play of time and motion is essential to deliver successful outcomes.
With the objective of capturing such embodied knowledge, this
project examined the production process of a series of artifacts blown
by glass artist Kazushi Nakada. The following paragraphs describe
the course of the project, detail its ecology of practice, and set the
bases for a subsequent analysis. Findings from this case, reported in
Chapter 5, provide a response to the sub-question at issue: How can
materially articulated knowledge be reproduced?
The project was planned in January of 2017 and carried out from
March to May of the next year. Even though all the hot work was
completed in less than ninety minutes, other processes such as taking
an introductory glass course, familiarizing with the tools, discuss-
ing preliminary ideas, conceptualizing the design, conducting the
post-production phase (i.e. the cold work), assessing the outcomes,
and reecting upon the practice made the project much longer. The
rst stages focused on establishing communication and dening the
objectives, after which several glassblowing sessions were organized.
During the hot work, the starting point, as expressed in Fig. 11
(page 92), consisted in shaping a cylindrical body with a hemispheri-
cal bottom. The shape of this object was determined by two parame-
ters: (1) a radius value, applicable to both the spherical and cylindrical
sections; and (2) the length of the cylinder, which equaled its radius. In
practice, the rst condition would be achieved with the correct blow-
ing pressure, and the second would result from the interplay of gravity
and the shaping skills of the blower. Although arbitrary, the restriction
of such parameters allowed a systematic study of the blowing process.
Several iterations of the initial object were blueprinted, all of them
composed of dierent arrangements of the same cylinder and the
same sphere (Fig. 12). Seven of these objects were blown by Kazushi,
from which ve resulted in successful outcomes (Helsinki Series, Fig.
13). The blowing process was captured on video, facilitating a visual
objects of KnowIng Methods and data
97
record of the bodily movements required to achieve each piece. The
tools utilized and their relationship with motion were also registered.
This led to the development of a notated representation of the whole
blowing process, in which tools and embodiments could be visual-
ized as a continuous workow in time. As a result, the project saw
the production of artifacts along with a visual score indicating how to
execute the initial glass piece and its variations (Fig. 14).
Lists 7-9 report the individuals, institutions, and production
units involved in the project. Further, Table 5 organizes the ecology of
practice described throughout the case. For a more comprehensive
visual documentation of the project, refer to Appendix 3 at the end
of this book.
Methods and data
Figure 12. Variations of the predetermined design shown in Fig. 11
99
Figure 13. Helsinki Series. Photography by Ayaka Inoue
Figure 14. Score for one variation of the predetermined design Table 5. Ecology of Practice, Case III: ‘Variations’
Lists 7-9. Individuals, institutions, and production units involved in Case III
LIST 7. INDIVIDUALS A ND THEIR ROLES IN THE PRACTICE
Kazushi NakadaGlass artist, workshop master
Apprentice 1Blowing appr entice, workshop assistant
Me Par ticipant and observer
LIST 8. INSTITUTIONS REPRESENTEDLIST 9. PRODUCTION UNITS INVOLVED
Aalto UniversityLasistudio
1
2
A >>
INDIVIDUALS–
INSTITUTIONS
PRODUCTION
UNIT / PLACE
PROCE SS STAGE MATERI AL TO OLS &
EQUIPME NT
MODALITY
1 — A
— A
Lasistudio /
Helsinki
Planning Initial
discussion
NoneNoneLinguistic
OrganizingIntroduction
to the
work shop
Glass Furnace ,
marver, ir ons,
pipes, bench,
bloc ks, jacks,
glory hole,
annealer,
puffer, caliper,
shears, safety
wear
Taking
glassblowing
lessons Non-linguistic
— A Blowing
DesigningAnalyzingAnnotations
1 — A
— A
Coding S ketching
too ls, digital
drawing
— A Blueprinting
1 — A
— A
Executing
‹H ot wo rk ›
Blowing Code s,
furnace, iro ns,
pipes, pontils,
bench, blocks,
jacks,
glory hole,
annealer,
puffer, caliper,
shears, safety
wear
1 — A
2 — A
— A
Shaping
— A VisualizingAnalyzingNone Codes , video
record ings,
annotations,
sketches
1 — A
— A
Re-coding
— A Rendering
the score
Digital
drawing
Studio /
Helsinki
103102
4.3
Data Interpretation
Criteria
Cases IIII yielded a vast amount of data. One of the major challeng-
es of this study consisted in dening the direction of the analysis and
prioritizing certain types of data over others. As explained in Chapter
2, the research design draws on Practice Theory (Bourdieu, 1977;
Giddens, 1984; Schatzki, 2001; Wenger, 1998), Actor-network Theory
(Latour, 2005), and Knowledge Creation Theory (Håkanson, 2007;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995) to propose conceptual devices such as ecol-
ogies of practice and articulation mechanisms. All of these were indeed
useful in delimiting the research and seemed promising for analyz-
ing the cases. The next paragraphs explain how I utilized one of these
conceptual devices to dene the units of analysis and proceed with the
interpretation of data.
Units of Analysis
As the subtitle of this thesis suggests, what the present research
intends to analyze is the practice of collaborative craft. To that end,
a potential unit of analysis could have been what I had dened as an
ecology of practice. Wor th to remind, an ecology of practice concerns
the ecosystems in which practice is embedded. These include the
natural and human-made environments, infrastructures, interfaces,
networks, and mediums of transaction that enable the entanglement
of objects and subjects in collaborative craft processes.
Utilizing this conceptual device seemed appropriate because it
would have allowed the organization of multiple types of data in a
unied manner. However, the data evidenced that the ecologies of
practice reported in the study entailed collaborative as well as non-
collaborative activity. To clarify, non-collaborative activity compris-
es either individual processes or group processes where labor was
divided instead of integrated. To provide a coherent study and facili-
tate its interpretation, I decided to narrow down the units of analysis
from whole ecologies of practice to specic collaborative moments
occurring within such ecologies. As Yin advises, “the more a study
contains specic propositions, the more it will stay within feasible
limits” (1984, p. 22).
The ecologies of practice reported throughout Cases IIII (as
illustrated in Tables 3, 4, and 5; in pages 72, 86, and 101, respectively)
consisted of the following elements: individuals, institutions repre-
sented by individuals, manufacturing units, natural environments,
geographical settings, processes, stages within processes, materials
handled, tools and equipment used, and modalities employed. To
procure a more consistent analysis, I re-specied the units of analy-
sis as those moments of practice which fullled all of the following
criteria:
i A material was handled during a process or a stage within a
process,
ii this material was handled by two or more individuals
including myself,
iii the handling of this material entailed collaborative activity
beyond a mere division of labor, and
iv this collaborative activity occurred only in non-linguistic
modalities.
Any other moment not complying with these standards was
automatically excluded from the scope of the analysis. Although all
METHODS AND DATA
104
Tacit-to-tacit conversion
i.e. Socialization and Documentation
Tacit-to-explicit conversion
i.e. Externalization and Reflection
Production of Artifacts
i.e. Yamanaka Series, Kowloon Series,
and Helsinki Series
T•T
T•E
POA
stages in each project contributed to the formation of knowledge and
allowed other processes to emerge, the core of this thesis resides in
the moments where articulation resulted from collaborative prac-
tice. Additional elements such as institutions, geographies, or tools
were not completely discarded because, in any case, they remained
embedded in individuals, materials, and the outcomes produced.
Data Synthesis
The aforementioned criteria permitted me to extract the collaborative
moments of each project and identify the processes of socialization,
externalization (Nonaka, 1994; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), documen-
tation, and reection (Mäkelä & Nimkulrat, 2011) occurring between
individuals. Table 6 synthesizes the data collected from the study
and highlights some patterns encountered throughout the cases. It
is worth to note that the formation of codes (externalization) took
place during these collaborative moments and occurred after other
shared activities such as observing, practicing, recording evidence
and making annotations (socialization and documentation). In all
cases, the resulting artifacts were materialized based on their preced-
ing codes, which conrms that collaborative craft practices can yield
codied knowledge besides material outcomes (see Fig. 3 on page 37).
Even though codication does not equal articulation, it is the forma-
tion of codes what allows knowledge to be articulated (Håkanson,
2007). To this end, common codes stem from previously acquired and
recorded knowledge, and they enable articulation through conscien-
tious, shared thinking (reection).
objects of KnowIng
Table 6. Data synthesis
INDIVIDUAL S STAGE OF THE PROCESS M ATER IA L MODALITY
Toyoki Oshima, R yozo
Kawa kita, and me
Observ ing and
practicing
Mizume Non-linguistic
Toyoki and Taro Oshima,
Ryoz o Kawakita, and me
Taro Oshima and me C odingMizume and urushi
Taro Oshima, Kazuo
Satake, the Kiji
apprentices, and me
Substrate
Taro Oshima, the
Kyushitsu master, and me
Priming
Taro Oshima, the
Kyushitsu apprentices,
and me
Intermediate
coating
Taro Oshima, the
Uwanuri master, and me
Top co ating
CASE I: TRANSL ATIO NS
T•T
T•E
POA
POA
POA
POA
INDIVIDUAL S STAGE OF THE PROCESS M ATER IA L MODALITY
Ping-Chi Au-Yeung
and me
Observ ing and
practicing
BambooNon-linguistic
Coding
Shaping and
assembling
CASE II: NOTATIONS
T•T
T•E
POA
CASE III : VARI ATI ON S
INDIVIDUAL S STAGE OF THE PROCESS M ATER IA L MODALITY
Kazushi Nakada and m e Glassblowing
lessons
Glass Non-linguistic
Practicing
Coding
Kazushi Nakada, the
blowing app rentice,
and me
Blowing
ShapingKazushi Nakada and m e
T•T
T•T
T•E
POA
POA
5
Findings
109108
This thesis aimed at identifying the type of knowledge that can be ar-
ticulated through collaborative craft. The study covered three projects
undertaken in dierent settings where collaborative and non-collab-
orative stages took place. The research ndings suggest that the type
of knowledge articulated through collaboration diers greatly from
that articulated in non-collaborative contexts. Additionally, the study
proved the signicance of materiality as a vehicle for non-verbal ex-
pression, especially when communication was obstructed by cultural
or linguistic dissimilarities.
Rather than presenting craft and design as two separate realms,
the approach towards collaboration strives to integrate them into a
single ecology of practice. Nevertheless, a distinction between the
dominant skills of a craftsperson and those of a designer needs to be
pinpointed for two reasons. First, this thesis refers to collaborative
craft as a practice involving the participation of individuals with dif-
ferent, perhaps complementary skills. Only after distinguishing the
dierences between such skills could I answer the research question.
Second, my role in the study favored analysis over creation. Although
I did participate in the study as a maker, I primarily performed as a
designer-researcher. Therefore, this thesis illustrates the interpreta-
tion of data from a situated perspective and does not necessarily re-
ect the views of a craftsperson.
The following paragraphs highlight the main nding of the study
and respond to the general research question. Successively, the next
pages summarize additional ndings and provide complementary
insights by answering the sub-questions formulated in each case.
What Type of Knowledge can be Articulated through Collaborative Craft?
Articulation between two or more individuals can only occur if they
share a common tacit knowledge. In the context of craft alone, knowl-
edge sharing happens through the socialization of skills. The act of
making constitutes the primary means by which craftspeople share
their abilities. Therefore, observation, imitation, and repetition, all of
them constitutive of apprenticeship processes, represent quintessen-
tial forms of socialization in craft. When these processes take place,
tacit knowledge remains tacit while being transferred from one indi-
vidual to another, yet it may become explicit through the materializa-
tion of artifacts. In the context of collaborative craft, tacit knowledge
is also shared through socialization, and it also remains tacit when
transferred from one individual to another. However, collaborative
craft necessitates explication before materialization, so tacit knowl-
edge does not become explicit through artifacts but through codes
that facilitate their production.
The dierence between codes and artifacts is that coding implies
the representation of objects, whereas producing an artifact entails
the manipulation of objects already represented by codes, even if such
codes are not explicit. As asserted by Goel (2005, p. 127), designers
deal with representations of the world, while craftspeople manipulate
the world itself (see also Dormer, 1997, p. 18). Integrating both ways of
knowing presupposes a work approach that opposes hierarchical or-
ganization. Hence, socialization between craftspeople and designers
allows richer transfer processes than socialization between craftspeo-
ple and their apprentices. In other words, since craftspeople and de-
signers handle objects dierently, their exchange of tacit knowledge
happens dialectically.
To exemplify these ideas and relate them to the notions of non-
collaborative and collaborative activity, I will refer to two events ex-
tracted from Case I:
1 During my visit to the technical training center in Yamanaka,
Mr. Kawakita taught me how to turn a wooden bowl on the
lathe. I rst observed how he did it and then tried to turn the
bowl myself. Even though I did not absorb his skills by imitat-
ing him, I understood the type of dexterity required to fashion
that specic artifact. By looking-and-learning, I could internal-
ize new knowledge. However, I could not externalize anything
since my role was that of an apprentice. A vertical hierarchy
was very much evident, partly due to the institutional context,
but also because I was only reproducing a series of implicit
codes pre-established by him. Further, the exact shape to be
achieved was not represented anywhere; I just had a mental
image informed by the piece he had made earlier.
objects of KnowIng fIndIngs
111110
2 Before the design stage, most of the activities took place at the
woodturning workshop in the lathe village. By then, Mr. Satake
had already agreed to join the project, and instead of seeing
me as an apprentice, he thought of me as a collaborator. This
allowed us to share our tacit knowledge in a two-sided way. He
used his tools to manipulate the material and I used drawings
to suggest alternative methods of manipulation. I did not gain
his embodied skills and he did not acquire my representa-
tion abilities either, but we were able to create shared mental
images before manifesting them materially. In that sense, our
common tacit knowledge did not capture knowledge about
making artifacts. Instead, it revealed knowledge about the
conceivability of making such artifacts.
The rst example narrates how tacit knowledge was transferred
vertically, whereas the second recounts a process in which socializa-
tion occurred transversely. Most of the practices in this and the other
two projects procured the same transversal dynamics. The three cases
evidenced that transversality does not merely permit horizontal ex-
changes, but it recognizes knowledge as a multidimensional entity. In
other words, while apprenticeship focuses on the vertical transmis-
sion of skills within a xed disciplinary setting, collaborative practices
allow the socialization of ideas, mindsets, and attitudes beyond hier-
archies and across disciplinary cultures.
Case III, for instance, covered a project aiming to capture the
embodied knowledge and skills of a master glassblower. That could
have happened if I had spent years of practice to absorb the skills of
the master, and if the master had allowed me to access his knowledge
in the rst place. What happened instead exemplies the propositions
made earlier in this chapter and claries the answer to the research
question.
Kazushi kindly organized an introductory course for me. I could
grasp the basic notions of glassblowing by taking the course and expe-
riencing the process myself. I did not acquire enough embodied skills
to materialize my own design intentions, but I gained another type of
knowledge by trying to do so. Observing Kazushi allowed me to under-
stand the relationship between motion and shape in glassblowing,
and practicing led me to reckon the tremendous diculty of enacting
such relationship with my own body. Only after comprehending the
latter aspect could I externalize my design intentions. However, this
externalization did not occur through practice. As a matter of fact, it
happened through codes representing embodied actions elucidated
by practice. Such codes were tacitly shared between us and later
articulated in the form of a score.
The score produced in Case III does not really serve as a guide to
execute a glass piece, and it may be incomprehensible to people who
did not participate in the project. However, its utility resides in the
fact that it comprises a designerly way (see e.g. Cross, 1982, 2001) of
understanding a process and externalizing the tacit knowledge that
surrounds it. During the practice, the very idea of producing a score
allowed us to create a common code to articulate the glassblowing
process without having to perform it at the same time (cf. Schön,
1983). We thus could use our imagination and create shared mental
images of how to execute new pieces. As Scharmer insists, “imagina-
tion holds images of not-yet-fully embodied realities” (2000, p. 37),
so their explication shall not be attained through shared praxis but
through shared reection (cf. Mäkelä and Nimkulrat, 2011, p. 8).
The analyses from this case, along with those of the previous ones,
suggest that the type of knowledge that can be articulated through
collaborative craft is that of not-yet-embodied tacit knowledge. As
elaborated before, such type of knowing does not capture skills about
making artifacts but rather reveals knowledge about the conceivabil-
ity of using such skills to make artifacts. While embodied knowledge
deals with the ability to do things, not-yet-embodied knowledge deals
with the originating sources of doing them (Scharmer, 2000), mean-
ing that, in collaborative practices, the production of artifacts is not
the primary means by which articulation is attained.
Craft and design scholars have largely discussed the impact of arti-
facts in knowledge creation, especially in the context of practice-led
research. For instance, Nimkulrat stresses that “artifacts can serve as
inputs into knowledge production and as outputs for knowledge com-
munication” (2013, p. 14). I would argue, however, that such a claim
may only apply to artifacts created in non-collaborative contexts. In
objects of KnowIng fIndIngs
113112
practice-led research, practitioner-researchers produce artifacts indi-
vidually and externalize their tacit knowledge through verbal reec-
tion upon their individual practice. Consequently, no socialization
occurs because no codes need to be interpreted by someone else in
order to have the artifacts materialized. Collaborative practices, in
contrast, necessitate the formation of codes before the production of
artifacts, and such codes demand the comprehension of all practition-
ers. In other words, codes provide a common language between indi-
viduals and thus constitute the backbone of successful articulation in
collaborative work settings.
While the main nding of the study does not disregard the propo-
sition that artifacts contribute to the formation of knowledge in craft
and design, it sheds light on why articulation in collaborative prac-
tices is primarily enabled by other material entities. In that sense,
the conception of materiality expressed in the present thesis goes
beyond artifacts to encompass all objects handled by the practitioners
of an ecology of practice. These objects, in fact, precede artifacts and
consist of the materials, tools, settings, systems, and environments
that provide aordances (Gibson, 1979) to human subjects. Follow-
ing these lines of thought, the next paragraphs provide answers to the
sub-questions presented in each of the cases.
How can Knowledge be Articulated through Materiality?
Case I illustrates the transfer of knowledge via non-linguistic modali-
ties. Besides using drawings, sketches, and models as alternative
means of communication, I encountered other objects through which
knowledge could be transmitted.
During my visit to the Yamanaka Lacquerware Exhibition Hall,
I found samples, collections, and catalogs displaying technical facts
about the materials and processes employed in this type of craft (see
Appendix 1 at the end of this book). One object which drew my atten-
tion was a wooden bowl split into halves to show its cross-section.
Besides emphasizing the physical properties of the artifact, the cross-
sectional cut claried the concept of tategi: the direction of the grain
allowed me to visualize how the log had been trimmed and orient-
ed on the lathe. This object did not only deliver technical knowledge
but also triggered a not-yet-embodied notion of a specic embodied
action.
The example cited above conrms the capacity of objects to spark
articulation. Even though objects do not carry knowledge themselves,
they allow knowing to arise (Lehtonen, 2014). In fact, a signicant
amount of knowledge in craft and design is produced and repro-
duced in material form, partly acquired through making and partly
transferred through codes. Articulation, however, necessitates the
transfer of codes “in relationship to previously acquired knowledge”
(Håkanson, 2007, p. 65). Even when these codes are explicit, transfer-
ring them alone may fail to enable articulation.
How much Materiality is Needed to Articulate Knowledge?
Case II demonstrates that the amount of materiality does not matter
as long as the practitioners can classify, quantify, and represent all
objects involved in their practice. This does not necessarily mean that
the fewer the objects the easier the articulation. Besides handling
materials, tools, and physical environments, practitioners deal with
mental images, ideas, beliefs, and other abstract concepts. All of
these elements, along with tacit knowledge, integrate the communal
resources (Wenger, 1998, p. 73-84) shared by the individuals of an
ecology of practice. The way of utilizing this repertoire is what facili-
tates or obstructs articulation.
On the other hand, no material would allow the articulation of
knowledge in the absence of a process. The relationship between ma-
terials and processes condenses the tension between knowing-what
(representing) and knowing-how (manipulating). The research nd-
ings reveal that technology, conceived of as the utilization of knowl-
edge with practical purposes, mediates such tension by bridging the
reality perceived through representation and the reality enacted
through manipulation. This permits the socialization of skills and,
by implication, the emergence of not-yet-embodied tacit knowledge.
Thus and so, the question now would be: How much technology is
needed to uncover not-yet-embodied tacit knowledge?
objects of KnowIng fIndIngs
114
How can Materially Articulated Knowledge be Reproduced?
Case III aimed at answering this sub-question by reproducing a series
of operations but revealed that knowledge needs its own reproduc-
tion mechanisms. To detail this point, I must remind that articula-
tion follows the formation of codes, which in turn have to emerge in
relation to previously shared tacit knowledge. In such a way, newly
articulated knowledge could be reproduced as long as its codes
remained explicit and the tacit knowledge underpinning them was
still shared by every individual involved in the practice. However,
the research ndings demonstrated that the process of articulation
entails the formation of new tacit knowledge (see also Boisot, 1995;
Håkanson, 2007; Resnick et al., 1991), which inevitably requires new
articulation mechanisms.
As elaborated before, codes comprise a commonality of language
that facilitates explication and externalization. Although codes and
other symbol systems carry some degree of ambiguity and impreci-
sion (Goel, 1995), no form of communication is completely unequivo-
cal. The arbitrariness of language (Saussure, 1966), whichever modal-
ity it comes in, is what aords semiosis and poiesis. To that end, the
formation of mental images, meanings, and codes implies endless
re-signication processes which are inherently tacit. The only way
to attain new explicit knowledge from previous articulations would
be through what Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995) have referred to as the
process of combination. In any case, this process does not necessarily
relate to the practice of materializing artifacts and is therefore out of
the scope of this thesis.
objects of KnowIng 6
Discussion
117116
6.1
Limitations of the
Study and
Recommendations
for Future Research
Limitations of the Study
Based on the research design, two key limitations could be identied
throughout this thesis. The rst is concerned with the use of practice-
led research as a method of inquiry, whereas the second relates to the
drawbacks of employing a multiple case study.
On one hand, the practice-led approach allowed me to conduct a
methodologically sound process and analyze the data with scrutiny.
However, it led me to explicate collaboration from an individualized
point of view. Because practice-led study implies analyzing one’s
own activity, this type of research often limits the treatment of data
to subjective, personal metrics. In an attempt to counter this, I opted
to examine knowledge articulation beyond the constraints of individ-
ual practice. But even when the results were obtained from analyzing
collaborative activity, their interpretation remained situated in my
individual perspective as a designer, which neither includes the views
of a craftsperson nor a collective understanding of the phenomenon
at issue.
On the other hand, since the study was limited to three projects
conducted in dierent places and at dierent times, it was impossible
to assess how cross-cultural dynamics aect knowledge articulation
over time. Employing a single longitudinal study could have been
more appropriate in addressing this concern as well as in providing
more specicity to the results. While I recognize that the value of my
methodological choice resides in approaching knowledge articulation
as a translocal phenomenon, I must also underline that the present
thesis oers only a general view of knowledge articulation in regard to
cross-cultural practices.
In addition to the two points listed above, an important limita-
tion in framing the study was the existing gap between organizational
knowledge creation and knowledge creation in craft and design. An
exhaustive review of the literature evidenced that even when their
objects of study seem distant from one another, both elds use the
same sources, draw on the same authors, and inquire into the same
phenomenon. Notwithstanding that, I found no evidence of prior
research integrating them. Although this circumstance did not con-
stitute a methodological problem per se, it was a major disadvantage
during the development of the theoretical foundation.
The absence of prior research also led the study to become explor-
atory rather than explanatory, meaning that the results are not gener-
alizable and their validation requires further inquiry. In acknowledg-
ing so, the next section pinpoints some opportunity areas for a future
research agenda.
Recommendations for a Research Agenda
This thesis has discussed how craftspeople and designers articulate
their not-yet-embodied knowledge when they work together. Three
topical issues concerning this phenomenon have persisted through-
out the study: (1) the need to understand work settings as ecosystems
constituted by subjects and objects, (2) the inuence of objects in
mediating the reality perceived through representation and the reality
embodied through manipulation, and (3) the role of symbol systems
in attaining articulation. In surfacing these issues, I suggest three
dIscussIon
119118
avenues of research that could provide a more complete understand-
ing of knowledge articulation in collaborative craft contexts:
1Craft as Ecolog:
Besides capturing the essence of organized activity, the notion of
ecology aims at transcending the subject-object dualism and dis-
mantling the privilege of humans over non-humans. Even though
some schools of thought such as New Materialism and Object-ori-
ented Ontology are emerging to address these concerns, they still
need time to mature as a eld of inquiry. The present study would
have beneted from a more established discussion on the topic.
Research in this area is therefore pivotal in developing a coherent
perspective on how objects matter in a context where materiality
is already at the heart of the investigative process.
2Craft as Technolog:
We shall understand technology as the utilization of knowledge
in practical settings. To that end, this avenue invites to investigate
collaborative making from a production-oriented perspective.
Whether scrutinizing traditional technologies or exploring exp er-
imental methods of fabrication, research in this area should delve
much deeper into processes, materialities, and the tensions be-
tween knowing-how and knowing-what beyond the constraints
of individual practice. Although these topics have already been
addressed by researchers in the eld of arts and design, collabo-
ration still remains largely overlooked as a means of knowledge
articulation.
3Craft as Semiolog:
This is perhaps the least explored of the three avenues proposed
here. The concept of semiology tackles the relationship between
the material reality and the devices we use to communicate it.
Therefore, it entwines the knower and the known in the process
of meaning-making. I have explained how collaborative craft ne-
cessitates the formation of codes prior to the materialization of
artifacts. To that extent, researching craft as semiology aims at
considering how symbol systems are not only produced as the
consequence of an existing material reality but also as the cause
of bringing this reality forth into existence.
These avenues of research should facilitate a more contemporary
comprehension of collaborative material practices, their disciplinary
pertinence as a eld of inquiry, and thus the scope of their objects of
study. In addition to these recommendations, I encourage cautious
and critical research at the intersection of elds. Although some de-
gree of disciplinary bias is always inevitable, cutting across domains
sparks alternative ways o f thinking, allows new relations to be formed,
and oers a better-informed perspective.
objects of KnowIng dIscussIon
121120
6.2
Conclusions
The present research set out to identify the type of knowledge that can
be articulated through organized collaboration between craftspeople
and designers. Empirical evidence demonstrated that craft and design
practitioners are able to articulate their not-yet-embodied knowledge
when they collaborate. However, the research ndings revealed that
even though not-yet-embodied knowledge emerges in shared praxis,
it is shared reection that permits its explicit articulation.
The study also showed that besides giving the possibility to artic-
ulate knowledge, collaborative practices have the potential to trigger
a positive exchange between craftspeople and designers. One key as-
pect about this positive exchange is the aordance of building a com-
mon language. As noted throughout Chapter 4, design and craft prac-
titioners are able to communicate through materiality. Although one
may assume that the sole act of materializing artifacts does not have
enough leverage to solve major issues, it is the commonality of this
language what allows such issues to be uncovered and channeled.
In a broader sense, collaborative craft constitutes a shared think-
ing-through-making process that seems crucial for two reasons. First,
making things collaboratively implies externalizing ideas, desires,
and anxieties through materials, tools, and technologies. This process
entails the emergence of non-linguistic modalities, thus transcending
verbalization and facilitating a deeper dive into the tacit aspects of
things. Second, combining thinking and making in a collaborative
manner ignites the formulation of new types of logic, which inher-
ently necessitate novel ways of externalization. While the latter aspect
appears essential in problem solving, the former seems much more
impactful in problem nding. Thereby, collaboration validates the act
of making as a means rather than an end.
Materializing things collaboratively also oers us a way to partici-
pate in the world. Collaborative making is the means by which we
interact with other subjects and establish relationships with objects.
Moreover, it is the means by which we contribute to the transformation
of the reality while having a chance to express ourselves. Throughout
the research at hand, I have referred to collaborative craft as a s ocially
organized practice concerned with the production of meanings via the
materialization of artifacts. From this perspective, knowledge creation
comprises a socio-material phenomenon that emanates from collec-
tive experiences, representations, and manipulations of the world.
In light of this, I have examined the process of knowledge articu-
lation by adopting an epistemological stance rooted partly in pragma-
tism and partly in phenomenology. I have then proposed a material-
discursive practice theory to rethink the locus of subjects in relation to
objects, putting knowledge forward as an empirical notion situated in
practice, acquired through experience, and informed by relationships.
This view echoes the ideas championed by Schön (1983), opposing the
positivist school of thought and rejecting the rationalist paradigm of
knowledge. The proposition of a material-discursive practice theory
therefore aims at dissolving the dualism of body and mind, matter
and meaning, and object and subject to claim for a monist account of
existence.
In this view, the epistemological subject who knows through rea-
son and logic is rst replaced by a phenomenological subject who rath-
er acquires knowledge by participating in the world. The phe nomeno-
logical subject is then de-centered and reinserted as a co-constituent
dIscussIon
122
of a much larger entanglement, which I have called ecolog of practice,
where other subjects and objects coexist, co-act, and contribute to
the formation of knowledge simultaneously. This speaks much of the
same language as Latour’s (2005) Actor-network Theory or DeLanda’s
(2006) New Materialism, which neither privilege matter over mean-
ing nor vice-versa. In other words, the ‘I think and therefore I exist’
shifts towards a ‘things exist and we think through our interaction
with them’, legitimizing the notion of knowing-in-the-world and con-
sequently arguing for an ontological reconsideration of objects.
With Objects of Knowing I thus refer to two things. On one hand, I
refer to those elements constitutive of the material reality which allow
subjects to acquire and transfer knowledge. On the other hand, I refer
to the fundamental purposes of conducting this investigative process:
as discussed earlier in this chapter, the present study appears relevant
for several reasons. First, it has implications in craft and design con-
texts as well as in organizational views of practice. Second, it inter-
rogates the relationship between the representational and the em-
bodied in settings where meaning and matter are entangled. Third,
it explains the limits of knowledge creation and outlines the eects
of articulation. And fourth, it gives us some ideas to speculate on the
future of collaboration.
As a closing remark, I would like to briey reassert the signi-
cance of discussing collaborative craft in light of the main research
nding. Drawing on Scharmer (2000), I have previously explained
how not-yet-embodied knowledge reveals the power of imagination
upon not-yet-existing realities. Bringing imagination forth into ex-
istence is one of the purest manifestations of thought. As such, the
act of articulating our not-yet-embodied knowledge with the purpose
of materializing things presupposes a fundamental shift in how we
perceive ourselves in the world. Hence, collaborative craft does not
only serve us as a tool to transform our material reality but also as a
means to transform the way in which we comprehend it.
objects of KnowIng
Adamson, G. (2007). Thinking through craft. Oxford: Berg
Publishers.
Adlo, F.; Gerund, K. & Kaldewey, D. (eds.) (2015). Revealing
Tacit Knowledge: Embodiment and Explication. Bielefeld:
Transcript Verlag.
Aoyagi, Y. (ed.) (2002). A Textbook of Glassblowing. Kanagawa:
Tokyo Glass Art Institute.
Ardichvili, A. (2000). Tacit knowledge in professional practice:
Researcher and practitioner perspectives, edited by Robert
J. Sternberg & Joseph A. Horvath. Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 11, pp. 411-414.
Argyris, C. (1999). On Organizational Learning, 2nd ed. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist Performativity: Toward an
Understanding of How Matter Comes to Matter. Signs, 28(3),
pp. 801-831.
Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things.
London: Duke University.
Bereiter, C. (2002). Education and mind in the knowledge age.
London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Biggs, M. (2002). The role of the artefact in art and design research.
International journal of design sciences and technology,
10(2), pp. 19–24.
Boisot, M. (1995). Information Space: A Framework for Learning in
Organizations, Institutions and Culture. London: Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bousbaci, R. (2008). Models of Man in Design Thinking: The
Bounded Rationality Episode. Design Issues, 24(4), pp. 38-52.
Bowker, G. C. & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classication
and its consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brommelle, N. S. & Smith, P. (eds.) (1985). Proceedings of the Urushi
Study Group, June 10–27, pp. 91-94. Tokyo.
References
125
127126
Brownell, B. (2014). Manipulating the material code. In Karana,
E.; Pedgley, O. & Rognoli, V. (eds.), Materials experience
fundamentals of materials and design, pp. 51-62. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Carter, P. (2005). Material Thinking: the theory and practice of
creative research. Melbourne University Press.
Chan, X. & Bok, H. (2013, March 27). Talking to the dead: the art of
making Taoist paper egies, South China Morning Post.
Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/
Cheung, R. (2016, November 15). Vanishing Hong Kong Crafts, South
China Morning Post. Retrieved from http://www.scmp.com/
Cook, S. & Brown, J. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative
dance between organizational knowledge and organizational
knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), pp. 381-400.
Corning Museum of Glass (ed.) (1980). Tools of the Glassmaker.
New York.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4),
pp. 221–227.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design
Issues 15(2), pp. 5-10.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: design discipline
versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), pp. 49– 55.
De Freitas, N. (2002) Towards a Denition of Studio Documentation:
working tool and transparent record. Working Papers in Art
and Design, 2.
DeLanda, M. (2006). A new philosophy of society. London:
Continuum.
Densan Association for the Promotion of Traditional Craft Industries
(ed.) (2000). Overview of traditional Japanese craft works.
Tokyo: Author.
Densan Association for the Promotion of Traditional Craft Industries
(ed.) (2017). List of Ocially Designated Traditional Craft
Products by Order of Designation. Tokyo: Author (First list
published in 1975).
Dewey, J. (2005). Art as experience. New York: Perigee books.
(Original work published in 1934).
Doloughan, F. J. (2002). The language of reective practice in art and
design. Design Issues, 18(2), pp. 57–64.
Dormer, P. (1997). The culture of craft. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Dorst, K. & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing
design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), pp. 261–274.
Dubberly, H. & Evenson, S. (2011). Design as Learning or Knowledge
Creation: the SECI Model. Interaction, January-February of
2011, pp. 75-79.
Duguid, P. (2005). The Art of Knowing: Social and Tacit Dimensions
of Knowledge and the Limits of the Community of Practice.
The Information Society, 21, pp. 109–118.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.
The Academy of Management Review, 14, pp. 532–550.
Foucault, M. (1994). The order of things: An archaeology of the
human sciences. New York: Vintage Books (Original work
published in 1966).
Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London:
Tavistock Publications (Original work published in 1969).
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art
Research Papers, 1(1), pp. 1–5. London: Royal College of Art.
Friedman, K. (2000). Creating design knowledge: from research
into practice. IDATER Conference paper, Loughborough:
Loughborough University.
Friedman, K. (2008). Research into, by and for design. Journal of
Visual Art Practice, 7, pp. 153-160.
Fry, T. (2007). Redirective Practice: An Elaboration. Design
Philosophy Papers, 5, pp. 15-20.
Gettier, E. (1966). Is justied true belief knowledge? Analysis, 23,
pp. 121-123.
Gherardi, S. (2017). Sociomateriality in posthuman practice theory,
in Hui, S.; Shove, E. & Schatzki, T. (eds.). The Nexus of
Practices. Connections, Constellations, and Practitioners, pp.
38-5 1. Routledge.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Houghton Miin Harcourt (HMH). Boston.
referencesobjects of KnowIng
129128
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity.
Glaser, B. & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine
Publishing Company.
Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of Thought. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Gourlay, S. (2006). Conceptualizing Knowledge Creation. Journal of
Management Studies, 43, pp. 1415-1436.
Groth, C. (2017). Making sense through hands: design and craft
practice analysed as embodied cognition. Helsinki: Aalto
University publication series Doctoral Dissertations.
Håkanson, L. (2007). Creating Knowledge: The Power and Logic of
Articulation. Industrial and Corporate Change, February of
2007, 16(1), pp. 51-88.
Hardy, C. & Thomas, R. (2015). Discourse in a material world.
Journal of Management Studies, 52, pp. 680– 96.
Hartley, D. (2007). Organizational epistemology, education and
social theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 28(2),
pp. 195-208.
Heidegger, M. (1996). Being and Time. State University of New York
Press: Albany, NY (Original work published in 1927).
Hong Kong Construction Industry Council (2017). Research & Data
Analytics. Retrieved from
http://www.cic.hk/eng/main/research_data_analytics_/
Hong Kong Intangible Cultural Heritage Database (2014). First
Intangible Cultural Heritage Inventory of Hong Kong. Hong
Kong: Leisure and Cultural Services Department.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making. Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and
Architecture. New York: Routledge.
Intangible Cultural Heritage Oce of Hong Kong (2017).
Introduction, in “About Us, ICHO”. Retrieved from
https://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/ICHO/
Inumaru, T. & Yoshida, M. (1992). Lacquerware, in The Traditional
Arts of Japan, Vol. 4. Tokyo: Diamond.
Japan International Cooperation Agency (2017). Technical
Cooperation Programs, in “Our Work / Types of Assistance”.
Retrieved from https://www.jica.go.jp/english/our_work
Japanese Agency for Cultural Aairs (2007). Cultural Properties for
Future Generations. Tokyo: Commissioner’s Secretariat,
Agency for Cultural Aairs.
Japanese Agency for Cultural Aairs (2017). Policy of Cultural Aairs
in Japan, Fiscal 2017. Tokyo: Commissioner’s Secretariat,
Agency for Cultural Aairs.
Jarvis, P. (1999). The Practitioner-Researcher: Developing Theory
from Practice. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Julier, G. (2008). The Culture of Design, 2nd edition. London: Sage.
Kimbell, L. (2011a). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and
Culture, 3(3), pp. 285–306.
Kimbell, L. (2011b). Rethinking Design Thinking: Part II. Design and
Culture, 4(2), pp. 129–147.
Knappett, C. & Malafouris, L. (2008). Material agency: Towards a
non-anthropocentric approach. Berlin: Springer.
Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make
Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Koliba, C. & Gajda, R. (2009). “Communities of Practice” as an
Analytical Construct: Implications for Theory and Practice,
International Journal of Public Administration, 32(2). pp.
97-135.
Korvenmaa, P. (2009). Finnish Design: A Concise History. Helsinki:
University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Koskinen, I.; Zimmerman, J.; Binder, T.; Redstrom, J. & Wensveen,
S. (2011). Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab,
Field, and Showroom. London: Elsevier.
Lam, A. (2000). Tacit Knowledge, Organizational Learning and
Societal Institutions. An Integrated Framework. Organization
Studies 21(3), pp. 487-513.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: an introduction to
actor-network theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate
Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
objects of KnowIng references
131130
Lehtonen, M. (2014). Visual knowing and visualizing knowledge
in knowledge-intensive organizations, Helsinki: Aalto
University publication series Doctoral Dissertations.
Li M. & Gao, F. (2003). Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge:
A critical review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(4),
pp. 6-14.
Loenho, J. (2015). Tacit Knowledge: shared and embodied, in
Adlo, F., Gerund, K. & Kaldewey, D. (eds.). Revealing
Tacit Knowledge: Embodiment and Explication. Bielefeld:
Transcript Verlag.
Malafouris, L. (2008). At the Potter’s Wheel: An Argument for
Material Agency, in Knappett, C. & Malafouris, L. (eds.),
Material agency: Towards a non- anthropocentric approach.
Berlin: Springer.
Mareis, C. (2012). The epistemology of the unspoken: On the concept
of tacit knowledge in contemporary design research. Design
Issues, 28(2), pp. 61–71.
Margolin, V. (1989). Design Discourse: History, Theory, Criticism.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Maturana, H. R. & Varela, F. J. (1992). The Tree of Knowledge:
The biological roots of human understanding. Boston:
Shambhala.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception. London:
Routledge Classics (Original work published in 1945).
Mertz, M. (2011). Wood and Traditional Woodworking in Japan.
Otsu: Kaiseisha Press.
Miller, D. (2005). Materiality. Durham: Duke University Press.
Multimedia Information System of Hong Kong Public Libraries
(2017). Intangible Cultural Heritage. Retrieved from
https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk/ich
Mäkelä, M. (2007). Knowing through making: The role of the artefact
in practice-led research. Knowledge, Technology & Policy,
20(3), pp. 157–163.
Mäkelä, M. (2016). Personal exploration: Serendipity and
intentionality as altering positions in a creative process.
FormAkademisk Research Journal of Design Education, 9(1).
Mäkelä, M. & Nimkulrat, N. (2011). Reection and documentation
in practice-led design research. In Koskinen, I.; Härkäsalmi,
T.; Mazé, R.; Matthews, B. & Lee, J. J. (eds.) Making Design
Matter, Proceeding of the 4th Nordic Design Research
Conference NORDES.
Niedderer, K. (2007). Mapping the meaning of knowledge in design
research. Design Research Quarterly, 2(2).
Niedderer, K. & Reilly, L. (2010). Experiential Knowledge, Method,
and Methodology. Journal of Research Practice, 6(2).
Nimkulrat, N. (2007). The role of documentation in practice-led
research. Journal of Research Practice, 3(1), Article M6.
Nimkulrat, N. (2012). Hands on intellect: Integrating craft practice
into design research. International Journal of Design, 6(3).
Nimkulrat, N. (2013). Situating Creative Artifacts in Art and Design
Research. FORMakademisk 6(2), pp. 1-16.
Nimkulrat, N.; Niedderer, K. & Evans, M. A. (2015). On
understanding expertise, connoisseurship, and experiential
knowledge in professional practice. Journal of Research
Practice, 11(2), Article E1.
Nimkulrat, N.; Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P.; Pantouvaki, S. & de
Freitas, N. (2016). Experience, Materiality and Articulation
in Art/Design and Research Practices. Studies in Material
Thinking, 14.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge
creation. Organization Science, 5(1), pp. 14-37.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge-Creating
Company. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nonaka, I.; Toyama, R. & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing Flow: A
ProcessTheory of the Knowledge-Based Firm, Houndmills:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Norman, E. (2006). Values, human judgement and sustainability in
design and technology education. Design and Technology
Education: an International Journal, [S.l.], 11(3).
Ohba, S. (1985). The Kyushitsu Technique Demonstrated on a
Natsume, in Brommelle, N. S. & Smith, P. (eds.), Proceedings
of the Urushi Study Group, June 10–27, pp. 91-94. Tokyo.
objects of KnowIng references
133132
Olsen, P. B. & Heaton, L. (2010). Knowing Through Design, in
Simonsen, J.; Bærenholdt, O. J. & Büscher, M. (eds.), Design
Research: Synergies from Interdisciplinary Perspectives,
pp. 79-94. London: Routledge.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002). Knowing in practice: Enacting a collective
capability in distributed organizing. Organization Science,
13(3), pp. 249-273.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2006). Material knowing: The scaolding of
human knowledgeability. European Journal of Information
Systems, 15(5), pp. 460-466.
Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott, S. V. (2015). Exploring material-discursive
practices. Journal of Management Studies, 52, pp. 697–705.
Østerlund, C. & Carlile, P. (2005). Relations in Practice: Sorting
Through Practice Theories on Knowledge Sharing in
Complex Organizations. The Information Society, 21(2),
pp. 91–107.
Ostermann, A. C. (2008). Communities of practice, in W. Donsbach
(ed.), International encyclopedia of communication, 3,
pp. 857–861. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.
Pasman, G. J. & Boess, S. U. (2010). Involving design students in
design research: making things for knowing things. In
C. Boks.; McMahon, C.; Ion, W. & Parkinson, B. (eds.),
Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on
Engineering and Product Design Education, pp. 1-6.
Glasgow: The Design Society (TUDelft).
Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analyzing own design activity.
Design Studies, 28(5), pp. 463-483.
Peirce, C. S. (1986). Philosophical writings of Peirce, New York:
Dover Publications.
Pickering, A. (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency and
Science. Chicago, Il: The University of Chicago Press.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge.
Rajmakers, B. & Arets, D. (eds.) (2015). Thinking through making.
The Readership in Strategic Creativity. Design Academy
Eindhoven, 10.
Ravetz, A.; Kettle, A. & Felcey, H. (2013). Collaboration through craft.
Bloomsbury academic.
Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a Theory of Social Practices. European
Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), pp. 243–63.
Resnick, L.; Säljö, R.; Pontecorvo, C. & Burge, B. (eds.) (1991).
Discourse, Tools and Reasoning. Essays in Situated
Cognition. Springer: Berlin.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of
Management, 43(3), pp. 623 –639.
Ryle, G. (1945). Knowing how and knowing that. Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, 46, pp. 1–16.
Saussure, F. (1966 ). Course in general linguistics. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Scharmer, C. O. (2000). Organizing around not-yet-embodied
knowledge, in von Krogh, G.; Nonaka, I. & Nishiguchi, T.
(eds.), Knowledge Creation: A source of value. London:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice Theory, in Schatzki, T. R.; Knorr
Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (eds.), The Practice Turn in
Contemporary Theory, pp. 10–23. London: Routledge.
Schatzki, T. R.; Knorr Cetina, K. & von Savigny, E. (eds.) (2001). The
practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reective Practitioner: How Professionals
Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.
Scrivener, S. (2002). Characterising Creative-production Doctoral
Projects in Art and Design. International Journal of Design
Sciences and Technology, 10(2), pp. 25-44.
Seago, A. & Dunne, A. (1999). New methodologies in art and design
research: the object as discourse. Design Issues.
Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. & Hakkarainen, K. (2000). Visualization
and Sketching in the Design Process. The Design Journal, 3,
pp. 3-14.
Sennett, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Spender, J. C. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic
theory of the rm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, pp.
45-62.
objects of KnowIng references
134
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Tsoukas, H. (2003). Do We Really Understand Tacit Knowledge?,
in Easterby-Smith, M. & Lyles, M. A. (eds.), The Blackwell
Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge
Management, pp. 410-427. Malden: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Tsoukas, H. & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is Organizational
Knowledge? Journal of Management Studies, 38, pp. 973-993.
United Nations Educational, Scientic and Cultural Organization
(2003). Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible
Cultural Heritage. UNESCO.
Van der Lei, A. M. & Mavrostomos, K. (2014). A Dialogue with Glass.
Master’s Thesis Collection. Aalto University School of Arts,
Design and Architecture.
Wacquant, L. (2015). For a Sociology of Flesh and Blood, in Adlo,
F., Gerund, K . & Kaldewey, D. (eds.). Revealing Tacit
Knowledge: Embodiment and Explication. Bielefeld:
Transcript Verlag.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and
Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, M. (2001). Problems of knowledge: A critical introduction
to epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1961). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul (Original work published in 1921).
Yagihashi, S. (1985). The Preservation and Handing Down of
Traditional Urushi Art Techniques in Japan, in Brommelle, N.
S. & Smith, P. (eds.), Urushi: Proceedings of the Urushi Study
Group, June 10–27, pp. 71-86. Tokyo.
Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly
Hills: Sage Publications.
objects of KnowIng Appendices
136
Appendix 1:
Translations
Ishikawa, Japan,
2014
List of Figures
p. 137 The Lathe Village and its surroundings
p. 138 Selected logs at the Wood Resources Management Facility
p. 139 Discarded timber
p. 140 Yamanaka Lacquerware Exhibition Hall
p. 141 Material samples and woodturning tests /
A wooden bowl split into halves to display its cross-section
p. 142 Mr. Satake fashioning a bowl on the lathe
p. 143 Kiji piece after the rst round of turning /
Kiji apprentice turning a batch of bowls
p. 144 Seasoning chamber at Japan Crafts Oshima
p. 145 Substrates being seasoned
p. 146 Urushi and wooden spatula /
Bowls at the heating chamber after priming
p. 147 Black urushi ready for the nal coat
p. 148 Black matte nish
p. 149 Some of the nal artifacts
138
140
142
144
147
149148
150
Appendix 2:
Notations
Kowloon Peninsula
& Southern District,
Hong Kong, 2017
List of Figures
p. 151 Surroundings of the Zi zaat workshop in Sham Shui Po /
Bamboo sticks on the street
p. 152 City view from the Hong Kong Design Institute
p. 153 Bamboo scaolding (Photo: Mike Peel)
p. 154 Workspace at Bo Wah Paper Craft
p. 155 Ping-Chi prototyping an artifact
p. 156 Stills from the video footage
p. 157 Finalized prototypes at the workshop
p. 158 Joint detail (Photo: Nils Håkon)
p. 159 Joint detail (Photo: Nils Håkon)
153152
155154
157
159158
160
Appendix 3:
Variations
Helsinki, Finland,
2018
List of Figures
p. 161 Surroundings of the Lasistudio /
A view of the Lasistudio
p. 162 Another view of the Lasistudio
p. 163 A drawing
p. 164 Glass being reheated in the glory hole /
Glass being smoothened with a block
p. 165 Stills from the video footage
p. 166 Glass piece being shaped and ared with the jack
p. 167 One of the nal artifacts (Photo: Ayaka Inoue)
p. 168 A close-up view of the nal artifacts (Photo: Ayaka Inoue)
163162
167166
168 info@luis-vega.com
Aaltodoc item details:
http://urn./URN:NBN::aalto-201811145793
Filed under: Taiteiden ja suunnit. korkeakoulu / ARTS
1b Maisterivaiheen opinnäytetyöt / Master’s theses