Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area

Abstract

This paper focuses on the democratization of the design culture through the design knowledge transfer (DKT) analysing the empirical activities of an academic design research laboratory as a case study. The analysed laboratory is born as a research and development project, mainly funded by the local government for introducing the human-centred design culture through service design at a local scale. As a result, a strategy for introducing service design in the local systems is identified. The strategy can be also considered a scale of complexity for transferring the design knowledge and a possible way for democratizing design to the local entities that do not systematically use design. Despite this aspect needs more investigation, the strategy is actually adopted by the laboratory as their free offering system to be experimented with the local entities by envisioning and following the conceptual framework of 'Research through Transfer through Design'.

Full text

Democraiing design lessons from a
case sd in he Alpine area
Daniele Busciantella-Ricci*a, Ilaria Argenzianoa,
Marta Gandolfia, Michela Ventina
aDesign Research Lab, Department of Humanities, University of Trento
*d.busciantellaricci@unitn.it
Abstract | This paper focuses on the democratization of the design culture through the design
knowledge transfer (DKT) analysing the empirical activities of an acad emic design research
laboratory as a case study. The analysed laboratory is born as a research and development
project, mainly funded by the local government for introducing the human-centred design
culture through service design at a local scale. As a res ult, a strategy for introducing service
design in the local systems is identified. The strategy can be also considered a scale of
complexity for transferring the design knowledge and a possible way for democratizing design
to the local entities that do not systematically use design. Despite this aspect needs more
investigation, the strategy is actually adopted by the laboratory as their free offering system
to be experimented with the local entities by envisioning and following the conceptual
frameork of Research hrogh Transfer hrogh Design.
KEYWORDS | DEMOCRACY; DESIGN KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER; SERVICE DESIGN;
COMPLEXITY; PUBLIC POLICIES
2768 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
1. Design and democracy: a premise
The interest of the design community in the convergence between design and democracy is
giving the opportunity to defend democracy as a value through the design culture (see
Manzini & Margolin, 2017, 2018). Using design as a tool for democratization in the way of
design of, for, in, as democracy (Manzini & Margolin, 2018) also means spreading the design
culture in all the complex contexts the contemporary society is involved.
The authors of this paper argue the transfer of design research activities helps to work on
the convergence between design and democracy. From this, transferring design knowledge
facilitates the spreading of the design culture; consequently, it facilitates the use of design as
a tool for democratization.
1.1 Democratizing design
The concept of democratizing design can be addressed according to different perspectives
such as:
 democratizing knowledge; in terms of knowledge transfer, its generation process
through participative experiences and its meanings under democratic principles
(for a further understanding of this perspective see Elden, 1983; Gaventa &
Cornwall 2008; Ginwright, 2008; Guzman et al., 2016; Zamenopoulos & Alexiou,
2018);
 democratizing innovation that moves from the market-oriented concept of
product (or service) innovation addressed by von Hippel (2005) to a different
approach related to long-erm siaed and on he go paricipaor approach
(for a further understanding of this perspective see Björgvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren,
2010) that improves collaborations between bottom-up initiatives and against an
elitist control of innovation;
 democratizing design; in terms of the democratization of the design discourse
through the design practice; in other words, the process of democratizing the
design knowledge.
The concept of democratizing design, in this paper, differs from the way of understanding
the democratization of design as the democratization of technologies that facilitate the
processes of designing and producing artefacts; not even with the meaning of social product
development (Forbes & Schaefer, 2017). Neither it is treated as a topic for investigating the
states and future of the designers and/or the design education (see Fleischmann, 2015;
Kelly, 2019). For democratizing design, the authors mean the act of rendering democratic
(Democratization, n.d.) the design knowledge. Democratization as a systematic open-ended
series of processes (Ciprut, 2009) for spreading the knowledge related to design research
and opening the design culture through the democratization of the design discourses and
practices.
2769 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
1.2 Why democratizing design
Knowledge can be considered a resource of the power (see Gaventa & Cornwall 2008); and,
sometimes it is a monopoly of expert knowledge producers (see Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991;
Hall, 1992 in Gaventa & Cornwall 2008). In this way, design knowledge can be considered a
resource for breaking the monopoly in designing in a culture and preserving the democracy
of designing. This concept drives the authors in considering the democratization of the
design knowledge as a way for breaking this monopoly and spreading the design power for
preserving the convergence between design and democracy. These are the reasons why this
paper focuses on the democratization of the design culture through the design knowledge
transfer (DKT), analysing the empirical activities of an academic design research laboratory
(lab) as a case study.
2. Methodological approach
How is it possible to democratize design at a local scale to support the relationship between
design and democracy and introduce the design culture in complex contexts?
According to this question an academic design research lab was considered as a case study
for hypothesizing relevant discussions for the answer. Therefore, the actions of the analysed
lab were considered the phenomena to be studied within its real world context (Yin, 2018)
with the aim of understanding if it is a case of democratization of design at a local scale. The
DKT process of the lab, its potentialities and limits, and future developments were analysed
with an inductive approach. The early years of the lab activities were critically analysed with
the support of empirical data emerged during the activities organized in collaboration with
the local stakeholders, design partners and entities.
Therefore, the establishment of the lab, the evolution of its research process and the
activities provided with the local agents were considered as a set of empirical data. With the
aim of providing a critical analysis based on data triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2018; Yin,
2018) the empirical data were compared with different resources in design literature
through references related to (i) design ladders (Design Council, 2013; Kretzschmar, 2003;
Nusem, Wrigley & Matthews, 2017; Ramlau, 2004; Wrigley & Straker, 2017); (ii) cases of
governmental innovation labs (Puttick, Baeck, & Colligan, 2014; Selloni & Staszowski, 2013);
(iii) models of orders of design (Buchanan, 2001), design domains (Jones & Van Patter, 2009;
Jones, 2014) and levels of design content (Young, Blair, & Cooper, 2001; Young, 2008).
3. The case
The analysed academic lab was born as an experimental project of research and
development, mainly funded by the local government to introduce the human-centred
2770 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
design culture through service design in the education, production and public policies
systems at a local scale. The laboratory is hosted by a humanities department at the local
university and its mission is to transfer design knowledge encouraging the usage of service
design among entities that do not systematically adopt design. The goal is to support the
transition of the local agents from a product-based economy to a service and knowledge-
based economy.
From a global perspective, this project can be framed in a wide and contemporary discussion
related to the growth of fields such as design for public and design for policy (Bason, 2016;
Kimbell, 2015; Buchanan, Amatullo & Staszowski, 2019) where design thinking (often service
design) can play a determinant role in the innovation process of complex public and
governmental contexts (Buchanan, Junginger & Terrey, 2017; Junginger, 2013; Kimbell &
Bailey 2017; McGann, Blomkamp, & Lewis, 2018; Rebolledo, 2016). Despite the relationship
between design and the public sector is growing (Buchanan et al., 2019), it is still difficult to
identify systematic ways to embed the design culture from a public perspective on small
scale contexts (such as rural and urban Alpines areas) where design is still not systematically
used. However, fostering service design thinking throughout the organizations is in line with
he recognised releance of serice design gien b he Eropean Commission as a ke
driver of service innovation, social innovation and user-cenred innoaion Derojeda e
al., 2014). Therefore, the analysed lab adopts service design as a strategic stimulant to
encourage innovation in public and private organizations. Also, this follows the Action Plan
for Design-Driven Innovation of the European Commission (2013).
3.1 The context of the lab project
The regional context of the analysed lab is under an autonomous province jurisdiction, in the
northern side of Italy. The province is characterized by low population density, due to the
mountain territory (Alps), its remote valleys and the high number of small-dimensions
villages. In this province, there is no presence of specific entities advocating to spread the
design knowledge and improve the local design culture. There are only specific courses in
some degree programmes and two different small academy branches, which have not the
DKT as the main purpose.
3.2 Design research and design knowledge applied at a local scale
Among the definitions of design research (Archer, 1981; Findeli, 2010; Jonas, 2014), the
analsed lab deliberael refers o Maninis   orking definiion on design
research ie an acii ha aims o prodce knoledge sefl o hose ho design his
kind of knoledge is design knoledge As sggesed b Cross   design
knoledge resides in people processes and prodcs The are hree sorces of design
knowledge as research loci Cross  Therefore he analsed lab refers o Crosss
design research taxonomy (design epistemology, design praxiology, design phenomenology)
to identify what to transfer to the local entities. Respectively the transferring process
2771 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
focuses on (i) the designerly ways of knowing (Cross, 1982, 2001, 2006) and the design
attitude (Boland, Collopy, Lyytinen, & Yoo, 2008); (ii) practices of design; (iii) form and
configuration of the artefacts (services and systems in the case of the analysed lab). And
service design is assumed as a strategic resource to be transferred.
3.3 A knowledge transfer point of view
The knowledge transfer activity of the lab is partially framed in studies related on how to
embed design capabilities (often related to service design) in different kind of contexts and
organizations (cf. Bailey, 2012; Giordano, 2019; Junginger, 2015; Lima & Sangiorgi 2018;
Malmberg & Wetter-Edman, 2016; Mortati, Villari, & Maffei 2014; Warwick, & Djaelani
 Hoeer capabili is an inegraion of knoledge skills personal qaliies and
understanding used appropriael and effeciel  Sephenson  also in Morai e
al  and ransmission of design knoledge hrogho organiaions is epeced o
support non-professional designers o increase heir design compeences Lima  Sangiorgi
2018). Therefore, it is possible to frame the lab activity from the perspective of the
knowledge transfer as a way to support the spreading of human-centred design capabilities
paying attention to understanding how other entities design, what is their own design
knowledge and their design legacies (Junginger, 2015).
3.4 The knowledge transfer process
It is possible to understand the DKT process of the analysed lab through the Nonaka and
Takeuchi (1995) model of knowledge conversation. Indeed, observing design knowledge in
o forms ie aci and eplici Polani  Lianage Elhag Ballal  Li  he lab
found a proper balance between its tacit and explicit knowledge transfer according to the
ke componens ie he sorce or sender ha shares the knowledge, and the receiver who
acqires he knoledge Lianage e al  Canonicall he sender is he lab bod of
resources (e.g. the lab researchers and their tools) and the receivers are the local actors that
collaborate with the lab through the provided design actions. However, it is also possible to
observe an alternation of roles between senders and receivers that is when the lab body of
resorces coner he design knoledge acqired from people processes and prodcs
through activities exploited with the local actors.
3.5 The lab research approach and the action model
The research approach of the analysed lab can be framed in the design research studies
adopting the research through design (RtD) (Frayling, 1993; Findeli et al., 2008; Jonas, 2007;
Manzini, 2015) approach as a form of action research (Archer, 1995; Reason, & Bradbury,
2008; Stewart, 2014; Swann, 2002).
According to these premises, the lab designed a proper set of actions for transferring design
knowledge to local entities in three phases i.e. (i) setting-up; to improve the interest in
2772 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
service design; (ii) experimenting; to improve the autonomy in service design; (iii) modelling;
to embed service design.
Each action can be applied according to an action model (figure 1) that the lab designed with
the aim of engaging local agents, understanding and analysing their needs, designing and
applying specific actions, evaluating the experiences. The phases of the model are:
 Engaging, to build design partnerships with local stakeholders;
 Analysing, to optimize design praxis and theoretical activities;
 Applying, to implement a series of theoretical seminars, workshops and design
experiences (DXs);
 Evaluating, to analyse and reflect about the data gathered through in-field
activities.
Figure.1. The action model adopted by the analysed lab.
3.6 The lab project development
The case presented in this paper refers to the early ears of acii seing-p sep of he
analysed Lab. What follows summarizes the main activities provided through the action
model.
In he engaging phase he lab promoed serice design a a local leel ih he aims o i
engage potential stakeholders; (ii) collect interest for consecutive design partnerships from
public and private entities; (iii) understand opportunities and needs of potential
stakeholders; (iv) acquire human resources (such as design researchers).
2773 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
In he analsing phase he lab sared an inense programme of analsis ih he aim of
building shared theoretical foundations, research approaches and a practice framework for
the design activities. Events such as seminars and theoretical workshops were designed with
the aim of spreading a local design discourse among the local actors.
In he appling phase he lab team implemented the activities designed in the previous
phases in contexts where design is not systematically applied according to the following
main set of actions (figure 2). All the activities were provided to involve (for free) as many
local actors as possible.
Theoretical Experiences (TXs). With the aim of supporting local design discourses and
professions, thirteen TXs were organized among (i) seminars in collaboration with national
and international speakers about different topics such as innovation, design research,
service design, philosophy of design, interdisciplinary research; and (ii) intensive workshops
with professionals and researchers in design about data visualization, design thinking,
service design.
Design Experiences (DXs). Six DXs were organized with five local design partners from the
public and private sector among the three systems (education, production, public policies).
They were engaged in collaborative design practices (e.g. co-design workshops, design
ethnography) simulating human-centred design processes (in service design) applied to real
problems, needs and contexts through a learning-by-doing approach.
Stand-alone (one-off) project. A stand-alone project was developed in collaboration with the
local government and their stakeholders in the field of public policies. The lab provided
design-based visual tools to help a forum of experts engaged to identify strategies for the
innovation of the local research and development policies.
Pilot study. The stand-alone project is a case study of an undergoing pilot study addressed to
explore (i) how the local policy makers design public policies; (ii) how service design can
contribute in this context; (iii) how the findings can be applied for the renewal of the local
public policy sector.
Design probes. Following the directions previously identified in a forum of experts organized
by the local government, experimental design probes were designed and applied to explore
the design context of the local cultural sector in favour of a future redesign of the public
cultural policies.
2774 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
Figure 2. A resume of the activities provided in collaboration with the local actors.
In he ealaing phase he lab team evaluated all the activities provided in collaboration
ih he local acors hrogh mainl qaliaie echniqes The paricipans feedback
comments and suggestions were gathered through unstructured and semi-structured
interviews, questionnaires, and focus groups. Also, data gathered and design results were
analysed in the lab and data related to the DXs were deeper investigated with the Logical
Framework approach and a gap analysis. The results were discussed comparing them with
2775 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
the design research literature and the needs emerged through the experiences with the local
actors.
3.7 Early results and impact
The main result of the early years of activity is the identification of strategic details that
facilitate the DKT process. There were identified:
 a dissemination framework with different areas of interventions (i.e. discourses,
publications and design formats);
 five design formats for the DXs (i.e. Design Check; Design Seminar; Design
Workshop; Design Review; Design Studio);
 a format (theoretical framework, approaches, processes, toolkit and guidelines)
for the application of the design probes for the DKT;
 fifty-three gaps, eight critical areas and five criteria for developing DXs with the
design formats;
 ten requirements to develop DXs with inclusive criteria.
More than 200 people among the education, production and public policy systems were
involved in collaborative design-based activities and more than fifty activities among the
three areas of the Dissemination Framework were provided. Around 180 hours of
collaborative activities were provided as part of the knowledge transfer process. As a main
impact, the participants increased the interest in service design and requested 320% more
collaborative hours in respect to the total amount of hours exploited during the firsts
months of the lab activities.
4. Results and findings
The main results of the analysis of the lab as a case are (i) the identification of an overview
of the main features that allow to recognize the laboratory as a strategic place for the local
development; (ii) the identification of a strategy for introducing service design in the three
local systems.
4.1 The lab overview
The analysed lab focuses on delivering activities with and for stakeholders in contexts where
design is not part of the organizations and communities culture. Therefore, it operates with
an inclusive approach in contexts where there is no use of design (see Kretzschmar, 2003;
Nusem et al., 2017; Ramlau, 2004); or the use of design is recognized for a specific need in a
one-time project (see Nusem et al., 2017) for solving discrete problems (see Design Council,
2013) and in general where design is perceived as sling cf Kretzschmar, 2003; Ramlau,
2004). Moreover, the lab could potentially play a strategic role at local scale as a part of
2776 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
innovation teams (see Puttick et al., 2014) in public innovation spaces for research,
communication, networking and capacity building (cf. Selloni & Staszowski, 2013). Finally,
the lab refers to (see figure 3); (i) the third order of design focusing on experiences, activities
and services; (see Buchanan, 2001); the design for value creation, focusing on services (see
Jones, 2014); the design of systems and services (the D2 level in Young, 2008).
Figure 3. The analysed lab in relation to three different references.
4.2 The strategy for DKT
The analysis of the lab as a case study allowed the identification of a strategy for
implementing a DKT process. The strategy is built in three macro-categories i.e. (i) discrete
design tasks; (ii) training formats; (iii) projects. All the three macro-areas follow the goal of
the laboratory with different specific objectives and complexity for each activity. All the
three categories (except for one activity - see Figure 4) are supported by empirical cases
previously provided by the same laboratory.
Indeed, the categories of the strategy are the result in observing the activities provided with
the local agents and their feedback in terms of design needs related to what they
experienced and what they were called to provide.
Figure 4. An overview of the strategy background.
2777 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
4.3 Discrete design tasks
The first category is based on activities that allow the laboratory to activate processes for
probing and exploring the design contexts through in-field design-driven experiences. It
contains:
 (a) design probes to understand specific design contexts with design-based
methods for probing and exploring;
 (b) stand-alone design-driven tasks to solve discrete problems with a specific
design discipline, also used as probes for gathering in-field data about the design
parners approaches in designing
4.4 Training formats
The second category is a set of different training formats. It includes:
 (a) theoretical experiences (i.e. theoretical seminars and theoretical/practical
workshops);
 (b) design experiences (i.e. simulations of human-centred design processes
through a learning-by-doing approach).
4.5 Projects
In the third category there are structured projects addressed to change a situation, piloting
and developing design solutions. It includes:
 (a) pilot projects;
 (b) research and development projects.
5. Discussion
The identified strategy can be considered as a scale of complexity for (i) designing the
strategy actions; (ii) transferring design knowledge to the local entities that do not
systematically use design and (iii) understanding how the local entities generally design and
what they need in order to introduce a human-centred approach to their design process
(figure 5).
2778 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
Figure. 5. The DKT scale of complexity.
As a discussion of the main result, the following reflections are related to the application of
the strategy. In fact, from the knowledge transfer perspective it is still not clear if this
strategy should be applied according to a specific sequence. The authors provide an early
evaluation about this aspect in the following considerations:
 If the strategy is applied as a structured process according to a sequence of
actions, its application starts from the design probes and rigorously follows the
subsequent actions (figure 6). For instance, if the main goal is developing a pilot
project, the design of this set of actions for DKT should consider specific actions
that precede the pilot project in the scale.
 If the strategy is applied as a semi-structured process according to a sequence of
categories, its application starts from the first category but not necessarily from
the first activity of the category (figure 7). Therefore, while the sequence of the
categories follows the steps of the scale, the sequence of the actions is
randomized and it depends on a case-by-case evaluation.
 If the strategy is applied as an unstructured process according to any given
sequence, the actions are applied randomly (Figure 8). This means that the
sequence of the actions is collaboratively selected and designed case by case
with the partner of the knowledge transfer through the design process.
2779 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
Figure 6. Case 1: structured process.
Figure 7. Case 2: semi-structured process.
Figure 8. Case 3: unstructured process.
2780 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
Every case presents advantages and disadvantages. For instance; the last case is the most
participative and democratic among the hypotheses because it gives more decision power to
the local agents.
However, according to the experiments conducted in the analysed lab, the actions of the
macro-categories should be considered sequentially. Furthermore, it is still not possible to
consider the strategy as a customizable instrument and additional data needs to be gathered
through more in-field experiences. Moreover, according to the logic of the scale, all the
activities can be considered a tool for probing the local contexts and refining the offering
actions step by step.
From a practical perspective, if an action of a macro-category is assumed as the final
objective of the transfer process, the previous actions need to be considered as previous
steps of the DKT process. Every category is conceptually the container of a set of activities
that work as medium for the DKT process with different levels of complexity. For this reason,
the identified categories allow to apply a strategy for transferring knowledge through the
practice of design.
6. Conclusions
In conclusion, according to the findings described in this paper, it is possible to proceed with
experiments of democratization of design at local scale in the case that all the actions of the
strategy are correctly applied by the identified sequence. However, this aspect needs more
investigation and it is part of the agenda for future inquiries. For this reason, the strategy is
actually adopted by the same analysed lab as its free offering system to be experimented
with the local entities as an open-ended, inclusive, participative and free instrument for a
design-driven local development in the three systems.
Also, the analysis of the lab as a case study for the democratization of the design culture,
opened two working concepts that are (i) the DKT through design; and (ii) the
democratization of the design culture through DKT. Both the concepts require investigations
from a design research perspective envisioning an innovative conceptual framework. Indeed,
the analysed lab is mainly adopting the RtD approach with the aim of transferring the design
knoledge o he local ssems Therefore he lab is adoping research hrogh design
here for design is mean he design of the 'knowledge transfer process'. As it is
mentioned before, the 'DKT process' can be considered a 'DKT through design'.
Conseqenl he lab is folloing a Research through Transfer through Design (RtTtD)
approach for developing design research and democratizing the design culture.
Finally, a generalization of the RtTtD concept allows to conceptually envision its design
research eension ha is he Research for/through/about Transfer for/through/about
Design. This can be the subject for future inquiries in DKT.
2781 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
References
Archer, B. (1981). A View of the Nature of Design Research. In R. Jacques & J. Powell (Eds.),
Design: Science: Method (pp. 30-47). Guildford: Westbury House.
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2(11), 6-13.
Bailey, S. G. (2012). Embedding service design: the long and the short of it. In P. J. Tossavainen, M.
Harjula & S. Holmlid (Eds.), ServDes. 2012 Conference Proceedings Co-Creating Services; The
3rd Service Design and Service Innovation Conference; 8-10 February, Espoo, Finland (pp. 31-
41). Linköping University Electronic Press, Linköpings universitet.
Bason, C. (2016). Design for policy. Routledge.
Björgvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P. A. (2010). Participatory design and democratizing
innovation. In K. Bødker, T. Bratteteig, D. Loi, T. Robertson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th
Biennial participatory design conference (pp. 41-50). ACM.
Boland Jr, R. J., Collopy, F., Lyytinen, K., & Yoo, Y. (2008). Managing as designing: lessons for
organization leaders from the design practice of Frank O. Gehry. Design issues, 24(1), 10-25.
Buchanan, C., Amatullo, M., & Staszowski, E. (2019). Building the Civic Design Field in New York
City. Diseña, 14, 158-183.
Buchanan, C., Junginger, S., & Terrey, N. (2017). Service design in policy making. In D. Sangiorgi &
A. Prendiville (Eds.), Designing for Service: key issues and new directions. Bloomsbury
Publishing.
Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design issues, 17(4), 3-23.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), 221-227.
Cross, N. (1999). Design research: A disciplined conversation. Design Issues, 15(2), 510.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design
issues, 17(3), 49-55.
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.
Ciprut, J. V. (2009). Democratizations: comparisons, confrontations, and contrasts. MIT Press.
Democratization. (n.d.). In Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved from
https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=democratization&ref=searchbar_searchhint
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2018). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. Fifth
Edition. Sage.
Design Council (2013). Design for public good. London: Design Council.
Dervojeda, K., Verzijl, D., Nagtegaal, F., Lengton, M., Rouwmaat, E., PwC Netherlands,
Monfardini, E., Frideres, L., & PwC Luxembourg (2014). Design for Innovation: Service design
as a means to advance business models. Business Innovation Observatory. European
Commission.
Elden, M. (1983). Democratization and participative research in developing local theory. Journal of
Occupational Behaviour, 4(1), 21-33. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3000224
European Commission (2013). Implementing an action plan for design-driven innovation. SWD
(2013) 380 final of 23.9.2013. Brussels: European Commission.
Fals-Borda, O., & Rahman, M. A. (Eds.). (1991). Action and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly
with participatory action-research. New York: Apex Press.
2782 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
Findeli, A. (2010). Searching for Design Research questions: some conceptual clarifications. In R.
Chow, W. Jonas, & G. Joost (Eds.), Questions, Hypotheses & Conjectures: discussions on
projects by early stage and senior design researchers (pp. 286-303). Bloomington: iUniverse.
Findeli, A., Brouillet, D., Martin, S., Moineau, C., & Tarrago, R. (2008). Research through design
and transdisciplinarity: A tentative contribution to the methodology of design research. In
Swiss Design Network (Eds.), «Focused» Current Design Research Projects and Methods.
Symposium conducted at the meeting of Swiss Design Network 2008 (pp. 67-91). Berne,
Switzerland.
Fleischmann, K. (2015). The democratisation of design and design learninghow do we educate
the nextgeneration designer. International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 8, 101-108.
Forbes, H., & Schaefer, D. (2017). Social product development: the democratization of design,
manufacture and innovation. Procedia CIRP, 60, 404-409.
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1-5.
Retrieved from
http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/3/frayling_research_in_art_and_design_1993.pdf
Gaventa, J., & Cornwall, A. (2008). Power and Knowledge. In P. Reason, & H. Bradbury (Eds.), The
Sage handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 172189). London:
Sage.
Ginwright, S. (2008). Collective radical imagination: youth participatory action research and the
art of emancipatory knowledge. In Cammarota J. & Fine M. (Eds.), Revolutionizing Education,
Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion (pp. 13-22). New York, NY: Routledge.
Giordano, F. (2019). Design Capability Building in City Government. In Proceedings of the
International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference 2019 - "DESIGN
REVOLUTIONS". Manchester School of Art Manchester Metropolitan University, 02-05
September 2019, Manchester.
Guzman, M., Kadima, C., Lovell, G., Mohamed, A. A., Norton, R., Rivas, F., & Thiam, A. (2016).
Making connecions in he white-alled labrinh In Peoples Knoledge and Participator
Action Research: Escaping the White-Walled Labyrinth (pp. 23-32). Practical Action Publishing
Ltd.
Hall, B.L. (1992). Breaking the monopoly of action knowledge: research methods, participation
and development. In R. Tandon (Ed.), Participatory Research: Revisiting the Roots (pp. 921).
New Delhi: Mosaic Books.
Jonas, W. (2007). Research through DESIGN through research: A cybernetic model of designing
design foundations. Kybernetes, 36(9/10), 1362-1380.
Jonas, W. (2014). A cybernetic model of design research. In P.A. Rodgers, & J. Yee (Eds.), The
Routledge Companion to Design Research (pp. 23-37). Routledge.
Jones, P. H. (2014). Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In G. S. Metcalf (Ed.),
Social systems and design (pp. 91-128). Tokyo: Springer.
Jones, P. H., & Van Patter, G. K. (2009). Design 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0: The rise of visual sensemaking.
New York: NextDesign Leadership Institute.Junginger, S. (2013). Design and innovation in the
public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and policy implementa tion. Annual Review of
Policy Design, 1(1), 1-11.
Junginger, S. (2015). Organizational design legacies and service design. The Design Journal, 18(2),
209-226.
2783 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

Democratizing design: lessons from a case study in the Alpine area
Kelly, R. (2019). Democratizing Design: Can higher education survive? In E. Bohemia, G. Gemser,
N. Fain, C. de Bont & R. Assoreira Almendra (Eds.), Conference proceedings of the Academy for
Design Innovation Management (pp. 1389-1400). London, United Kingdom: Academy for
Design Innovation Management.
Kimbell, L. (2015). Applying design approaches to policy making: discovering policy lab. Discussion
Paper. University of Brighton, Brighton. Retrieved from
http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/9111/2/Kimbell_PolicyLab_report.pdf
Kimbell, L., & Bailey, J. (2017). Prototyping and the new spirit of policy-making. CoDesign, 13(3),
214-226.
Kretzschmar, A. (2003). The economic effects of design. Copenhagen. Denmark: National Agency
for Enterprise and Housing.
Lima, F. A., & Sangiorgi, D. (2018). Fostering a sustained design capability in non-design-intensive
organizations: a knowledge transfer perspective. In A. Meroni. A. M. Ospina Medina, B. Villari
(Eds.), ServDes. 2018 (pp. 49-61). Linköping Electronic Conference.
Liyanage, C., Elhag, T., Ballal, T., & Li, Q. (2009). Knowledge communication and translationa
knowledge transfer model. Journal of Knowledge management, 13(3), 118-131.Malmberg, L.,
& Wetter-Edman, K. (2016). Design in public sector: Exploring antecedents of sustained design
capability. In 20th DMI: Academic Design Management Conference-Inflection Point: Design
Research Meets Design Practice, Boston, USA, July 22-29, 2016 (pp. 1286-1307). Design
Management Institute.
Manzini, E. (2009). New design knowledge. Design studies, 30(1), 4-12.
Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social
innovation. MIT press.
Manzini, E., & Margolin, V. (2017, March 5). Open Letter to the Design Community: Stand Up for
Democracy [Letter to Design Community]. Chicago.
Manzini, E., & Margolin, V. (2018). Open Letter to the Design Community: Stand Up for
Democracy. Diseña, (11), 11-17.
McGann, M., Blomkamp, E., & Lewis, J. M. (2018). The rise of public sector innovation labs:
experiments in design thinking for policy. Policy Sciences, 51(3), 249-267.
Mortati, M., Villari, B., & Maffei, S. (2014). Design Capability for value creation. In E. Bohemia, A.
Rieple, J. Liedtka, R. Cooper (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th DMI: Academic Design
Management Conference: Design Management in an Era of Disruption (pp. 2488-2510). Design
Management Institute.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The Knowledge Creating Company: How Japanese Companies
Create the Dynamics of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Nusem, E., Wrigley, C., & Matthews, J. (2017). Developing design capability in nonprofit
organizations. Design Issues, 33(1), 61-75.
Polanyi, M. (2009). The tacit dimension. The University of Chicago press.
Puttick, R., Baeck, P., & Colligan, P. (2014). iteams: the teams and funds making innovation
happen in governments around the world. Nesta and Bloomberg Philanthropies.
Ramlau, U. H. (2004). In Denmark, design tops the agenda. Design Management Review, 15(4), 48-
54.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and
practice. Second Edition. Sage.
2784 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY

D. Busciantella-Ricci, I. Argenziano, M. Gandolfi, M. Ventin
Rebolledo, N. (2016). The value of service design in policy making. Service design impact report:
Public sector (pp. 40-46). Köln: Service Design Network.
Selloni, D., & Staszowski, E. (2013). Gov innovation labs: Constellation 1.0. New York City: Parsons
DESIS Lab. Retrieved from http://nyc.pubcollab.org/files/Gov_Innovation_Labs-
Constellation_1.0.pdf
Stephenson, J. (1998). The concept of capability and its importance in higher education. In J.
Stephenson & M. Yorke (Eds.), Capability and quality in higher education (pp. 1-13). London:
Routledge.
Stewart, S. (2014). Design Research. In D. Coghlan, & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), The SAGE
encyclopedia of action research. Sage.
Swann, C. (2002). Action research and the practice of d esign. Design issues, 18(1), 49-61.
Von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, Massachusetts. The MIT Press.
Warwick, L., & Djaelani, R. (2016). Exposing charities to design-led approaches through design
research. In P. Lloyd & E. Bohemia, (Eds.), Proceedings of DRS2016: Design + Research + Society
- Future-Focused Thinking, Volume 9, pp 3705-3719. (DRS International Conference Series).
London: Design Research Society.
Wrigley, C., & Straker, K. (2017). Design thinking pedagogy: The educational design ladder.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 374-385.
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and Methods. Sixth Edition. SAGE
Publications.
Young, R. A. (2008). An integrated model of designing to aid understanding of the complexity
paradigm in design practice. Futures, 40(6), 562576.
Young, R. A., Blair, S., & Cooper, A. (2001). Redesigning design education: the next Bauhaus? In V.
Popovic, & T. Kim (Eds.), Exploring emerging design paradigm, Proceedings of ICSID Educational
Seminar 2001, Seognam, Korea, International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (pp. 26-
33). Korea: Korean Institute of Design Promotion.
Zamenopoulos, T., & Alexiou, K. (2018). Co-Design as Collaborative Research. Connected
Communities Foundation Series. Bristol: Bristol University/AHRC Connected Communities
Programme.
2785 Cumulus Conference Proceedings Roma 2021 | Track: Design Culture (of) PROXIMITY