This section looks at how my design methods and approaches evolved over the research period as I gained a better idea of the maintenance of access to oral history recordings and the wider system this labour has to operate in, as seen in the portfolio section – Oral history: a wicked problem.
The original approach for this project was very simple: a designer (me) was going to record oral histories and then use these to design a system for making reuse easy. Seaton Delaval Hall was going to be my testing grounds. This was all illustrated in a timeline I made right at the start of my project in 2021 (OHD_GRP_0162) and in the presentation I did during my interview in early 2020 (OHD_PRS_0124).
However, in the presentation I also emphasised how this collaboration between design, oral history and heritage was a venture into the unknown and managing expectations was going to be essential. You can see this again in a mind map (OHD_MDM_0028) where I answered questions about my project and the reply I gave to “what might the answer look like?” was – “HA HA.”
However, even though I was unsure about what the final output of my project would be, my initial direction was clearly focussed around producing a tangible output. In another mind map (OHD_MDM_0025), which was made around the same as the Q & A mind map (OHD_MDM_0028), I planned for collaborations with artists, architects, and software developers; all of which are workers in the development system.1 This not surprising as the allure of technology is ever present in design, if you wish to explore this further click on the button below.
Right at the start of this project I felt this tension between a desire to make a product, something similar to my predecessors (as discussed here Technical Fixes and OHD_WRT_0172) and a desire to ensure whatever I designed would actually be realised. As the design theorist Cameron Tonkinwise writes, “a wide range of people must be convinced to lend their money and materials and components and time and skills to realizing a particular design”.2 A PhD is not long and I am but one person. In addition I was, in many ways, looking to design an archive and, as I wrote in this blog post (OHD_BLG_0049), the true test of an archive is whether it still exists decades into the future and I could not do that in the four years I had been given.
I have realised a rather large problem with my project and that is that it is very difficult for me to test out my ideas. I am essentially building an archive-like system and the true test of an archive is to see how well it stands up to time. Within the time frame of my CDA I will not be able to truly see how well my archive system works both from a user point of view and the maintenance workers.
I wonder if there is any literature on this that could help me workout how to test long term products in the short term…
This niggle became more substantial after a random Createathon I did (OHD_BLG_0062) where instead of offering the client “solutions” my team reframed our client’s issue and gave them some questions to think about in relation to their business.3
The idea of offering a stakeholder or client a different way of thinking about a situation instead of a concrete solution seemed more realisable in the timeframe of my PhD. Later I transformed this idea into a presentation I did at Newcastle University’s annual PGR forum (OHD_PRS_0122).
What I took away from the Createathon is that what I really want to do as a designer is not give someone a stack of clear cut ideas but a new way of thinking. I want this because that is far more sustainable in the long run and it is also harder to dismiss. You can throw away a stack of ideas but if I have incepted a new way of seeing the world into your brain that is hard to ignore.
This idea of creating new ways of thinking instead of concrete solutions was also pushed along by my fear of my design work being destructive. In his paper, Design Away, Tonkinwise refers to Tony Fry saying “that the essence of design ethics lies in the fact that no act of creation can avoid also being an act of destruction. […] . A tree must die for it to be the material cause of a wooden table”.4 Mike Monterio’s Ruined by Design also fed into this fear, as his discussions on the destruction caused by various parties in Silicon Valley made me worry about my own data mining which took the form of oral history. Monterio also refers to Erika Hall and Kio Stark book, Just enough research, which offers examples of failed designs such as the Segway being prime examples of people not doing enough research before they design. This brings me back to my original fear of not having enough time to create anything well rounded.
A designer is first and foremost a human being.
A designer is responsible for the work they put into the world.
A designer values impact over form.
A designer owes the people who hire them not just their labor, but their counsel.
A designer welcomes criticism.
A designer strives to know their audience.
A designer does not believe in edge cases.
A designer is part of a professional community.
A designer welcomes a diverse and competitive field.
A designer takes time for self-reflection.
Mike Monterio in Ruined by Design (OHD_BOK_0013) used in the creation of my code (OHD_WRT_0121)
DP.006
What these fears gave me was a direction in the way I wanted to design. A method of designing which was kind and recognised those who knew most about the design situation were the ones working inside the situation. This again is not a new idea. [INSERT THE BIT ABOUT TRANSFORMATIVE DESIGN FROM MDI, PAPANEK’S BIT ABOUT DESIGNERS BEING INTERPRETERS, SCHÖN’S IDEA ABOUT REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONER]. This is also where the strategy for action research came from. Action research (AR) is a research ‘strategy’ merging together: research, action, and participation.5 AR seeks to be democratic, by being “a situated process” where the local people are not “passive recipients (subjects) of the research process” but “active participants” in shaping the methodology of the project.6
DP.007
The necessity to be flexible and reflective in my practice became very apparent in my work with Seaton Delaval Hall and the National Trust as the collaborative work went slower than my original timeline (OHD_GRP_0162) had counted on and there was a general adversity to radical change or experimentation. The workshop I ran during the Seaton Delaval Hall Community Research Day was a good example:
On Monday 11th April 2022 I attended and ran a workshop at the Seaton Delaval Hall Community Research Day. It was an exceptionally interesting affair and mostly certain did not go the way I imagined. If I had to sum it up I would describe it as engaging but impractical. To say that it got deep real quick would be an understatement but the to which it went was fascinating. It was also great to just bounce ideas off people. However it felt like whenever I attempt to move the conversation to getting to more practical solutions people rather stayed in philosophical and imaginary realm or they would just explain why it would not be possible to change that.
The difference between speed design and heritage worked at became a point of query and brought me to a discussion with Ollie Hemstock from Northumbria University about Slow Design. He then challenged me to work out what was good and bad fast design, and what was good and bad slow design, which I did. On reflection this was the starting point to the development of the idea – “wicked maintenance”.
Good Fast – Creative thinking under pressure, Google Sprint, First Aid. No overthinking. Magical solutions. Fail fast.
Bad Fast – Drawing on stereotypes and single narratives. Reducing information, and a lack of consulting. Can do damage.
Good Slow – Allowing ideas to grow. Future proofing. More room for nuance and complexity. Ethics.
Bad Slow – Obstructive bureaucracy. Sticking to the past. Minimal change.
OHD_BLG_0047 Delete as appropriate: Bad/Good Slow/Fast
DP.009
Once I came across Charlie Morgan’s blog post,When the crisis fades, what gets left behind? – and I was reintroduced to Mierle Laderman Ukeles and her work as a maintenance artist – my design practice started to really take shape.
Maintenance design manifesto mind map OHD_MDM_0159
DP.010
I wrote an essay on my conception of maintenance design (OHD_WRT_0136), although in hindsight I made mistakes in my understanding of design language and techniques, especially my interpretation of wicked problems.
Throughout my second year I produced various reports (OHD_RPT_0137, OHD_WRT_0171) where I summarised my thinking to my supervisors. Certain elements in these reports, especially in the summary of my first year (OHD_RPT_0137), were dropped like the “development of space” and “development of stuff”. These were too development focussed and as I discussed earlier and in the section Technical Fixes this development oriented work was not appropriate for my subject area or the time frame I was working in.
CDA development update 13/09/2022 Here is a brief overview of how the PhD has changed since the project proposal split it into three sections. The first considers the significant changes that have occur globally in the last two years. The second discusses the change in the framing of the situation the PhD is addressing, reusing oral history recordings on heritage sites. And the third looks at the changes in design methodology and theory due to the environment I am designing in and for.
SECTION ONE: HISTORY HAPPENED Since the writing of project proposal, the world experience significant changes including, the COVID-19 pandemic, further development in the conversation around the Britain’s colonial past, and a constant wave of climate disasters. The Trust did not escape the effects of these changes, having to furlough and make significant cuts to staff during the 2020 lockdown, publishing the report on sites with connections to the British Empire, including Seaton Delaval Hall, and wider actions for the Trust to achieve carbon net neutrality. In addition, the COVID-19 lockdowns also highlighted the public’s need for access to open spaces and nature, while storms, like Storm Arwen, highlighted the threat the climate crisis is to the Trust running open natural spaces. It is because of the changes in the Trust this project has also evolved and the project is unfolding in a very different environment than when it was originally proposed. The project therefore has to think about the environment impact of the designs it is developing and think about how the design might fit in the (post-)COVID structure of the Trust. In the original proposal the project was already thinking about a 360˚ interpretation of the hall but now this seems more important than ever.
It is also interesting to note, while it is true that National Trust sites are to a certain extend run autonomously, they do not operate in a vacuum. National Trust sites function inside the wider structure of the Trust, an extensively complicated network of rules, regulations, and resources. I believe the influence this structure has on the project was slightly underestimated at the time of writing the project proposal. For example, the Trust’s digital infrastructure which has strict rules and regulations about digital storage has become quite the barrier, the extent of which had not really been realised before the start of the project.
SECTION TWO: BUILDING THE FOUNDATIONS In the summary of the project proposal it is written that “the PhD would generate, in partnership, new knowledge in understanding and addressing visitors’ active engagement in interpreting the past through reusing a National Trust oral history archive.” The big assumption made here was that “a National Trust oral history archive” was either already in existence or would have been easy to set up. What the last two years have revealed is that this part of the task is easier said than done and the struggle in setting up oral history archives that allow reuse is not unique to the National Trust. After I did a deep dive into the many attempts to make oral history recording more reuse friendly through digital tools, it became clear something more fundamental was not being addressed. Most frequently the downfall of these digital solutions was the projects coming to the end of their funding, meaning there was no money to support the maintenance needed to keep the technology running, which eventually resulted in their deterioration.
If we return to part of the original title of the PhD, “sustaining visitor (re)use”, the project initial was about building a system to allow visitor interpretation of oral history recordings. However, two years down the line “sustaining visitor (re)use” seems only achievable if at first, we create a solid foundation on which a system for visitor interpretation can be build and maintained. In order to create these foundations, there needs to be a focus on maintenance and the resources needed to support the storage of oral history recordings, which is something that has been missing from other endeavours into oral history recordings accessible. The resources needed will obviously include labour and money but also energy. As the large carbon footprint of internet servers and the storing of digital files is being realised. This project also needs to think about how we are able to store oral history recordings in the most energy efficient way possible, while still ensuring they are accessible and reusable to a wide range of people. This is especially important with the Trust’s aims for carbon neutrality.
SECTION THREE: CHANGE IN METHODOLOGY Back in the original proposal Roberto Verganti’s idea of a technological epiphany is mentioned as a possible route for the PhD. However as written in the first section the Trust’s digital infrastructure is slightly rigid and is likely to not accommodate any radical technological innovation, meaning that a technological epiphany is unlikely. What we can still take from Verganti is his ideas around a change in meaning. What does it mean to do oral history on heritage sites? And how does oral history benefit heritage sites in the long term, beyond the idea of volunteer and visitor engagement within a set project timeline? Alongside Verganti’s idea of a change in meaning I have taken on design theory from Cameron Tonkinwise about ‘design for transitions’, which involves thinking about the life of designs outside of the project timeline and Victor Papanek’s six elements of function that lead to a successful design: use, method, need, aesthetic, telesis, association. With the project design practice there has been another change. Instead of following a step-by-step process of researching, developing a prototype, testing and iteration. I have opted to use ‘infrastructuring’; researching and mapping the existing structure of an institution or system to better understand and communicate where any possible design solutions might fit. And ‘design fiction’ or scenario building as a low-risk method to harvest feedback on possible designs instead of the high-risk method of live testing and iteration. Design fiction/scenario building also seems to be an excellent way to communicate across disciplines.
However, working out what maintenance is is not easy (OHD_WHB_0230) as it is for the most part invisible or taken-for-granted. By embodying the work, through my placements and the work I did throughout my case study, I was able to identify what maintenance tasks were required to maintain access to oral history recordings. I also experience the difficulty of these tasks and how they fit within the big picture of my PhD work. These experiences make up the bulk of this portfolio.
In my final year I presented my key takeaways from my experience designing within a heritage organisation to my design colleagues at Northumbria University (OHD_PRS_0301).
Embrace Flexibility: Be prepared to adapt your plans and approach based on the realities of the organisation and the specific challenges encountered.
Build Relationships: Focus on building strong relationships with staff and stakeholders.
Prioritise Maintenance: Consider the long-term implications of your work and how your projects will be maintained and sustained over time.
Understand the Context: Deeply immerse yourself in the specific context of the institution, make sure you understand its culture and its processes.
This is what I would later dubbed “wicked maintenance”.
DP.014
In my analysis of the National Trust’s sound collection I saw many mistakes in the catalogue which were undoubtedly human errors. Humans make mistakes, but they are also more flexible than any computer (at the time of writing).
The central idea of wicked maintenance is designing and working with and for humans. It is not about creating a concrete output, such as a technical fix, but creating systems, spaces and cultures where the humans who work within the situation can adapt and maintain without constraint.
The “development system” is what the artist Mierle Laderman Ukeles calls the sector of work which focusses on creating things instead of maintaining things. ↩︎
Tonkinwise, C., (2015). Design for Transitions‒from and to what?. Design Philosophy Papers, 13(1), p. 14. ↩︎
I do not remember exactly what we said but we did not mention social media and just talked about what the client would like their business to be. ↩︎
Tonkinwise, C., (2014). Design away. Design as future-making, p.199. ↩︎
Greenwood and Levin, 2007, p. 2; Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 6 ↩︎
(Sommer and Sommer, 2002, p. 212; Greenwood and Levin, 2007, p. 75) ↩︎
