Introduction
I spent a significant amount of my PhD standing in the basement of Seaton Delaval Hall. I volunteered at the hall, not because my university, the hall, or funding body asked me, but to build up trust between myself and those who were working within the situation, the staff and volunteers at the hall. Trust was a corner stone within my overall Action Research strategy. I picked Action Research because its principle and democratic approach is suited to understanding the situation of oral history at the hall and identify opportunities to improve the use of oral history at the hall. And most importantly it is sensitive to maintenance orientated nature of the institution. Action Research encouraged me to positioned myself as the friendly outsider and reflective practitioner, and view the Seaton Delaval Hall staff and volunteers as active participants in the structuring of my project. In the following section I will explain my Action Research strategy, how it helped my create a cross-disciplinary dialogue with stakeholders through which allowed me to uncover the ‘invisible’ parts of the structure.
Greenwood and Levin define Action Research (AR) is a research ‘strategy’ merging together: research, action, and participation (Greenwood and Levin, 2007, p. 2; Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 6). AR was first concocted by Kurt Lewin in [date] with the founding principle of research being done to benefit society (Sommer and Sommer, 2002, p. 211). This concept repositioned the researcher from “a distant observer” to someone involve with solving a particular ‘real-life’ problem (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 19). Over the years AR has evolved to become more democratic by including participation from, what Greenwood and Levin refer to as ‘local people’ or ‘local stakeholders’ (Swann, 2002, p. 50; Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 6). 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 (Sommer and Sommer, 2002, p. 212; Greenwood and Levin, 2007, p. 75).
The position the designer takes on within AR is as a ‘Reflective Practitioner’ and a ‘friendly outsider’. These are similar but slightly different principles. Donald Schön’s idea of the ‘Reflective Practitioner’ encourages the designer to drop the professional façade to create a “sense of freedom and of real connection to the client” (Schön, 2016, p. 300). Similarly Greenwood and Levin’s ‘friendly outsider’ wants the researcher to explain the situation back to the stakeholders and “[open] up lines of discussion” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 104). This must be done in a diplomatic and sensitive way in order to maintain trust between the participants and the researcher, in addition to an awareness of the researcher’s position within the situation (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 104; Sommer and Sommer, 2002, p. 51). This is why I volunteered at the hall.
The combination of viewing the stakeholders as active participants in the shaping of the project and the designer positioning themselves as an open minded and humble practitioner. This is done by recognising that the researcher is not the authority of knowledge, instead it is the local people who have a better understanding of their situation (Greenwood and Levin, 2007, p. 76). This means the knowledge is spread across the participants and it is the task of the researcher to bring together this knowledge through dialect knowledge generation. The dialogue helped create both an idea of the situation and inspiration for opportunities. This dialogue is created through ‘dialectical knowledge generation’ between the researcher and the participants/local people. A thesis is proposed by a party and then critiqued and questioned by others, who might also propose a counter proposal. This continuous back and forth leading to a better understanding of both the situation and possible opportunities (Greenwood and Levin, 2002, p. 68).
AR and the way it positions the stakeholders and designer is suitable to mapping out the infrastructure. The infrastructure is invisible to both the stakeholders, those who live within the structure, and the designer, who is a stranger to the structure. In the case of the designer parts of the structure is invisible for two reasons. The first is how the “output” is invisible, because its aim is to keep an equilibrium, and so only becomes visible when it is absent [references Graham and thrift]. The most obvious example is cleaning which features in both lists and can be seen in such political actions as bin men striking. The second way maintenance is invisible is because it is literally hidden from view. Technology is buried underground like pipes or is suspended high above our heads like telephone poles. People become invisible through either the location their work or the time they work. For example, domestic workers stay in private homes and commercial cleaners work outside opening hours (Star and Strauss, 1999, p. 16 [reference]). To the stakeholders the insiders, maintenance and the wider structure is invisible because these actions simply become habit. As Star writes a lot of the task which make up maintenance do not need to be “reinvented each time or assembled for each task” (Star, 1999, p. 381). They are passive activities which therefore become transparent and “naturalised” as part of the structure, and are simply taken-for-granted (Star, 1999, p. 381).
Because I worked with SDH staff, NT staff and non-NT staff I have created a board idea of the situation. However, because these were case studies the knowledge generated cannot always be generalisable (Sommer and Sommer, 2002, p. 209).
Its might be the case that certain aspects of the situation can offer a more general understanding but the specific opportunities I offer for the National trust are completely tailored to their particular situation. This method helped me identify the infrastructure that needs to be maintained. By explaining the situation in a broader sense and then offering the particular opportunities I identified for the National Trust and showing the process other will be able to get an idea of how they should approach their own oral history situation.
However, there are great barriers in creating dialogue between various groups of people. In order to navigate the disciplinary difference and creative tensions that can occur across fields it is essential for the designer to utilise their skill as a visual creator to make artefacts which support this multidisciplinary conversation.
Design artefacts
A design artefact or design thing brings together the thoughts, feelings, and observations of the researcher and the participants together in one ‘thing’ (Gaver, 2012, p. 344; Koskinen et al., 2011, p. 125; Ehn, 2008, p. 93). I used them as a tool to create an understanding of a situation for myself and as a tool for communication.
Creating the artefacts myself I would reflect-in-action An essentail part of the conversation between the designer and the participants and an essential feature of a reflective practitioner [and AR] is – reflection-in-action. ‘Reflection-in-action’ has it origins in Michael Polanyi’s idea of ‘tacit knowledge’ or ‘knowing-in-action’ or ‘common sense’. In other words knowing something without knowing why you know it, like recognising a face or using a particular tool (Schön, 2016, p. 52). Schön builds on this idea by proposing ‘reflection-in-action’ as a divergent way of thinking when common sense fails and our preconceived theories of a certain scenario do not work and a new theory or framing of the problem must be created. Schön says this reflection on what we are doing occurs while we are doing it. He gives the example of jazz musicians, who make music according to the vibe of the rest of musicians (Schön, 2016, p. 62). Because maintenance is invisible a lot of assumptions are made, the reflective form of practice helps challenge and break down assumptions. While collecting the information from the various participants the reflective practitioner has to constantly be challenging themselves…
The artefacts which I used within communication. Because I am working within a wicked problem I am working across disciplines. When working across disciplines you are working with people who will have specific language and symbols attached to their role within the structure. They will have their own subjective view of the structure they are building.
Within this project design artefacts came in two forms: explanatory artefacts which explained a situation or collected knowledge to either myself or stakeholders, and exploratory artefacts which proposed an alternative future.
Explanatory artefacts – capture the invisible
Explanatory artefacts are products of observations of specific situations. In the setting of this project that would be Seaton Delaval Hall on a minor scale and the National Trust on a macro scale. In addition this included working and observing other organisations in the archiving industry. The placements at these establishments meant the maintenance structure could be accessed. As the friendly outsider there was enough to unpick the learned, naturalised and invisible parts of everyday life (Star, 1999, p. 381; Zeisel, 2006, p. 191). These observations were then condensed in explanatory design artefacts to help stimulate conversation with stakeholders.
How does this work for myself and as a communication device.
The most common explanatory design artefact is drawing. Drawing is seen by many design theorists as a core element of designing and design research, because drawing is an excellent way to sort the complexities of a wicked societal problem (Cross, 2007, p. 57; Lawson, 2001, p. 242). Drawings can be designs for a product, but also diagrams or maps. Maps and diagrams were particularly helpful within the project due to maintenance being complicated and embedded webs and maps allow the stakeholders to see and understand things which are invisible or too far away to see (Fawcett-Tang et al., 2002, p. 11). Allowing the maintenance to become tangible and helps make conceptual easier to understand.
Exploratory Artefacts – less invasive (start conversations rather than give concrete solutions)(familiar)
The exploratory form of design artefact is used to open “the dialogue between the possible and the actual” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 67). Exploratory design artefacts can also be seen as a ‘futuring’ design artefacts – artefacts that presents an alternative future. Design has always been seen as a method of future making, since Herbert Simon’s The Sciences of the Artificial. There are therefore many design methods which focus on proposing alternative futures. By using explorative design artefacts the researcher is able to “ask counterintuitive questions” to gain insights “hidden from view by assumptions and other elements in cultural training and social systems” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 99). The challenging of assumptions is important when working in a maintenance environment because it is so complicated and the elements of the structure are naturalised and therefore invisible. Probing the participants with exploratory design artefacts reveals these naturalised and invisible parts by getting the participants to question how this proposed future would function within the existing infrastructure. The exploratory artefacts also help identify areas where change can happen, where there is more flexibility in the system. [look at example of a exploratory artefact and think about what you tried to achieve with it]
How does this work for myself and as a communication device.
Design fictions and scenarios
Design fiction are a form of exploratory artefacts which communicate a possible future. This help the stakeholder to imagine a new system without feeling the pressure of implemention. The fiction element makes it playful [design’s playfulness power]. Design fictions were particularly useful when I was creating the research room considering my brief was so open it was hard to think of a particular place to start, by creating a fiction it allowed me to think out the various stages as well as having the stakeholder critic the parts and reveal the parts of a system which might been learn [star here]
This democratic stance of AR also has consequences for the project output that fit within the idea of situation and opportunity. As Greenwood and Levin write “We [action researchers] believe in trying to offer, as skilfully as possible, the space and tools for democratic social change, but we refuse to guide such change unilaterally from our position as action researchers” (Greenwood and Levin, 1998, p. 11). The aim is to create a conversation or dialogue which allows those inside the maintenance system to change it slowly on the inside. This is akin to the idea of situation and opportunities. Which as Star writes is a more suitable approach [infrastructures are fixed in increments].
Summary of artefacts
Although I just went described the design artefacts in this binary manner they are not always this binary. If we take the BL work as explanatory is gives us not only a good idea of what the situation is but also the next steps needed to improve the situation. Similarly the design fiction of the research room helped identify the steps needed for this new process but also highlighted a whole bunch of other issues. In addition artefacts that These maps, diagrams, and sketches were not necessarily for sharing straight away. The initial versions were often messy and personal to my personal thought process. Lawson warns how certain diagrams could be misleading if read by anyone other than the creator (Lawson, 2001, p. 251). So before they are shared they often need some formalising and tailoring to the person it is being shown to.
My use of explanatory and exploratory design artefacts within my case studies allow me to establish dialectical knowledge generation which ensured assumptions were continuously challenged and the problem was frequently reframed. These artefacts were used to inspire the participants to create dialogue and awareness of their situation.
Conclusion