Delft Lectures in Design wraps up cycle 2: what have we learned?
The new master course by Virginia Tassinari, Gert Pasman and Pieter Jan (PJ) Stappers, Delft Lectures in Design, has finished the second cycle out of three. Their student teams have delivered new provotypes, this time for the theme ‘Systemic & Empathic’.
Read more about provotyping and cycle 1: ‘Healthy & Sustainable’ in the first article.
Introducing… Systemic and Empathic designing
In the theme introduction Froukje Sleeswijk Visser showed how the design profession has moved from product-focus to societal-impact focus, and how in the past decades research at IDE has helped shape what design professionals do in society. New developments included experience design, service design, and now systemic design.
Then, Froukje introduced the four researchers representing various research areas within the theme. The floor went to Stella Boess, on whether and how inclusivity matters in design, Rebecca Price, on how designers can be resilient in their work, Himanshu Verma, on how empathy plays a role in the interaction between people and AI, and finally Wo Meijer, on how 360-degree video can be used as a tool in design research.
All four explained their topics and included a few of the dilemmas they often deal with in their research. These functioned as starting points for the students, when researching and designing their provotypes.
Ceci n’est pas un utilisateur
On October the 15th, the students gathered for the final lecture of the cycle to review the Systemic & Empathic provotypes. Ianus Keller and Pieter Jan Stappers presented a few provotypes they found interesting and called forward their student team creators.
The first team to come to the stage was group 24, who had chosen to focus on the possibilities and limitations of empathic design (inspired by Himanshu’s topic). Their provotype ‘Ceci n’est pas un utilisateur’ (fig. 1) playfully showed how steps in a design method create a composite image of a user. They provoked the designer to reflect on how real this “full image” is.
Group 80 created a boardgame that encourages reflection on the topic of inclusivity. During the game, the extent of your privilege determines how quickly you progress around the board and influences your chance to be the first to reach game spaces that give you power over the other players. The group members confessed feeling a certain awkwardness when playing their own game, with their moral compass clashing with their desire to win.
Team 45 shot a video commercial on Wo’s topic. Unable to attend the lecture in person, Wo had created a humorous feedback video – which actually seemed to be a provotype in disguise. While he only showed a screenshot of team 45’s provotype, the image of their VR headset with horse blinders (fig. 2) said it all: “Are you a designer on a deadline? Having trouble processing all the information your 360° video is giving you? Why not simply focus on the insights you want?”
Better and better
The progress the students have made since the first cycle was evident, the coaches noted. Both the provotypes, and the reasoning behind them were of better quality.
Looking back on the cycle, Virginia and PJ agree that the students now have a better understanding of ‘how the game works’ and were able to better implement the theory behind provotyping as well as the literature the researchers had provided for their topics. The provotypes felt more mature.
The course also provokes the students to critically reflect on their role as designers. Virginia is excited to see the students having fun with that, even when it may be confronting for them. “The provotypes are often full of humour and irony,” she says.
Looking at the noticeable progress in these short weeks, the course coordinators and coaches are very optimistic about the final cycle.
Impact for a better society?
So, is the work the students are doing useful for the researchers? Virginia and PJ have learnt it is. Some of the researchers are already using provotypes the students have made in their work. Many others are inspired and provoked by the new perspectives the students bring – being from a different generation and from outside the researchers’ fields. Some new researchers see their topic catapulted into the spotlight. In the first cycle, Catalina Estrada Mejía, who had only recently joined the faculty, had a third of the students work on her topic of nudging. PJ also expects that the researchers will now have an easier time finding students to participate in their research or special courses.
How the researchers are impacting the students is still too early to say, according to PJ and Virginia. What they can say, is that students are gaining insights into what its like to be a professional designer or design researcher. Virginia: “Students are confronted with many facets of design research and have the possibility to explore how research is always part of our work as designers, also outside of academia. This is part of our work: not only developing solutions but understanding and questioning our society (and our responsibilities there as designers) and envisioning alternatives for the future.”
Next year
Virginia, Gert and the ten coaches are constantly reflecting on the course and how to improve elements next year. They are looking forward to putting even more young researchers in the spotlight, while they together with the same team of coaches build on the provotyping skills. There are early ideas for tool iterations and new ways of involving the research community even more.
We are excited to see how next year’s course shapes up! But first, let us look forward to cycle 3: ‘Intelligent & Humane’.
Tip: Want to play the game ‘Uneven Playing Field’ the students of group 80 have created? Click here to print it yourself!