Aprendizaje y práctica del diseño en contextos de diversidaduna aproximación basada en metodologías abiertas

  1. Fátima Ferreiro-Galguera
  2. Daniel Domínguez-Figaredo
Journal:
Arte, individuo y sociedad

ISSN: 1131-5598

Year of publication: 2021

Volume: 33

Issue: 1

Pages: 259-281

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5209/ARIS.68151 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR HANDLE: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14468/12846

More publications in: Arte, individuo y sociedad

e-spacio. Repositorio Institucional de la UNED: lock_openOpen access Handle

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

Design methods with open-type approaches are better adapted to changing and highly complex situations. Furthermore, a multitude of methodologies based on flexibility and user involvement coexist in learning this type of design approach. Here we present an experience that combines the practice of design from an open approach, with a learning methodology that adapts the design of products and services to the needs of the groups involved in their development. As a theoretical approach, connections between Amartya Sen’s theory of capabilities and methods based on the human factor are analysed, proposing a conception of design understood as practice that expands the capacity for action of users. Based on this framework, four projects carried out by industrial design and furniture students, who carried out their practices with people with functional diversity, are described. Each project developed a different solution according to the element that focused the intervention: object, process, service/system, and cognitive process. The results show the potential of open methods to strengthen the agency of the groups and individuals involved in the development of design projects, especially when the interventions are applied in social contexts that pose significant limitations and requirements for the design of products and services.

Bibliographic References

  • Álvarez, J. F. (2001a). Capacidades, libertades y desarrollo: Amartya Kumar Sen. En R. Máiz (Coord.), Teorías políticas contemporáneas (pp. 417–432). Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
  • Álvarez, J. F. (2001b). Una aproximación al espacio de las capacidades potenciales. En W. J. González, G. Marqués, & A. Ávila (Coords.), Ciencia económica y economía de la ciencia: reflexiones filosófico-metodológicas (pp. 175-195). México: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
  • Álvarez, J. F. (2010). La propuesta inmanentista de Amartya Sen para la justicia global. Isegoría, 43, 617–630.
  • Bastidas, A., & Martínez, H.R. (2016). Diseño social: Tendencias, enfoques y campos de acción. Arquetipo, 13, 89–113. Recuperado de http://revistas.ucp.edu.co/index.php/ arquetipo/article/view/277/268
  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.
  • Bürdek, B. E. (1994). Diseño: historia, teoría y práctica del diseño industrial. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili.
  • Bursaw, J., Kimber, M. & Carrington, S. (2015). Teaching reflection for service-learning. In M.E. Ryan (Ed.), Teaching reflective learning in higher education (pp. 153–169). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
  • Crabtree, R. D. & Sapp, D.A. (2018). International service‐learning guiding theories and practices for social justice. In D. E. Lund (Ed.), The wiley international handbook of service‐learning for social justice (pp. 319–352). Hoboken, N.J., USA: Wiley- Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119144397.ch15
  • Domínguez, D. (2017). Heuristics and web skills acquisition in open learning environments. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 102–111. Recuperado de https:// drive.google.com/file/d/14rxFbbWU-VFDpVun5kB2hTXbvsX8NShB/view
  • Dong, A. (2008). The policy of design: A capabilities approach. Design Issues, 24(4), 76–87.
  • Durán, L. P. & Mancipe, L. D. (2018). Enfoques teóricos de diseño que propenden hacia el desarrollo sostenible de Latinoamérica. Cuaderno, 69, 175–193. Recuperado de https:// dspace.palermo.edu/ojs/index.php/cdc/article/view/1107/947
  • Ferreiro, F. (2019, Junio 21). DI+DI 2019 “Aprender jugando” [Blog post]. Recuperado de https://artediez.es/industrial/2019/06/21/didi-2019-aprender-jugando/
  • Genovese, A., Acquaye, A. A., Figueroa, A. & Koh, S. L. (2017). Sustainable supply chain management and the transition towards a circular economy: Evidence and some applications. Omega, 66, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015
  • Gibson, R. (Ed.). (2016). Sustainability assessment: Applications and opportunities. New York: Routledge.
  • Gigerenzer, G. & Selten, R. (Eds.)(2002). Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Jones, P. (2014). Design research methods for systemic design: Perspectives from design education and practice. Proceedings of the 58th Meeting of ISSS, Washington DC, USA, July 2014, 1–8. http://journals.isss.org/index.php/proceedings58th/index
  • Jones, P. (2018). Contexts of co-creation: Designing with system stakeholders. En P. Jones & K. Kijima (Eds.), Systemic design. Theory, methods, and practice (pp. 3–52). Tokyo: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8_1
  • Kimbell, L. (2012). Rethinking design thinking: Part II. Design and Culture, 4(2), 129–148. https://doi.org/10.2752/175470812X13281948975413
  • Lazalde, A., Torres, J. & Vila-Viñas, D. (2015). Hardware: ecosistemas de innovación y producción basados en hardware libre (v.2.0). En D. Vila-Viñas & X.E. Barandiaran (Eds.), Buen conocer – FLOK society, modelos sostenibles y políticas públicas para una economía social del conocimiento común y abierto en el Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador: IAEN- CIESPAL. Recuperado de https://book.floksociety.org/ec/4/4-1-hardware-ecosistemas- de-innovacion-y-produccion-basados-en-hardware-libre/
  • Lindström, K. & Ståhl, Å. (2015). Figurations of spatiality and temporality in participatory design and after – networks, meshworks and patchworking. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081244
  • Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D. & Fisher, B. J. (2011). The effectiveness of service- learning: It’s not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33(3), 208– 224. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F105382590113300302
  • Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Margolin, S. & Margolin, V. (2015). Un “modelo social” de diseño: cuestiones de práctica e investigación. Revista Kepes, 8, 61-71. Recuperado de http://190.15.17.25/kepes/ downloads/Revista8_4.pdf
  • Mousavi, S. & Gigerenzer, G. (2014). Risk, uncertainty, and heuristics. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1671-1678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.02.013
  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Civitas Books.
  • Oxman, N. (2016). Age of entanglement. Journal of Design and Science. https://doi. org/10.21428/7e0583ad
  • Papanek, V. J. (1985). Design for the real world: Human ecology and social change (revised 2nd edition). Chicago: Academy Chicago.
  • Pelta, R. (2007). Diseñar con la gente. Temes de disseny, 24, 27–34.
  • Prieto-Sandoval, V., Jaca, C. & Ormazabal, M. (2018). Towards a consensus on the circular economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 179, 605–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2017.12.224
  • Romañach, J. & Lobato, M. (2005). Diversidad funcional, nuevo término para la lucha por la dignidad en la diversidad del ser humano. Foro de vida independiente, 5, 1–8.
  • Sarkar, P. & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies, 32(4), 348– 383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002
  • Sanders, E. & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts Publication, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
  • Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Simon, H. A. (1972). Theories of bounded rationality. Decision and Organization, 1(1), 161– 176.
  • Steen, M., Manschot, M. & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design projects. International Journal of Design, 5(2), 53–60. Recuperado de http://index. ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/890
  • Stanton, T. & Giles, D. (2017). Introduction: Founders, flamers, and futures. En C. Dolgon, T. Mitchell, & T. Eatman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of service learning and community engagement (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/9781316650011.002
  • Storni, C. (2015). Notes on ANT for designers: ontological, methodological and epistemological turn in collaborative design. CoDesign, 11(3–4), 166–178. https://doi.or g/10.1080/15710882.2015.1081242
  • Sundar, S. & Singh, A. (2013). New heuristic approaches for the dominating tree problem. Applied Soft Computing, 13(12), 4695–4703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2013.07.014 Toboso, M. (2018). Diversidad funcional: hacia un nuevo paradigma en los estudios y en las políticas sobre discapacidad. Política y Sociedad, 55(3), 783–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.5209/POSO.56717
  • Van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P. E. & Van de Poel, I. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of ethics, values, and technological design: Sources, theory, values and application domains. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
  • Whiteley, N. (1993). Design for Society. Londres: Reaktion Books.
Data source: Dialnet