Advertisement

Leveraging Disciplinary and Cultural Diversity in the Conceptualization Stages of Design

  • Alex CloseEmail author
  • Eileen Harris
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 968)

Abstract

This paper explores the involvement of increasingly diverse viewpoints in design and makes a case for how using low fidelity 3D prototyping in conceptualization stages might be able to leverage these viewpoints. It compares traditional uni-disciplinary methods with interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and explores why this might be relevant at this time. It also examines how participants can be embodied in the early design process to allow divergent cultural and disciplinary perspectives to emerge and develop more sophisticated and innovative designs with a global scope. The paper also explains some challenges with collaborative cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary approaches, and offers recommendations while suggesting areas of influence that could be looked at in further research.

Keywords

Interdisciplinary Cross-cultural Prototyping Embodiment Collaboration Globalization 

References

  1. 1.
    Moreno, L., Rogel, E.: Transdisciplinary design: tamed complexity through new collaboration. Strateg. Des. Res. J. 1, 42–50 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.4013/sdrj.2018.111.07CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A., Jonsen, K.: Unravelling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: a meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 41(4), 690–709 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burdek, B.: Design and globalization. Des. Birkhäuser Basel, 71–224 (2005).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-7643-7681-3_3
  4. 4.
    Chavan, A.L., Gorney, D., Prabhu, B., Arora, S.: The washing machine that ate my sari. Interact. January + February 16, 26–31 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clemmensen, T., Ranjan, A., Bodker, M.: How cultural knowledge shapes core design thinking – a situation specific analysis. CoDesign 14(2), 115–132 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1399146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Irani, L., Dourish, P.: Postcolonial interculturality. In: Proceedings International Workshop on Intercultural Collaboration, pp. 249–252 (2009)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aguas, S.: The Design Process Paradox. Traditional Design Processes vs. Eco-Design Processes. Caleidoscopio Revista De Comunicacao E Cultura, Caleidoscopio Revista De Comunicacao E Cultura (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chung, W., Lacerda, L.: Jazz improvisation for effective design collaboration. In: Proceedings IASDR 2013, pp. 1–9 (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crichton-Miller, E.: Found in Translation. Crafts. (0306610X) (2006)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jacob, S.: Beyond the flatline. Archit. Des. 81(5), 24–31 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roy, T.: Did globalisation aid industrial development in colonial India? a study of knowledge transfer in the iron industry. Indian Econ. Soc. Hist. Rev. 46(4), 579–613 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1177/001946460904600404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodil, K.: Reflection on Visualization in Cross-Cultural Design. Aalborg University Denmark (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Carleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations