Materiality is an integral part of being human. Materiality is a part of soci-ety and materiality is a part of the complex processes, relations and prac-tice of everyday life – and of co-designing. Building upon the views estab-lished in Part A, the last initial position I want to extend, is my argument for a (second) broad view of materiality.
Opposition to the subject-object dichotomy
Theoretically, the views and theories of materiality as simply artefacts (see above), relates to the subject-object dichotomy, which has influenced much sociological and humanist thinking in the 20th Century. Generally the re-cent material culture studies researchers mentioned above are opposed to this simple understanding of materiality, as is Bruno Latour (e.g. 2005). This makes their views differ from many other social sciences, in which philo-sophically categorizing and ordering the social with the strong theoretical concepts of superior ‘subjects’ and ‘objects’ – e.g. when analyzing communi-cation – in many fields still are very influential (Miller, 2005:5-6).68
Materiality as doing and materializing
In Materializations –New perspectives on materiality and culture analy-sis69, Tine Damsholt and Dorthe Gert Simonsen (2009) view materiality as an active verb, as ‘doing’, and with that ‘materializing’. They explicitly highlight the English –ing form, to emphasize the intertwining and en-gaging with materials in ongoing, not stable, factual and well-defined pro-cesses (Damsholt et al., 2009:15). As applied by many PD researchers, this argument clearly relates to Lave and Wenger’s views of participation and continually intertwining processes of reifying in communities of practice (Lave and Wenger, 1991 / Wenger, 1998).
Additionally, Damsholt and Simonsen propose viewing materiality or ma-terializations as process and agency, relation and network, and perfor-mativity and practice (Damsholt et al., 2009:15).70 To support this view, they refer to Donna Harraway’s concept of ‘hybrids’, which in time and space show how different materialities continually intertwine and merge in more or less stable materializations (of phenomenon) (ibid:30). Further, they view materiality as continually being mobilized, translated,
tempo-68 I do not use or encourage using the dichotomies subject-object, tangible-intangible, material-immaterial or digital-physical. So, throughout the thesis, when a non-human
not touchable with the hands is participating in co-designing, I do not use the terms immaterial/intangible/digital. Rather, when I use the term ‘material’ it encompasses the various non-humans participating in the project, event and situation. Still, to capture that a material can be touched with the hands, I use words like ‘hands-on’, ‘touchable’,
‘physical’ or ‘tangible’.
69 Title translated from Danish by me.
70 These views have also largely influenced the structuring of some chapters in this thesis.
Chapter 4
Chapter 2
rarily stabilized, merged or unfolded in networks, rather than being initi-ated by one superior creating or doing subject (=human being) (ibid:15).71
Materiality as skills, having and doing
Elisabeth Shove et al. extend the view of materiality as doing, to be an interplay and relationship between practical skills, ‘having’ and ‘doing’
(Shove et al., 2007:25). From detailed studies of what they call the ‘restless kitchen’, as Shove et al. have observed and understood, there are three dif-ferent relationships between having and doing:
One, sometimes some materials are missing and thus only enable doing with what is available. Two, sometimes there is a balance between having and doing. Three, sometimes there is plenty of materials (having) but the doing, for various reasons (e.g. lack of skill or motivation), does not really happen; they call this ‘unrealized practices’ (ibid:26-34). Distinctions that definitely also are relevant in relation to understanding practices of (ma-terializing in) co-designing.
Further, from interviews and guided ‘tours’ of personal toolboxes with amateur DIY’ers, Shove et al. clearly show that ‘...materials are integral to doing…’, and that the interplays of both materials, tools, competences and practice are transforming in the process (ibid:67).
Their topics of plastics, consumption, kitchen practices and DIY projects are not my main interest. But generally, with their studies of these specific examples, these authors show how diverse materials are participating in processes of materializing, and in the continually mobilized, merged, un-folded, and temporarily stabilized networks, where ‘...what they are made into and how they are ‘materialized’…’, influences their ‘life’ in the net-work (ibid:106). In other words, Daniel Miller, with a material-culture-perspective, also proposes to study ‘..how the things that people make, make people’ (Miller, 2005:38).72
The Per:form event and broad views of materiality
At the experimental Per:form event, previously it was agreed that we would mainly be exploring in silence – largely leaving out talk, which I with Donald
71 Damsholt et al.’s main academic intension is to suggest and exemplify how materiality can be integrated analytically in cultural sciences; this is partly different from my intension of
understanding and staging co-designing. Also, the anthropological accounts in their studies and many material culture studies are on materiality in everyday life; but co-designing is not everyday life; it is much more explicitly staged as emphasized in Part A. Still, these broad views of materiality I also find relevant for understanding and staging co-designing.
72 The perspectives explored here relate to my initial experience and practice-based views of what I used to call ‘Material Means’ (Eriksen, 2006b). In that paper, I suggested
an initial analytical framework for understanding co-design processes as ‘Materials’ –
‘Materializing’ – ‘Materialized’ – and especially emphasized what I called ‘Re-representing’
(Based on reviews I phrased it like this, but in the initial version of the paper I called this
‘Re-materializing’ – which is what I have returned to in this thesis – Chapters 6, 9). As this thesis shows, now for example with this theoretical grounding, I still suggest these views to be relevant both for understanding and staging co-designing.
Exemplar 04 / circle 02
Schön view as a material in the situation too. In the situation, it turned out that this talk-material was missing sometimes, but (maybe because of the experi-mental framing of the event) the constraint was respected. Instead, for the various co-design situations during the day, we were ‘having’ a whole ‘buffet of materials’ and a pile of white foam-board squares to choose and pick from when ‘doing’ and ‘making’ − or materializing − both the different proposals and one shared proposal for a ‘collaborative decision-making device’.
For the buffet, everyone had been asked beforehand to bring and add a material. The PhD student in ceramics brought clay and the coming PhD student from textile design brought a lot of roles of thread. For both of them, on a white board, the first materials they chose to include in their proposals were the materials they had brought – the materials they were familiar with and had professional ‘skills’ working with. Yet, in the sit-uation they were manipulated and combined with other, to them, less comfortable materials from the buffet, and after having made the first proposals (after having personally warmed-up) they were also exploring with only some of these other materials, with which they had less experi-ence and fewer ‘skills’.
Quite similar processes happened for the other three participants. Addi-tionally (additions to the contents of the Exemplar), before calling silence, as organizer, I had said that it was ok also to go outside the room and find materials to work with if someone wanted to – but no one did. They all worked with what was available in the room and even what was at the two main tables arranged for the day – what we were ‘having’. Except for the few materials brought by the participants, all the other physical materi-als were made available and arranged by us as event organizers. Relating to one of the core issues captured in Part A, that staging is important in co-designing, and as this shows too, in co-design projects, the organizers have a lot of (material) power being the ones largely deciding which mate-rials are invited and for what, at co-design events.
The Rehab Future Lab event and broad views of materiality
For the Rehab Future Lab event, prior to the event the main organizers had pre-designed other materials then those described above. To engage mainly in the group-work situations, for this event, my colleagues had pre-pared and brought a selection of a few hands-on materials (the hard foam mock-ups, two different scenarios of their possible use, printed for every-one, and the agenda and plan for the event73). No one else had been asked to bring anything, except for the staff at the ward that had been asked to book rooms for us to be in.
As shown in the Exemplar, the environment at the unit is very rich with diverse tools and materials (for supporting the staff’s storytelling about injuries, for all kinds of rehabilitation-training-exercises, for measuring progress and status, etc., etc.). However, as shown in the Exemplar, at this
73 'Classic' interaction/industrial design materials and practices.
Chapter 1
Exemplar 02 / Email with Goals & Agenda
Exemplar 02 / circle 01
event, we were not working in those environments but in booked meeting-rooms in the hallway. In the situation, we were split up in smaller groups in two separate rooms, and we, roughly according to the plan, assessed
‘incremental changes’ through roleplaying and discussing with these pre-designed proposals for future applications.
Very practically, for one of the groups, in addition to the materials brought along for ‘doing’ this, spatially we were ‘having’ the table and chairs in the small room. In this group, and quite commonly, each participant was also
‘having’ their personal notebook and writing-tool and some also a printout of the agenda of the day in front of them. As mentioned above, the intension here was to assess and explore the sketched proposals. Yet, these materials we were ‘having’ for ‘doing’ the collaborative exploration through roleplay-ing, at least in this situation, did not really get the intended roleplaying-kind-of ‘doing’ going for very long. Rather, as described, it quickly turned into verbal discussions, yet sometimes with a gesture towards and with some of the hands-on materials on the table. (Later in this Part B, in Chapter 5, I fur-ther discuss and question roles of pre-designed proposals in co-designing).
Despite their different physical materials and spatial event setups, both these exemplary examples of co-design situations show how – with dif-ferent ‘having’ materials – co-designing is materializing. Yet, at least at co-design events, as I have started to addressed in Part A, these processes are often quite explicitly staged – and what I, later in Chapters 5 and 6 of this Part B will explore much further as formatting.
Summary / third preliminary position
In this last section, building upon the positions established in Part A, with Damsholt et al. and Shove et al., I have now initially extended my under-standing of a broad view of materiality in co-designing. Materiality is un-derstood as doing and materializing, clearly depending on the relation-ship of skills and having (materials available).