at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

‘Design Beyond Borders’: international collaborative projects as a mechanismto integrate social sustainability into student design practice

Muireann McMahon a,*, Tracy Bhamra b

aDept. of Design & Manufacturing Technology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Irelandb Loughborough Design School, Loughborough, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 27 January 2011Received in revised form14 October 2011Accepted 15 October 2011Available online 25 October 2011

Keywords:Social sustainabilityCollaborationDesign educationProduct DesignAction research

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ353 61 213580.E-mail address: Muireann.mcmahon@ul.ie (M. Mc

1 Design for this paper refers to Product or Industr

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022

a b s t r a c t

Social sustainability in design, like the notion of social impacts in Sustainable Development, is a complex,contradictory and challenging area. Transforming the rhetoric surrounding sustainability into action iswhere designers often struggle. In order to do this effectively, this paper argues that designers need to beintroduced to a set of skills and capacities that go beyond the traditional design competencies andimplementing these skills will require a shift in how designers are taught as students and subsequentlypractice as professionals. Through the exploration of contemporary design practices, social sustainabilityand educational theory this research pinpoints these skills and capacities. Using a participatory ActionResearch methodology it is suggested that international collaborative projects at undergraduate level canplay an important role in introducing these skills into design education. The paper describes two projects(fulfilling two phases of the action research process) involving collaborations between groups ofundergraduate design students from different geographical locations. A brief description of the projectslogistics is followed by an analysis of the outcomes and experiences of participants, looking specifically atwhat worked and what did not and why mistakes and successes in collaborative work can inform inequal measure. The learning from these projects will highlight how future projects can be structured anddelivered and how the ‘softer’ skills acquired during the projects can bring about a change in designersbehaviours.

� 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Today there is an impetus on professional designers to practicein a responsible and ‘sustainable’ manner, with equal emphasis onsociety, economy and the environment (Fletcher and Dewberry,2002). This is an enormous challenge as the skills needed todevelop these types of holistic solutions can be extremely complex.Yet education often fails to equip design students with the neces-sary skills that allow them to practice responsibly as professionals(ibid). This paper provides the first output of a larger longitudinalproject. The key premise of the overall study is to investigate howsocial sustainability can be integrated into design1 education toencourage more responsible professional practices. The workfocuses on international collaborative projects as a mechanism tofoster the necessary skills and encourage students to look morebroadly and critically at their own work and that of others. Fig. 1illustrates the overall project map from the key aims at the centre

Mahon).ial Design.

All rights reserved.

of the diagram to the research methodology (left) for testing andthe skills and capacities on the right.

The paper begins by grounding these projects in current theorysurrounding contemporary design, social sustainability andeducational practices. Subsequently, a brief outline is given of twoprojects conducted between students from Universities in NewZealand, Ireland and Chile (who unfortunately were forced towithdraw in the initial stages of the 2nd project). The paperexplains the practical logistics of planning and implementing suchprojects acknowledging the difficulties and realities involved. Itdocuments the conversations, conflicts and compromises thatoccur and the contingencies (unforeseen or uncontrollable actions)that can thwart or enhance the experience. The discussiondescribes how the findings from the first phase of researchinformed the design and implementation of the second project.Finally the conclusion offers a reflection on the experiences of bothstudents and tutors and indicates the future phases of ActionResearch that will complete the study.

These collaborative projects build on the premise that thebroader the diversity of information, practices and cultures designstudents are exposed to the more open their perspectives will be

Fig. 1. Project overview.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95 87

and the more adept they will become at participating in andfacilitating the creation of more innovative sustainable solutions.The results of these projects are explored to assess their impact inbeginning to bring about increases in social capital, social cohesionand collaboration across geographical and educational boundaries.

2. Background

The paradigm of design is changing; with the focus movingaway from material led objects to more user-led experiences(Moritz, 2005). The notion of a designer’s role as that of merelygiving shape to physical objects is no longer valid (Nelson andStolterman, 2003). Design has evolved to become the linkbetween human and social needs and industrial practices. This isachieved by designing tangible and intangible ‘objects’ that givemeaning, provide cultural contexts and also the opportunities forindividual expression (Hara, 2009). Design now acts as culturalstimulus, a change agent and a tool for social engagement.

The development of innovative design solutions may be greatlyenhanced through a process of collaboration, collective knowledgegeneration and sharing, multi-disciplinarity, holistic perspectivesand understanding of diverse cultural backgrounds (Designophy,2001). Encouraging and facilitating collaboration between studentsin an educational environment can be particularly challenging asindividuals can struggle to move past what they know and havelearnt in their own cultural and professional settings (Cumming andAkar, 2005). Educating for sustainable development focuses studentson gaining exposure to diversities of practice so as to develop criticalthinking and analysis skills. Fortunately, as Bhamra and Dewberrynote, best practice design education maps relatively easily onto theadoption of sustainable development teaching methodologies asboth encourage pragmatism and participation (2007).

To engage fully with sustainability, designers today must learnto engage in cross-disciplinary and cross cultural dialogue. Ifstudents are to be responsible, innovative and pragmatic designers,they must develop the ability to think critically; tie togetherdisparate strands of information; communicate effectively (talkingand listening); apply systems thinking; co-operate in co-design

projects whilst also imagining and realising new ideas (Chiu,2002; Lozano, 2007; Manzini, 2009b). Both knowledge sharingand collaborative practice serve to open these communicationchannels and create a community of informed and informativeprofessionals (Cumming and Akar, 2005).

This ‘deeper’ approach to design (and consequently education)poses a huge challenge as it requires a change in both behaviour andattitudes (Thackara, 2006). What will be required is a new way oflearning that ‘is creative and involves a deep awareness of alternativeworldviews and ways of doing things’ (Sterling, 2001) and preparesstudents for the realities they will face as professionals. Collabora-tive project work not only serves to broaden students’ perspectives,but also facilitates them to become critical thinkers who question,analyse, reflect and consequently form their ownworldview (Chiu,2002). Resultantly they may critically question their own educa-tion and behaviours, as well as learning to comment and critique onother design work by engaging in dialogue with a wide variety ofdesigners from diverse cultural backgrounds as Lozano García et al.(2006) suggest within and across other disciplines. The curriculumtherefore must stimulate the students into exploring alternativeapproaches to design, in a real and engaged way. From the tutorsperspective thiswill help to broaden and develop the experience fortheir students andwill emphasise the importance ofmaking projectwork relevant within the global context.

2.1. Social sustainability in design

As justification for the collaborative projects and to providea background context it was necessary to first identify what socialsustainability is in relation to design and also to collate a list ofrelevant skills and capacities designers needed to develop in orderto practice responsibly.

It is generally accepted that sustainability incorporates threecentral tenets (social, economic and environmental) in equalmeasure. Addressing these in equal measure is where problemshave arisen as every discipline and culture come fromvery differentperspectives and therefore have very different needs (Cassimir andDutilh, 2003; Moore, 2011). Each discipline interprets the desired

2 The literature review covered reading in the areas of Sustainable Development;sustainable design; social design practices; Education for Sustainable Development;design education; contemporary design practices; collaboration; problem solvingand creativity.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e9588

outcomes from their own perspective and to date this focus indesign has been on environmental and economic factors. End ofpipe solutions, energy and resource use, green materials andprocesses andmore recently social innovations, systems design anddesign for behaviour change have dominated the sustainable andeco-design agendas (Chapman, 2005; Sherwin, 2004; Dewberry,1996; Krull, 2010; Manzini, 2009a).

Social sustainability in design, as in other areas, has beensomewhat neglected, as it is difficult to define and even moredifficult to implement (Steiner and Posch, 2006, Cassimir andDutilh, 2003). This ambiguity stems from the fact that it involvesissues as diverse (and unquantifiable) as ethics, values, active citi-zenship, harmonious behaviour, participation and co-operation,preserving social and cultural diversity, meeting basic needs,well-being and happiness, holistic perspectives and personal aswell as professional responsibility (Lilley, 2007; McKenzie, 2004).Social sustainability in design, therefore calls for a deep under-standing of human behaviour, fulfilling human needs and wantswhilst being cognisant of (amongst other things) environmentallimits, product responsibility, resource use and carrying capacities.As well as paying due attention to history; traditions; engaging indialogue; having equity in expressing ideas; compromise; self-fulfilment and altruism in design practice are fundamentals inworking towards social sustainability. These have been categorisedas social capital, social engagement, social cohesion and socialexclusion (Bramley et al., 2006; Findeli, 2008). Sustainable designhas progressed from the ‘green’ design agenda into a far moreconsidered and holistic approach that should be integrated into theeducation of designers (Spangenberg et al., 2010); if the philoso-phies are embedded early then responsible practice becomesnormative (Bremer and López-Franco, 2006; Lozano, 2006).

The debate around social design and the meaning of socialsustainability within design practice has been interpreted innumerous different ways. It is often thought of as designing formarginal sectors of society in order to even the disparities in livingstandards and qualities of life (design for society) (Whiteley, 1993).Similarly incorporating considerations of culture and culturalmeaning in products can be classified as social design (Walker,2006), as can design processes that employ psychology and moti-vational strategies to lighten human impact (Design for behaviourchange) (Manzini, 2007; Mendoza, 2010). Practitioners at the DESISnetwork, Designmatters, Project H and The Young Foundationwould equate the term social sustainability with social innovationand entrepreneurship projects that are based on employing design-thinking to bring about positive social changes (Mendoza, 2010;Manzini, 2010; Murray et al., 2010; Core77, 2010). While theapproach in the interpretation and understanding may vary, socialsustainability in design is about harnessing human and culturalcapital to bring about change and regain social cohesion.

While there is no ‘one size fits all’ definition for social sustain-ability, as social parameters differ from place to place, person toperson and context to context, there is a need to overcome thecomplexity that surrounds it by bringing it into design practices ina real and engaging way (Steiner and Posch, 2006). The critical,creative and systemic thinking approach advocated through socialsustainability offers great potential for making designers aware ofthe impact their ‘products’ have on both local and global societies.As this awareness grows, designers can feel enabled to change theirpractice and as a result impact positively on consumption andbehavioural patterns of end users.

2.2. Design education for sustainability

Unfortunately the problems linked with sustainability and inparticular social sustainability are by their very nature extremely

complex and wicked (Design Council, 2006; Steiner and Posch,2006). As a result students find it difficult to marry the compli-cated, contradictory and all too often confusing concepts thatunderpin it (Segalas et al., 2010). Interestingly though introducingdesign for sustainability into design education has proven tostimulate creativity and originality (Spangenberg et al., 2010). If weaccept that the challenges are great as are the opportunities thenthe approach for bringing about change demands a rethink of bothdesign practice and education. Education and Sustainability areinextricably linked as education is seen as the key to effectivelyimplement change (McKeown, 2002). There is no denying thateducation is pivotal in realising the vision and translating therhetoric into real action (UN, 2005, UNESCO, 2004).

It is widely recognized that design practices must move froma parochial to a global approach where openness, transparency andcollaboration (co-design & co-generation) allow for a greaterfreedom of ideas and solutions (Jegou and Manzini, 2008; Moritz,2005; Burns et al., 2006). Collaboration and co-operationencourage social learning, allow designers to hear other voices,build on both collective and individual knowledge and develop‘softer’ design skills like compromise, dialogue, reflection andempathy (Chiu, 2002; Steiner and Posch, 2006, Fadeeva, 2004).Creativity too is known to be heightened when culturally diverseteams work together (McDonough et al., 2001).

Therefore an imperative exists to not only change what is taughtto design students (curriculum content) but also how the core skillsare taught (teaching methods) (Bhamra and Dewberry, 2007).Designers need to develop a holistic perspective backed by theability to think critically and creatively, to self-direct and reflect ontheir design outputs and the resultant impacts on society. The skillsof effective communication and collaboration underpin theseabilities (Lozano, 2007). Reflection is an essential part of educa-tional practice, as it allows the students to question their ownassumptions and those of others in order to build a broaderknowledge base for their professional practice (Loughran, 2002). Aswith any effective learning strategy the process should be stressedas highly as the outcomes.

Many authors recommend developing in students a genericrange of skills and capacities that facilitate them in understanding,managing and questioning knowledge and then implementingchange and effecting action (McKeown, 2002; Sterling, 2001,González-Gaudiano, 2005; Steiner and Posch, 2006, Chiu, 2002;Manzini, 2009b). Stage 1 of the research involved exploring andgaining an understanding of what these skills are. From a combi-nation of brainstorming, reviewing literature2, peer discussions,observations and practical experience a list of skills, capacities andideas have been identified as those needed for socially sustainabledesigning (see Fig. 2 for the complete list of skills, ideas andcapacities).

3. Methods

3.1. Aim

The overall aim of the larger study is to investigate the use ofinternational collaborative design projects as a mechanism to equipstudents with the skills and capacities necessary to integrate socialsustainability into their daily design practice. The two projects are

Fig. 2. Skills and capacities for social sustainability in design.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95 89

described briefly in Section 4 and the outcomes discussed inSection 5.

3.2. Research method

The research is conducted using Participatory Action Research asthe overarching strategy. Fig. 3 provides an overview of this processand also explains the characteristics that are key to this project.Action research (AR) is appropriate as it is a method used when anissue has been identified with existing practice and requires

Fig. 3. Action resear

intervention to solve it (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996); inthis case the issue is the difficulty of integrating complex ideas(surrounding social sustainability) into designer’s daily practice.The pragmatic nature of AR allows for the design students tobecome active participants in their own education. It also allows forthe author to adopt dual roles: as the researcher and as theeducator for delivering the projects to the students thus linkingtheory to practice in a real way (Baskerville and Wood-Harper,1996, McDowell et al., 2008; McNiff and Whitehead, 2006;Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996).

There are obvious parallels between planning and structuring anaction research project and the design process. The two processesare firmly based on ‘learning by doing’ and are highly flexible innature. Thismeans both are hingedon theunpredictability of humannature and ‘multivariate real-world environments’ (Baskerville andWood-Harper, 1996). The contingencies of working with peopleinclude motivations, engagement, behaviour, personal and profes-sional drivers, experience, societal influences and the uncontrolla-bility of behaviours. Dealing with the opportunities and constraintsthat these contingencies brought to the projects is a fundamentalaspect of the Action Research process (Barbour, 2008).

Through a comprehensive process of iteration, continuousimprovement these projects will be developed and honed in orderto achieve the most appropriate, desirable and innovative solution(development and implementation) (Lawson, 2006). Actionresearch (like design) advocates a learning-by-doing process wheremistakes inform the project development just as much as thesuccesses (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996). The researchapproach therefore is driven by creativity; practical learning; ‘user’understanding; iterative development; innovative thinking;appropriate decision making and effective communication.

Following the initial problem framing and literature reviewingstages of the AR process the next stage was to design and imple-ment a number of projects to allow the students to develop theseskills by opening them to a diversity of knowledge and perspec-tives. Bringing student groups located in different continentstogether ‘face-to-face’ is not feasible or environmentally respon-sible! The softer skills, being more abstract and complex becamethe implicit focus in the projects rather than the more explicitpractical design skills such as idea generation, visual communica-tion and design development etc. Instead the processes thestudents undertook to complete the work required them to use‘softer’ skills in order to collaborate and communicate effectivelyand to generate necessary, valid and responsible design solutions.

ch project map.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e9590

3.3. Data collection and analysis

The data collection methods involved a mix of qualitativeinformation gathering tools. Two phases of information occurredduring each project: the first was during the project and the secondafter the project was completed. Diaries, participant observations,videos and in-class reflection sessions comprised the first stage ofinformation gathering. Stories of participant experiences werecollated through this first stage. The second stage of data wasgathered after each project ended. Semi-structured interviews(with students), analysis of the project design outputs, post-projectquestionnaires and anecdotal conversations (between designtutors and students) identified how the various skills and capacitiesdeveloped andwere implemented. This mix of methods allowed forthe researcher to triangulate the data and develop thick descrip-tions of the situations (Barbour, 2008). Peer auditing between thetutors on the projects (of which the researcher was one) and otherdesign tutors who were not directly involved in the projectsensured the instance of reflexivity was minimised.

Following the collation of the research data it was analysed andorganised according to preliminary codes e using the constantcomparative method (Jupp, 2006). These codes were then furthersubdivided and this coding system was applied across the inter-views and diaries.

4. The projects

Table 1

4.1. ‘Cultural leanings’: phase 1 action research

Phase one of the Action Research strategy comprised a collabo-rative project undertaken between the year 2 undergraduateProduct Design students in Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand and theUniversity of Limerick, Ireland (from February to April 2008). Theidea for the project originated from a staff exchange between twodesign tutors from the Institutes. The key aim was to explore theconcept of connectivity and interactivity between two culturallydifferent student groups divided by almost 18,000 km’s and 12international time-zones. It was not a problem with current prac-tice per se that drove the project, instead it was an eagerness toencourage students to engage and collaborate with others ina similar discipline.

Table 1Overview of collaborative projects.

AR 1: Project 1 AR 2: Project 2

Title ‘Cultural leanings’ ‘Food for thought’Theme Interpreting culture Food provisionPartners University of Limerick,

IrelandUnitec, New Zealand

University of Limerick,IrelandUnitec, New ZealandUniversidad de Valparaiso,Chile

No. of Participants 21 (IRE) 40 (NZ) 32 (IRE) 17 (NZ)Team structure Individual country teams

partnered with team frompartner country

Designer/Client relationshipbetween teams in eachcountry

Team numbers 2 members each country 3 members IRE, 3 membersNZ

Duration 6 weeks 6 WeeksCommunication

toolsVoxVideo ConferencingEmailSkype

NingTwitterTeamviewerGoogletalkVideoEmail

The primary aim of the project was to encourage effectivecollaboration and by this develop key competencies. Thesecompetencies have been selected from the identified list of skillsand capacities necessary for designers to direct their practicetowards social sustainability (as seen in Fig. 2):

/ Development of shared skills/ Promotion of cultural diversity and understanding/ Critical analysis./ Active participation/ Establishment of Communities of Practice; Knowledge Sharing &

Networks/ Interaction & engagement/ Reflection/ Development of holistic perspectives

4.1.1. Project briefThe students, in groups of two3, were asked to identify a tradi-

tion, a cultural phenomenon or a historical practice specific to theirown country. They were asked to re-imagine their chosen topic inthe present day, not to rebuild the past but instead to re-interpret itin a contemporary context. The design brief nevermentioned socialsustainability or sustainability as these issues should not beextracted as a ‘novelty’ but should be an inherent consideration inevery design project.

4.1.2. Project logisticsDue to the distances and time difference the students were

required to make their work deliverable and communicable byavailable technologies. Research has shown that it is not the successof collaboration is not due to technology instead it is due to theindividual’s willingness andmotivation to engage (Cheng and Kvan,2000). The technology needed to be easy to use and not detractfrom the main aim of the project. As such each group establisheda blog (using Vox) and this was used as the primary communicationtools for the duration of the project. The blog sites were used asvirtual exhibition spaces, project management tools, reflectivediaries and project journals. They were also key in providinga structured platform for giving and receiving feedback from theother student participants and design tutors (Kvan, 2001). The needto share work is essential in a field as visual as design and the blogproved essential in facilitating this.

4.1.3. Project outcomesThe student work resulting from the project was both inter-

esting and innovative. The diversity of ‘products’ ranged from tat-tooing tools to cooking and from furniture pieces to whiskeydecanters. For the first time in their design education some groupseven explored the notion of replacing the physical object with an‘intangible’ experience.

4.2. Phase 2 action research ‘Food for thought’

The second phase of the action research project built on thelessons learnt from the first phase. The project took place from thebeginning ofMarch until the end of April 2010 and initially involvedthree international partners: Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand;

3 Twomembers per teamwas decided upon given the class sizes and the fact thatthe students hadn’t worked on any team based design project prior to this and inorder to make the management of their team and transmission of information aseasy as possible (Chiu, 2002). Each team in Ireland was paired with a partner teamin New Zealand to make the collaboration process more organised and manageable.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95 91

Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile and the University of Limerick,Ireland. Unfortunately due to the Chilean Earthquake disaster twoweeks before the start of the project the Chilean students wereunable to participate. Such unintended contingencies often forma part of Action Research as it is a continuously evolving processthat is hinged on human and societal behaviour. The participantgroups comprised of year 2 Product Design students from Unitecand the University of Limerick. It was a different group from thatwhich participated in phase 1.

The main modifications to the second phase of the actionresearch were in the area of the collaboration process; the depthand breadth of the collaborative experience) and the project theme.How these findings drove subsequent changes in the second actionresearch phase are described in Sections 4.2.2 and 5.

This second project expanded the skill set for collaboration fromthe first project to include the following:

/ Team work/ Compromise & negotiation/ Cultural and social diversity/ Participation/ Communication

4.2.1. Project briefFood was chosen as the overarching theme. Not only is it an

important issue (for very different reasons) in each of the countries,but each would have a very different perspective on the subject.Again the topic is not explicitly related to sustainability; instead thestudents were expected to include social, environmental andeconomic issues in parallel with the other design considerations(e.g. human factors, functionality, aesthetics and design formanufacture). The theme was then divided into 7 sub categoriesincluding Packaging & Transport; Domestic Food Production;Community Production; Shared Dining. A longer list was initiallygenerated by the project tutors based on trends in the areas of foodand design. The list was discussed and negotiated into the list of 7categories that the students worked with. A finding from phase 1showed that students struggled with the open-ended theme andprecious time was wasted at the start trying to come to terms withwhat the brief meant. It was decided to provide the students withclear direction through the more focused sub categories, while stillallowing them to explore a specific area in depth.

4.2.2. LogisticsA roadmap was compiled to make the collaboration as clear as

possible, this signposted all the times when interaction wasnecessary between the groups. Twitter, Ning (this replaced the Voxplatform because it offered shared forums as well as individualblogs) and Teamviewer (desktop sharing software) were intro-duced as communication tools to facilitate the collaboration.

It was anticipated that the communication would happenoutside the suggested times too so that the sharing of ideas andinformation could go beyond the ‘studio’ and thus the broaderacademic environment. The ideal scenariowas amove to a situationwhere students converse not because they ‘have to’ but because they‘want to’. The use of free and user friendly technologies facilitatedmore ‘spontaneous’ and relaxed communication patterns to form(Cheng and Kvan, 2000). The structure of the Ning platform allowedthe tutors tomonitor the student’s use. The tutors promptedmoreordeeper communication on the live chat facility of the Ning whenthey felt the groups weren’t collaborating effectively, thus resolvingan issue quickly that could have taken several emails previously.

Another significant change was made in the project set-up tofacilitate deeper interaction between individuals, small teams and

larger groups. Instead of the student teams working on their ownproject it was decided that larger groups would be formed con-taining one team from each partner country. Each local team,comprising either 3/4 individuals, researched the groups subcategory as it related to their country. They then handed over theresearch ‘pack’ to another team in their group, who took theresearch findings and acting as a ‘Design team’ developed inno-vative solutions for their ‘Client’ country. The designer had torefer to their clients regularly to ensure the concepts beingdeveloped were relevant and necessary. The collaboration processis mapped in Fig. 4 below. This co-generative approach allowedstudents to see how others approach their work (reflection) and‘forced’ them to develop a common language and hone theircommunication skills further. It also ensured the students wouldnot get bored of the project and the technology as easily as in theprevious phase (Gross and Do, 1999). This time the studentengagement with the technology would directly affect the groupeffort.

4.2.3. Project outcomesOnce again the design outcomes from the project were inter-

esting and diverse. Students designed a garden tool-sharing systemfor allotments, innovative food packaging and a tracking andmonitoring system for food transportation. The design resultshowever were not as innovative or as detailed as the previousproject and the student grades reflected this. This could be attrib-uted to the fact that the students were designing for a clientcountry and that time was required to understand the culture ofthis client. The interpretations of the ‘clients’ research wassubjective and did not necessarily reflect the reality of practiceswithin the particular client country. Conversely the design teamsoffered fresh eyes on the subject that the client might not have.

At this stage it is worth noting that the collaboration with thisproject wasn’t as successful as the previous one. With actionresearch projects the failures inform the process as much as thesuccesses so it is worthwhile noting the issues that occurred. Theseuneven results can be attributed to a number of factors amongstthem personality differences, lack of compromise, breakdown incommunication; lack of synergy and timing differences (these didnot affect the first project as much because the collaborationwasn’tas deep as the 2nd project with students acting as both clients anddesigners).

5. Findings & discussion

The following section draws together both the results anddiscussion on the first two phases of the action research process.This presentation better reflects the iterative nature of bothaction research and qualitative methods (Barbour, 2008). Thefindings from phase 1 drove the development of phase 2 (incontinuous feedback loops) and so gathering the information andinterpreting it was a parallel process. Quotes and comments fromthe interviews, diaries, survey responses and anecdotal conver-sations will provide evidence for the discussion and the conclu-sions drawn.

Analysis of the data provided a wealth of information andobservational insights. This centred on the experience of thestudents and the tutors which in themainwas positive. The noveltyof the projects really interested and engaged the students in waysthat previous projects hadn’t. The themes allowed them to lookdeeper into their own culture and society, whilst learning about thecultural influences and traditions affecting another country. Onestudent notes ‘I felt it was a very good project as I learned a lot moreabout my culture and the fields I was researching. The project reallyhelped my team working skills and I know that this will be really

Fig. 4. Collaboration map for phase 2.

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e9592

important in the future.’ (Student A, survey results 5.08.08). Anotherstated that ‘it was excellent to see a different culture and participate insuch a project. It allows me to see beyond my own country andthoughts’ (Student B, survey results 5.08.08)

From the design tutors perspectives the whole experience ofworking closely with another design school allowed them toexpand their personal and professional horizons. It also providedthe opportunity to explore alternative methods for preparing andimplementing student projects.

5.1. Communication

Blogs were used as the primary interaction tool in both projects.Despite an initial settling in period (as reflected in the survey), thestudents not only enjoyed the novelty and convenience of this newdelivery method, but they also felt that the opportunity to getfeedback from others really helped and encouraged them. Beingable to post work on the blog allowed for external representationsof the local teams work to be available for critique, comment and

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95 93

negotiation by the other members of their group (Gul and Maher,2009).Those who did not engage fully with the blogs regretted itonce the project was complete and they could review the effortexerted by their peers. In the post-project survey one student re-flected that ‘I think for me the problem was being too set on designingthe way I had previously, and did not interact enough with theblogging. This is something I regret as I really belief [sic] it could beused as a very useful tool’ (Student C, survey results 5.08.08). Thisatypical response from phase 1 indicated that all students wouldneed to be encouraged and facilitated to collaborate more duringthe 2nd project.

5.2. Interaction

The ability to view the work of all the students (via blogneighbourhoods) put pressure on the students to increase thestandard of their work as now direct and immediate comparisonscould be drawn between the work of the various individuals, teamsand groups. A student stated that ‘[It].made me see the standard atwhich my projects need to reach’ (Student D, survey results 5.08.08).Another observed that ‘it was beneficial in terms of getting advicefrom other students, because our work was going to be seen by a lot ofpeople it forced me to strive for a high standard of work’ (Student E,survey results 5.08.08).

These views were confirmed by the students during interview,they felt that because the comparisons were clear on the blog theytried harder to raise their work standard. In the survey one studentnoted that ‘it was a good way to see what other people were up tooand to look for inspiration’ (Student F, survey results 5.08.08).

The interviews corroborated these statements.

‘Student 1: we thought the standard of work compared toprevious projects level just went way higher.Researcher: why do you think that was?Student 1: I think its competition, because you have that othergroup and you know they have a long history of design and weare just very new, so we just wanted to make sure we matchedtheir standard and were better.’ (Student 1, group 1, interview26.02.10)

In addition because the blogs could be updated in ‘real-time’ thisreflection tended to be more honest than if time was allowed tothink on the comments. One student positively observed that theblogs provided them with a ‘better understanding of presentingdigitally and also great for gaining techniques and sharing ideas witha different design course’ (Student G, survey results 5.08.08).

5.2.1. InsightsA very positive by-product from using blogs is that a permanent

record of the work is retained that can be accessed on an on-goingbasis. The video conferences allowed the students to ‘meet’ eachother and relate a face to the virtual relationship that had previ-ously existed. Enjoyment from the video conferences was obviousat the time and the feedback afterwards confirmed as much. Therewas a suggestion, however that a video conference at the start ofthe project would be beneficial so the students could be introducedto each other and this might lead to a greater degree of interactionvia the blogs throughout the remainder of the project. One studentsuggested a preference to ‘maybe meet at the start like we did at theend would be good to create a bond’ (Student 5, group 3, interview26.02.10). This change was introduced in the second phase wherestudents scheduled formal and informal virtual meetings at regularstages in the project.

Not all feedback was positive however. Some students felt theblogs weren’t a beneficial component of the project and as suchtheir engagement with their local team-mates and partner teams

did not reach a deep or mutually beneficial level. Some also felt thatif their interaction wasn’t reciprocated they were less inclined touse the blog as the project progressed e.g. ‘we tried but when weweren’t receiving anything back we just gave up’ (Student 3, group 2,interview 26.02.10). As with every project some students willengage more, ask for more feedback and enjoy the overall experi-ence more. ‘Working with another country would be very good it justturned out that there was not much communication inputs and so on(as far as I experienced it)’ (Student 4, group2, interview 26.02.10).This observation ensures a deeper and perhaps more ‘forced’interaction between the participating countries was necessary inthe 2nd phase project.

Subsequent phases of the project will endeavour to deepen thecollaboration and also explore how participation in the projectswill influence the behaviour of designers once they are qualifiedprofessionals.

5.3. Reflective practice

The opportunity for reflection was provided in two ways in theproject; local reflection on their work with the project and ‘distant’reflection on thework andprocesses of thepartner country. Studentsreflected not only on their work but on their individual practice andtheir learning experience. The overall depth of information appear-ing on the blogs confirmed that students reflected more and atgreater length about their work ‘I think it was more interesting to seeother peopleswork. Therewas a lot of to-ing and fro-ing betweenus andNew Zealand and it was really interesting to see their work and see newsketches and stuff. It was nice to compare because sometimes you justget lost in here [UL design studio] your own class andhowyou comparewith them’ (Student 6, group 3, interview 26.02.10).

There were a few exceptions however when some students didnot engage with the project theme and the software as much asother students. Reflection is a key part of design work, but it tendsto come at the end of the project. The ‘real-time’ nature of theblogging process ensured the students reflected instantly on theirdesignwork, forcing them to question and justify the decisions theywere making, as they were making them. This is something oftenmissing from conventional projects as limited time and tightdelivery requirements mitigate against continuous reflection ontheir own practice (students are encouraged to reflect on theiroutputs but not always on their individual practice).

5.4. Engagement

Students engaged with the projects more readily than withconventional projects, resulting in better outcomes and a higherquality of work, thus creating a deeper learning experience. ‘Thedimension of having the other country there pushed us to get a moreprofessional product and professional finish. Before there wasn’t thatreal drive but with them there we were looking at their work andsaying we can do this and we can push things a little bit further’(Student 2, group 1, interview 26.02.10). However some measurescould be taken in future projects to ensure greater engagementwith the project and the interactions from all students partici-pating. These could include (but are not limited to) additionalformal video conferencing sessions, provide facilities for moreinformal dialogues between student teams, better collaborationthrough shared project deliverables between different countries.

5.5. Developing critical thinking

Students began to question their own practices and those ofother cultures through the projects. This type of ‘critical’ experienceencourages deeper learning that can prove to be transformative in

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e9594

the student’s education. This was evidenced through the projects asthe students had begun to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate theirownwork (Ennis, 1993). They also felt encouraged to look closely atthe work of the other teams and comment critically on it. Theblogging platforms encouraged them to share their ideas

‘It [the project] made you think more outwardly, if you havea project [you] don’t just think on that particular one thing(Student 8, group 4, interview 26.02.10) ‘they could takea completely outside look at our product and give us advice’(Student 4, group 2, interview 26.02.10).

From the analysis of phase 1 it was apparent that the opportu-nity for critical analysis needed to be developed further in phase 2.At the start of the 2nd project each groupmade a video introducingtheir group and then a video conferencewas held (as was suggestedin phase 1). This ensured that the interaction went beyondprofessional and the relationship moved onto ‘personal’. In addi-tion an attitudinal survey was completed by the students prior tothe beginning of phase 2. This was to assess their level of knowl-edge about certain skills and aspects related to social sustainabilityand collaboration. The results from this survey will be exploredthrough the next AR phase to assess whether the attitudes andbehaviours have evolved after completing the phase 2 (the studentsfrom phase 2 are scheduled to be interviewed in the comingmonths).As well the participants from phase 1 will be interviewedagain (they have since graduated), as critical thinking skills taketime to learn and to manifest in project work (Ennis, 1993).

5.6. Broader perspectives

By participating in this type of project the students gained anunderstanding of what drives design in other countries (bothhistorical and contemporary influences). One student clearly sawthat ‘it’s quite similar to Irish, they have the same humour. get a newperspective on design and how other design courses are doing it. Isuppose it’s kind of reassuring that we are not too far off’ (Student 6,group 3, interview 26.02.10). Also another noted that ‘.it’s verysimilar but they just had a different slant on things, a bit of a twist’(Student 5, group 3 interview 26.02.10). This gave the students’ anunderstanding that design does not occur in a vacuum and thatsociety is both influenced by and influences design practice. Thiscan be a difficult concept to relate to students and is best learnt byengagement with a diverse group of project partners. On thispremise the group of participating countries should be expanded toinclude designers from different socio-economic backgrounds andvaried cultural models.

5.7. Confusion & conflict

Collaboration wasn’t always successful unfortunately in spite ofpositive attitude and initial enthusiasm. Success was unevenbetween the two projects given the contingencies in running suchprojects. In spite of all the paths being clearly laid out the situationsdid not always play out as predicted. Human behaviour is such thatit cannot be controlled on every level, nor indeed should it be as thespontaneous outcomes often prove the most interesting.

The downside to collaboration became apparent in the AR 2 asthe project broke-down and resistance increased in the latterstages. This can be attributed to cultural differences and amismatchof goals and methods (Lozano, 2006). The differences in culturesbetween team members meant trust wasn’t established as quicklyas it needed to be for the project to work within the limitedtimeframe (McDonough et al., 2001). From a more practical levelthe incompatible time-zones and academic calendars made thephysical communication difficult throughout both projects.

Although more time had been given to planning and working outlogistics in phase 2 the lack of clear shared goals, distributedresponsibilities, conflicting agendas and equal involvement ofstakeholders (Fadeeva, 2004) led to less successful projectoutcomes and experience.

These conflicts should not always be viewed as a negative thinghowever, as they were beneficial in allowing different views to beaired and compared. Negotiating these conflicts helped thestudents to develop key skills of compromise and effectivecommunication and encouraged students to be innovative to findways of resolving them (Fadeeva, 2004). The issue of managing theconflicts and the negotiation of goals will be given particularattention in the coming AR phases. The researcher intends toexplore the notions of synergy (working towards an agreedcommon goal) and commitment (or ‘buy-in’) within subsequentphases, where the agendas are negotiated and agreed on prior tothe project.

6. Conclusion

Sustainable development calls for every profession to behavemore responsibly and also to become more globally aware. Theexpectation on designers to practice more responsibly is comingfrom industry, government and society. Yet designers are not beingequipped with the skills and competencies necessary to do this.Social sustainability by its nature difficult to implement in designpractice as it deals with softer and immeasurable elements ofhuman and societal behaviour. The aim of this research has been toclearly identify a core set of skills and competencies that designersneed to be able to work effectively with others in solving the‘wicked’ problems that social sustainability presents. Collaborativeprojects bring greater engagement and therefore encourage theacquisition and development of these skills and competencies.These have been identified to include participation, openness,dialogue, reflection, participation, engagement, understanding, co-operation and compromise. By encouraging knowledge sharing andcritical thinking the participating design students have begun toreflect on their behaviour and the behaviour of others.

The two phases of the Action Research (AR) project describedabove explored how exposure to multiple perspectives in thedefinition and resolution of design problems can broaden theeducational experience for students. Looking at effective groupcollaborations, sharing knowledge and the development of indi-vidual skills (such as critical analysis and reflection) in phase 1revealed that for students to engage and participate fully,communication, the building of trust and the ability to compro-mise and negotiate with team members needed to be developedfurther. Phase 2 of the AR process expanded the project toinclude the development and practising of these additionalcompetencies.

The findings suggest that students have begun to develop a setof skills that will enable them to effectively collaborative in projectsthat can begin to address the challenges of sustainability froma global perspective. The experience of undertaking the twocollaborative projects has shown that, by exposure to diversities ofpractice, behaviours and perspectives, designers can begin toengage with the complex theory behind social sustainability ina real and practical way. Therefore the focus in the studentdesigners’ work needs to be on the development of flexible toolsand transferrable skills. Skills that ensure they become adaptiveprofessionals who can collaborate effectively across distances anddisciplines. The reflection on and outcomes from these experi-mental and exploratory projects will hopefully serve students tofind empathy, common ground and a common language in solvingand resolving the issues surrounding social sustainability. Care

M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95 95

must be taken not to generalise the results however as the ActionResearch approach means that the results are project specific withthe samples small and focused.

While the success of the projects has been varied the findingsfrom the two described in this paper demonstrates that participa-tion in the projects can bring about subsequent changes in thedesign students practice. The design and implementation of futureprojects needs to be further developed and improved and this willbe carried out in subsequent phases of the Action Research process.Further research into the longer term impact of these projects ondesign students must be done in order to understand the benefitsto their practice post-graduation.

The projects described above have gone some way to encour-aging design students to collaborate and engage across social andgeographical boundaries. The very process of undertaking them hashighlighted the real and apparent need for designers to develop therange of skills that ensure responsible practice becomes normative.As the realm of professional design shifts towards a future ofalternative systems students must develop the ability to thinkpragmatically, innovatively and holistically.

References

Barbour, R., 2008. Introducing Qualitative Research: a Student Guide to the Craft ofDoing Qualitative Research. SAGE, London.

Baskerville, R.L., Wood-Harper, A.T., 1996. A critical perspective on action researchas a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Tech-nology 11, 235e246.

Bhamra, T., Dewberry, E., 2007. Re-visioning design priorities through sustainabilityeducation. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, 28e31August 2007.

Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., 2006. What is ‘Social Sustainability’,and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it?. In: PlanningResearch Conference. UCL, London, p. 40.

Bremer, M.H., López-Franco, R., 2006. Sustainable development: ten years ofexperiences at ITESM’s graduate level. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11),952e957.

Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., Winhall, J., 2006. RED Paper 02: TransformationDesign, Design Council.

Cassimir, G., Dutilh, C., 2003. Sustainability: a gender studies perspective. Interna-tional Journal of Consumer Studies 27 (4), 316e325.

Chapman, J., 2005. Emotionally Durable Design; Objects, Experience & Empathy.Earthscan, London.

Cheng, N. Y.-w., Kvan, T., 2000. Design collaboration strategies. In: 4th SIGRADI, Riode Janeiro.

Chiu, M.-L., 2002. An organizational view of design communication in designcollaboration. Design Studies 23, 187e210.

Core77, 2010. The DesignMatters Concentration at Art Center College of Design: Q&Awith Mariana Amatullo Available: www.core77.com/ [accessed 15.12.2010].

Cumming, M., Akar, E., 2005. Coordinating the complexity of design using P2Pgroupware. CoDesign 1 (4), 255e265.

Design Council, 2006. RED [online], Available: http://www.designcouncil.info/RED/[accessed].

Designophy, 2001. Defining the Designer of 2015’, Design Knowledge IntermediaryAvailable: www.designophy.com/ [accessed 10.1.11].

Dewberry, E.L., 1996. Eco-Design: Present attitudes and future directions. Unpub-lished Thesis Open University.

Ennis, R.H., 1993. Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice 32 (3), 179e186.Fadeeva, Z., 2004. Promises of sustainability collaboration- potential fulfilled?

Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 165e174.Findeli, A., 2008. Sustainable design: a critique of the current tripolar model. The

Design Journal 11 (3), 301e322.Fletcher, K., Dewberry, E., 2002. Demi: a case study in design for sustainability.

International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3 (1), 38e47.González-Gaudiano, E., 2005. Education for sustainable development: configuration

and meaning. Policy Futures in Education 3 (3), 243e250.Gross, M., Do, E., 1999. Integrating Digital Media in design studio: Six Paradigms. In:

Proc. ACSA (American Collegiate Schools of Architecture) National ConferenceMinneapolis.

Gul, L.F., Maher, M.L., 2009. Co-creating external design representations: comparingface-to-face sketching to designing in virtual environments. Co Design 5 (2),117e138.

Hara, K., 2009. Designing Design. Lars Muller Publishers, Eindhoven.Jegou, F., Manzini, E., 2008. Collaborative Services: Social Innovation and Design for

Sustainability Edizioni Poli. Design [online], available: [accessed].Jupp, V. (Ed.), 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. SAGE Publi-

cations Ltd, London.Krull, P., 2010. Social Innovation Available: [accessed 11.05.10].Kvan, T., 2001. The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction

10, 345e353.Lawson, B., 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4 ed.

Architectural, Amsterdam London.Lilley, D., 2007. Designing for Behavioural Change: Reducing the Social Impacts of

Product Use through Design. Unpublished Thesis, Loughborough University.Loughran, J.J., 2002. Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning

about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education 53 (33).Lozano García, F., Kevany, K., Huisingh, D., 2006. Sustainability in higher education:

what is happening? Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11), 757e760.Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:

breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11),787e796.

Lozano, R., 2007. Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable Devel-opment 15, 370e381.

Manzini, E., 2007. Design research for sustainable social innovation. In: Michel, R.(Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects. Birhauser, Basel.

Manzini, E., 2009a. Design Research for Sustainable Social Innovation Available:http://www.sustainable-everyday.net/manzini/ [accessed 11.10.09].

Manzini, E., 2009b. Viewpoint new design knowledge. Design Issues 30 (1), 4e12.Manzini, E., 2010. Small, local, open and connected: design for social innovation and

sustainability. The Journal of Design Strategies 4 (1), 8e11.McDonough, E.F.I., Kahn, K.B., Barczak, 2001. An investigation of the use of global,

virtual and colocated new product development teams. The Journal of ProductInnovation Management 18, 110e120.

McDowell, L., Smailes, J., Sambell, K., Sambell, A., Wakelin, D., 2008. Evaluatingassessment strategies through collaborative evidence-based practice: can onetool fit all? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45 (2),143e153.

McKenzie, S., 2004. Social sustainability: towards some definitions. In: HawkeResearch Institute Working Papers Series Available: [accessed].

McKeown, R., 2002. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit, 2. University ofTennessee, Tennessee.

McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., 2006. All You Need to Know about Action Research. SAGEPublications Ltd, , London.

Mendoza, A., 2010. DESIS Newsletter 0: A Catalyzing Agent. DESIS.Moore, F.C., 2011. Toppling the tripod: sustainable development, constructive

ambiguity and the environmental challenge. Consilience: The Journal ofSustainable Development 5 (1), 141e150.

Moritz, S., 2005. Service Design: Practical Access to an Evolving Field. UnpublishedThesis, University of Applied Sciences Cologne.

Murray, R., Mulgan, G., Caulier-Grice, J., 2010. How to Innovate: The Tolls for SocialInnovation. The Young Foundation.

Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E., 2003. The Design Way: Intentional Change in anUnpredictable World. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey.

Segalas, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., Mulder, K.F., 2010. What do engineering students learnin sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal ofCleaner Production 18, 275e284.

Sherwin, C., 2004. Design and sustainability: a discussion paper based on personalexperience and observations. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 4,21e31.

Spangenberg, J.H., Fuad-Luke, A., Blincoe, K., 2010. Design for Sustainability (DfS):the interface of sustainable production and consumption. Journal of CleanerProduction 18, 1485e1493.

Steiner, G., Posch, A., 2006. Higher education for sustainability by means of trans-disciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-world problems. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11), 877e890.

Sterling, S., 2001. Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change.Schumacher Society, Devon.

Thackara, J., 2006. In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. MIT Press,Cambridge.

UN, E. a. S. C, 2005. UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development.United Nations, Vilinius.

UNESCO, 2004. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development:Draft International Implementation Scheme (IIS). United Nations Educational,Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris.

Walker, S., 2006. Sustainable by Design. Earthscan. Earthscan.Whiteley, N., 1993. Design for Society. Reaktion Books, London.