Search the site

The University of Manchester Library

In April 2016 Manchester eScholar was replaced by the University of Manchester’s new Research Information Management System, Pure. In the autumn the University’s research outputs will be available to search and browse via a new Research Portal. Until then the University’s full publication record can be accessed via a temporary portal and the old eScholar content is available to search and browse via this archive.

'Where does the new come from?' An ethnography of design performances of 'the new'

Gaspar, Andrea Marques

[Thesis]. Manchester, UK: The University of Manchester; 2013.

Access to files

Abstract

The core concern of my thesis is with shifting the focus from the description on how innovation is done (predominantly STS accounts of innovation in-the-making) to what designers do with conceptions of innovation. The thesis is based on ethnographic fieldwork within a group of interaction designers of Milan. Despite the different conceptions and traditions of innovation that these designers bring in – the artistic and technological ones – I observed that a design-centered conception of innovation is reproduced, as well as the idea that plans and intentions precede things. However, another key idea of my fieldwork is the importance designers give to imagining things as they might be, rather than focusing on how things are. This is where different models of action, planned and open ones coexist in creative ways: it is these processes that the ethnography details.

Layman's Abstract

Let us imagine two “tribes” of designers – obviously “tribes” here is an intentional exaggeration, as I am not sure if should I call them ‘types’, ‘cultures’, ‘traditions’ or ‘communities’, and anyway, this is a fictional example, so “tribes” will do. The “tribe” A) designers who create what people want/need; and the “tribe” B) designers who create what they want. These correspond to two different conceptions of innovation: A) user-centered innovation (co-design with users) and B) design-centered innovation. The question is: which “tribe” is more able to produce innovation, to generate new ideas, things that didn’t exist before? And which “tribe” is more likely to produce conservative ones? So the question is ‘where does the ‘new’ comes from? Is it from the ‘outside’ world of users or from the ‘inside’ world of designers’ intentions? This is not my question, and it is not a theoretical one either: it is an ethnographic, situated one. So my aim is not to resolve it – rather, my ethnography details how this dilemma happens in the field, situating, contextualizing and detailing how it arises as a problem within specific social relationships. My fieldwork is based on a group of interaction designers who consider themselves part of “tribe B” – the simplification is an anecdote to outline in a few words what criteria they use to define themselves. This “tribe” has a more artistic background than the designers of the other “tribe”, and so they privilege specific models of action: they tend to prefer a more adventurous mode of action, based on improvisation of the process, intuition and unpredictability, if compared to the more ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ type of the other “tribe”. From their point of view, while in “tribe A” designers work with ‘what there is’, they, the more daring ones, work with ‘what can be’ – they work with potentialities. The argument of this thesis is that the two “tribes” (that is, the contrast itself) correspond to two extreme ideas about innovation (two models of action), two different myths: one point of view (that of “tribe A”) concerns the idea that the new arises from the ‘outside’ (objective approach; the Science perspective) and the other view (that of the “tribe B”) is centered around the idea that the new arises from the ‘inside’ (the subjectivity of the authors’ interpretation and mental synthesis; the Arts approach). The contrast between these two views reproduces modernity. The contrast itself, which is an ethnographic one, is a reproduction of the division between mind and body – it is to those processes that my thesis refers to.

Bibliographic metadata

Type of resource:
Content type:
Administered thesis
Form of thesis:
Traditional
Type of submission:
Doctoral level ETD - final
Thesis title:
'Where does the new come from?' An ethnography of design performances of 'the new'
Degree type:
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree programme:
PhD Social Anthropology
Publication date:
2013-11-29T11:42:46
Institution:
The University of Manchester
Location:
Manchester, UK
Total pages:
265
Abstract:
The core concern of my thesis is with shifting the focus from the description on how innovation is done (predominantly STS accounts of innovation in-the-making) to what designers do with conceptions of innovation. The thesis is based on ethnographic fieldwork within a group of interaction designers of Milan. Despite the different conceptions and traditions of innovation that these designers bring in – the artistic and technological ones – I observed that a design-centered conception of innovation is reproduced, as well as the idea that plans and intentions precede things. However, another key idea of my fieldwork is the importance designers give to imagining things as they might be, rather than focusing on how things are. This is where different models of action, planned and open ones coexist in creative ways: it is these processes that the ethnography details.
Layman's abstract:
Let us imagine two “tribes” of designers – obviously “tribes” here is an intentional exaggeration, as I am not sure if should I call them ‘types’, ‘cultures’, ‘traditions’ or ‘communities’, and anyway, this is a fictional example, so “tribes” will do. The “tribe” A) designers who create what people want/need; and the “tribe” B) designers who create what they want. These correspond to two different conceptions of innovation: A) user-centered innovation (co-design with users) and B) design-centered innovation. The question is: which “tribe” is more able to produce innovation, to generate new ideas, things that didn’t exist before? And which “tribe” is more likely to produce conservative ones? So the question is ‘where does the ‘new’ comes from? Is it from the ‘outside’ world of users or from the ‘inside’ world of designers’ intentions? This is not my question, and it is not a theoretical one either: it is an ethnographic, situated one. So my aim is not to resolve it – rather, my ethnography details how this dilemma happens in the field, situating, contextualizing and detailing how it arises as a problem within specific social relationships. My fieldwork is based on a group of interaction designers who consider themselves part of “tribe B” – the simplification is an anecdote to outline in a few words what criteria they use to define themselves. This “tribe” has a more artistic background than the designers of the other “tribe”, and so they privilege specific models of action: they tend to prefer a more adventurous mode of action, based on improvisation of the process, intuition and unpredictability, if compared to the more ‘rational’ and ‘scientific’ type of the other “tribe”. From their point of view, while in “tribe A” designers work with ‘what there is’, they, the more daring ones, work with ‘what can be’ – they work with potentialities. The argument of this thesis is that the two “tribes” (that is, the contrast itself) correspond to two extreme ideas about innovation (two models of action), two different myths: one point of view (that of “tribe A”) concerns the idea that the new arises from the ‘outside’ (objective approach; the Science perspective) and the other view (that of the “tribe B”) is centered around the idea that the new arises from the ‘inside’ (the subjectivity of the authors’ interpretation and mental synthesis; the Arts approach). The contrast between these two views reproduces modernity. The contrast itself, which is an ethnographic one, is a reproduction of the division between mind and body – it is to those processes that my thesis refers to.
Keyword(s):
Thesis main supervisor(s):
Thesis co-supervisor(s):
Degree grantor:
Language:
en

Institutional metadata

University researcher(s):
Academic department(s):

Record metadata

Manchester eScholar ID:
uk-ac-man-scw:213959
Created by:
Gaspar, Andrea
Created:
29th November, 2013, 11:42:46
Last modified by:
Gaspar, Andrea
Last modified:
22nd January, 2014, 16:29:11

Can we help?

The library chat service will be available from 11am-3pm Monday to Friday (excluding Bank Holidays). You can also email your enquiry to us.