Cumulus-SDN-IxDA Report — Seattle Session 2019
Mauricio Manhaes, Professor of Service Design, Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah, GA.
Joan Ball, Associate professor of marketing, Peter J. Tobin College of Business, St. John’s University in Queens, NY.
Mauricio Bejarano Botero, Professor of Services Design and Consumer Behavior, Universidad EAFIT.
Isabelle Sperano, Assistant Professor in Interaction Design, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Alan Hartman, Senior lecturer, University of Haifa, Department of Information Systems and Adjunct professor at the Afeka Academic College of Engineering, Department of Service Engineering.
Chacha Chen, Associate Professor & MA Supervisor in Product & Service Design, Nanjing Arts Institute, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
In an increasingly network aware global context where technology supports and enhances the systemic characteristics of the human service-based societies, design (lato sensu) is acquiring a prominent place. In that context, collaboration efforts were initiated in 2018 between the Interaction Design Association (IxDA), Service Design Network (SDN), and CUMULUS International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (CUMULUS). These efforts lead to a conjoint session on February 4th, 2019, during the Interaction Design Education Summit[1] held in Seattle (WA, USA), where these design-related associations got together to talk about their specific and common interests, their different and similar institutional characteristics, and their perspectives on education. The long-term goal was to start a conversation about potential synergies between IxDA, SDN, and CUMULUS.
Over the last decades, design has steadily gained interest and attracted adopters from both practitioner and academic realms. The creation dates of the three associations mentioned in this paper can give a historical timeframe of the evolution of that interest. Cumulus was initiated in 1990[2] as a cooperation between prominent European Art and Design institutions: The University of Art and Design in Helsinki (UIAH), the Royal College of Art in London, Danmarks Designskole, Gerrit Rietvelt Academy, Universität Gesamthochschule Essen and Hochschule fuer Angewandte Kunst in Wien. SDN was founded in 2004[3] by passionate, like-minded professionals from agencies, companies and universities interested in service design. IxDA was incorporated in 2005 by a community of professionals interested in the practice of interaction design. As of 2019, Cumulus counts over 226 member institutions from 49 countries (consisting only of academic institutions, as Full and Associate Members status), SDN has more than 1400 paying members from more 43 countries (consisting of Student, Professional, Corporate, and Academic), and IxDA is the only free-membership association of the three, with over 200 local groups and more than 100,000 individual members globally.
The creation of these associations between 1990 and 2005 demonstrate a significant progression of design as a discipline, both at practitioner and academic levels. This text focuses on the potential synergies that can be created by connecting their efforts to advance the domains related to these three associations. In order to better understand that potential, three questions were proposed:
- Question 1: What are the common/different practical interests among IxDA, Cumulus and SDN institutions?
- Question 2: What are the differences/similarities between design, IxD, and SDN education?
- Question 3: What are the differences/similarities between IxDA, Cumulus and SDN institutions?
These questions stemmed from one single reflection: What are the differences/similarities between IxDA, Cumulus and SDN? Question 1 proposed a reflection focused on these institutions’ interests; Question 2, on their perspective on education; and Question 3, on their actual organizational structures.
Method
The path established to construct a common discourse from these three questions can be divided into three phases. The first one was hosting a workshop during the Interaction Design Education Summit, in Seattle (WA, USA). The second consisted of clustering (Koller, 2005) the data and results obtained by the previous phase in order to investigate the possibilities of using an automated text analysis technique to identify discursive patterns. As a third phase, the participants of the Seattle workshop were invited to analyze and contribute to this report. The final report can be downloaded here.
Analysis of All Groups
As an overall understanding of what was discussed by the three groups, it can be inferred that the discussions revolved around three main topics:
Topic 1 — Cumulus
With an Eigenvalue of 8.09, the most consistent discussion theme amongst all groups was about their understandings of design education, and the differences and similarities between what service design, interaction design, and design (lato sensu) entail. The concept “art,” as mentioned by one of the participants, is important due to the fact that “[…] design has been so deeply rooted in this in the art community that it’s very difficult for people to see design on its own without referencing art.”
Topic 2 — Competencies
In a far second place, with an Eigenvalue of 1.69, all groups discussed their understandings about the differences and similarities between the human competencies necessary for service design, interaction design, and design (lato sensu). In comparison with the Eigenvalue of Topic 1, although present in all groups the discussions about Topic 2 were far less consistent between the three groups. The concept “Competencies,” mentioned by one of the participants, as there was a discussion “about the core competencies and establishing these very clear core competencies and in design and talking about pathways as a method.”
Topic 3 — Art
In a very far third place, with an Eigenvalue of 0.21, two groups shared a small consistency when discussing their understandings about the role of art in regard to service design, interaction design, and design (lato sensu). The comparison with the Eigenvalue of Topic 1, and that Topic 3 is present in two groups, means that the discussions about it were far less consistent than the other two topics.
The topics above can be said to describe the overall themes discussed during the session, considering all groups. The analysis of the topics obtained from each group individually may provide more accuracy to understand how the proposed questions were approached.
Phase 3 — Compiling the Discussions
The initial proposition was to reflect specifically on the similarities and differences of educational, institutional, and interest aspects of the mentioned associations, the groups’ discussions evolved towards reflecting the perspectives of the participants of that session. The future production of a report, as it was done after the Paris session, was presented during the Seattle session (slides 23 and 24 of the presentation). Phase 3 is intended to provide all attendees of the session the opportunity and the power to influence the report. Although informed at the beginning of the session, participants seemed unaware that there would be an extensive analysis of the data they were producing. What seemed to be seen as a conversation would be turned into a report. In terms of research ethics, the participants should have been explicitly informed that the workshop was part of a research project. As a post evaluation, the participants suggested that it should be explicitly stated and that a more formal approach needs to be taken (description of study, how the information will be used, anonymisation, etc.) in future sessions. It was also suggested that consent forms should have been signed by the participants at the session.
The final set of potential synergies that can be created by connecting the associations' efforts is as follows:
Cluster A: Introduction of a broader perspective on the political orientation of each institution and the effects on the different membership skills and experience. This cluster is a result of the following suggestions:
- Q1–1: Each association tends to represent people related to specific and different workplaces and job positions;
- Q3–1: SDN and IxDA are perceived as “more focused on: practical, method, practitioner, and professional. Cumulus, as focused on education;
- Q3–2: Each of these organizations has a political undercurrent to it, a political orientation. The different levels of educational commitment of these associations might clarify their differences.
Cluster B: More efficient usage of existing resources including the wider dissemination of material that already exists, the pooling of resources to further different initiatives and the integration of redundant (duplicated) efforts. This cluster is a result of the following suggestions:
- Q1–2: Resources should be mapped and shared between these associations;
- Q1–3: Combinations of similar initiatives and efforts;
- Q3–3: Creating spaces for newcomers: students, professionals, and organizations.
Cluster C: Formalization of a unified and broadly accepted terminology to form a basis for a common understanding of the nature of service design, interaction design and design education. This cluster is a result of the following suggestions:
- Q2–1: Developing common frameworks to establish core competencies for design education;
- Q2–2: The definitions and language and terminology, and how they play into our understanding of what design is;
- Q2–3: The balance between a design education based on the hiring process versus a purpose based education;
More important than defining specific actions to address every suggested potential synergies that can be created by connecting their efforts, this report proposes 3 opportunities for these institutions to align and promote effective dialogues between their leaders and members.
Implications
The academic session held during the Interaction Design Education Summit held in Seattle, WA (USA), and this report present an exercise to explore how a call for collaboration might be framed through outlining, for the first time and by members of the three mentioned associations, 3 opportunities for potential synergies between Interaction Design Association (IxDA), Service Design Network (SDN), and CUMULUS International Association of Universities and Colleges of Art, Design and Media (Cumulus).
This report does not intend to define or precisely describe the meaning of each identified opportunity. At most, it provides a foundation for practical insights and future academic research on how to establish potential alignments between the related communities with incurring in the breach of research ethics. The authors believe that more detailed work should be done supported by, and as a result of, a series of call for contributions from the communities involved with these associations. It is expected and hoped for that the initiatives resulting from these calls will help establish definitions of concepts and actions in a far more consistent and meaningful way than what would have been possible if proposed solely by the authors themselves.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the participants of the referred academic session and, especially, the comments and contributions made to this report by Alok Nandi, Andrea Mignolo, Dianna Miller, Gregoire Cliquet, Ian Pollock, Isabelle Sperano, Maxim Safioulline, Mingzhu He, Rachel Troye, Ricardo Alex Martins, Robert Andruchow, and Thomas Fogarasy.
[1] For more information, access: https://edusummit.ixda.org/ (last accessed on 20/03/2019).
[2] For more information, access: https://www.cumulusassociation.org/homepage/statutes/ (last accessed on 20/03/2019).
[3] For more information, access: https://www.service-design-network.org/vision (last accessed on 20/03/2019).
References
Cole, C. (1994). Operationalizing the Notion of Information as a Subjective Construct. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 45(7), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199408)45:7%3C465::AID-ASI2%3E3.0.CO;2-D
Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Schaper, C. (1996). Motivated Social Cognition: Need for Closure Effects on Memory and Judgment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32(3), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1996.0012
Koller, V. (2005). Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society, 16(2), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926505049621
Lansing, J. S. (2003). Complex Adaptive Systems. Annual Review of Anthropology, 32(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.32.061002.093440
Mitrani, M. (2017). The Discursive Construction of the International Community: Evidence from the United Nations General Assembly, (78), 1–31. Retrieved from https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/en/v/transformeurope/publications/working_paper/wp/wp78/WP_78_WEB_new.pdf
Provalis. (2014). WordStat User’s Manual. Montreal: Provalis Research. Retrieved from https://provalisresearch.com/Documents/WordStat7.pdf
About the Authors
Alan Hartman is a senior lecturer at the University of Haifa, Department of Information Systems and an adjunct professor at the Afeka Academic College of Engineering, Department of Service Engineering.
Chacha Chen is an Associate Professor & MA Supervisor in Product & Service Design, Nanjing Arts Institute, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.
Isabelle Sperano is an Assistant Professor in Interaction Design, MacEwan University, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Joan Ball is an Associate professor or marketing in the Peter J. Tobin College of Business at St. John’s University in Queens, NY.
Mauricio Bejarano Botero, Services Design and Consumer Behavior Professor, Universidad EAFIT.
Maurício Manhães is a Professor of Service Design at the Savannah College of Art and Design, Savannah, GA.
