Understanding, capturing, and assessing value in collaborative design research
Understanding, capturing, and assessing value in collaborative design research
复制标题
理解、捕捉和评估协作设计研究的价值
DOI：
10.1080/15710882.2018.1563194
复制
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Whitham R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Whitham R
本期特刊的论文集回应了合作设计研究不断扩大的范围、规模和异质性与资助者和监管组织对研究人员所做工作的衡量和基准的日益增长的需求之间的紧张关系(Wilsdon 2016)。参与式设计和共同设计实践以不同的形式产生价值，跨越多个时间尺度，由不同的团体根据不同的议程获取。在这期特刊中，我们试图探索如何理解和捕捉参与性和共同设计实践的价值，不仅是为了满足研究评估的需要--其中研究影响和价值的机制和制度倾向于高度界定的、包含的价值概念--而且还增强了协作设计的规模、范围和资源。为此，这里收集的作者提供了对新兴的伦理和政治参与的观点，这些道德和政治参与的“价值”是一个有争议的领域。它们以不同的方式提供了关于我们如何在复杂的协作设计情况下指导和指导评估实践的说明。这个SI背后的动机部分来自于我们在大型协作设计活动中的第一手经验，特别是由英国艺术和人文研究理事会(AHRC)资助的“创意经济知识交流中心”(KE Hubs)计划。这一数百万英镑的基金从2012年到2016年运行，为4个区域中心和10个较小的倡议提供资源，将英国各地的研究机构联系在一起(AHRC和Holden 2017)。该计划的明确理由是改善大学与创意部门合作的方式，可以说是在传播研究实践和洞察力的支持下--被理解为“知识交流”--但具有明显的经济影响的强大支柱。这些“知识交流”活动的结果最终体现在一系列相互关联的指标中，其中包括对参与度、参与度和覆盖面、就业或公司创造、新的商业模式、营业额的变化以及获得私人和学术进一步资助的衡量。这些措施所走向的问责制与大学的“第三使命”的兴起同时并存，这些大学寻求为学院以外的学术研究创造明显的价值，特别是在社会和经济背景下(Shore和McLauchlan，2012)。对于KE中心来说，英国不稳定的政治环境，包括苏格兰独立公投、大选和英国退欧的准备，共同给资助者和被资助的项目带来压力，要求他们为这种活动提供非常具体的证据，倾向于狭隘的经济措施(Moreton 2016)。这些中心的最终报告(见Dovey，Moreton和Hargreaves 2016；Cooper 2015；Follett and Marra 2016；High 2016)
The collection of papers in this special issue respond to a tension between the broadening scope, scale and heterogeneity of collaborative design research, and an ever-growing demand from funders and regulatory organisations for the measurement and benchmarking of the work researchers do (Wilsdon 2016). Participatory design and co-design practice produce value in diverse forms, over multiple timescales, captured by different groups against different agendas. In this special issue, we seek to explore how value of, and in, participatory and co-design practices could be understood and captured not only to serve the needs of research assessment–where the mechanisms and regimes of research impact and value tend towards highly defined, contained conceptions of value–but also to enhance the scale, scope, and resourcing of collaborative design. To this end, the authors collected here offer perspectives on emerging ethical and political engagements with ‘value’as a contested terrain. In differing ways, they offer accounts of how we guide, and are guided by, practices of valuation in the complexities of collaborative design situations. The motivation behind this SI emerges in part from our first-hand experiences working across large-scale collaborative design initiatives, in particular the ‘Knowledge Exchange Hubs for the Creative Economy’(KE Hubs) programme funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). This multimillion pound fund ran from 2012 to 2016, resourcing 4 regional hubs and 10 smaller initiatives, linking together research institutions across the UK (AHRC & Holden 2017). The explicit rationale of the scheme was to improve the ways in which universities worked with the creative sector, arguably under the auspices of the dissemination of research practice and insight–understood as ‘knowledge exchange’–but with a strong backbone of demonstrable economic impacts. The outcomes of these ‘knowledge exchange’activities were ultimately expressed in a range of interconnected metrics that included measures of engagement, participation and reach, job or company creation, new business models, changes in turnover, and the acquisition of both private and academic further funding. The accountability such measures move towards sits alongside the rise of the ‘third mission’of universities seeking to create demonstrable value for academic research outside of the academy, particularly in social and economic contexts (Shore and McLauchlan 2012). For the KE Hubs an unstable political environment in the UK which included the Scottish independence referendum, a general election, and the build-up to Brexit, conspired to place both funder and funded projects under pressure to generate a very specific form of evidence of that activity, skewed towards narrow economic measures (Moreton 2016). The final reports of these hubs (see Dovey, Moreton, and Hargreaves 2016; Cooper 2015; Follett and Marra 2016; Senior 2016)
登录
查看更多内容
开放式参与式设计作为典型实践
影响因子：
1.8
作者：
Erling Björgvinsson
通讯作者：
Erling Björgvinsson
数字治理：为什么计算实践很重要
影响因子：
0.4
作者：
Peter Miller
通讯作者：
Peter Miller
让事物变得有价值
DOI：
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712282.003.0012
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lury C
通讯作者：
Lury C
以成功为基础并从经验中学习：对卓越研究框架的独立审查
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2016
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
N. Stern
通讯作者：
N. Stern
特刊——更好地理解价值在市场和营销中的作用
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
S. Vargo;R. Lusch
通讯作者：
R. Lusch