Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure Kirsikka Vaajakallio

Based on our experiences, we proposed (Vaajakallio et al. 2010a) that codesign
with children is not so different from co-design with adults after
all. However, in terms of research, various challenges of organising co-design
such as group dynamics, the meaning of physical surroundings, participants’
differing personalities and skills became more prominent with
children than when working with adults. In other words, our observations
pinpoint the sensitivity required from the researchers when designing and
conducting co-design gatherings; what inspires and makes sense in some
setting may provoke opposite reactions in another. Even if the finding was
quite evident, it encouraged me to explore these themes further in the
subsequent cases. Also the way the Eco Game guided children’s group discussions
strengthens the view of design games as a means to evoke memories
(Ehn & Sjögren 1991, p 252) and to share experiences and attitudes
about the topic under study. Although the game didn’t maintain the link
between everyday practices and design solutions, it increased understanding
on children’s point of views to environmental issues.
These observations together with the initial themes from my research
program guided me in the next case where I observed evolving co-design
among design partners and the role of design materials in it. Furthermore,
whereas the experiments with kids explored contextual idea generation,
the second case shifted the focus towards setting the stage for co-design
in research environment.
The second case was organised between the two experiments with kids in
2007, including altogether seven co-design gatherings. It was part of a study
on augmented mood boards (Lucero 2009 4 ) which influenced the overall
setting of the gatherings. It aimed at supporting dialogue among researchers
and possible users, the industrial designers, to gain feedback for the initial
design concepts and to develop them further together. According to the
experiences from the first session with children, contextual approach was
not necessarily the key factor in grounding imagined future alternatives to
people’s everyday practices. Resulting from this notion and being inspired
by the Design:Labs approach (Binder 2007), the gatherings were set up in
a room that was made to look and feel like a design studio. It was for this
reason that we called them Dialogue-labs. The overall theme was to imagine
future ways of creating and communicating mood boards (see more 5 ).
Case 2.
Co-design
as
embodied
practice
4 Andres Lucero is a Chilean graphic designer and interaction designer who did his doctoral research
titled Co-designing interactive spaces for and with designers: Supporting mood-board making
(2009) at the Eindhoven University of Technology.
5 Articles, where I am one of the authors, concerning Dialogue-Labs:
Lucéro, A., Vaajakallio, K. & Dalsgaard, P. (2011). The dialogue-labs method: process, space and materials
as structuring elements to spark dialogue in co-design events. CoDesign Journal. Taylor & Francis, 1–23.
30