CoDesign

International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ncdn20

How design professionals learn within

collaborative research projects

Marieke Zielhuis, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Daan Andriessen & Pieter Jan
Stappers

To cite this article: Marieke Zielhuis, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser, Daan Andriessen & Pieter Jan
Stappers (31 Jan 2024): How design professionals learn within collaborative research projects,
CoDesign, DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2023.2294271

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2023.2294271

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.

Published online: 31 Jan 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1178

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncdn20
CODESIGN
https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2023.2294271

How design professionals learn within collaborative research

projects
Marieke Zielhuis a,b, Froukje Sleeswijk Visser b
, Daan Andriessen c

and Pieter Jan Stappers b

a
Research group Research Competence, HU University of Applied Sciences Utrecht, Utrecht, The
Netherlands; bFaculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The
Netherlands; cResearch group Methodology of Practice-based Research, HU University of AppliedSciences
Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Collaborative research projects are great opportunities for the involved Received 12 January 2023
design professionals to learn. Many design professionals join in such Accepted 4 December 2023
collaborations to contribute with their existing professional expertise, KEYWORDS
but also to further develop and extend that expertise. However, learn­ Design practice; design
ing by individuals is usually not the main aim, and we lack insight in research; collaboration; roles;
the learning opportunities through collaboration in such projects. We actionable knowledge
propose that we need to understand this learning process better in
order to make this happen more often and more effectively. This paper
presents how four design professionals who each participated in
different collaborative research projects look back on their learning
processes. We interviewed each participant and drew a process map
with them. The results show that these projects offer multifaceted
learning opportunities and outcomes of important value for the pro­
fessionals.The paper shows that their learning a) is not always easily
recognised by the professionals themselves, b) benefits from their
active engagement as learners, and c) requires supportive conditions
in project arrangements. The paper provides guidelines for lead
researchers, design professionals, as well as funding agencies to recog­
nise and value this learning, to support explicit reflection and articula­
tion, and to facilitate supportive learning conditions.

1. Introduction
The challenges that design professionals face are getting more complex and their roles
evolve accordingly, becoming more orchestrating and connecting (Manzini 2009; Sleeswijk
Visser 2018; Yee, Jefferies, and Michlewski 2017). To be equipped for these new roles and
challenges, the professionals need to continuously develop their skills and knowledge. The
academic design field aims to support them in this. However, the methods and theory that
academics produce are often complicated, lack practice vocabulary or simply do not
address relevant topics for practice (Rogers 2004; Stolterman 2008). As a result, knowledge
from academic research does not always land in design practice.

CONTACT Marieke Zielhuis [email protected]

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any med­
ium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article
has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

A good learning opportunity for design professionals is to actively participate in

research projects. Many design professionals join in such collaborations not only to
contribute with their existing professional expertise but also to further develop and
extend that expertise. Zielhuis et al. (2022a) suggest that design professionals gain
much richer insights in such projects than colleagues who draw on indirect sources
such as workshops, events, presentations, papers, and books. Such learning could be
seen as part of the mutual learningprocess, which Simonsen and Robertson (2013, 2)
describe as the emergent, informal, and mostly unconscious learning by all involved
in participatory design processes. As indicated by Calvo (2019)and Pihkala and
Karasti (2016), such mutual learning by collaborating stakeholders is rather taken
for granted. It is only actively facilitated or studied when it concerns users. Design
professionals though are often not regarded – even by themselves – as users or
learners but rather as contributors (Zielhuis et al. 2022b). We propose that their
learning is currently unclear for all actors and therefore potentially not facilitated
optimally.
This paper provides more clarity on the learning processes by design professionals, by
reviewing the experience of four design professionals of participating in academic driven
collaborative research projects and by offering suggestions to promote such learning in
future collaborative research projects.

2. How design professionals gain knowledge

This section reviews literature about what useful learning outcomes are for design
professionals, how they learn in collaborative research projects, and how this translates
to their activities.

2.1. Unnoticed learning

Knowledge that helps to get things accomplished in practical situations is described as
actionable knowledge or working knowledge by Markauskaite and Goodyear (2017). Ryle
(1949) argues that this consists of know-how as well as know-that, thus knowledge which
directly supports action (e.g. practical techniques) as well as knowledge which underpins
this action with understanding (e.g. grasping a certain model). Some actionable knowl­
edge is explicit and easily shared with others. However, some are embodied and experi­
ential, as indicated by Polanyi (1966) as tacit knowledge.
Zielhuis et al. (2022a) interviewed design professionals and collected a range of
examples of actionable knowledge that these professionals derive from research, such
as a designer’s network in the health sector that has been increased, or a useful strategy
for facilitating sessions with clients. The research showed three relevant content cate­
gories for practice: 1) design methods and tools, 2) the application domain at hand (such
as healthcare), and 3) managing a complex design project (e.g. Dorst 2008; Kou and Gray
2019). Apparently, design professionals learn on much more topics than only the project
topic, and different professionals learn different things. This range of individual learning
outcomes could easily go unnoticed when only the collective learning process is studied
and supported. What is more: potential for more learning may go unnoticed and unused.
 CODESIGN 3

2.2. Engaging as learners

Goodyear et al. (2021) argue that learning benefits from an active engagement by the
learner: taking initiative within the learning process. An active dynamic between action
and reflection is seen – within and beyond the design domain – as important for learning
(e.g. Goodman, Stolterman, and Wakkary 2011; Kolb 1984; Stolterman 2008, often
referring to Schön (1983).
However, as design professionals do not see themselves as learners, their learning is
mostly implicit and reactive. Their learning concerns non-formal learning, which Eraut
(2000) argues to be a combination of deliberative (i.e. intentional), reactive, and implicit
learning. Deliberative learning takes place in time specifically set aside for that purpose,
such as in planned training. Reactive learning takes place almost spontaneously, but
requires further articulation. In implicit learning, there is neither intention to learn nor
awareness of learning at that moment. We propose that the involved design professionals
are often not explicitly supported to actively engage as learner, be it planned or reactive.
The next session discusses how such engagement translates to activities.

2.3. Learningactivities
Goodyear, Carvalho, and Yeoman (2021) argue that to improve the conditions in which
learning can happen, one should understand what learners do that makes them learn:
their learning activities. We discuss the key aspects of such learning activities.
Moving away from traditional notions of learning as only a process within one’s mind,
Vygotsky (1978) described how learning is a process in which artefacts can mediate. In
Research through Design (RtD) literature, the interaction with artefacts – such as proto­
types – is put forward as a way to communicate knowledge which cannot be fully captured
in words (Hoök and Lowgren 2012; Löwgren 2013), but also – in making and reflecting on
these artefacts – as a way to develop knowledge (Stappers and Giaccardi 2017; Wensveen
and Matthews 2015). The research projects in this paper all involve ways of working in
which the creation of and discussion about artefacts are part of the knowledge develop­
ment. Their potential as boundaryartefacts (Star 1989) to connect the design professionals’
learning context to their daily application context is not studied yet.
We propose that learning opportunities are also largely influenced by project roles,
which we define as mandated responsibilities, associated with typical activities and
geared towards typical end results. Sleeswijk Visser (2018) argues that roles within RtD
projects are not much studied at all. In her paper, she describes the role arrangements for
academics and industry partners within one RtD project. This set of roles includes several
content-oriented roles (e.g. theoriser, designer), but also several more organisational and
practical ones (e.g. manager). Stappers and Sleeswijk Visser (2014) describe how different
project roles are associated with different interactions with artefacts, as they each operate
on a different so-called meta level. The outcome of one role (or level) can be the tool for
another level. For example, a ‘product designer’ is the ‘user’ of the ‘design tool’ produced
by a ‘tool developer’, who in turn is a user of prototyping methods developed at a higher
meta level. An individual – such as a design professional – can be active on multiple levels
and utilise the crosstalk between these levels. Currently, not much is known about the
learning opportunities for design professionals that the various roles facilitate.
4 M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

Furthermore, learning is seen as a social phenomenon (Wenger 1998), which takes

place in collective activities within a community and its rules (Engeström 1987). This has
become known as Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and has been applied to
analyse design research by for instance Calvo (2019) and Tessier and Zahedi (2022).
Learning by design professionals can be supported by the exchange with fellow project
partners or other stakeholders.Engeström (1999)emphasises that such exchanges are
influenced by the work arrangements (such as in the role arrangements as described
above) as well as the formal and informal rules and conditions. In the context of our
study, learning opportunities for design professionals will be influenced by financial
constraints, such as limited budget for practice partners involvement, but also by clashing
standards between academics and practitioners (Gaver 2014).

2.4. Conclusions for this study

The literature reviewed in this section suggests that: (1) there are many facets about
which designers can learn, ranging from the project topic, to networking, and process
management skills, and these facets may cover more than the project topic, (2) the
involved have a limited awareness of this range of outcomes nor of the implicit learning
taking place, and (3) researchers and designers themselves do not structure explicit
activities towards this end. Therefore, this study aims to better understand this learning
process and how this can be improved. As the designers’ own perspective on this
phenomenon currently lacks, we choose to explore this in four retrospective case studies.

3. Method
We observed the learning by design professionals from their own (first person) perspec­
tive and analysed this learning in light of the above theory. Participants were four design
professionals. Each was interviewed about a collaborative research project in which they
had participated and which they considered as useful for their work. The interviews
centred on project activities which they described as important for their learning. In
a process research approach (Langley et al. 2013), we viewedthe cases as activity systems.
The research question is: How do design professionals learn when they take part in
a collaborative research project?This led to three main characteristics of this learning
process and practical tips to support this.

3.1. Cases
We selected design professionals based on several criteria. Most important was that they
had a project from which they indicated that they had learned valuable knowledge or
skills for their design practice. Therefore, the interviews were respective: the projects had
been completed in the past and regarded as useful for the present. A second criterion was
that the design professional had had an active and substantial part in the project for
a period longer than 6 months. Third, all participants had over 6 years of design
experience in industry. Fourth, all projects had a substantial design component (e.g.
using the double diamond process). One of the projects (labelled ‘John’ in Table 1) was
explicitly described in project documents as RtD project.
 Table 1. An overview of the four cases in which design professionals learned.
Case learner
Case elements Bob John Mary Tess
(1) Background Product and service designer: Industrial Research director & service Owner, designer, facilitator, illustrator: Strategic designer, organizational
design design; designer: Industrial design, Communication and multi-media design; designer:
professional six years’ experience; prior experience in 10 years’ experience Six years’ experience Information science, industrial design, art
solar park design academy, psychology;
14 years’ experience
(2) Design Service design agency (10 employees) Social design agency (10 Self employed Self employed
agency employees)
(3) Motivations All: Make relevant contribution; positive prior collaboration with these partners
for agency to Further build portfolio of agency To learn from research partners To learn from other design professionals;
join to extend network
(4) Other project University (landscape architecture) University (design research), University of Applied Science (co-design; University of Applied Science (co-design),
partners knowledge institute (behavioural university (design academy), lifestyle), hospitals, physiotherapists, energy cooperation, two design
science and PV technology), printing care institutions, university (behavioural science). The design agencies. Note: the design agencies
company, service design agency municipalities, four design professional was hired by the UAS. take part without funding.
agencies
(5) Project topic Involving residents in solar parks design Designing meaningful Activity monitoring of children for Facilitating design-oriented future
conversations about personal physiotherapy thinking
futures
(6) Research A central case study in which a mock-up Several case studies which A design project to build an activity monitor Design sprints to develop futuring tools
project of a solar park is built. contribute to the development and corresponding tools in design sprints. and a central case study to apply the
structure of a tools.
central conceptual framework.
(7) Tangible Mock-up of solar park, theoretical model, Tools and templates to support Contextmapping tools (e.g. sensitizers), an Tools to support future thinking, cards,
design co-design materials conversations, an installation activity monitor, education materials talking sticks
outputs or for an exhibition
materials
(8) Timespan of 2 year project. 2 years. 1 year. 6 months.
project and Shortly after start. A colleague was Shortly after start, because of Shortly after start as replacement. Involved before project initiation.
entry point involved in proposal writing. missing expertise.
for designer
CODESIGN
5
6 M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

The scope of selection had some limitations: all cases were funded research-practice
collaborations in the Netherlands with a participatory design approach. The participants
all work in the so-called fuzzy front-end of design (see Sanders and Stappers [2012]) in
co-design, service design, and organisational design. This scope resulted from authors’
available network. We note that all four projects valued the uptake by design practice but
did not follow a particular strategy to support design professionals’ learning.Table 1
describes the four cases, labelled by a pseudonym representing each of the four design
professionals as learners.

3.2. Data collection and analysis structure

We used various theoretical lenses to review the data. The cases were analysed as
taking place within a collective process by using the CHAT aspects from section 2.3
(Engeström 1999) to organise findings. In this, the roles for structuring RtD
collaborations by Sleeswijk Visser (2018) were used as a starting point to organise
the project roles. The results (Tables 1 and A1–A4) are organised along these
aspects. To better recognise as well as organise the learning outcomes, we used
the topic categories of designing, application domain, and project organisation by
Zielhuis et al. (2022a). To recognise where active engagement as learners took place,
we mapped the key learning events as deliberative, reactive, and implicit learning
(Eraut 2000).
Each participant was interviewed by the first author; during the interview, participant
and interviewer together drew a process map of the case. Different episodes in the
participant’s learning process were distinguished and mapped. Due to covid measures,
the interviews were held online using an online collaborative environment, in which
drawings, post-its, and texts were created and organised. Additionally, several project
documents, such as publications and end-reports, were collected, studied, and used as
prompts. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The interview questions
were aimed at gathering information on the learning activities.
The relevant activities were organised in the corresponding roles, as distinguished by
the participants, into different lanes in the timeline (see Figure 1). Some roles were
explicitly assigned and labelled in the project, others were identified and labelled by the
participant during the interview. The interviewer constructed the timeline and its
contents with input of the participant. Some participants took an active role in drawing
up sticky notes and moving them around. As talking about learning can be difficult, we
used several prompts, such as pictures from the project, to activate the participant’s
memory, and existing timelines to triangulate. The interviewer offered several examples
of actionable knowledge, from explicit to implicit (Markauskaite and Goodyear 2017)
on a variety of topics, so that the participants would not hesitate to name things which
they would otherwise consider too mundane, such as a new method that they continued
using after the project, an increased network, or practical tips they shared within their
design agency.
Each interview resulted in a large poster with an organised process map, annotated
with quotes and short narratives on the various events (example in Figure 1). These
process maps were analysed in a cross-case analysis session on the wall.
 CODESIGN 7

Figure 1. The process map of the research collaboration process of one participant, organized along
a timeline and in different roles (lanes) and events (dots) which were annotated (text blocks).

To validate the analysis results, a focus group was held in which the participants
reflected on their own and each other’s process maps and the presented insights.

4. Observations
The four cases of design professionals in research projects gave insight into what and how
they learned and how their learning was related to their project activities. Tables A1–A4
in the Appendix provide a detailed overview of the learning activities of each participant
organised by roles. In this section, we discuss our observations on these learning activity
systems; in the next, we draw conclusions and provide implications for future research
projects.

4.1. Much learning goes unnoticed

All four design professionals reported a wide variety of actionable (i.e. turned out as
useful for them) learning outcomes. Each participant reported examples on at least two of
these three categories, see Table 2. The table shows that many learning outcomes do not
concern the project topic.
Two participants developed useful knowledge about the application domain. A big
learning outcome for John was that he better understood the pressure under which
healthcare professionals have to operate, and what designers can offer in that context.
Bob learned about the central project topic: the involvement of residents in solar parks
development. Not all domain theories are relevant for design practice. For instance, Bob
 8

Table 2. Overview of the learning outcomes as reported by the design professionals in the four cases, in the topic categories by Zielhuis et al. (2022a). For each
learning outcome, the table indicates whether this is closely linked to their prior knowledge, and whether this learning is on the project topic.
Learner
Topic category Learning Bob John Mary Tess
M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

Designing Outcome Deepened expertise in facilitating co- Knowing how to talk about futures; Deepened understanding of Deepened understanding of futuring
creation sessions Deepened understanding of working methods and techniques methods and techniques;
‘I realized the power of giving people with sensitizers (e.g. contextmapping); Tips for practical techniques and tools
specific instructions in a co-creation ‘We worked more with sensitizers since improved grasp of facilitating ‘I applied the tips we shared directly in the
session to get them going’. then, to warm up the topic and keep it ‘Methods became alive’. next client session, about getting people
alive’. from one state to the next’.
Link Yes Yes Yes Yes
Project - Yes - Yes
topic
Application Outcome Insights in how people view solar parks, Extended network and follow up (nothing reported) (nothing reported)
domain and ways to involve them in a design projects;
process; understanding of domain issues and
Extended network; what design can offer.
Showcase in solar park design ‘Healthcare is under so much pressure
that people run into problems but
don’t have the time to zoom out’.
Link Yes - - -
Project Yes - - -
topic
Project Outcome Improved skills and confidence to work Insights about layering your project Benefits of working in large Insights on the potential of research-
organization with a complex consortium outcomes; Extended network consortium; practice collaborations; Extended
‘I became more confident in addressing Extended network; network and follow up projects
things. In future projects I will ask where Insights on how to work (and
partners would like support’. how not to) in complex
consortia
Link Yes Yes Yes Yes
Project - - - -
topic
 CODESIGN 9

described a behavioural model as interesting, but alas too time-consuming for practice.
Moreover, they all learned much beyond the application domain, namely about design­
ing (techniques and methods) and project organisation. For Mary and Tess, the value of
the projects lay in the exchanges about methods, not in the respective application
domains of physiotherapy or sustainable energy. Mary did not even report the applica­
tion domain at all in this list. Her normal work is visualising client processes, which does
not go deep into domain topics.
All participants reported learning about designing. Most examples concern co-design
and context mapping, the area of work of these participants. Bob and John both deepened
their understanding of and expertise in working with sensitisers (a technique in context
mapping (Sleeswijk Visser et al. 2005)). Already familiar with the concept sensitising,
they even better appreciated its value by the prominent use in the project: ‘We worked
more with sensitizers since then, to warm up the topic and keep it alive’. (John)
All four reported on learning about project organisation, particularly in such complex,
layered consortia. For instance, Bob realised that project partners tend to go their own,
mono-disciplinary, way, and developed ways to deal with that.
According to the participants themselves, the majority of these learning outcomes
concern a deepening and strengthening of the existing knowledge and expertise of the
design professional (see Table 2). Not all these learning outcomes were easily recognised
or articulated by the design professionals. Although some, for instance, on a method,
could easily be put into words, others were less explicit. The interviews helped them to
identify and articulate several less explicit outcomes, such as the improved confidence as
mentioned by Bob.

4.2. Learning is supported by and actively sought out in exchanges with peers
Active and conscious engagement as learners took place in exchanges with others in the
project team, such as researchers or other professionals. Bob reflected that ‘by explaining
and motivating your approach, you are almost forced to make this explicit’. This activity
helped him to articulate the implications for his own practice, to become more aware of
his own strengths, and more aware of what he would do differently in future situations.
The exchange with peer design professionals brings the most. Tess described that
‘exchanging with other agencies that work in industry is really different from exchanging
with researchers’. With these colleagues, they can talk about similar practice experiences:
‘It is so valuable to exchange with colleagues about difficulties you encountered and how
you handled them’.
Exchanging with designers beyond the actual project also contributed to learning. For
instance, Mary discussed a tool which was used within the project with her own partner.
This was a dice-tool which sides could be changed, for instance, to make a name-
generator. ‘I took it home, and my partner, working in a similar field, immediately
said: we also need to use this in our work, as it is versatile and handy beyond co-creation
sessions’.
Some of these exchanges are planned activities within the project, such as the above
exchange with peers for Tess.In several cases, these peer exchanges resulted from
a project task. John worked intensively on a design challenge with one other design
agency and learned much about ‘the tools and the type of conversations in healthcare’.
10 M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

The above examples already show that many exchanges were supported by artefacts,
such as templates, tools, or prototypes. Some of these artefacts were object of study or
intended project outcomes, and some were tools as used in the project. In the above
described exchange, Tess and the other design professionals brought tools and materials
from their own practice to reflect on. ‘It made it very practical to see the worksheet that
they use, or my talking stick’. Seeing each other’s artefacts and work methods was very
helpful. ‘We immediately applied the tips that we received in the next client session’.

4.3. Learning happens in a variety of roles

The above learning took place in a variety of project roles. Tables A1–A4 in the Appendix
show that each design professional took on at least four roles and that many roles (e.g.
manager and facilitator) emerged during the project. Bob did not only take part in user
research and the design of the solar park but also joined the theory development and
facilitated stakeholders meetings. Experienced in dealing with group dynamics, Mary
even took the initiative to make everybody’s roles more explicit which led to role
adjustments.
The design professionals learned in a variety of roles in which they could connect to
activities in their own daily design practice, but especially when they could connect
experiences from multiple roles. For instance, in the earlier described example were Tess
reflected with peers about futuring, learning did not only result from the exchange with
peers as a stand-alone activity but also because of the ongoing interplay between the roles
of tool developer and theoriser.
The data shows that much learning was reactive, triggered by what transpired in a role,
but that design professionals also actively orchestrated learning opportunities. For
instance, Mary joined the project with a firm intent to learn about facilitating – not the
topic of study – and co-facilitated several sessions. She took the opportunity to learn from
a project colleague how and why to apply a certain facilitation technique: ‘This really
deepened and strengthened the methods I already used’.

4.4. Conditions can support learning

Although they learned much, the participants indicated that chances were missed for
even more learning, especially in exchange with others. John expressed a need for more
profound exchange with the other involved design professionals, to ‘look back at how
they approached things’.
The necessary reflective exchange requires certain ways of working and conditions in
these projects. Working with each other is no guarantee for exchange yet: ‘Working
alongside other designers and researchers, you can still exchange little’. John mentioned
that ‘partners rather keep within their own silos instead of questioning each other’s
approach’. Tess explained her positive learning experience by the ‘space holding’, of
conditions such as time, openness, equality, and trust between partners. A complicating
factor in this is when teams change during the project. Finally, the cultures of practice
and academia sometimes do not support each other, described by Bob as ‘working on
a paper for a year versus having to finish your project in a month’. John notes that
analyzing is much more extensive in academia than in their design practice. For this
 CODESIGN 11

reason, it is a certain type of design professional who joins such collaborations. Bob adds
that unlike some colleagues, he has ‘a fair amount of patience for such long projects’
himself. This slower and more extensive process can also have a beneficial flip side:
‘Normally, you talk with other design professionals or watch or read each other’s cases,
but you don’t have the time to go that deep’ (Tess). Finally, Tess proposes that better
funding arrangements for practitioners in research projects would ‘even better support
the exchange’.

5. General discussion
5.1. Learning in research activities
This study started from the notion that collaborative research projects in which design
professionals are involved hold potential for helping these professionals with their work,
but that this potential is currently underused. The results confirm this. Moreover, they
show that, from the viewpoint of the participating professionals, these projects provide
multifaceted learning opportunities and multifaceted outcomes of important value for
them.
In these four projects, we found that their learning can be characterised in three
dimensions: they learn in a way which A) is not always recognised by themselves, B)
benefits from active engagement as learners and articulation of learning, and C) requires
supporting project conditions and arrangements. These dimensions play out differently
for learning on and beyond the project topic.
The design professionals in our study were not always aware of all their learning, as is
typical in non-formal learning (Eraut 2000). They learn on the project topic but don’t
always recognise this as learning. Their focus on contributing to the project makes it
difficult for them to see themselves as learners. Furthermore, it is difficult for them to
recognise and oversee what they learn during their involvement. This especially concerns
topics on which they already have an extensive repertoire, such as designing. These
experienced professionals need explicit reflection on how the project strengthens or
better articulates their prior knowledge, in line with how Eraut (2000) describes how
learning involves synthesis with prior knowledge.
On the project topic, the necessary explicit reflection by all project actors was often
organised, but seldom directed to the learning of design professionals and the link to
their practice. Especially on topics beyond the project focus, the design professionals
took much initiative to create and seize learning opportunities, which Goodyear et al.
(2021) indicate as supportive for learning. The exchanges with fellow project part­
ners – especially peer design professionals – helped them relate the project findings to
their own practice. Various tools or other artefactssupportedthese exchanges as
boundary objects (Star 1989) between the project context and the various practices.
Since the interviews and focus group in this study helped to further articulate their
learning, we propose that even more opportunities could be created in the project
itself.
Finally, we conclude that there is not one specific role that promotes such articulation
and reflection, but that the key lies in identifying for each professional which possible
project aspects are relevant for their practice – they can even learn in roles as facilitator or
12 M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

Table 3. Three characteristics of learning by design professionals within research projects, on the main
research project topic and on topics beyond this.
Characteristics of
learning Learning on project topic Learning beyond project topic
A: Low awareness of Learning is recognized with some difficulty, Learning is recognized with some difficulty:
individual learning and rather seen as ‘developing knowledge learning outcomes are varied and
together’. sometimes implicit, and much is
‘The whole project is about developing strengthening what they already know.
knowledge together’ (Bob) ‘Learning about designing has overlap with
what you already know’ (John)
B: Active engagement Active engagement as learner is required to Professionals take initiative to pursue learning
enhances reflection connect to professional practice. This is goals, seek out exchanges with others and
and articulation supported by exchanges with others, and engage in reflections on applied tools and
by interactions with tools and artefacts as artefacts.
object of study or intended end products. ‘I saw this researcher develop a tool, and went
‘It’s a rare opportunity to exchange with to discuss this with her’ (Mary)
colleagues’ (Tess)
C: Supportive Being involved in the heart of the project Various roles can be relevant for
arrangements and supports learning, as different roles inform a professionals’ specific practice and
conditions one another. Still, learning requires support learning. It helps if professionals
a setting of trust, mutual interest, and time. have the opportunity to pursue these at
‘Time to share and willingness to let go of a set the start or during the project.
way of working and really connect’ (Tess) ‘What I do in such projects is keep the focus on
the user perspective’ (Bob)

manager – and in providing sufficient conditions of reflective time and space.

Furthermore, we found that design professionals learn better when involved in multiple
roles. In line with Stappers and Sleeswijk (2014), these various roles, especially when
carried out by the same person, inform each other.
Table 3 summarises these three dimensions of the learning processes. Column
A depicts the awareness of learning by the design professional within the collective
process; column B, the active engagement as learner with explicit reflection; and column
C, the supportive project arrangements in conditions and roles.

5.2. Implications for collaborative research projects

We propose that learning on the project topic by the involved professionals should be
a matter of interest for all involved. Apart from that, enhanced learning by the design
professionals beyond that topic will make the collaboration itself more effective. Table 4
summarises guidelines based on our findings for the lead researchers (R), design profes­
sionals (D), and funding agencies (F) on the three introduced dimensions.

6. Conclusion
The main contribution of this study is the concrete learning stories from the first-
person perspective of the partaking design professional. These descriptions can help
to further improve the learning opportunities in collaborative projects. Another
contribution lies in showing the many different roles of the design professionals in
such projects. Researchers may not sufficiently realise this varied contribution of
design professionals.
 CODESIGN 13

Table 4. Guidelines to make research collaborations more actionable for the involved design
professionals.
On project topic Beyond project topic
Awareness: Recognize ● R: Find out where project goals match the ● D: Reflect on personal learning
and value learning professionals’ personal interest. intentions before the start and be
● F: Recognize the opportunity towards keen on emerging opportunities.
practical impact through these partaking
design professionals. Include this in cri­
teria and evaluations.
Engagement: Support ● R: Include reflective activities on the ● D: Pursue opportunities to
articulation and design professionals’ practice and facili­ exchange and concretize.
reflection tate the use of artefacts to enhance this ● R: Facilitate exchanges with peer
reflection. design professionals.
● D: Get involved in activities that enable
the translation of theory to design prac­
tice, such as the creation of tools.
● F: Facilitate the above conditions for
learning.
Conditions: Assign ● R: Involve design professionals through­ ● R: Embrace the additional roles that
relevant roles and out the project on multiple meta-levels design professionals want to take to
facilitate reflexivity and in more than one role. contribute and learn.
● R: Closely collaborate with D in planning, ● R: Facilitate reflexivity on collective
conducting, and evaluating activities and individual learning
including (or aimed at) reflection on
learning goals and outcomes.
● D: Pursue roles that are relevant for your
practice.
● F: Facilitate this involvement of design
professionals in funding.

The learning stories, however, are limited, as they only report the learning that
designers themselves retrospectively identify and only roughly describe how learning
actually developed throughout the cases. A longitudinal study of successive cases may
better identify whether the professionals actually learned. A richer understanding of the
learning process may result from studying multiple perspectives within collective learn­
ing, for instance, with a learning histories approach (Kleinsmann, Sarri, & Melles, 2020;
Roth & Kleiner, 1998). The applied theoretical lens which was useful in this study (i.e.
CHAT combined with descriptive models by Sleeswijk Visser 2018; Zielhuis et al. 2022b),
could be used in such studies to further conceptualise learning activities in design
collaborations.
This study focused on the ‘fuzzy front-end of design’ and projects which a similar
national (research) culture and funding context. Although we grew our understanding of
the learning processes in these contexts, we propose that learning may be different in
other design areas such as app development, AI, or VR design, and in different interna­
tional contexts.
Within the above limitations, this study provided new insights into how design
professionals look back on how they developed actionable knowledge for their
practice in collaborative research projects. They do not recognise some of their
learning, need to actively step in as learners and need supportive conditions. With
the guidelines, researchers, design professionals, and funding agencies can better
support this learning.
14 M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

Acknowledgements
Many thanks to the four design professionals for collaborating on this work and sharing their
experiences and to the reviewers for providing feedback which strengthened the paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Marieke Zielhuis http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4828-1318
Froukje Sleeswijk Visser http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2607-7650
Daan Andriessen http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9510-6745
Pieter Jan Stappers http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5351-4828

References
Calvo, M. 2019. “Co-design and Informal-Mutual Learning: A Context-based Study Demystified
Using Cultural-historical Activity Theory.” Doctoral Dissertation, The Glasgow School of Art
Dorst, K. 2008. “Design Research: A Revolution-Waiting-To-Happen.” Design Studies 29 (1): 4–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.12.001.
Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental
Research. Helsinki, Finland: Orienta-Konsultit.
Engeström, Y. 1999. “Expansive Visibilization of Work: An Activity-Theoretical Perspective.”
Computer Supported Cooperative Work 8 (1–2): 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1008648532192.
Eraut, M. 2000. “Non-Formal Learning and Tacit Knowledge in Professional Work.” British
Journal of Educational Psychology 70 (1): 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158001.
Gaver, W. 2014. “Science and Design: The Implications of Different Forms of Accountability.” In
Ways of Knowing in HCI, edited by J. Olson and W. Kellogg, 143–165, New York, NY: Springer.
Goodman, E., E. Stolterman, and R. Wakkary 2011. “Understanding Interaction Design Practices”.
Proceedings of Chi 2011, 1061–1070. ACM, May 2011. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979100.
Goodyear, P., L. Carvalho, and P. Yeoman. 2021. “Activity-Centred Analysis and Design (ACAD):
Core Purposes, Distinctive Qualities and Current Developments.” Educational Technology
Research & Development 69 (2): 445–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09926-7.
Hoök, K., and J. Lowgren. 2012. “Strong Concepts: Intermediate-Level Knowledge in Interaction
Design Research.” ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 19 (3): 1–18. https://doi.
org/10.1145/2362364.2362371.
Kleinsmann, M., T. Sarri, and M. Melles. 2020. “Learning Histories as an Ethnographic Method for
Designing Teamwork in Healthcare.” CoDesign 16 (2): 152–170.
Kolb, D. A. 1984. Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Kou, Y., and C. M. Gray 2019. “A Practice-Led Account of the Conceptual Evolution of UX
Knowledge”. Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Glasgow,
Scotland UK, 1–13.
Langley, A., C. Smallman, H. Tsoukas, and A. H. Van De Ven. 2013. “Process Studies of Change in
Organization and Management: Unveiling Temporality, Activity, and Flow.” Academy of
Management Journal 56 (1): 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001.
Löwgren, J. 2013. “Annotated Portfolios and Other Forms of Intermediate-Level Knowledge.”
Interactions 20 (1): 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/2405716.2405725.
 CODESIGN 15

Manzini, E. 2009. “New Design Knowledge.” Design Studies 30 (1): 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
destud.2008.10.001.
Markauskaite, L., and P. Goodyear. 2017. Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education.
Dordrecht: Springer.
Pihkala, S., and H. Karasti 2016. “Reflexive Engagement: Enacting Reflexivity in Design and for
‘Participation in plural’.”In Proceedings of the 14th Participatory Design Conference, Vol. 1,
21–30. Aarhus, Denmark.
Polyani, M. 1966. The Tacit Dimension. New York: Anchor Day Books.
Rogers, Y. 2004. “New Theoretical Approaches for HCI.” Annual Review of Information Science
and Technology 38 (1): 87–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440380103.
Roth, G., and A. Kleiner. 1998. “Developing Organizational Memory Through Learning
Histories.” Organizational Dynamics 27 (2): 43–60.
Ryle, G. 1949. The Concept of Mind. New York: Barnes &Noble.
Sanders, E. B., and P. J. Stappers. 2012. Convivial Toolbox. Amsterdam: BIS.
Schön, D. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
Simonsen, J., and T. Robertson. 2013. “Routledge International Handbook of Participatory design”.
Vol. 711. New York: Routledge.
Sleeswijk Visser, F. 2018. “Structuring Roles in Research Through Design Collaboration”. In
Proceedings of DRS 2018: Design as a Catalyst for Change, 368–380. Limerick, Ireland, June.1.
Sleeswijk Visser, F., P. J. Stappers, R. van der Lugt, and E. B. N. Sanders. 2005. “Contextmapping:
Experience from Practice.” CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts
1 (2): 119–149.
Stappers, P. J., and E. Giaccardi. 2017. “Research Through Design.” In The Encyclopedia of
Human-Computer Interaction, edited by M. Soegaard and R. Friis-Dam, 1–94. Aarhus,
Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation.
Stappers, P. J., and F. Sleeswijk Visser 2014. “Meta-Levels in Design Research: Resolving Some
Confusions”. In Proceedings of DRS 2014: Design’s Big Debates, 847–857. Umeå, Sweden, June.
Star, S. L. 1989. “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous
Distributed Problem Solving.” In Distributed Artificial Intelligence, edited by L. Gasser and
M. Huhns, 37–54. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Stolterman, E. 2008. “The Nature of Design Practice and Implications for Interaction Design
Research.” International Journal of Design 2 (1): 55–65.
Tessier, V., and M. Zahedi. 2022. “Activity Theory as a Framework for Understanding Framing
Complexity of Design Projects”. In DRS2022: Bilbao, edited by, D. Lockton, S. Lenzi, P. Hekkert,
A. Oak, J. Sádaba, and P. Lloyd. Bilbao, Spain. 25 June - 3 July. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.
2022.444 .
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wensveen, S., and B. Matthews. 2015. “Prototypes and Prototyping in Design Research.” In The
Routledge Companion to Design Research, edited by P. A. Rodgers and J. Yee, 262–276. London:
Routledge.
Yee, J., E. Jefferies, and K. Michlewski. 2017. Transformations: 7 Roles to Drive Change by Design.
Amsterdam. The Netherlands: BIS Publishers.
Zielhuis, M., F. Sleeswijk Visser, D. Andriessen, and P. J. Stappers. 2022a. “Making Design
Research Relevant for Design Practice: What is in the Way.” Design Studies 78:101063.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.101063.
Zielhuis, M., F. Sleeswijk Visser, D. Andriessen, and P. J. Stappers. 2022b. “What Makes Design
Research More Useful for Design Professionals? An Exploration of the Research-Practice Gap.”
International Journal of Design Research 22 (2): 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1504/JDR.2022.
127568.
 16

Appendix A

Table A1. The learning activity system of Bob in the research project organised by roles. Roles or activities marked as* developed during project.
Roles Activity + quote Learning Rules Prior knowledge Artefacts Community
Within research project
M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

Theorizer* contribute to the theory development. The researchers used a certain theoretical model – Academic No addition to DP
about how people relate to the place they live. We contributed our ideas about how to apply approach experience
this model.
Tool Not applicable –
designer
Designer develop a prototype. We designed a prototype for the test with residents. We made a sunpark Yes Work as Design experience Prototype
set-up as a kind of sample card. How do you like this, or how do react to that? We designed usual of
prints for that. sunpark
User interviews. The interviews were organized by the research partners. We assisted them in setting Yes Academic Interview Residents
researcher up the interview format and conducted some of the interviews at people’s homes. vspractice experience
standards
facilitate co-creation sessions. In the co-creation sessions, we really showed what we do best. Yes Work as Facilitating Materials in Residents,
We showed the residents what we learned in the interviews. We prepared several scenarios and usual experience session stakeholders
let the participants work on those scenarios.
evaluate the prototype with users*. The researchers had the lead in this. We managed to get – Academics in Practice experience
involved in this, because we wanted to contribute to this. This type of thing is what we do best! the lead
We helped them to make the questions simpler.
Facilitator* facilitate stakeholders meetings*. There was tension between stakeholders in this problem Yes Space to Facilitatingcomplex Project
context. My presence added value there, by being there at meetings and bringing my address projects partners
experience as facilitator. To keep addressing: ‘I hear what you say”. It’s about asking questions, things experience
intervening and steering the conversation.
Manager Not applicable –
Trainer Not applicable –
Engineer Not applicable –
Outside project (EX)
(outside interview for this study*. I realize only now, that we have to make more clear to the consortium Yes Space to Reflective attitude Learning Interviewer
project) partners, right from the start, that the exposure is very important for us. consider timeline
Table A2. The learning activity system of John in the research project organised by roles. Roles or activities marked as* developed during project.
Prior
Roles Activity + quote Learning Rules knowledge Artefacts Community
Within research project
Theorizer* take part in analysis sessions & reflecting on case. The researchers were in the lead, but I was Yes Extensive Model about Researchers
participant in several analysis sessions in which we reflected on the case and on a higher level, analysis futuring
overarching the cases.
Tool Not applicable –
designer
Designer develop tools for the domain context, together with other agency (case A). We developed Yes Work as Similar The tools Other design
two interventions for the care partners, like a conversation tool. usual experience agency
further develop tools. We made a small next step on the tools. – Work as
usual
develop and build prototype (case B). This case for us had a very practical take: we had to build – Rather The
an installation. The question was: how can we engage visitors in a festival setting in thinking practical installation
about their futures? work
User conduct interviews at peoples’ homes and sessions with stakeholders (case A). We Yes Interview Context Interview Elderly people
researcher conducted interviews with caregivers and elderly people at their homes. approach mapping materials
at homes experience
test and evaluate the developed tools in practice. The tools that we developed were applied by Yes Observing The tools Care
the care organisation. role organisations
Facilitator* co-facilitate workshop about follow-up projects. We had a session with relevant partners –
about a potential follow-up. We facilitated a workshop.
Manager organize practicalities with care partner. Sometimes I was the project lead in this design case, – Practical Similar Care
together with the researcher. And I organized practical details. work experience organisations
Trainer Not applicable –
Engineer technical installation and logistics (case B). We took care of very practical things, such as hiring – Practical
a van and making the technical installation work. work
Outside project (EX)
(outside host workshops and sessions as follow-up. With several partners, we did follow-up activities – Project partners
project) such as a small project and some workshops.
develop new tools. A concrete result is that we worked more with sensitizers. Yes Trying out is Sensitizers Colleagues
CODESIGN

common
17
 18

Table A3. The learning activity system of Mary in the research project organised by roles. Roles or activities marked as* developed during project.
Prior
Roles Activity + quote Learning Rules knowledge Artefacts Community
Within research project
Theorizer* analyze in session. I participated in a analysis session combining all efforts. - Academic Researchers
analyze individually. I also did my own analysis on data from another researcher. Some things did - Each their Design
M. ZIELHUIS ET AL.

not appear in the presentations. I thought these very important, so I used several bits for my own own research
task. method experience
analyze results in small group. We analyzed a session with researchers - Researchers
Tool Not applicable -
designer
Designer design tools for physiotherapists. I developed three tools for physiotherapists: an activity monitor - Work as Design
cover, educational means,and an infographic for children. usual expertise
User prepare interviews and send sensitiser. The design researcher explained to me that you best send Yes Sharing, Learning goals Tools Researcher
researcher a sensitizer as preparation for a generative session. interest (sensitiser)
conduct interviews. We conducted contextmapping to provide more depth to the qualitative Yes Context Learning goals Tools
interviews. In generative sessions, I explored with children what they need when wearing an activity mapping (sensitiser)
monitor. We send a sensitizer in advance.
conduct interviews. Before the co-creation session, I interviewed therapists. Yes Experience Physios
Facilitato * facilitate co-creation sessions. With a researcher, I co-facilitated and prepared the co-creation Yes Mutual Learning goals Researcher
sessions with physiotherapists and behavioural scientist. interest
design sprint. I organized a design sprint for the team as a dedicated week -
Manager exchange in project meetings & stand ups. A weekly check-in with the team. Yes Sharing Researchers
address group dynamics×. There was much unclarity about the roles. Because I work a lot with - Open to Practice
group dynamics, I took initiative to discuss this. initiative experience
Trainer -
Engineer -
Outside project (EX)
(outside talk to partner*. My partner does similar work as me, sometimes we discuss methods or tools at Yes Similar work Learning goals Tool Peer
project) home. professional
informal exchange with colleagues*. I met another researcher at the university. I saw her put Yes Informal Learning goals Tools Researchers
together another tool and discussed this with her. exchanges
be interviewed for this study*. Good to discuss this. Thinking about it, it raises some questions, like Yes Reflective Reflective Learning Researcher
shouldn’t we plan an evaluation for this project? setting attitude timeline
Table A4. The learning activity system of Tess in the research project organised by roles. Roles or activities marked as* developed during project.
Prior
Roles Activity + quote Learning Rules knowledge Artefacts Community
Within research project
Theorizer* analyzing the sessions. With one of the researchers, I made a document and some graphics to Yes The graphic Researcher
capture what we exchanged so far. overview
Tool take part in reflection session and develop tools. We explored new forms, new tools. Yes Tools (for Peer professionals
designer futuring)
reflection sessions. The researchers asked me to devote a few sessions to capture our current Yes Reflective Reflect. Researchers
knowledge. The other design agency was not involved yet. space attitude
take part in reflection session. In half-day sessions, we shared the problems we run into in Yes Reflective Reflect. Practice tools Researchers & peer
practice. How we deal with that and could learn from that. We made the final session more space & attitude (for design
practical by bringing materials from our practice. trust futuring), professionals
Designer Not applicable -
User Not applicable -
researcher
Facilitator* prepare and faciliate session. We divided tasks in who would prepare the sessions. I designed - Practice as
and facilitated one of the sessions. usual
Manager Not applicable
Trainer coach students on futuring. I was already involved on this topic, by working with students. Yes Learning Teached Students,
setting before researchers
Engineer Not applicable
Outside project (EX)
(outside applying insights in lead for client. I was able to apply some of the tips we shared directly in Yes Trying Interest Client
project) the next session with one of my clients: about how to get people from one state to the next. out is
common
applying insights in lead for client. We had a lead, in which we operationalized this futuring Yes Trying out is Interest Project plan in
approach in several steps. I saw a lot of synergy between these projects. But this project did not common steps
start.
contact researcher beyond project context. I gained access to new people. I contacted one of Yes Mutual trust Interest Researcher
the researchers to talk some more about a particular topic.
CODESIGN

interview for this study. Now we talk about it like this, I realize what the qualities are that Yes Reflective Reflect. Learning Interviewer
make this type of collaboration work. We work as equals and find similarities. setting attitude timeline
19