This paper discusses ways that knowledge may be found in or through artefacts. One purpose is to suggest situations where artefacts might be central to a narrative, rather than secondary to a text. A second purpose is to suggest ways that design and production of artefacts might be instrumental in eliciting knowledge. 

Four general situations are proposed:

(1) Simple Forms - an artefact demonstrates or describes a principle or technique. 

(2) Communication of Process - artefacts arising from a process make the process explicit. 

(3) Artefacts Within the Research - artefacts are instrumental in advancing the research by communicating ideas or information. 

(4) Knowledge Elicited by Artefacts - artefacts provide a stimulus or context which enables information to be uncovered. .</p

Hawkins, S.

Roddis, J.

Rust, C.

Whiteley, G.

Wilson, A.

English

Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive

Knowledge and the artefactRUST, C., HAWKINS, S., WHITELEY, G., WILSON, A. and RODDIS, J.Available from Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive (SHURA) at:http://shura.shu.ac.uk/970/This document is the author deposited version.  You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.Published versionRUST, C., HAWKINS, S., WHITELEY, G., WILSON, A. and RODDIS, J. (2000). Knowledge and the artefact. In: Proceedings of Doctoral Education In Design Conference, La Clusaz, France, July 2000.Repository use policyCopyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in SHURA to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain.Sheffield Hallam University Research Archivehttp://shura.shu.ac.uk Rust, C. Hawkins, S, Roddis, J. Whiteley, G.  (2000b) ‘Knowledge And The Artefact’  Proceedings OfDoctoral Education In Design Conference, La Clusaz, France, July 2000Knowledge and the Artifact.Chris RustSenior Lecturer in Design, Sheffield Hallam University, UK (presenting author)c.rust@shu.ac.ukScott HawkinsSenior Lecturer in Design, Sheffield Hallam University, UKGraham WhiteleyResearcher, Sheffield Hallam University, UKAdrian WilsonConsultant Clinical Engineer, University of Sheffield, UKJames RoddisHead of Art & Design Research, Sheffield Hallam University, UKIntroductionThis paper discusses ways that knowledge may be found in or through artefacts. One purpose is tosuggest situations where artefacts might be central to a narrative, rather than secondary to a text.A second purpose is to suggest ways that design and production of artefacts might be instrumentalin eliciting knowledge.Four general situations are proposed:· Simple Forms - an artefact demonstrates or describes a principle or technique.· Communication of Process – artefacts arising from a process make the process explicit.· Artefacts Within the Research – artefacts are instrumental in advancing the research bycommunicating ideas or information.· Knowledge Elicited by Artefacts – artefacts provide a stimulus or context which enablesinformation to be uncovered.Simple FormsAn artefact may describe itself, a principle or another artefact. In research projects the authorshave found situations where an artefact is the only reliable way to communicate across the wholecommunity served by and engaged in the research. This section starts with a relatively simplemechanical example, then discusses a more subtle problem concerning people with severedisabilities.A physical model which demonstrates a principleA mechanical, skeletal arm (fig) was produced in research concerned with analogies for humananatomy, described in detail elsewhere (eg Rust 1999; Whiteley 1999; Rust 1998). The modelprovides a close analogy for the human skeletal arm substituting conventional mechanicalelements for the original joints.Construction is obvious and the elements will be recognised by a person with mechanicalknowledge who handles and manipulates it. Before production of the model there was no evidencethat anybody, anywhere, had constructed such a thing, or knew how to. Once the model wasavailable for inspection it became evident from discussions with a wide variety of both professionaland lay people that it is straightforward for any person with mechanical knowledge to understandhow it works and how to construct one for themselves. More importantly, the model demonstratesprinciples which can be applied to the design of a number of things, for example prostheses,surgical implants, animatronic devices and computer animations.Graphical representation of an artefactModels are a rich aid to understanding principles, but detailed technical understanding may requirespecial tools or instruments for inspection and/or measurement. Drawings can overcome theseproblems and complement the original artefact. (figs) are from a set of nn which provides acomplete description of the artefact. The drawings and the model are an invitation to use thesegeneral design principles as a foundation for the design of a useful artefact and one of thedrawings (fig) shows how the integrity of the basic mechanical analogy can be preserved in acompletely different configuration.Text descriptions – the Patent problemThis design has been patented. Patents are substantial written descriptions with illustrations,patent specialists are highly trained to use very specific language. It is arguable that very few laypeople, no matter how well versed in their own scientific or technical disciplines, could write apatent description which would withstand a legal challenge.A patent specialist inspected the model and discussed it with the designer for less than 1 hour.Some of the discussion was concerned with the description of the artefacts, most was aboutpossible applications. Subsequently the designer provided 5 pages of technical illustrations with abrief commentary, including (fi s). Working only from this material the patent specialist producedtwo patent descriptions totalling NN pages of text of which NN were specifically concerned withdescribing the designs.The patent provides a comprehensive technical and functional description of the artefact, sufficientto establish intellectual property in a court of law. A person with good mechanical and anatomicalknowledge could decode it sufficiently to understand the design principles involved.However the patent description would be of very little help in understanding the most significantaspect of the design – the achievement of natural wrist motion – for anybody who does not have agood understanding of the anatomical principles. The model, on the other hand, has been found toprovide immediate recognition of the anatomical principles for any person who can manipulate andcompare it with the action of their own arm alongside a basic skeletal model (fig).The authors do not wish to conflate the immediacy of the artefact with the complexity of the patenttext and make any general claims for artefacts over text but this example shows how a model ordrawing can provide direct and useful communication.The artefact as a bridgeChamberlain (1999) describes a research project in which designers needed to work with childrenwho were profoundly deaf, or deaf and blind. The project dealt with “vibro sound” therapy usingfurniture which embodied loudspeaker enclosures in its design (fig ).After some initial work, experimental furniture was constructed and the children were able toengage with the research for the first time. The trials demonstrated the potential of the approachtaken but, much more important, they allowed the children to express needs and desires whichmight be satisfied in this new situation which the artefacts created. Most significantly theresearchers came to recognise that children wanted and could have some choice and control oftheir own experiences and the research moved on to examine the potential for this and the value ofallowing the child, rather than the therapist, to choose the sensory experiences.At the start of the project there was good engagement between experts with theoreticalunderstanding (eg loudspeaker technologists, therapists, clinical researchers, manufacturers,carers) and this quickly resulted in a set of designs which met the needs and priorities of all ofthese people. However the key group, the children, could not recognise the research andparticipate in it until the artefacts existed. Up till that point it is arguable that the designers haddone a professional job in embodying criteria and knowledge in a design but, once the childrenwere engaged with the artefacts, the research was able to explore completely new territory and thedesigners’ role was to speculate on and evaluate significant new ideas.Communication of ProcessRivka Oxman (1997) suggests that a “sequence of sketches can act as a record of reasoningprocesses which can be inferred from a transition of states from one representation to asubsequent representation”. In exploring possible analogies for the human arm, the designer,Graham Whiteley, used drawings as the main process for learning and evaluating anatomy,exploring geometry of the joints and interaction between elements, examining possible mechanicalanalogies for the joints and developing detailed designs. The designer’s use of drawings isdescribed in detail elsewhere (Rust, 1998). Two examples are shown here (figs)These processes and outcomes might be described in text but this would impose an interpretationon material which could be available to speak for itself. In considering how to record and archivethe research we are investigating an approach in which the full archive of drawings andexperimental models is available for reference and a narrative is constructed from selected imagessupported by the least possible text. This is particularly important for the designer who will not berequired to switch into a new mode of description and can exploit his graphical skills, and thematerial which he has compiled, to communicate the research.The problem of having to switch hats and become a writer has been described by colleagues inseveral disciplines as “doing two PhD’s”. Many people may feel that this opens the door to lessrigorous reporting of research but we would like to record the concern of a senior colleague inengineering who sees students with good writing skills and relatively weak practical research workbeing regarded more highly that those with excellent research who are not so fluent in text. Anyapproach which could allow good work to be recognised and understood is worth keeping underreview.Artefacts within the research processThe research by Paul Chamberlain (above) is one example of artefacts used within the researchprocess. Here we describe two other examples of artefacts used to bring about a useful change.In the work on analogous arm mechanisms, which aims to support future designs for prostheses,the researchers wished to engage with a group of people who had missing arms to explore theirneeds and aspirations. From informal contacts it was apparent that most of these people weredisenchanted with the products and services available to them and had lost hope of any beneficialimprovement. This was seen as a barrier to involving them in a speculative discussion and it wasnecessary to do something to “unlock” this situation.A video was compiled, bringing together material from documentaries and fiction. For exampledocumentaries demonstrated the relative success of artificial legs and some of the design thinkingbehind animatronics. The movie “Edward Scissorhands” illustrated problems of excessivespecialisation (one of the problems with current approaches to prostheses) and other sciencefiction movies such as “Robocop” and “Bladerunner” represented some of the ideals which peoplehave and questioned whether an artificial limb is part of the individual and whether it dehumanisesthem.As a result the group engaged in a speculative discussion that was not possible before and anumber of important ideas were identified. For example, people who dealt with children argued fora prosthesis which was both highly functional and constructed of soft materials, something which isnot available and which had not been raised in previous discussions with this group.In the same research, it has been a priority to produce a number of good quality models sincecollaboration depends on other researchers having access to prototypes. The first of these modelswas taken recently to a research centre concerned with artificial muscle in order to evaluate theirtechnology. It was discovered that researchers in the centre had previously attempted to constructa similar model as a test rig and had found the task impossible with the resources and knowledgeavailable to them. As a result the researchers had not been able to investigate the use of theirmaterials in an anatomical context, even though this was their expressed aim.Not only did the model provide the researchers with the test-rig that they needed, but it provided animportant source of anatomical understanding. The researchers did not have direct contact with amedical school or medical physicists and had made a number of erroneous assumptions about thedesign requirements for an artificial muscle. However, once in possession of a model arm and ananatomical drawing showing muscle routing and attachment, they were in a position to proceed torealistic tests.Knowledge elicited by ArtefactsThe final section is concerned with the manner in which artefacts can unlock knowledge held byindividuals. Often this is tacit knowledge which is very difficult to uncover by other means.C.Thomas Mitchell (1995) has described how simple, adjustable floorplan models were used in ahousing design project in Jordan and a commercial development in the United States to gain amuch richer understanding of the activities and needs of the people who would use the buildings.In Jordan, it was found that men and women had entirely different priorities and requirements ofdifferent families varied greatly, requiring an individual design for each house.During the research into anatomical analogies it was discovered that the models produced in theresearch could be interrogated directly by experts who were used to palpating human arms andthis provided very rapid evaluation of the models and their relationship with the original anatomy.This qualitative approach was taken with a medical physicist, two surgeons and an osteopath.In each case the response was detailed and informative and delivered in a combination of wordsand actions (we intend to make a video record of future sessions to capture this). Not only did theevaluation provide useful information and validation of the design approach but the responses ofeach of the different specialists helped us to understand the priorities and experience of thedifferent disciplines represented.The evaluation was particularly useful as the only other source of information on skeletal motioncame from physical measurements of living subjects. All measurements in this project andprevious research (eg Besson 1997; Karabinova 1997) used similar methods and were subject tothe same danger of inaccuracy due to interference from soft tissue. Qualitative evaluation byexperts was a new source of data and provided a form of triangulation which would not beavailable without a good quality physical model.The final example comes from an exhibition curated by Scott Hawkins (2000) as part of aninvestigation into economic opportunities in narrow timber from biomass plantations, The exhibitionwas intended to raise awareness of the wide range of products and production methods whichemploy wood and wood-based material and to stimulate rural craftspeople to consider thepossibility of producing higher value products which would benefit the regional economy and theenvironment.During the exhibition a number of people with different creative and technical backgrounds wereinvited to explore the idea that objects in the exhibition might elicit useful ideas and thinking,particularly about new opportunities for craftspeople and designers. Participants worked in pairs (ofpeople who had not met previously) to explore specific objects and report their findings to thegroup, followed by a more open discussion.It was apparent that some objects did not “break the ice” while others drew the pairs into animateddiscussion and close engagement with the objects. All the discussions resulted in ideas fromdifferent individuals being combined to synthesise new thinking. The researchers noted that theartefacts provided a common reference point for people from different disciplinary backgroundsand allowed individuals to bring their knowledge into the arena with very little evidence ofmisunderstanding between participants despite the diverse views being expressed.The greatest debate, arose from a West African beer cooler, of woven construction (fig) whichchallenged ideas of how to produce a watertight container, raised questions about the status ofartefacts in different societies and stimulated a direct emotional response from several participants.In the discussion it was agreed that the artefact had great emotional appeal (one member of thegroup hugged it for most of the discussion and all wanted to hold it) and represented someprogressive values such as engagement with quality of production for personal satisfaction ratherthan utility or reward. However it was not relevant to our lives in England today. The discussionmoved on to the idea that we might seek to make artefacts which would be useful and relevant inour own lives and have the same values for us that the beer cooler provides in its context.Ironically, it was then revealed that the beer cooler had been purchased as a tourist souvenir andthere was no evidence of its authenticity, however this did not invalidate the effect it had on thegroup or the insights that were developed.ConclusionsMost of the examples given here arise from the authors’ own research. Apart from the last case, inwhich a specific activity was planned and recorded to explore these issues, evaluation has beenthrough reflection during and following the activities described. We suggest that the examples arepersuasive, that they indicate methods which others may find useful, but a good deal more workand many more examples are needed to support proper understanding.To summarise, the examples demonstrate that artefacts, in this case drawings and prototypes, canprovide clear descriptions of designs, principles and processes. They can communicate acrossboundaries of discipline and experience. They can be support the progress of research and theycan be instrumental in eliciting knowledge, including tacit knowledge, in and from individuals.Besson, D. et al. 1997. “Mechanical Model of the Back and Neck Using External Markers” Medical andBiological Engineering and Computing – Proceedings of World Congress on Medical Physics and BiomedicalEngineering. Supplement to Vol 35, p202Chamberlain, Paul. et al. 1999  “Pictures and Conversations – a Case Study of Design-Led Collaboration inthe Field of Vibro Sound Products” Snoezelen World Congress, Toronto Sept 1999Hawkins, Scott. 2000. “Wood You Believe It” Exhibition at Barnsley Design Centre, Barnsley South YorkshireUK, April/May 2000.Karabinova, E. et al. 1997 “Model Of The Lower Limb Based On Experimental Data” Medical and BiologicalEngineering and Computing – Proceedings of World Congress on Medical Physics and BiomedicalEngineering. Supplement to Vol 35, p198Mitchell, C.Thomas. 1995 “Action, perception and the realisation of design” Design Studies, 16 (1) 4-28Oxman, Rivka. 1997. “Design by re-presentation: a model of visual reasoning in design” Design Studies, 18(4) 329-347Rust, Chris. Whiteley, Graham. 1998  “Analogy, Complexity and Holism – Drawing as 3-D Modelling”  POINTArt and Design Research Journal, No 6 Autumn/Winter 1998Rust, Chris. Whiteley, Graham. Wilson, Adrian 1999 “First Make Something – Principled, Creative Design asa tool for multi-disciplinary research in Clinical Engineering” 4th Asian Design Conference, Nagaoka, Japan,Nov 1999Whiteley, Graham. Wilson, Adrian. Rust, Chris 1999 “Development of Elbow and Forearm Joints for anAnatomically Analogous Upper-limb Prosthesis” European Medical & Biological Engineering Conference,Vienna. Nov 1999

Knowledge and the artefact

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Sheffield Hallam University Research Archive