Abstract
Interdisciplinary collaborations that aim to facilitate meaningful community outcomes require both the right mix of disciplinary knowledge and effective community participation, which together can deepen collective knowledge and the capacity to take action. This article explores three interdisciplinary design charrettes, intensive participatory workshops that addressed specific community problems and provided a context for integrating design and social science inquiry with local community knowledge. Evaluation data from the charrettes shed light on how students from the design and social science disciplines experienced the charrettes, and on their interactions with community members. Key advantages to this interdisciplinary, community-based collaboration included expanded knowledge derived from the use of multiple modes of inquiry, particularly the resulting visualization tools that helped community members understand local issues and envision novel solutions. Key drawbacks included difficulties in balancing the two disciplines, the tendency for social scientists to feel out of place on designers' turf, and the increased disciplinary and interpersonal conflicts arising from a more diverse pool of participants.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Kodmann, K. (2001). Bridging the gap between technical and local knowledge: tools for promoting community-based planning and design. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 18(2), 110–130.
Bloom, D. (2003). Letter from the videographer. An likely friendship: a curriculum and video guide. Retrieved from the world-wide web, 28 August 2005, http://www.anunlikelyfriendship. com/unlikely_friendship.pdf
Boog, B. W. M. (2003). The emancipatory character of action research, its history and the present state of the art. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13, 426–438.
Bredo, E. & Feinberg, W. (Eds.) (1982). Knowledge and values in social and educational research. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676.
Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16, 143–170.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies, 25, 427–441.
Cuff, D. (1991). Architecture: the story of practice. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.
Friedman, K. (2003). Theory construction in design research: criteria, approaches, and methods. Design Studies, 24, 507–522.
Galle, P. (1999). Design as intentional action: a conceptual analysis. Design Studies, 20, 57–81.
Harrison, S. (1998). Between tower and street. Journal of Urban Design, 3(1), 5–38.
Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202.
Kelbaugh, D (1997). Common place: toward neighborhood and regional design. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Klein, J. T., & Newell, W. H.(1998). Advancing interdisciplinary studies. In W. H. Newell (Ed.), Interdisciplinarity: essays from the literature. (pp. 3–22). New York: College Entrance Examination Board
Kloos, B. (2005). Community science: creating an alternative place to stand? American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3/4), 259–267.
Lappé, F. M., & DuBois, P. M. (1994). The quickening of America: rebuilding our nation, remaking our lives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Lawson, B. (2002). The subject that won't go away, but perhaps we are ahead of the game: design as research. Arq: Architectural Research Quarterly, 6(2), 109–114.
Luke, D. A. (2005). Getting the big picture in community science: methods that capture context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3–4), 185–2000.
Maher, M. L., Poon, J., & Boulanger, S. (1996). Formalizing design exploration as co-evolution: a combined gene approach. In J. S. Gero & F. Subweeks (Eds.), Advances in formal design methods for CAD (pp. 1–28). London, UK: Chapman and Hall.
McTaggart, R. (1991). Principles for participatory action research. Adult Education Quarterly, 14(3), 168–187.
Meyer, J. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Using qualitative methods in health related action research. British Medical Journal, 320, 178–81. Downloaded from www.bmj.com
Nasar, J. L. (1998). The evaluative image of the city. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O’Connor, A. (2001). Poverty knowledge: social science, social policy, and the poor in twentieth century U.S. history. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1962). Personal knowledge: towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Popay, J., & Williams, G. (1996). Public health research and lay knowledge. Social Science & Medicine, 42(5), 759–768.
Rappaport, J. (2000). Community narratives: tales of terror and joy. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 1–24.
Reinharz, S. (1991). On becoming a social scientist (3rd edn). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Sandercock, L. (1994). Citizen participation: the new conservatism. In W. Sarkissian & D. Perlgut (Eds.), The community participation handbook: resources for public involvement in the planning process, (2nd edn) (pp. 7–15). Murdock, Australia: Murdock University.
Sanoff, H. (2000). Community participation methods in design and planning. New York: Wiley.
Schoem, D., Frankel, L., Zúñiga, X., & Lewis, E. A. (Eds.) (1993). Multicultural teaching in the university. New York: Praeger Press.
Schön, D. A. (1988). Designing: rules, types, and worlds. Design Studies, 9, 181–190.
Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Seaver, R. C. (1976). The dilemmas of citizen participation. In W. R. Lassey & R. R. Fernández (Eds.), Leadership and Social Change (pp. 335–344). La Jolla, CA: University Associates.
Simons, H. (1982). The sciences of the artificial (2nd edn). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Stempfle, J., & Badke-Schaub, P. (2002). Thinking in design teams: an analysis of team communication. Design Studies, 23, 473–496.
Sutton, S. E., & Kemp, S. P. (2002). Children as partners in neighborhood placemaking: lessons from intergenerational design charrettes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, xx, 171–189.
Sutton, S. E., & Kemp, S. P. (2006). Children's participation in constructing a socially just public sphere. In M. Blades & C. Spencer (Eds.), Children and their environments: learning, using, and designing spaces (pp. 256–276). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Thistlewood, D. (1990). Issues in design education. London, UK: Longman, Art and Design Education Series.
Tuan, Y.-F. (1977). Space and place: the perspective of experience. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Waters, T., & Evans, A. J. (2003). Tools for web-based GIS mapping of a “fuzzy” vernacular geography. Retrieved from the world-wide web, 15 June 2005, http://www.geocomputation.org/2003papers/Waters_Paper.pdf
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Jim Borgford-Parnell, research associate with the UW Center for Instructional Development and Research, and Linda Hurley Ishem, doctoral student in social work, who generated the data for this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sutton, S.E., Kemp, S.P. Integrating Social Science and Design Inquiry Through Interdisciplinary Design Charrettes: An Approach to Participatory Community Problem Solving. Am J Community Psychol 38, 125–139 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9065-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-006-9065-0