DRS2012 Bangkok Proceedings Vol 4 - Design Research Society

Andreas UNTEIDIG, Florian SAMETINGER, Jennifer SCHUBERT,
Veronika AUMANN and Max SCHÄTH, Gesche JOOST
The initial discussion of these approaches took place at the first workshop we hosted at
the SCC.
First Workshop
In the beginning we discussed which types of knowledge and types of knowledge
exchange exist. We came to the understanding that our shared interest does not
necessarily lie in an intended exchange of hard skills, but in a bigger part of knowledge
transfer in the club setting. This leads to an unintended strengthening of the social fabric,
such as everyday communication of soft skills, e.g. sharing receipts, sharing responsibility
for caring for weaker members of the community, or sharing hints and tricks for
maintaining allotment gardens.
We then tagged locations on a hand-sketched map of the Fischerkiez, and discussed
attributes that describe each place and the social environment of the community.
After discussing the aforementioned interventions, we evaluated each of these places
with different criteria, such as fluctuation, level of the actual communication, diversity of
people visiting the place, their manner of use, as well as overall attractiveness. Through
this we identified different locations that would be adequate to enhancing knowledge
transfer, e.g. a small square with benches located in front of the SCC, which surrounded
by trees and next to the canal, but frequented very rarely by the residents. An idea that
was developed by the participants was to offer open Wi-Fi access (which could be
provided by the SCC) in order to enhance its appeal, especially to younger people, and
thus revitalize the square.
Furthermore we identified the nearby shopping arcade, containing the local supermarket,
as a place of high fluctuation. Being the only shopping facility in the area, the majority of
residents pass through there every day. Originally established as a community hub for
the residents of the apartment buildings, this usually deserted location might serve well
as a space to set up permanent interventions so it can regain its former purpose.
Before we conclude with the current ongoings and outlooks, we want to discuss our
overall approach, introducing the terms “living lab” and “ambassador approach”, since
this positioning can be rated as the methodological result of the project in its current
state.
“Living Labs”
Through spending as much time as possible within our collaborator‘s living environment
instead of conducting research in an isolated laboratory, we established a close
relationship with the inhabitants, which adds another dimension of identification and trust,
both for us and our collaborators.
In contrast to von Hippels understanding of ”living labs” (cf. von Hippel 2005, in Ehn et al.
2010:42) with its primary focus on technology and lead users, we tend towards the notion
of Buur and Mathews that “living labs” should be an intersection between people,
contexts and relationships, and technology (cf. 2008, in: Ehn et al. 2010:43). The
approach of Design Lab as used by Binder, which includes “open collaborations between
many stakeholders sharing mutual interest” (Binder, 2007:1; Binder et.al. 2011), fits even
more to our point of view, although they describe a “mutual interest in design research“ of
the participants, which we think is unnecessary. Our approach intends for participants to
be able to define contents and interests themselves.
We emphasize these two facts as even more essential in design projects for social
sustainability. Designing a framework for social interaction represents one of the most
Conference Proceedings 1683