Moments of entanglement

Following the sociomaterial trajectories of an intersubjective studio practice

Forfattere

  • Luis Vega Aalto University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7502-2488
  • Maarit Mäkelä Aalto University
  • Tzuyu Chen Aalto University
  • Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen University of Helsinki

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4191

Emneord (Nøkkelord):

co-creation, craft and design, qualitative network analysis, sociomateriality, studio practice

Sammendrag

This paper investigates the sociomateriality of collective creation in the context of a design studio project. Grounded in a relational approach that has influenced a multitude of studies in various fields, the notion of sociomateriality accounts for the constitutive entanglement of the social and the material in practice. How this entanglement occurs or what exactly is subjected to it, however, remains largely unarticulated, especially in studies where the handling of materials lies at the heart of the research process. By adopting a relational approach operationalized through qualitative network analysis, we traced the sociomaterial trajectories of a studio project to identify the moments in which various actors were entangled. The resulting network visualizes these moments and assists in explicating how they enabled the instantiation of intersubjective design ideas.

Forfatterbiografier

Luis Vega, Aalto University

Doctoral Candidate

Maarit Mäkelä, Aalto University

Doctor of Arts, Associate Professor

Tzuyu Chen, Aalto University

Research Assistant

Pirita Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, University of Helsinki

PhD, Professorof Craft Science

Referanser

Carolan, B. (2014). Social Network Analysis and Education. Theory, Methods and Applications. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452270104

Coole, D. & Frost, S. (2010). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole, & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics, 1-4. Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392996-001

Decuypere, M. (2019). Visual network analysis: a qualitative method for researching sociomaterial practice. Qualitative research, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118816613

Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (2004). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Continuum.

Dépelteau, F. (2013). What is the direction of the 'relational turn'? In Powell, C. & Dépelteau, F. (Eds.), Conceptualizing relational sociology (pp. 163-185). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137342652_10

Ericsson, K. & Simon, H. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press (Original work published 1984). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001

Flick, U. (2014). An Introduction to Qualitative Research (5th Edition). SAGE.

Gherardi, S. & Perrotta, M. (2013). Doing by Inventing the way of Doing: Formativeness as the Linkage of Meaning and Matter. In P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 227-259). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.003.0010

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.

Groth, C. (2017). Making sense through hands: Design and Craft Practice Analysed as Embodied Cognition. [Aalto University Publication Series, Doctoral Dissertations]. http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-952-60-7130-5

Hultin, L. (2019). On becoming a sociomaterial researcher: Exploring epistemological practices grounded in a relational, performative ontology. Information and Organization, 29(2), 91-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2019.04.004

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001

Ingold, T. (2007). Lines: A Brief History. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961155

Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, Archaeology, Art and Architecture. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055

Jones, M. (2013). Untangling Sociomateriality. In P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 227-259). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.003.0009

Knorr-Cetina, K. (2001). Objectual practice. In Knorr-Cetina, K.; Schatzki, T. & Von Savigny, E. (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 184-197). Routledge.

Knox, H.; Savage, M. & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: networks as method, metaphor and form. Economy and Society 35(1), 113-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140500465899

Latour, B. (1996). On Interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228-245. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.

Latva-Somppi, R., & Mäkelä, M. (2020). Exploring Ecological and Material Sensitivity through Craft Practice in the Context of the Venice Lagoon. Aisthesis, 13(1), 31-46. https://doi.org/10.13128/Aisthesis-10916

Law, J. (2002). Objects and Spaces. Theory, Culture & Society, 19(5-6), 91-105. https://doi.org/10.1177/026327602761899165

Leonardi, P. (2013). The Emergence of Materiality within Formal Organizations. In P. Carlile, D. Nicolini, A. Langley & H. Tsoukas (Eds.), How Matter Matters: Objects, Artifacts, and Materiality in Organization Studies (pp. 227-259). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199671533.003.0007

Liu, F. & Maitlis, S. (2010). Nonparticipant Observation. In A.J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 610-612). SAGE.

Malafouris, L. (2008). At the potter's wheel: An argument for material agency. In C. Knappett & L. Malafouris (Eds.), Material agency: Towards a non-anthropocentric approach (pp. 19-36). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-74711-8_2

Mäkelä, M. & Nimkulrat, N. (2018). Documentation as a practice-led research tool for reflection on experiential knowledge. FormAkademisk, 11(2). Mäkelä, M. & Nimkulrat, N. (2018). Documentation as a practice-led research tool for reflection on experiential knowledge. FormAkademisk, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1818

Mäkelä, M. (2016). Personal Exploration: Serendipity and intentionality as altering positions in a creative process. FormAkademisk, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.1461

Mehto, V.; Riikonen, S.; Hakkarainen, K.; Kangas, K. & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2020). Epistemic roles of materiality within a collaborative invention project at a secondary school. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(4), 1246-1261. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12942

Moura, E. de & Bispo, M. de S. (2019). Sociomateriality: Theories, methodology, and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 37(3), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1548

Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391-1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609349875

Nimkulrat, N. (2012). Hands-on intellect: Integrating craft practice into design research. International Journal of Design, 6(3), 1-14. http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/1228

Orlikowski, W. (2007). Sociomaterial Practices: Exploring Technology at Work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138

Orlikowski, W. & Scott, S. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644

Pedgley, O. (2007). Capturing and analyzing own design activity. Design Studies, 28(5), 463-483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.004

Rajmakers, B. & Arets, D. (2015). Thinking through making. The Readership in Strategic Creativity (10). Design Academy Eindhoven.

Ryan, G. & Bernard, A. (2003). Techniques to Identify Themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X02239569

Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge University Press.

Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books.

Scott, J. & Carrington, P. (2011). Social network analysis. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756841-0100

Scrivener, S. (2002). Characterising Creative-production Doctoral Projects in Art and Design. International Journal of Design Sciences and Technology, 10(2), 25-44.

Spuybroek, L. (2011). The Sympathy of Things: Ruskin and the Ecology of Design. V2 Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474243896

Vega, L. (2018). Objects of knowing: Collaborative craft analyzed as a platform for knowledge articulation. Master's Theses Collection, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:aalto-201811145793

Woodward, S. (2016). Object interviews, material imaginings and "unsettling" methods: interdisciplinary approaches to understanding materials and material culture. Qualitative Research, 16(4), 359-374. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794115589647

Nedlastinger

Publisert

2021-05-10

Hvordan referere

Vega, L. ., Mäkelä, M., Chen, T., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. . (2021). Moments of entanglement: Following the sociomaterial trajectories of an intersubjective studio practice . FormAkademisk - Forskningstidsskrift for Design Og Designdidaktikk, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.4191

Cited by