On the morning of the 7th of December 2010, I attended with Dr George Julian, Director of ripfa, a seminar by Dr Annette Boaz who works in the Health and Social Care Research Department at the London School of Economics. The seminar sought to “draw on Allan Best’s work on the different models of thinking with regard to knowledge transfer. …Describ[ing] ten exploratory case studies conducted in Europe to better understand the approaches that are currently used to assess the impact of research in practice and the conceptualisations of knowledge transfer that underpin them. It…conclude[d] by focusing on some of the conceptual challenges facing us in promoting and evaluating knowledge transfer.”
Whilst undoubtedly related to social care, and environmental policy from which many of the case studies were drawn, I perceive that much of what was covered in this seminar as also of relevance to the issue of Knowledge Transfer within the discipline of Service Design, or perhaps as it was described in the headline of the Nordic Service Design Conference last week, pertinent to those interested in ‘Knowledge Exchange within the field of Service Design’.
Dr Boaz is a specialist in translational research which Wikipedia can tell you more about here. The resonance of such translational approaches and thought to service design should at be immediately apparent, largely for the strong participatory approach that both such research approaches tend to adopt and for the action research perspective that they embody. Action Research in relation to Service Design is mentioned in Sarah Drummond’s recent post on her ServDes experience as indicative of her own designerly training and education, but I suspect her experience is atypical, it certainly is not representative of my taught design education. The point, that traditional ‘basic’ and ‘applied’ research perspectives and methodologies no longer cut the mustard when it comes to supporting responsible and sustainable design practice (and for that matter informing social care and environmental policy) is a point that Don Norman has also recently argued here. Norman’s point being, much like Boaz yesterday and Sangiorgi and Holmlid last week, that we now live in times where previous ways of thinking and previous approaches to professional practice and knowledge transfer are not robust or reliable enough, in the case of design and service design in particular, to respond to the real world challenges they face or knowingly or unknowingly take responsibility for.
No more could this be exemplified than in the case of some of the responses to the conference published so far on Twitter (see the the hashtag #servdes) and here, from practitioners bemoaning the conference being ‘overly academic’ and, as they alleged, an absence of business people and the business imperative to apply the learning from the ServDes Conference. This provoked a healthy discussion on Twitter this afternoon. A discussion that begs the question that Lucy Kimbell and others have begun to address (and here), before now, of how if attempting to facilitate effective knowledge exchange between academics and practitioners, as the ServDes Conference last week was, should future organisers of this conference or any other in a practitioner-centric discipline seek to facilitate effective knowledge exchange? And how do we measure this?
In a bid to start such a conversation, and to continue that which started on Twitter this afternoon, I want to share the mechanisms that Boaz identified as key knowledge transfer activities that she, and the work she references, currently perceives we have out our disposal to implement effective knowledge exchange. They are grouped into the three-generational model of research that underpins the work of Best that she leveraged throughout the presentation:
First Generation Modes of Knowledge Transfer (Linear)
- Seminars
- Presentations
[- I percieve that the ServDes Unconference falls into this category although I concede that as a two-way discussion forum it is closer to a second generation mode of knowledge transfer]
Second Generation Modes of Knowledge Transfer (Interactive)
-Research briefings
-Policy networks
[Social Network (web 2.0) Exchange - I've added this myself but the emphasis in this generational approach is on two-way communication]
Third Generation Modes of Knowledge Transfer (Systems)
-Practitioners and researcher collaboration (joint research)
-Co-locating policy makers and researchers (embedding service design)
So does Service Design as a discipline have any other Modes of Knowledge Transfer at its disposal? Have any Service Design Consultancies entered into Knowledge Transfer Partnerships with Universities or commissioned an academic department to bolster their work with more rigorous approaches? If not why not? By my perception ServDes was far from an ‘academic’ conference and a great effort and achievement by the committed team at Linkoping University, whilst like anything it could of course have been improved in certain areas, it is on the other hand a concern to see and hear that as far as some attendees and practitioners are concerned, it was ‘too academic’. I’m obviously not in a position to defend individual presentations and the first person myself to get frustrated if something is unclearly communicated, as is the stereotype with many ‘academic’ presentations, but the fact remains that Service Design is a discipline that is built on years of scientific and academic research. To give an example, Vargo and Lusch’s Service-Dominant Logic so freely banded around amongst practitioners at ServDes and within the discipline these days was 25 years of ‘academic’ research and rigour to get it to the point conceptually and technically that it now is.
As Service Design as a discipline seeks to explore new areas where it can add value and help address more complex social and ecological problems, it needs academic and scientific research if it is to remain credible and trustworthy. If traditional conferences, and other forms of first generational Knowledge Transfer are (as alleged) no longer acceptable or preferable to practitioners where does that leave us and what, if anything, can the research of Boaz outlined above do to help us structure our thinking… something when you stop and think about it wouldn’t itself have been possible without the academic process which underpins and supports it?
In my next post, I’ll continue my recap of ServDes and further set this debate within the context of established Service Design Research as discussed at Holmlid et al’s workshop on the third day of the programme.
UPDATE: IDEO’s Tim Brown talks about his belief that designers need better checks and balances incorporated into their design process to protect them from systemic failure here and Adaptive Path talk about the challenges of sharing information here, in a way that makes it useful. I think these are useful, design practitioner-centric contributions to the ongoing discussion about Knowledge exchange within Service Design.
Other Relevant Posts...
Tags: annette boaz, credibility, Design Education, Design Research, Design Thinking, evidence informed practice, george julian, Human Centred Design, knowledge transfer, kt, lse, nordes, research, ripfa, servdes, Service Design, trustworthiness