Transdisciplinarity -a Key Factor in Applied (Design) Research

MULTI-DISCIPLINARY RESEARCH IN DESIGN Transdisciplinarity – a Key Factor in Applied (Design) Research Dagmar Steffen Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts ABSTRACT In recent years design and design research shifted from isolated tasks to tackling complex problems such as sustainable development and integrated innovation. These challenges cross the borders of established academic disciplines and exceed the expertise of specialists; rather, they require knowledge, methods, and approaches from several academic fields as well as from scholars and from practitioners. Proceeding from the definition of the terms 1.) multi-disciplinarity, 2.) pluridisciplinarity 3.) cross-disciplinarity, 4.) interdisciplinarity, and 5.) transdisciplinarity, including Michael Gibbons’ concept of “Mode 1” and “Mode 2”-science, the paper continues with scrutinizing the controversially discussed question of whether design is a discipline or an ‘undisciplinable’ profession. On that basis the paper presents the program and measures taken at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Switzerland, to encourage researchers to engage in inter- and transdisciplinary research projects. Furthermore, it presents two case examples of inter- and a transdisciplinary research projects, conducted by researchers from the School of Art & Design/Competence Centre Design & Management, in collaboration with colleagues from the School of Social Work and School of Business. Finally, the paper concludes by pointing out the specific requirements of conducting inter- and transdisciplinary research projects. Corresponding author: Dagmar Steffen, [email protected] KEYWORDS Interdisciplinarity, Transdisciplinarity, Applied Design Research, Design as a Discipline INTRODUCTION For 20 years the Lucerne School of Art & Design has been part of the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts (UASA). Alongside the School of Art & Design the university has five more faculties: Business, Engineering & Architecture, Informatics, Social Work, and Music. At that time, the reason for the integration of the formerly separate schools was mainly administrative. Meanwhile, the merger has brought additional advantages. For more than a decade, the university has fostered inter- and transdisciplinarity between the faculties, both in teaching and in research. Students are encouraged “to acquire skills and knowledge extending beyond their own subject area”1 since cross-disciplinary skills are considered an additional boost when they embark on a career. Also teaching and research staff are encouraged to conduct inter- and transdisciplinary projects in cooperation with colleagues from the other faculties and/or enterprises. After the emergence of the topic in the early 1970s and diminishing interest in the 1980s, interand transdisciplinarity are again a hot topic in the international scientific community. But what exactly does inter- and transdisciplinarity mean – especially in the field of art and design? How do they differ? What are the challenges and the benefits? In order to gain access to the topic, this paper provides a brief overview of the theoretical debates on terms and concepts. Next it discusses whether or not design is a discipline or ‘undisciplinable’ per se. Thirdly, it presents two case studies of inter- and transdisciplinary research projects conducted at the Competence Centre Design & Management at the Lucerne School of Art & Design in cooperation with colleagues from the School of Social Work and from the School of Business. Finally, it concludes by pointing out the general and specific requirements for the successful execution of inter- and transdisciplinary design research. THEORETICAL DEBATES ON TERMS AND CONCEPTS The discourse on inter- and transdisciplinarity needs some clarity about what an (academic) discipline actually means and how and why various disciplines have developed. Basically, the term discipline denotes a “primary unit of the internal differentiation of science”2. Typically, a discipline is characterized by: 1) a scientific community engaged in a discourse 2) a specific epistemological subject 3) recognized theories and a body of knowledge that is teachable, including a canon of academic textbooks and research literature 4) a number of problematic issues or key research questions at a time 5) a set of research methods for acquiring and consolidating knowledge and paradigmatic solutions 6) a certain career path, and an institutionalised process of socialisation3 The differentiation into distinct disciplines, and the fragmentation and specialization into increasingly small sections of the world is a relatively recent phenomenon of modern science. This process started at the beginning of the 19th century when chemistry and subsequently physics separated from the so-called “natural philosophy”. Around the same time classical philology and history evolved as sections of the humanities. A century later, at the beginning of the 20th century, the social sciences emerged as a third field.4 However, the separation of disciplines evolved historically since disciplines are constituted around a subject or a problem. This specialisation permitted delving deeply into a certain subject or problem and has brought unquestionable improvements and major successes as we know them from medicine, physics, and chemistry. History shows that disciplinary boundaries are not immutable since disciplines change over time: They can split up into sub-disciplines, which subsequently might become autonomous disciplines in their own right. First, so-called borderline sciences or new special fields can emerge in the gaps between disciplines – as for example physical chemistry or biochemistry. Second, cross-sectional sciences might take shape, when theories that were used in various sciences, ‘rise up’ as a new epistemological subject – as for example cybernetics. Third, complex research fields can become a discipline, as a result of the attempt to achieve a holistic view of the problems – as for example in the fields of nutrition science or health science.5 In these cases (sub-)disciplines were created as the result of interdisciplinary interaction. Having said the above, it should be clear that interdisciplinarity is neither a new phenomenon nor a new demand. Rather interdisciplinarity has always been a part of science, although it was not always explicitly called like that.6 Yet individual disciplines and disciplinary competencies are and will remain a crucial prerequisite for exchange and collaboration with other disciplines. VARIOUS MODES OF COOPERATION BETWEEN DISCIPLINES In the international academic discourse, the concept of interdisciplinary studies was first triggered by a conference held in 1970 in Nice by the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development). Here, the Austrian astrophysicist and co-founder of the Club of Rome Erich Jantsch presented a paper, where he unveiled the idea of “steps toward increasing cooperation and coordination in the education/innovation system”7. (Fig 1) He defined the coexistence and togetherness of disciplines as follows: • • • • • Multidisciplinarity: “a variety of disciplines, offered simultaneously, but without making explicit possible relationships between them”; Pluridisciplinarity: “juxtaposition of various disciplines, usually at the same hierarchical level […] grouped in such a way as to enhance the relationships between them”; Crossdisciplinarity: “the axiomatics of one discipline are imposed upon other disciplines at the same hierarchical level, thereby creating a rigid polarization across disciplines toward a disciplinary axiomatics”; Interdisciplinarity: “a common axiomatics for a group of related disciplines is defined at the next higher hierarchical level, thereby introducing a sense of purpose”; Transdisciplinarity: “the coordination of all disciplines and interdisciplines in the education/ innovation system on the basis of a generalized axiomatics (introduced from the purposive level) and an emerging epistemological pattern”.8 Figure 1: Steps toward increasing cooperation and coordination in the education/ innovation system. Erich Jantsch 1972, 15. INTERDISCIPLINARITY AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY In the 1970s the concept and practise of collaboration between disciplines gained currency, though scholars from various disciplines interpreted the terms differently. However, the focus of the discourse was mainly on inter- and transdisciplinarity. During a symposium at the ZIF Bielefeld (Centre for Interdisciplinary Research) in 1986, the German philosopher of science Jürgen Mittelstraß pointed out that, in order to conduct a research project and achieve a research goal, multi- and pluridisciplinary constellations are unfruitful. He argued that in general there is no such thing as an “additive solution”, as is illustrated by the expression, “when everyone does their part, the whole thing will succeed”.9 Wilhelm Berger et al confirmed this point of view when they brought multidisciplinarity or rather “encyclopaedic multidisciplinarity” in line with encyclopaedic knowledge that only gathers expertise, scattered around the world.10 There is a basic agreement among the scientific community that interdisciplinarity is given whenever researchers from at least two disciplines work together with an eye on a common aim and result.11 Berger et al pointed out that interdisciplinarity exists in various forms, varying in extent, type of interaction and aims in terms of integrating different disciplinary approaches. The conceptual and cultural distance between the disciplines might be narrow (i.e. history and archaeology) or wide (for example medicine and musicology). With regard to interaction two types can be distinguished: Cumulative interdisciplinarity, where the entire knowledge or the collective outcome is composed of single parts, which have seen contributions from all participants; and transformative interdisciplinarity, where new knowledge is meant to be the result of various interactions or even contradictory approaches.12 Delifa remarks that in interdisciplinary projects the contribution of the disciplines involved might be not balanced. In this case the question might come up whether one of them should be regarded as an ancillary science.13 According to Mittelstraß, the distinctive feature of interdisciplinarity is a concrete cooperation between disciplines for a limited period of time, whereas transdisciplinary is an advancement of the concept of interdisciplinarity: in particular it is a “research and science principle” and a “working and organising principle” that is problem-oriented and as a result transcends the boundaries of a field or a discipline.14 Furthermore, Mittelstraß points out that transdisciplinarity calls for continuous cooperation that modifies the disciplinary orientation and the scientific schematic. He distinguishes between “theoretical transdisciplinarity“ on the one hand and “practical transdisciplinarity” on the other.15 While the former relates to research projects that arise from problems from inside science, the latter addresses problems in areas outside science itself, as for example environmental concerns, problems of energy supply or health issues. Environmental concerns for instance require the cooperation of many disciplines: physics, chemistry, biology, climatology as well as sociology and psychology. Since scholars from various disciplines contribute specific knowledge, an efficient and effective coordination is required, but not necessarily an extension or transformation of the disciplines involved. TRANSDISCIPLINARITY AND “POST-SCIENTIFIC” “MODE 2” RESEARCH Contrary to Mittelstraß’ view, a group of theorists of sociology of science around Michael Gibbons, Helga Nowotny, and Peter Scott proposed that the distinguishing feature of transdisciplinary is the cooperation between scientists and partners from the real-world practice.16 They also assume that transdisciplinarity deals with real world problems and thus contributes to the solution of societal problems. But beyond this, the involvement of stakeholder groups is regarded as an essential part of transdisciplinary projects. Research is conducted together with the people concerned, not about them. This vision is part of a bigger concept called Mode 2, which Gibbons et al coined in 1994 in the book “The new production of knowledge”. The authors claimed that the current mode of academic knowledge production that characterized the period since the end of the 19th century so far is coming to an end. They stated: “By contrast with traditional knowledge, which we will call Mode 1, generated within a disciplinary, primarily cognitive, context, Mode 2 knowledge is created within a broader, transdisciplinary social and economic context.”17 This shift from Mode 1 – predominantly basic research, which is largely governed by academic interests and is less concerned with the applicability of its findings – towards Mode 2 – where knowledge production “is carried out in a context of application” and is “more socially accountable and reflexive” – is driven by an expansion of the market of knowledge and an intensified competition in research.18 Thus, “the knowledge produced is already shaped by the needs and interests of some, at least, of the potential users”.19 The inclusion or participation of users or rather partners from real-world practice can take many forms. First, they can contribute as members of an advisory board, participants of a future workshop or the like. Second, they can join in as semi-responsible partners such as speakers or participants of a meeting etc. Third, they can be integrated as equal partners in the project. The involvement of external partners as experts from the field can be paid, it can be cost-neutral, or the partners can help to co-finance the research. Sometimes they also can bring in their point of view to publications or by taking part in the evaluation of the project outcome.20 IS DESIGN A DISCIPLINE – OR “WITHOUT DISCIPLINE”? At present, the scientific design community is divided into two camps when it comes to the question of whether design is a discipline (or at least in statu nascendi) or not. Since – as had been said before – individual disciplines are a precondition for inter- or transdisciplinary cooperation – the answer to the question raised above has profound implications. Namely, what (disciplinary) knowledge and which specific competences and methods are designers and design researchers able to bring into inter- and transdisciplinary collaborations? A number of design theorists and researchers support a disciplinary position. Nigel Cross for instance argued in his paper “Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science” for “design as a discipline” and claimed that “there are forms of knowledge special to the awareness and ability of a designer, independent of the different professional domains of design practice”.21 Also Bernhard E. Bürdek vigorously defends design or rather design sciences as a discipline or at least on the road towards.22 Concerning the characteristic attributes of a discipline, he claims: “In the international design discourse, too, there is broad consensus that the topics of product language and product semantics belong to the core competencies of design.”23 As for any other discipline, this includes in particular defining an epistemological subject, methods, and goals and to generate and disseminate disciplinary knowledge in its own right through research. Last but not least, the sociologist Franz Schultheis described in detail the requirements of a “disciplining of design”24 – the lengthy and laborious process of the formation and institutionalisation of design as an academic discipline, including the endeavours to offer doctoral studies. Other design theorists take a stance for an “undisciplinable” design and argue that design is not an academic discipline. Michael Erlhoff and Tim Marshall notice that design “crosses the borders of disciplines and coordinates and transforms activities while attempting to synchronize multiple understandings of a project”.25 In order to do so, design “acts to integrate a range of academic, economic, environmental, scientific and artistic insights, knowledge, and opinions together with the everyday process of lived experience”.26 Other arguments are that design ”is characterized by fluid, evolving patterns of practice”.27 It has changed considerably over the decades and conventional branches such as product design, graphic design, textile design, etc. are rupturing and blurring. Thus, Craig Bremner and Paul Rodgers argue for an “alterplinarity […] a boundless space/time” that supersedes the boundaries of the historic branches of design. 28 Clearly, it cannot be denied that design is an integrative activity, that coordinates and transforms data or insights from various fields into innovative products and solutions. Nor can it be denied that design has radically changed over time and will continue to change and transform. But that does not mean that there is/are no consistent inner core factor(s) to build upon a body of design-specific knowledge. Furthermore, though the act of designing itself and the resulting artefacts are certainly not “scientific”, this doesn’t mean that they cannot be the subject of design research. That is precisely the challenge of disciplinary design research. However, there are many indications that the advocates of an “undisciplinable” design have an inadequate understanding of what a discipline is and how they develop and change over time.29 Finally, it can be noted, that continuous advancement or differentiation of a body of design knowledge on the one hand and engagement in inter- and transdisciplinary projects on the other, are by no means mutually exclusive – but are actually required. INTER- AND TRANSDISCIPLINARITY AT THE LUCERNE SCHOOL OF ART & DESIGN In order to encourage inter- and transdisciplinarity, the Lucerne UASA has spent more than a decade funding for research projects within specific themes relating to broad issues such as “The future of work”, “Cooperation building and space” or “The digital transformation of work environments”. A prerequisite for the submission of a proposal is that the research will be carried out by researchers from at least two faculties. Thus, researchers have had to develop an idea for a research project and a research question that requires the knowledge and competencies of colleagues from at least one of the other faculties. Furthermore, they have had to look outside the box and establish interpersonal contacts beyond the borders of the departments and to gain commitments for cooperation from colleagues. In the beginning, particularly this was something of a burden since colleagues from the six faculties did not know each other. Moreover, it is difficult to access the specific competence, qualifications, and the personal abilities of researchers from other disciplines. The following section will describe two research projects, conducted at the Lucerne School of Art and Design/ Competence Centre (CC) Design & Management, in cooperation with researchers from the School of Social Work as well as colleagues from the School of Business/Institute of Tourism (ITW). CASE EXAMPLE 1: “CRAFTING & MAKING – SCENARIOS TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE WORK- AND LIFESTYLE” This research project was – according to the definition of Gibbons et al – an interdisciplinary project, conducted by three researchers at the CC Design & Management and at the School of Social Work, who knew each other only briefly in advance. The one-year project was selected through an internal competition as a pre-project for a follow-up funded by a third party. Content-wise the project looked into the crafting and making-culture which arose internationally over the last one or two decades. Crafting and making is a design-related activity and hence located in the field of design research. For design students the question arises if they should fear the do-it-yourself movement because it might affect the demand for professional designers; or should they welcome and use the opportunities offered by institutions such as the FabLabs and municipal workshops? However, the issue of the specific role of the designer in this context was – according to the title of the call for projects “Creative Living Labs: Future of work and new forms of working” – subordinated to the question of the societal function of these institutions with regard to new working models: What is the potential of crafting and making workshops to facilitate sustainable work- and lifestyles? The research goal was to get to know local crafting and making workshops and their clientele and to develop future scenarios on a participatory basis. In particular this focus of the research project was of interest to colleagues from the School of Social Work/Institute for Socio-cultural Animation. On the basis of desk research, participatory observations and explorative, partially structured conversations with workshop founders, workshop managers and users of FabLabs and municipal workshops in Switzerland, two researchers explored the organisational forms and the funding of these institutions as well as the practises, motives, and goals of all parties involved. It soon became apparent that both analogue and digital tinkering, crafting, experimenting and fabricating is a meaningful activity that can take very diverse forms: unpaid work for the makers themselves or for a maker community that co-exists with paid work in the non-profit sector and with market-related paid work. Some makers regard crafting and making as a hobby or counterpart to their daily routine in gainful employment. (Fig 2) For others it is a sort of societal participation, sensemaking, occupational therapy, or the possibility for acquisition of skills for the job market. And a third group considers the created artefacts as a supplementary source of income or the first phase in founding their own start-up. (Fig 3) Thus, crafting and making-activities can be placed within a model of the socalled “plural” or “convivial economy”. (Fig 4) This term, coined by the social scientist Helmut Spitzley, describes a long-term sustainable economy, which allows various forms of production and consumption and supports cultural autonomy and social inclusion.30 Therefore, not only are companies which are oriented towards the world market of importance, but a viable, and not necessarily very profitable economic and social structures, is also important to give participants a feeling of value. Figure 2: Lucerne UASA FabLab: Maker, at the laser-cutter, cutting pieces for a puzzle game. Crafting for himself. Photo: author. Figure 3: Sales exhibition, presenting knitted products of a start-up. Crafting for income. Photo: author. Figure 4: Fields of work in a plural economy. Helmut Spitzley 1998, 162. (Translation: author) Crafting and making takes place in three fields, here: highlighted by bold letters. It should be noted that while crafters and makers are basically ‘producing stuff’, they do much more, for example in terms of the development of soft skills and social coherence. Thus, crafting and making is a hybrid practice with many dimensions and unexpected combinations. But although the crafters and makers are united by a common enthusiasm for ‘producing stuff’, the different forms of structural embedding of the workshops and labs and the disparate aims of the clientele results in tensions, that impede a shared self-image and common perspectives. In retrospect, it can be said thatsthe researchers met the first research objective – getting to know the crafting and making institutions in the region, including the activities and goals of all participants: the workshop founders, managers and users. The researchers achieved a deeper knowledge and understanding, which was valuable for the researchers of the both faculties, but not necessarily for third party, the practitioners in the field. This new knowledge resulted from the exchange between the researchers and cannot be uniquely assigned to one of them – thus, we might theoretically speak of a ‘transformative interdisciplinarity’ (Mittelstraß). However, the second objective – a participative development of a shared vision or future scenarios together with all participants – could not be achieved due to the disparity of the participants involved. CASE EXAMPLE 2: “SUSTAINABLE SOUVENIRS FROM GRISCHUN” This research project was – in line with the terminology of Gibbons et al– a transdisciplinary project, conducted by researchers and designers at the CC Design & Management and researchers at the School of Business/Institute of Tourism (ITW). The processing period took two and a half years. The preparatory phase was fairly straightforward since the two main researchers knew each other from a previous project. The starting point was a real-world problem: the clear contradiction that the Swiss destination of Grischun under the management of the tourism organisation Grischun vacation committed themselves explicitly to the goal of sustainable tourism whilst at the same time their souvenirs and give-aways consisted of cheaply-made plastic articles from China. The project addressed two objectives: on the one hand to develop a range of souvenirs made out of local materials and produced in the region, that communicate the three core values of the destination, namely “authentic, pleasant and proactive” as well as the cultural heritage of the region; and on the other to provide other interested parties with a guideline for the accordant approach. In order to attract third-party funding, Grischun vacation and the researchers prepared an application together, including a description of the work packages, the research methods and the intended outcomes. Beside government research funding from Innotour and the Foundation for innovation, development and research Grischun, seven enterprises participated and contributed resources (working hours, cash and kind), namely the tourism organisations Grischun vacation, Disentis Sedrun and Parc Ela, the Swiss Hotel Association hotelleriesuisse, the hotel Schweizerhof Lenzerheide, the local Rhaetian Railway Association, and Graubünden Holz. Excluding the latter, all of them sell souvenirs and had an interest in producing a new range of sustainable souvenir products. The project plan included five work packages: 1. Analysis of the initial position: description of destination profile, souvenir assortment analysis, demand analysis, research for the cultural heritage of the region, and a search for local materials and manufacturers 2. Definition of a design brief and aims of product development 3. Generating souvenir ideas: announcement of an open or closed competition, assignment of a design studio, cooperation with a design school, or own product development 4. Product development, prototyping, and market research 5. Drawing up detailed guidelines and templates of the approach for interested parties and dissemination of the findings and results The project benefited from the competence and knowledge of both faculties as well as valuable input and support from the practice partners. The enterprises delivered a description of the destination profile, including its values, attractions, unique selling points, and typical guests, which was essential for the design brief. Furthermore, they analysed the existing range of souvenirs, bestsellers and non-sellers; and last but not least they supported the researchers with contacts and facilities in the region for conducting user research, announcement and co-organization of an open design competition, trophy money, and incentives for the survey participants. The researchers of the Institute of Tourism were responsible for conducting a quantitative guest survey to obtain data on purchase behaviour, importance of sustainability from the buyers’ perspective, type of popular souvenir items etc. In addition, they brought in detailed knowledge of the cultural heritage of the destination as well as marketing know-how and provided recommendations for marketing of the newly developed items. (Fig 5–7) Last but not least they were responsible for the coordination and communication of the whole project. Figure 5: Sustainable souvenirs for Grischun: Doorbloc “Ibex” Photo credit: Graubünden Ferien Figure 6: Sustainable souvenirs for Grischun: Backpack/picnic blanket “Graubündel” Photo credit: Graubünden Ferien Figure 7: Sustainable souvenirs for Grischun: Cutting board “Parc Ela” Photo credit: Graubünden Ferien Figure 8: Nachhaltige Souvenirs. (Sustainable souvenirs for Grischun: Guidelinebooklet.) A researcher and a designer from the CC Design & Management took the lead in the qualitative user research (individual interviews, and a focus group discussion), and the preparation of the design briefings for the souvenirs, which reflected the cultural heritage of the region, the identity of the practice partners and as well as the needs and wants of Grischun tourists. Moreover, they were substantially responsible for the open design competition and the production preparation of the selected souvenirs in Grischun sheltered workshops, where disabled people work. Expertise in design semantics31 and knowledge of eco-design principles32 were essential for these key tasks. Finally, the guidebook, providing detailed step-by-step recommendations, instructions, checklists, and questionnaires for conducting user research, has been jointly compiled by the researchers. (Fig 8) Through the Lucerne UASA website and also through the Open Access Repository LORY the guidelines can be downloaded by other tourist organisations or interested parties.33 For the scientific community a journal paper on souvenir purchase behaviour is available.34 In retrospect, the cooperation went very smoothly, and all partners worked hand in hand. With respect to subject-specific competences, the researchers from the ITW and from the CC Design & Management brought in scientific knowledge of their respective discipline. Nonetheless, from the scientific perspective the production of new disciplinary knowledge is limited, but the results fit the demands of the practice partners. Thus, this project can be seen as an exemplification of practical transdisciplinarity (Mittelstraß). However, the collective outcomes of the project are of a cumulative character, since – as one can see – it is composed of single parts or competencies contributed by the participants. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Basically, the preparation and accomplishment of inter- and transdisciplinary research projects run quite similarly to disciplinary research. What they have in common is that the researchers involved must agree beforehand on 1.) a common objective, 2.) common research question(s), 3.) a common epistemological object, 4.) research methods, and 5.) notable contributions from the team members. Additionally, in inter- and transdisciplinary research projects some specific requirements come along of which the researchers should be aware. After identifying researchers from other faculties which have the needed knowledge and expertise, and the team building process, it might be necessary to discuss terms and to agree on a common definition within the project, since terms might be defined differently in the disciplines. Furthermore, the researchers should have a quite clear idea of how their single contributions will be integrated into the whole or how the synthesis will take place. Recalling a statement of Claude Lichtenstein35, who noticed that a house construction brings together different competencies – masons, plasterer, painter, plumber, etc. – but is still not an interdisciplinary enterprise, it should be noticed that in inter- and transdisciplinary research the contributions of the team members will influence each other and afford coordination and synthesis. Finally, the dissemination of research results of transdisciplinary research must suit the audience: the scientific community and also the stakeholders and practitioners. Therefore, with regard to comprehensiveness, language and distribution channels, different versions of the outcomes are required. However, inter- and transdisciplinary research projects are worth the additional efforts since they expand the range of research opportunities and topics researchers can address and allow them to address the “wicked problems” (Rittel) of the real world. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The research presented here would not have been possible without the support of the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. The project "Sustainable Souvenirs for Grisons" was also supported by Graubünden Ferien, Innotour, Stiftung für Innovation, Entwicklung und Forschung Graubünden, Disentis Sedrun, Parc Ela, hotelleriesuisse, Schweizerhof Lenzerheide, Rhätische Bahn, and Graubünden Holz. Furthermore, my gratitude goes to my colleagues at the Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts: Reto Stäheli and Alex Willener from the School of Social Work; Barbara Rosenberg-Taufer from the ITW and Moritz Reich from the CC Design & Management for giving me the opportunity to work with them in the research projects described above. Furthermore, Laura Moor developed the graphic design for the guideline-booklet “Nachhaltige Souvenirs für Graubünden”. Special thanks to Veronica Housen for proofreading. REFERENCES 1. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. “Five good reasons to opt for Lucerne UASA”. <https://www.hslu.ch/en/lucerne-university-of-applied-sciences-and-arts/degreeprogrammes/gruende-fuer-die-hochschule-luzern/> Web. 12 Aug 2018. 2. Stichweh, Rudolf. Wissenschaft, Universität, Professionen: Soziologische Analysen. Bielefeld: Transcript 2013: 17. 3. Ibd.; Delifa, Rico, Antonietta Di Giuli, and Michael Scheuermann. Forschungsverbundmanagement. Handbuch für die Gestaltung inter- und transdisziplinärer Projekte. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag 2006: 32. Print. 4. Stichweh 17. 5. Delifa et al. 32f. 6. Delifa 32. Mittelstraß, Jürgen. “Methodische Transdisziplinarität.” Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 14.2 (2005): 18–23. Print. 7. Jantsch, Erich. “Inter- and Transdisciplinary University. A System Approach to Education and Innovation.” Higher Education 1.1 (1972): 7-37. Print. 8. Ibd. 15–16. 9. Mittelstraß, Jürgen. “Die Stunde der Interdisziplinarität? ” Praxis – Herausforderungen – Ideologie. Ed. Jürgen Kocka. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp 1987. 152-158; here 155. Print. 10. Berger, Wilhelm et al. “Methoden und Praktiken interdisziplinärer und transdisziplinärer Wissenschaft“. Inter- und transdisziplinär Forschen. Praktiken und Methoden. Eds. Gert Dressel et al. Bielefeld: Transcript 2014: 17–27. Print. 11. Delifa et al. 33; Berger et al; Mittelstraß, 2005. 12. Berger et al. 22. 13. Delifa et al. 33f. 14. Mittelstraß 2005. 15. Ibd. 16. Gibbons, Michael, et al. The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage 1994. Print. 17. Ibd. 1. 18. Ibd. 3, 46. 19. Ibd. 54. 20. Berger et al. 23. 21. Cross, Nigel. „Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline versus Design Science”. Design Issues 17.3 (2001): 49–55. Print. 22. Bürdek, Bernhard E. Design. History, Theory and Practice of Product Design. Basel, Boston: Birkhäuser 2015. 131–177. Print. Bürdek, Bernhard E. “Design ist (doch) eine Disziplin” Design, 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. Anfang des 21. Jh. Diskurse und Perspektiven. Eds. Petra Eisele and Bernhard E. Bürdek. Ludwigsburg: AV Edition 2011. 10–21. Print. See also: Bürdek, Bernhard. Design – auf dem Weg zu einer Disziplin. Hamburg: Kovac 2012. Print. Bürdek, Bernhard E. 2015, 137. Schultheis, Franz. „Disziplinierung des Designs“. Forschungslandschaften im Umfeld des Designs. Zweites Design Forschungssymposium (23/24 June 2005). Ed. Swiss Design Network (SDN), Zurich 2005. 65–83. Print. Erlhoff, Michael and Tim Marshall, eds. Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008: 108. Print. Ibd. Bremner, Craig and Paul Rodgers. “Design Without Discipline.” Design Issues 29.3 (2013): 4-13. Print. Ibd. 12. See for example Erlhoff, Michael. “Between Possibility and Discipline or: Design Research as Provocation to the Faint-Hearted.” Design as Research. Design as Research. Positions, Arguments, Perspectives. Eds. Gesche Joost et al. Basel: Birkhäuser 2016. 207–211. Spitzley, Helmut. “Arbeitszeit und plurale Ökonomie – Handlungsoptionen in einer solidarischen Gesellschaft”. Zukunft der Arbeit – welcher Arbeit? Eds. Willy Bierter and Uta von Winterfeld. Birkhäuser: Berlin, Basel, Boston 1998. 159-191. Print. Steffen, Dagmar. Design als Produktsprache. Frankfurt a.M.: Form 2000. Nyffenegger, Franziska K. and Dagmar Steffen: “Souvenirs – local messages. An exploration from the design perspective.” DeSForM 2010, Proceedings of Design Semantics of Form and Movement Conference. (4/5 Nov. 2010). Lucerne 2010. 135–144. Tischner, Ursula et al. How to do EcoDesign? A Guide for Environmentally and Economically Sound Design. Ed. German Federal Environmental Agency Berlin. Frankfurt a.M.: Form 2000. Print. Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts. Nachhaltige Souvenirs. Leitfaden zur erfolgreichen Entwicklung und Vermarktung nachhaltiger Souvenirs <https://www.hslu.ch/dech/wirtschaft/institute/itw/tourismus/tourismus-und-nachhaltige-entwicklung/projektnachhaltige-souvenirs/> Web. 12 Aug 2018. LORY Open Access Database <https://zenodo.org/record/238762#.W4f5An4yVOY> 12 Aug 2018. Taufer, Barbara, Angela Steffen and Dagmar Steffen. “Souvenirs, ‘made in Switzerland’. Eine Nachfrageanalyse in der Destination Graubünden”. Zeitschrift für Tourismuswissenschaft. 8.1 (2016): 123–144. Print. DOI 10.1515/tw-2016-0009 Lichtenstein, Claude. “Auf der Skala zwischen ‘fremdländisch’ und ‘gutschweizerisch’ – ein Ausstellungsprojekt zum Thema Migration”. Tangente. Inter- und transdisziplinäre Praxis in Kunst und Design. Eds. Ursula Bachman and Marie-Louise Nigg. Luzern: interact 2010. 55–69, here 58. Print.