IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/socinc/v9y2021i4p130-142.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Co‐Design and the Collective Creativity Processes in Care Systems and Places

Author

Listed:
  • Cristian Campagnaro

    (Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)

  • Nicolò Di Prima

    (Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)

  • Sara Ceraolo

    (Department of Architecture and Design, Politecnico di Torino, Italy)

Abstract

This article examines the topic of participatory design processes (co‐design, co‐creativity, co‐creation, and co‐production) as tools to promote models of inclusion that benefit people experiencing marginality, and as means to solicit the public dimension of the spaces in which they live and where they have access to their health and welfare services. The topic is addressed through four case studies drawn from the experience of participatory action research aiming at social inclusion and cohesion through an approach based on design anthropology. Following Jones and VanPatter’s (2009) four design domains (DD), the projects discussed in this article are the following: participatory design of devices for people with multiple sclerosis (DD 1.0); participatory renovation of shelters for homeless people (DD 2.0); design and craft led lab aiming at social inclusion (DD 3.0); and innovation of public services for a city homeless population (DD 4.0). All these projects are driven by stakeholders’ demands for a transformation that improves the quality of users’ lives, the quality of caring services, and that they modify, temporarily or permanently, the venues where they take place. In order to support and facilitate this “desire for change,” the projects are based on wide participation and collaboration between many different stakeholders in every phase of their design processes. Methods, tools, and results will be analysed from the points of view of both users (beneficiaries and social operators/caregivers) and designers. Furthermore, the interaction between spaces, co‐design processes, and attendees will be investigated to determine how they contribute to turning those venues into citizenship environments, permeated with greater care and attention.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristian Campagnaro & Nicolò Di Prima & Sara Ceraolo, 2021. "Co‐Design and the Collective Creativity Processes in Care Systems and Places," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(4), pages 130-142.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:130-142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/view/4503
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sherry R. Arnstein, 2019. "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 85(1), pages 24-34, January.
    2. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    2. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Andersson, Ulf & Dasí, Àngels & Mudambi, Ram & Pedersen, Torben, 2016. "Technology, innovation and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 153-162.
    4. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    5. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    6. Swan, Jacky & Goussevskaia, Anna & Newell, Sue & Robertson, Maxine & Bresnen, Mike & Obembe, Ademola, 2007. "Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 529-547, May.
    7. Matthew Hawkins, 2018. "Researching and marketing to consumption collectives," Post-Print hal-01809954, HAL.
    8. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    9. Marco Tortoriello & Ray Reagans & Bill McEvily, 2012. "Bridging the Knowledge Gap: The Influence of Strong Ties, Network Cohesion, and Network Range on the Transfer of Knowledge Between Organizational Units," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(4), pages 1024-1039, August.
    10. Maggie Chuoyan Dong & Yulin Fang & Detmar W. Straub, 2017. "The Impact of Institutional Distance on the Joint Performance of Collaborating Firms: The Role of Adaptive Interorganizational Systems," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 309-331, June.
    11. Kaifeng Duan & Changcheng Zhang & Junqiang Li & Rui Zhang & Yanwei Zhang, 2020. "Boundary-Spanning Search for Knowledge, Knowledge Reconstruction and the Sustainable Innovation Ability of Agricultural Enterprises: A Chinese Perspective," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Dean A. Shepherd & Jeffery S. Mcmullen & William Ocasio, 2017. "Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportunity beliefs for strategic action," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 626-644, March.
    13. Paul David & Matthijs den Besten, "undated". "Mapping e-Science’s Path in the Collaboration Space: Ontological Approach to Monitoring Infrastructure Development," Discussion Papers 08-011, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    14. F. Ackermann & M. Yearworth & L. White, 2018. "Micro-processes in Group Decision and Negotiation: Practices and Routines for Supporting Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 709-713, October.
    15. Anne Seneca Terkelsen & Christian Tolstrup Wester & Gabriel Gulis & Jørgen Jespersen & Pernille Tanggaard Andersen, 2022. "Co-Creation and Co-Production of Health Promoting Activities Addressing Older People—A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(20), pages 1-20, October.
    16. Mketo, Ally Rajab & Ringo, Cliford J. & Nuhu, Said & Mpambije, Chakupewa Joseph, 2022. "Enhancing community participation for environmental health improvement in rural Tanzania: Evidence from Bukombe district," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Guha, Mahua & Das, Gopal, 2017. "Routine contraction in good times: An example of a typical prototype development routine," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 145-152.
    18. Richard J. Boland & Kalle Lyytinen & Youngjin Yoo, 2007. "Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 631-647, August.
    19. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    20. Kreiner, Kristian & Jacobsen, Peter Holm & Jensen, Daniel Toft, 2011. "Dialogues and the problems of knowing: Reinventing the architectural competition," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 160-166, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:socinc:v:9:y:2021:i:4:p:130-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.