Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

‘Design Beyond Borders’: international collaborative projects as a mechanism

to integrate social sustainability into student design practice
Muireann McMahon a, *, Tracy Bhamra b
a
Dept. of Design & Manufacturing Technology, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
b
Loughborough Design School, Loughborough, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social sustainability in design, like the notion of social impacts in Sustainable Development, is a complex,
Received 27 January 2011 contradictory and challenging area. Transforming the rhetoric surrounding sustainability into action is
Received in revised form where designers often struggle. In order to do this effectively, this paper argues that designers need to be
14 October 2011
introduced to a set of skills and capacities that go beyond the traditional design competencies and
Accepted 15 October 2011
Available online 25 October 2011
implementing these skills will require a shift in how designers are taught as students and subsequently
practice as professionals. Through the exploration of contemporary design practices, social sustainability
and educational theory this research pinpoints these skills and capacities. Using a participatory Action
Keywords:
Social sustainability
Research methodology it is suggested that international collaborative projects at undergraduate level can
Collaboration play an important role in introducing these skills into design education. The paper describes two projects
Design education (fulfilling two phases of the action research process) involving collaborations between groups of
Product Design undergraduate design students from different geographical locations. A brief description of the projects
Action research logistics is followed by an analysis of the outcomes and experiences of participants, looking specifically at
what worked and what did not and why mistakes and successes in collaborative work can inform in
equal measure. The learning from these projects will highlight how future projects can be structured and
delivered and how the ‘softer’ skills acquired during the projects can bring about a change in designers
behaviours.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Today there is an impetus on professional designers to practice
in a responsible and ‘sustainable’ manner, with equal emphasis on
society, economy and the environment (Fletcher and Dewberry,
2002). This is an enormous challenge as the skills needed to
develop these types of holistic solutions can be extremely complex.
Yet education often fails to equip design students with the neces-
sary skills that allow them to practice responsibly as professionals
(ibid). This paper provides the first output of a larger longitudinal
project. The key premise of the overall study is to investigate how
social sustainability can be integrated into design1 education to
encourage more responsible professional practices. The work
focuses on international collaborative projects as a mechanism to
foster the necessary skills and encourage students to look more
broadly and critically at their own work and that of others. Fig. 1
illustrates the overall project map from the key aims at the centre
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ353 61 213580.
E-mail address: Muireann.mcmahon@ul.ie (M. McMahon).
1
Design for this paper refers to Product or Industrial Design.
of the diagram to the research methodology (left) for testing and
the skills and capacities on the right.
The paper begins by grounding these projects in current theory
surrounding contemporary design, social sustainability and
educational practices. Subsequently, a brief outline is given of two
projects conducted between students from Universities in New
Zealand, Ireland and Chile (who unfortunately were forced to
withdraw in the initial stages of the 2nd project). The paper
explains the practical logistics of planning and implementing such
projects acknowledging the difficulties and realities involved. It
documents the conversations, conflicts and compromises that
occur and the contingencies (unforeseen or uncontrollable actions)
that can thwart or enhance the experience. The discussion
describes how the findings from the first phase of research
informed the design and implementation of the second project.
Finally the conclusion offers a reflection on the experiences of both
students and tutors and indicates the future phases of Action
Research that will complete the study.
These collaborative projects build on the premise that the
broader the diversity of information, practices and cultures design
students are exposed to the more open their perspectives will be

0959-6526/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.022
 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
Fig. 1. Project overview.
and the more adept they will become at participating in and
facilitating the creation of more innovative sustainable solutions.
The results of these projects are explored to assess their impact in
beginning to bring about increases in social capital, social cohesion
and collaboration across geographical and educational boundaries.
2. Background
The paradigm of design is changing; with the focus moving
away from material led objects to more user-led experiences
(Moritz, 2005). The notion of a designer’s role as that of merely
giving shape to physical objects is no longer valid (Nelson and
Stolterman, 2003). Design has evolved to become the link
between human and social needs and industrial practices. This is
achieved by designing tangible and intangible ‘objects’ that give
meaning, provide cultural contexts and also the opportunities for
individual expression (Hara, 2009). Design now acts as cultural
stimulus, a change agent and a tool for social engagement.
The development of innovative design solutions may be greatly
enhanced through a process of collaboration, collective knowledge
generation and sharing, multi-disciplinarity, holistic perspectives
and understanding of diverse cultural backgrounds (Designophy,
2001). Encouraging and facilitating collaboration between students
in an educational environment can be particularly challenging as
individuals can struggle to move past what they know and have
learnt in their own cultural and professional settings (Cumming and
Akar, 2005). Educating for sustainable development focuses students
on gaining exposure to diversities of practice so as to develop critical
thinking and analysis skills. Fortunately, as Bhamra and Dewberry
note, best practice design education maps relatively easily onto the
adoption of sustainable development teaching methodologies as
both encourage pragmatism and participation (2007).
To engage fully with sustainability, designers today must learn
to engage in cross-disciplinary and cross cultural dialogue. If
students are to be responsible, innovative and pragmatic designers,
they must develop the ability to think critically; tie together
disparate strands of information; communicate effectively (talking
and listening); apply systems thinking; co-operate in co-design
87
projects whilst also imagining and realising new ideas (Chiu,
2002; Lozano, 2007; Manzini, 2009b). Both knowledge sharing
and collaborative practice serve to open these communication
channels and create a community of informed and informative
professionals (Cumming and Akar, 2005).
This ‘deeper’ approach to design (and consequently education)
poses a huge challenge as it requires a change in both behaviour and
attitudes (Thackara, 2006). What will be required is a new way of
learning that ‘is creative and involves a deep awareness of alternative
worldviews and ways of doing things’ (Sterling, 2001) and prepares
students for the realities they will face as professionals. Collabora-
tive project work not only serves to broaden students’ perspectives,
but also facilitates them to become critical thinkers who question,
analyse, reflect and consequently form their own worldview (Chiu,
2002). Resultantly they may critically question their own educa-
tion and behaviours, as well as learning to comment and critique on
other design work by engaging in dialogue with a wide variety of
designers from diverse cultural backgrounds as Lozano García et al.
(2006) suggest within and across other disciplines. The curriculum
therefore must stimulate the students into exploring alternative
approaches to design, in a real and engaged way. From the tutors
perspective this will help to broaden and develop the experience for
their students and will emphasise the importance of making project
work relevant within the global context.
2.1. Social sustainability in design
As justification for the collaborative projects and to provide
a background context it was necessary to first identify what social
sustainability is in relation to design and also to collate a list of
relevant skills and capacities designers needed to develop in order
to practice responsibly.
It is generally accepted that sustainability incorporates three
central tenets (social, economic and environmental) in equal
measure. Addressing these in equal measure is where problems
have arisen as every discipline and culture come from very different
perspectives and therefore have very different needs (Cassimir and
Dutilh, 2003; Moore, 2011). Each discipline interprets the desired
88 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
outcomes from their own perspective and to date this focus in
design has been on environmental and economic factors. End of
pipe solutions, energy and resource use, green materials and
processes and more recently social innovations, systems design and
design for behaviour change have dominated the sustainable and
eco-design agendas (Chapman, 2005; Sherwin, 2004; Dewberry,
1996; Krull, 2010; Manzini, 2009a).
Social sustainability in design, as in other areas, has been
somewhat neglected, as it is difficult to define and even more
difficult to implement (Steiner and Posch, 2006, Cassimir and
Dutilh, 2003). This ambiguity stems from the fact that it involves
issues as diverse (and unquantifiable) as ethics, values, active citi-
zenship, harmonious behaviour, participation and co-operation,
preserving social and cultural diversity, meeting basic needs,
well-being and happiness, holistic perspectives and personal as
well as professional responsibility (Lilley, 2007; McKenzie, 2004).
Social sustainability in design, therefore calls for a deep under-
standing of human behaviour, fulfilling human needs and wants
whilst being cognisant of (amongst other things) environmental
limits, product responsibility, resource use and carrying capacities.
As well as paying due attention to history; traditions; engaging in
dialogue; having equity in expressing ideas; compromise; self-
fulfilment and altruism in design practice are fundamentals in
working towards social sustainability. These have been categorised
as social capital, social engagement, social cohesion and social
exclusion (Bramley et al., 2006; Findeli, 2008). Sustainable design
has progressed from the ‘green’ design agenda into a far more
considered and holistic approach that should be integrated into the
education of designers (Spangenberg et al., 2010); if the philoso-
phies are embedded early then responsible practice becomes
normative (Bremer and López-Franco, 2006; Lozano, 2006).
The debate around social design and the meaning of social
sustainability within design practice has been interpreted in
numerous different ways. It is often thought of as designing for
marginal sectors of society in order to even the disparities in living
standards and qualities of life (design for society) (Whiteley, 1993).
Similarly incorporating considerations of culture and cultural
meaning in products can be classified as social design (Walker,
2006), as can design processes that employ psychology and moti-
vational strategies to lighten human impact (Design for behaviour
change) (Manzini, 2007; Mendoza, 2010). Practitioners at the DESIS
network, Designmatters, Project H and The Young Foundation
would equate the term social sustainability with social innovation
and entrepreneurship projects that are based on employing design-
thinking to bring about positive social changes (Mendoza, 2010;
Manzini, 2010; Murray et al., 2010; Core77, 2010). While the
approach in the interpretation and understanding may vary, social
sustainability in design is about harnessing human and cultural
capital to bring about change and regain social cohesion.
While there is no ‘one size fits all’ definition for social sustain-
ability, as social parameters differ from place to place, person to
person and context to context, there is a need to overcome the
complexity that surrounds it by bringing it into design practices in
a real and engaging way (Steiner and Posch, 2006). The critical,
creative and systemic thinking approach advocated through social
sustainability offers great potential for making designers aware of
the impact their ‘products’ have on both local and global societies.
As this awareness grows, designers can feel enabled to change their
practice and as a result impact positively on consumption and
behavioural patterns of end users.
2.2. Design education for sustainability
Unfortunately the problems linked with sustainability and in
particular social sustainability are by their very nature extremely
complex and wicked (Design Council, 2006; Steiner and Posch,
2006). As a result students find it difficult to marry the compli-
cated, contradictory and all too often confusing concepts that
underpin it (Segalas et al., 2010). Interestingly though introducing
design for sustainability into design education has proven to
stimulate creativity and originality (Spangenberg et al., 2010). If we
accept that the challenges are great as are the opportunities then
the approach for bringing about change demands a rethink of both
design practice and education. Education and Sustainability are
inextricably linked as education is seen as the key to effectively
implement change (McKeown, 2002). There is no denying that
education is pivotal in realising the vision and translating the
rhetoric into real action (UN, 2005, UNESCO, 2004).
It is widely recognized that design practices must move from
a parochial to a global approach where openness, transparency and
collaboration (co-design & co-generation) allow for a greater
freedom of ideas and solutions (Jegou and Manzini, 2008; Moritz,
2005; Burns et al., 2006). Collaboration and co-operation
encourage social learning, allow designers to hear other voices,
build on both collective and individual knowledge and develop
‘softer’ design skills like compromise, dialogue, reflection and
empathy (Chiu, 2002; Steiner and Posch, 2006, Fadeeva, 2004).
Creativity too is known to be heightened when culturally diverse
teams work together (McDonough et al., 2001).
Therefore an imperative exists to not only change what is taught
to design students (curriculum content) but also how the core skills
are taught (teaching methods) (Bhamra and Dewberry, 2007).
Designers need to develop a holistic perspective backed by the
ability to think critically and creatively, to self-direct and reflect on
their design outputs and the resultant impacts on society. The skills
of effective communication and collaboration underpin these
abilities (Lozano, 2007). Reflection is an essential part of educa-
tional practice, as it allows the students to question their own
assumptions and those of others in order to build a broader
knowledge base for their professional practice (Loughran, 2002). As
with any effective learning strategy the process should be stressed
as highly as the outcomes.
Many authors recommend developing in students a generic
range of skills and capacities that facilitate them in understanding,
managing and questioning knowledge and then implementing
change and effecting action (McKeown, 2002; Sterling, 2001,
González-Gaudiano, 2005; Steiner and Posch, 2006, Chiu, 2002;
Manzini, 2009b). Stage 1 of the research involved exploring and
gaining an understanding of what these skills are. From a combi-
nation of brainstorming, reviewing literature2, peer discussions,
observations and practical experience a list of skills, capacities and
ideas have been identified as those needed for socially sustainable
designing (see Fig. 2 for the complete list of skills, ideas and
capacities).
3. Methods
3.1. Aim
The overall aim of the larger study is to investigate the use of
international collaborative design projects as a mechanism to equip
students with the skills and capacities necessary to integrate social
sustainability into their daily design practice. The two projects are
2
The literature review covered reading in the areas of Sustainable Development;
sustainable design; social design practices; Education for Sustainable Development;
design education; contemporary design practices; collaboration; problem solving
and creativity.
 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
Fig. 2. Skills and capacities for social sustainability in design.
described briefly in Section 4 and the outcomes discussed in
Section 5.
3.2. Research method
The research is conducted using Participatory Action Research as
the overarching strategy. Fig. 3 provides an overview of this process
and also explains the characteristics that are key to this project.
Action research (AR) is appropriate as it is a method used when an
issue has been identified with existing practice and requires
Fig. 3. Action research project map.
89
intervention to solve it (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996); in
this case the issue is the difficulty of integrating complex ideas
(surrounding social sustainability) into designer’s daily practice.
The pragmatic nature of AR allows for the design students to
become active participants in their own education. It also allows for
the author to adopt dual roles: as the researcher and as the
educator for delivering the projects to the students thus linking
theory to practice in a real way (Baskerville and Wood-Harper,
1996, McDowell et al., 2008; McNiff and Whitehead, 2006;
Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996).
There are obvious parallels between planning and structuring an
action research project and the design process. The two processes
are firmly based on ‘learning by doing’ and are highly flexible in
nature. This means both are hinged on the unpredictability of human
nature and ‘multivariate real-world environments’ (Baskerville and
Wood-Harper, 1996). The contingencies of working with people
include motivations, engagement, behaviour, personal and profes-
sional drivers, experience, societal influences and the uncontrolla-
bility of behaviours. Dealing with the opportunities and constraints
that these contingencies brought to the projects is a fundamental
aspect of the Action Research process (Barbour, 2008).
Through a comprehensive process of iteration, continuous
improvement these projects will be developed and honed in order
to achieve the most appropriate, desirable and innovative solution
(development and implementation) (Lawson, 2006). Action
research (like design) advocates a learning-by-doing process where
mistakes inform the project development just as much as the
successes (Baskerville and Wood-Harper, 1996). The research
approach therefore is driven by creativity; practical learning; ‘user’
understanding; iterative development; innovative thinking;
appropriate decision making and effective communication.
Following the initial problem framing and literature reviewing
stages of the AR process the next stage was to design and imple-
ment a number of projects to allow the students to develop these
skills by opening them to a diversity of knowledge and perspec-
tives. Bringing student groups located in different continents
together ‘face-to-face’ is not feasible or environmentally respon-
sible! The softer skills, being more abstract and complex became
the implicit focus in the projects rather than the more explicit
practical design skills such as idea generation, visual communica-
tion and design development etc. Instead the processes the
students undertook to complete the work required them to use
‘softer’ skills in order to collaborate and communicate effectively
and to generate necessary, valid and responsible design solutions.
90 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95

3.3. Data collection and analysis The primary aim of the project was to encourage effective
collaboration and by this develop key competencies. These
The data collection methods involved a mix of qualitative competencies have been selected from the identified list of skills
information gathering tools. Two phases of information occurred and capacities necessary for designers to direct their practice
during each project: the first was during the project and the second towards social sustainability (as seen in Fig. 2):
after the project was completed. Diaries, participant observations,
videos and in-class reflection sessions comprised the first stage of / Development of shared skills
information gathering. Stories of participant experiences were / Promotion of cultural diversity and understanding
collated through this first stage. The second stage of data was / Critical analysis.
gathered after each project ended. Semi-structured interviews / Active participation
(with students), analysis of the project design outputs, post-project / Establishment of Communities of Practice; Knowledge Sharing &
questionnaires and anecdotal conversations (between design Networks
tutors and students) identified how the various skills and capacities / Interaction & engagement
developed and were implemented. This mix of methods allowed for / Reflection
the researcher to triangulate the data and develop thick descrip- / Development of holistic perspectives
tions of the situations (Barbour, 2008). Peer auditing between the
tutors on the projects (of which the researcher was one) and other
design tutors who were not directly involved in the projects 4.1.1. Project brief
ensured the instance of reflexivity was minimised. The students, in groups of two3, were asked to identify a tradi-
Following the collation of the research data it was analysed and tion, a cultural phenomenon or a historical practice specific to their
organised according to preliminary codes e using the constant own country. They were asked to re-imagine their chosen topic in
comparative method (Jupp, 2006). These codes were then further the present day, not to rebuild the past but instead to re-interpret it
subdivided and this coding system was applied across the inter- in a contemporary context. The design brief never mentioned social
views and diaries. sustainability or sustainability as these issues should not be
extracted as a ‘novelty’ but should be an inherent consideration in
every design project.
4. The projects
4.1.2. Project logistics
Table 1
Due to the distances and time difference the students were
required to make their work deliverable and communicable by
4.1. ‘Cultural leanings’: phase 1 action research available technologies. Research has shown that it is not the success
of collaboration is not due to technology instead it is due to the
Phase one of the Action Research strategy comprised a collabo- individual’s willingness and motivation to engage (Cheng and Kvan,
rative project undertaken between the year 2 undergraduate 2000). The technology needed to be easy to use and not detract
Product Design students in Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand and the from the main aim of the project. As such each group established
University of Limerick, Ireland (from February to April 2008). The a blog (using Vox) and this was used as the primary communication
idea for the project originated from a staff exchange between two tools for the duration of the project. The blog sites were used as
design tutors from the Institutes. The key aim was to explore the virtual exhibition spaces, project management tools, reflective
concept of connectivity and interactivity between two culturally diaries and project journals. They were also key in providing
different student groups divided by almost 18,000 km’s and 12 a structured platform for giving and receiving feedback from the
international time-zones. It was not a problem with current prac- other student participants and design tutors (Kvan, 2001). The need
tice per se that drove the project, instead it was an eagerness to to share work is essential in a field as visual as design and the blog
encourage students to engage and collaborate with others in proved essential in facilitating this.
a similar discipline.
4.1.3. Project outcomes
Table 1
Overview of collaborative projects.
The student work resulting from the project was both inter-
esting and innovative. The diversity of ‘products’ ranged from tat-
AR 1: Project 1 AR 2: Project 2 tooing tools to cooking and from furniture pieces to whiskey
Title ‘Cultural leanings’ ‘Food for thought’ decanters. For the first time in their design education some groups
Theme Interpreting culture Food provision
even explored the notion of replacing the physical object with an
Partners University of Limerick, University of Limerick,
Ireland Ireland ‘intangible’ experience.
Unitec, New Zealand Unitec, New Zealand
Universidad de Valparaiso,
Chile 4.2. Phase 2 action research ‘Food for thought’
No. of Participants 21 (IRE) 40 (NZ) 32 (IRE) 17 (NZ)
Team structure Individual country teams Designer/Client relationship
The second phase of the action research project built on the
partnered with team from between teams in each
partner country country lessons learnt from the first phase. The project took place from the
Team numbers 2 members each country 3 members IRE, 3 members beginning of March until the end of April 2010 and initially involved
NZ three international partners: Unitec, Auckland, New Zealand;
Duration 6 weeks 6 Weeks
Communication Vox Ning
tools Video Conferencing Twitter
3
Email Teamviewer Two members per team was decided upon given the class sizes and the fact that
Skype Googletalk the students hadn’t worked on any team based design project prior to this and in
Video order to make the management of their team and transmission of information as
Email easy as possible (Chiu, 2002). Each team in Ireland was paired with a partner team
in New Zealand to make the collaboration process more organised and manageable.
 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
Universidad de Valparaiso, Chile and the University of Limerick,
Ireland. Unfortunately due to the Chilean Earthquake disaster two
weeks before the start of the project the Chilean students were
unable to participate. Such unintended contingencies often form
a part of Action Research as it is a continuously evolving process
that is hinged on human and societal behaviour. The participant
groups comprised of year 2 Product Design students from Unitec
and the University of Limerick. It was a different group from that
which participated in phase 1.
The main modifications to the second phase of the action
research were in the area of the collaboration process; the depth
and breadth of the collaborative experience) and the project theme.
How these findings drove subsequent changes in the second action
research phase are described in Sections 4.2.2 and 5.
This second project expanded the skill set for collaboration from
the first project to include the following:
/ Team work
/ Compromise & negotiation
/ Cultural and social diversity
/ Participation
/ Communication
4.2.1. Project brief
Food was chosen as the overarching theme. Not only is it an
important issue (for very different reasons) in each of the countries,
but each would have a very different perspective on the subject.
Again the topic is not explicitly related to sustainability; instead the
students were expected to include social, environmental and
economic issues in parallel with the other design considerations
(e.g. human factors, functionality, aesthetics and design for
manufacture). The theme was then divided into 7 sub categories
including Packaging & Transport; Domestic Food Production;
Community Production; Shared Dining. A longer list was initially
generated by the project tutors based on trends in the areas of food
and design. The list was discussed and negotiated into the list of 7
categories that the students worked with. A finding from phase 1
showed that students struggled with the open-ended theme and
precious time was wasted at the start trying to come to terms with
what the brief meant. It was decided to provide the students with
clear direction through the more focused sub categories, while still
allowing them to explore a specific area in depth.
4.2.2. Logistics
A roadmap was compiled to make the collaboration as clear as
possible, this signposted all the times when interaction was
necessary between the groups. Twitter, Ning (this replaced the Vox
platform because it offered shared forums as well as individual
blogs) and Teamviewer (desktop sharing software) were intro-
duced as communication tools to facilitate the collaboration.
It was anticipated that the communication would happen
outside the suggested times too so that the sharing of ideas and
information could go beyond the ‘studio’ and thus the broader
academic environment. The ideal scenario was a move to a situation
where students converse not because they ‘have to’ but because they
‘want to’. The use of free and user friendly technologies facilitated
more ‘spontaneous’ and relaxed communication patterns to form
(Cheng and Kvan, 2000). The structure of the Ning platform allowed
the tutors to monitor the student’s use. The tutors prompted more or
deeper communication on the live chat facility of the Ning when
they felt the groups weren’t collaborating effectively, thus resolving
an issue quickly that could have taken several emails previously.
Another significant change was made in the project set-up to
facilitate deeper interaction between individuals, small teams and
91
larger groups. Instead of the student teams working on their own
project it was decided that larger groups would be formed con-
taining one team from each partner country. Each local team,
comprising either 3/4 individuals, researched the groups sub
category as it related to their country. They then handed over the
research ‘pack’ to another team in their group, who took the
research findings and acting as a ‘Design team’ developed inno-
vative solutions for their ‘Client’ country. The designer had to
refer to their clients regularly to ensure the concepts being
developed were relevant and necessary. The collaboration process
is mapped in Fig. 4 below. This co-generative approach allowed
students to see how others approach their work (reflection) and
‘forced’ them to develop a common language and hone their
communication skills further. It also ensured the students would
not get bored of the project and the technology as easily as in the
previous phase (Gross and Do, 1999). This time the student
engagement with the technology would directly affect the group
effort.
4.2.3. Project outcomes
Once again the design outcomes from the project were inter-
esting and diverse. Students designed a garden tool-sharing system
for allotments, innovative food packaging and a tracking and
monitoring system for food transportation. The design results
however were not as innovative or as detailed as the previous
project and the student grades reflected this. This could be attrib-
uted to the fact that the students were designing for a client
country and that time was required to understand the culture of
this client. The interpretations of the ‘clients’ research was
subjective and did not necessarily reflect the reality of practices
within the particular client country. Conversely the design teams
offered fresh eyes on the subject that the client might not have.
At this stage it is worth noting that the collaboration with this
project wasn’t as successful as the previous one. With action
research projects the failures inform the process as much as the
successes so it is worthwhile noting the issues that occurred. These
uneven results can be attributed to a number of factors amongst
them personality differences, lack of compromise, breakdown in
communication; lack of synergy and timing differences (these did
not affect the first project as much because the collaboration wasn’t
as deep as the 2nd project with students acting as both clients and
designers).
5. Findings & discussion
The following section draws together both the results and
discussion on the first two phases of the action research process.
This presentation better reflects the iterative nature of both
action research and qualitative methods (Barbour, 2008). The
findings from phase 1 drove the development of phase 2 (in
continuous feedback loops) and so gathering the information and
interpreting it was a parallel process. Quotes and comments from
the interviews, diaries, survey responses and anecdotal conver-
sations will provide evidence for the discussion and the conclu-
sions drawn.
Analysis of the data provided a wealth of information and
observational insights. This centred on the experience of the
students and the tutors which in the main was positive. The novelty
of the projects really interested and engaged the students in ways
that previous projects hadn’t. The themes allowed them to look
deeper into their own culture and society, whilst learning about the
cultural influences and traditions affecting another country. One
student notes ‘I felt it was a very good project as I learned a lot more
about my culture and the fields I was researching. The project really
helped my team working skills and I know that this will be really
92 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95

Fig. 4. Collaboration map for phase 2.

important in the future.’ (Student A, survey results 5.08.08). Another
stated that ‘it was excellent to see a different culture and participate in
such a project. It allows me to see beyond my own country and
thoughts’ (Student B, survey results 5.08.08)
From the design tutors perspectives the whole experience of
working closely with another design school allowed them to
expand their personal and professional horizons. It also provided
the opportunity to explore alternative methods for preparing and
implementing student projects.
5.1. Communication
Blogs were used as the primary interaction tool in both projects.
Despite an initial settling in period (as reflected in the survey), the
students not only enjoyed the novelty and convenience of this new
delivery method, but they also felt that the opportunity to get
feedback from others really helped and encouraged them. Being
able to post work on the blog allowed for external representations
of the local teams work to be available for critique, comment and
 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
negotiation by the other members of their group (Gul and Maher,
2009).Those who did not engage fully with the blogs regretted it
once the project was complete and they could review the effort
exerted by their peers. In the post-project survey one student re-
flected that ‘I think for me the problem was being too set on designing
the way I had previously, and did not interact enough with the
blogging. This is something I regret as I really belief [sic] it could be
used as a very useful tool’ (Student C, survey results 5.08.08). This
atypical response from phase 1 indicated that all students would
need to be encouraged and facilitated to collaborate more during
the 2nd project.
5.2. Interaction
The ability to view the work of all the students (via blog
neighbourhoods) put pressure on the students to increase the
standard of their work as now direct and immediate comparisons
could be drawn between the work of the various individuals, teams
and groups. A student stated that ‘[It].made me see the standard at
which my projects need to reach’ (Student D, survey results 5.08.08).
Another observed that ‘it was beneficial in terms of getting advice
from other students, because our work was going to be seen by a lot of
people it forced me to strive for a high standard of work’ (Student E,
survey results 5.08.08).
These views were confirmed by the students during interview,
they felt that because the comparisons were clear on the blog they
tried harder to raise their work standard. In the survey one student
noted that ‘it was a good way to see what other people were up too
and to look for inspiration’ (Student F, survey results 5.08.08).
The interviews corroborated these statements.
‘Student 1: we thought the standard of work compared to
previous projects level just went way higher.
Researcher: why do you think that was?
Student 1: I think its competition, because you have that other
group and you know they have a long history of design and we
are just very new, so we just wanted to make sure we matched
their standard and were better.’ (Student 1, group 1, interview
26.02.10)
In addition because the blogs could be updated in ‘real-time’ this
reflection tended to be more honest than if time was allowed to
think on the comments. One student positively observed that the
blogs provided them with a ‘better understanding of presenting
digitally and also great for gaining techniques and sharing ideas with
a different design course’ (Student G, survey results 5.08.08).
5.2.1. Insights
A very positive by-product from using blogs is that a permanent
record of the work is retained that can be accessed on an on-going
basis. The video conferences allowed the students to ‘meet’ each
other and relate a face to the virtual relationship that had previ-
ously existed. Enjoyment from the video conferences was obvious
at the time and the feedback afterwards confirmed as much. There
was a suggestion, however that a video conference at the start of
the project would be beneficial so the students could be introduced
to each other and this might lead to a greater degree of interaction
via the blogs throughout the remainder of the project. One student
suggested a preference to ‘maybe meet at the start like we did at the
end would be good to create a bond’ (Student 5, group 3, interview
26.02.10). This change was introduced in the second phase where
students scheduled formal and informal virtual meetings at regular
stages in the project.
Not all feedback was positive however. Some students felt the
blogs weren’t a beneficial component of the project and as such
their engagement with their local team-mates and partner teams
93
did not reach a deep or mutually beneficial level. Some also felt that
if their interaction wasn’t reciprocated they were less inclined to
use the blog as the project progressed e.g. ‘we tried but when we
weren’t receiving anything back we just gave up’ (Student 3, group 2,
interview 26.02.10). As with every project some students will
engage more, ask for more feedback and enjoy the overall experi-
ence more. ‘Working with another country would be very good it just
turned out that there was not much communication inputs and so on
(as far as I experienced it)’ (Student 4, group2, interview 26.02.10).
This observation ensures a deeper and perhaps more ‘forced’
interaction between the participating countries was necessary in
the 2nd phase project.
Subsequent phases of the project will endeavour to deepen the
collaboration and also explore how participation in the projects
will influence the behaviour of designers once they are qualified
professionals.
5.3. Reflective practice
The opportunity for reflection was provided in two ways in the
project; local reflection on their work with the project and ‘distant’
reflection on the work and processes of the partner country. Students
reflected not only on their work but on their individual practice and
their learning experience. The overall depth of information appear-
ing on the blogs confirmed that students reflected more and at
greater length about their work ‘I think it was more interesting to see
other peoples work. There was a lot of to-ing and fro-ing between us and
New Zealand and it was really interesting to see their work and see new
sketches and stuff. It was nice to compare because sometimes you just
get lost in here [UL design studio] your own class and how you compare
with them’ (Student 6, group 3, interview 26.02.10).
There were a few exceptions however when some students did
not engage with the project theme and the software as much as
other students. Reflection is a key part of design work, but it tends
to come at the end of the project. The ‘real-time’ nature of the
blogging process ensured the students reflected instantly on their
design work, forcing them to question and justify the decisions they
were making, as they were making them. This is something often
missing from conventional projects as limited time and tight
delivery requirements mitigate against continuous reflection on
their own practice (students are encouraged to reflect on their
outputs but not always on their individual practice).
5.4. Engagement
Students engaged with the projects more readily than with
conventional projects, resulting in better outcomes and a higher
quality of work, thus creating a deeper learning experience. ‘The
dimension of having the other country there pushed us to get a more
professional product and professional finish. Before there wasn’t that
real drive but with them there we were looking at their work and
saying we can do this and we can push things a little bit further’
(Student 2, group 1, interview 26.02.10). However some measures
could be taken in future projects to ensure greater engagement
with the project and the interactions from all students partici-
pating. These could include (but are not limited to) additional
formal video conferencing sessions, provide facilities for more
informal dialogues between student teams, better collaboration
through shared project deliverables between different countries.
5.5. Developing critical thinking
Students began to question their own practices and those of
other cultures through the projects. This type of ‘critical’ experience
encourages deeper learning that can prove to be transformative in
94 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
the student’s education. This was evidenced through the projects as
the students had begun to analyse, synthesise, and evaluate their
own work (Ennis, 1993). They also felt encouraged to look closely at
the work of the other teams and comment critically on it. The
blogging platforms encouraged them to share their ideas
‘It [the project] made you think more outwardly, if you have
a project [you] don’t just think on that particular one thing
(Student 8, group 4, interview 26.02.10) ‘they could take
a completely outside look at our product and give us advice’
(Student 4, group 2, interview 26.02.10).
From the analysis of phase 1 it was apparent that the opportu-
nity for critical analysis needed to be developed further in phase 2.
At the start of the 2nd project each group made a video introducing
their group and then a video conference was held (as was suggested
in phase 1). This ensured that the interaction went beyond
professional and the relationship moved onto ‘personal’. In addi-
tion an attitudinal survey was completed by the students prior to
the beginning of phase 2. This was to assess their level of knowl-
edge about certain skills and aspects related to social sustainability
and collaboration. The results from this survey will be explored
through the next AR phase to assess whether the attitudes and
behaviours have evolved after completing the phase 2 (the students
from phase 2 are scheduled to be interviewed in the coming
months).As well the participants from phase 1 will be interviewed
again (they have since graduated), as critical thinking skills take
time to learn and to manifest in project work (Ennis, 1993).
5.6. Broader perspectives
By participating in this type of project the students gained an
understanding of what drives design in other countries (both
historical and contemporary influences). One student clearly saw
that ‘it’s quite similar to Irish, they have the same humour. get a new
perspective on design and how other design courses are doing it. I
suppose it’s kind of reassuring that we are not too far off’ (Student 6,
group 3, interview 26.02.10). Also another noted that ‘.it’s very
similar but they just had a different slant on things, a bit of a twist’
(Student 5, group 3 interview 26.02.10). This gave the students’ an
understanding that design does not occur in a vacuum and that
society is both influenced by and influences design practice. This
can be a difficult concept to relate to students and is best learnt by
engagement with a diverse group of project partners. On this
premise the group of participating countries should be expanded to
include designers from different socio-economic backgrounds and
varied cultural models.
5.7. Confusion & conflict
Collaboration wasn’t always successful unfortunately in spite of
positive attitude and initial enthusiasm. Success was uneven
between the two projects given the contingencies in running such
projects. In spite of all the paths being clearly laid out the situations
did not always play out as predicted. Human behaviour is such that
it cannot be controlled on every level, nor indeed should it be as the
spontaneous outcomes often prove the most interesting.
The downside to collaboration became apparent in the AR 2 as
the project broke-down and resistance increased in the latter
stages. This can be attributed to cultural differences and a mismatch
of goals and methods (Lozano, 2006). The differences in cultures
between team members meant trust wasn’t established as quickly
as it needed to be for the project to work within the limited
timeframe (McDonough et al., 2001). From a more practical level
the incompatible time-zones and academic calendars made the
physical communication difficult throughout both projects.
Although more time had been given to planning and working out
logistics in phase 2 the lack of clear shared goals, distributed
responsibilities, conflicting agendas and equal involvement of
stakeholders (Fadeeva, 2004) led to less successful project
outcomes and experience.
These conflicts should not always be viewed as a negative thing
however, as they were beneficial in allowing different views to be
aired and compared. Negotiating these conflicts helped the
students to develop key skills of compromise and effective
communication and encouraged students to be innovative to find
ways of resolving them (Fadeeva, 2004). The issue of managing the
conflicts and the negotiation of goals will be given particular
attention in the coming AR phases. The researcher intends to
explore the notions of synergy (working towards an agreed
common goal) and commitment (or ‘buy-in’) within subsequent
phases, where the agendas are negotiated and agreed on prior to
the project.
6. Conclusion
Sustainable development calls for every profession to behave
more responsibly and also to become more globally aware. The
expectation on designers to practice more responsibly is coming
from industry, government and society. Yet designers are not being
equipped with the skills and competencies necessary to do this.
Social sustainability by its nature difficult to implement in design
practice as it deals with softer and immeasurable elements of
human and societal behaviour. The aim of this research has been to
clearly identify a core set of skills and competencies that designers
need to be able to work effectively with others in solving the
‘wicked’ problems that social sustainability presents. Collaborative
projects bring greater engagement and therefore encourage the
acquisition and development of these skills and competencies.
These have been identified to include participation, openness,
dialogue, reflection, participation, engagement, understanding, co-
operation and compromise. By encouraging knowledge sharing and
critical thinking the participating design students have begun to
reflect on their behaviour and the behaviour of others.
The two phases of the Action Research (AR) project described
above explored how exposure to multiple perspectives in the
definition and resolution of design problems can broaden the
educational experience for students. Looking at effective group
collaborations, sharing knowledge and the development of indi-
vidual skills (such as critical analysis and reflection) in phase 1
revealed that for students to engage and participate fully,
communication, the building of trust and the ability to compro-
mise and negotiate with team members needed to be developed
further. Phase 2 of the AR process expanded the project to
include the development and practising of these additional
competencies.
The findings suggest that students have begun to develop a set
of skills that will enable them to effectively collaborative in projects
that can begin to address the challenges of sustainability from
a global perspective. The experience of undertaking the two
collaborative projects has shown that, by exposure to diversities of
practice, behaviours and perspectives, designers can begin to
engage with the complex theory behind social sustainability in
a real and practical way. Therefore the focus in the student
designers’ work needs to be on the development of flexible tools
and transferrable skills. Skills that ensure they become adaptive
professionals who can collaborate effectively across distances and
disciplines. The reflection on and outcomes from these experi-
mental and exploratory projects will hopefully serve students to
find empathy, common ground and a common language in solving
and resolving the issues surrounding social sustainability. Care
 M. McMahon, T. Bhamra / Journal of Cleaner Production 23 (2012) 86e95
must be taken not to generalise the results however as the Action
Research approach means that the results are project specific with
the samples small and focused.
While the success of the projects has been varied the findings
from the two described in this paper demonstrates that participa-
tion in the projects can bring about subsequent changes in the
design students practice. The design and implementation of future
projects needs to be further developed and improved and this will
be carried out in subsequent phases of the Action Research process.
Further research into the longer term impact of these projects on
design students must be done in order to understand the benefits
to their practice post-graduation.
The projects described above have gone some way to encour-
aging design students to collaborate and engage across social and
geographical boundaries. The very process of undertaking them has
highlighted the real and apparent need for designers to develop the
range of skills that ensure responsible practice becomes normative.
As the realm of professional design shifts towards a future of
alternative systems students must develop the ability to think
pragmatically, innovatively and holistically.
References
Barbour, R., 2008. Introducing Qualitative Research: a Student Guide to the Craft of
Doing Qualitative Research. SAGE, London.
Baskerville, R.L., Wood-Harper, A.T., 1996. A critical perspective on action research
as a method for information systems research. Journal of Information Tech-
nology 11, 235e246.
Bhamra, T., Dewberry, E., 2007. Re-visioning design priorities through sustainability
education. In: International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED’07, 28e31
August 2007.
Bramley, G., Dempsey, N., Power, S., Brown, C., 2006. What is ‘Social Sustainability’,
and how do our existing urban forms perform in nurturing it?. In: Planning
Research Conference. UCL, London, p. 40.
Bremer, M.H., López-Franco, R., 2006. Sustainable development: ten years of
experiences at ITESM’s graduate level. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11),
952e957.
Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., Winhall, J., 2006. RED Paper 02: Transformation
Design, Design Council.
Cassimir, G., Dutilh, C., 2003. Sustainability: a gender studies perspective. Interna-
tional Journal of Consumer Studies 27 (4), 316e325.
Chapman, J., 2005. Emotionally Durable Design; Objects, Experience & Empathy.
Earthscan, London.
Cheng, N. Y.-w., Kvan, T., 2000. Design collaboration strategies. In: 4th SIGRADI, Rio
de Janeiro.
Chiu, M.-L., 2002. An organizational view of design communication in design
collaboration. Design Studies 23, 187e210.
Core77, 2010. The Design Matters Concentration at Art Center College of Design: Q&A
with Mariana Amatullo Available: www.core77.com/ [accessed 15.12.2010].
Cumming, M., Akar, E., 2005. Coordinating the complexity of design using P2P
groupware. CoDesign 1 (4), 255e265.
Design Council, 2006. RED [online], Available: http://www.designcouncil.info/RED/
[accessed].
Designophy, 2001. Defining the Designer of 2015’, Design Knowledge Intermediary
Available: www.designophy.com/ [accessed 10.1.11].
Dewberry, E.L., 1996. Eco-Design: Present attitudes and future directions. Unpub-
lished Thesis Open University.
Ennis, R.H., 1993. Critical thinking assessment. Theory Into Practice 32 (3), 179e186.
Fadeeva, Z., 2004. Promises of sustainability collaboration- potential fulfilled?
Journal of Cleaner Production 13, 165e174.
Findeli, A., 2008. Sustainable design: a critique of the current tripolar model. The
Design Journal 11 (3), 301e322.
Fletcher, K., Dewberry, E., 2002. Demi: a case study in design for sustainability.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 3 (1), 38e47.
González-Gaudiano, E., 2005. Education for sustainable development: configuration
and meaning. Policy Futures in Education 3 (3), 243e250.
Gross, M., Do, E., 1999. Integrating Digital Media in design studio: Six Paradigms. In:
Proc. ACSA (American Collegiate Schools of Architecture) National Conference
Minneapolis.
95
Gul, L.F., Maher, M.L., 2009. Co-creating external design representations: comparing
face-to-face sketching to designing in virtual environments. Co Design 5 (2),
117e138.
Hara, K., 2009. Designing Design. Lars Muller Publishers, Eindhoven.
Jegou, F., Manzini, E., 2008. Collaborative Services: Social Innovation and Design for
Sustainability Edizioni Poli. Design [online], available: [accessed].
Jupp, V. (Ed.), 2006. The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. SAGE Publi-
cations Ltd, London.
Krull, P., 2010. Social Innovation Available: [accessed 11.05.10].
Kvan, T., 2001. The pedagogy of virtual design studios. Automation in Construction
10, 345e353.
Lawson, B., 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified, 4 ed.
Architectural, Amsterdam London.
Lilley, D., 2007. Designing for Behavioural Change: Reducing the Social Impacts of
Product Use through Design. Unpublished Thesis, Loughborough University.
Loughran, J.J., 2002. Effective reflective practice: in search of meaning in learning
about teaching. Journal of Teacher Education 53 (33).
Lozano García, F., Kevany, K., Huisingh, D., 2006. Sustainability in higher education:
what is happening? Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11), 757e760.
Lozano, R., 2006. Incorporation and institutionalization of SD into universities:
breaking through barriers to change. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11),
787e796.
Lozano, R., 2007. Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable Devel-
opment 15, 370e381.
Manzini, E., 2007. Design research for sustainable social innovation. In: Michel, R.
(Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects. Birhauser, Basel.
Manzini, E., 2009a. Design Research for Sustainable Social Innovation Available:
http://www.sustainable-everyday.net/manzini/ [accessed 11.10.09].
Manzini, E., 2009b. Viewpoint new design knowledge. Design Issues 30 (1), 4e12.
Manzini, E., 2010. Small, local, open and connected: design for social innovation and
sustainability. The Journal of Design Strategies 4 (1), 8e11.
McDonough, E.F.I., Kahn, K.B., Barczak, 2001. An investigation of the use of global,
virtual and colocated new product development teams. The Journal of Product
Innovation Management 18, 110e120.
McDowell, L., Smailes, J., Sambell, K., Sambell, A., Wakelin, D., 2008. Evaluating
assessment strategies through collaborative evidence-based practice: can one
tool fit all? Innovations in Education and Teaching International 45 (2),
143e153.
McKenzie, S., 2004. Social sustainability: towards some definitions. In: Hawke
Research Institute Working Papers Series Available: [accessed].
McKeown, R., 2002. Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit, 2. University of
Tennessee, Tennessee.
McNiff, J., Whitehead, J., 2006. All You Need to Know about Action Research. SAGE
Publications Ltd, , London.
Mendoza, A., 2010. DESIS Newsletter 0: A Catalyzing Agent. DESIS.
Moore, F.C., 2011. Toppling the tripod: sustainable development, constructive
ambiguity and the environmental challenge. Consilience: The Journal of
Sustainable Development 5 (1), 141e150.
Moritz, S., 2005. Service Design: Practical Access to an Evolving Field. Unpublished
Thesis, University of Applied Sciences Cologne.
Murray, R., Mulgan, G., Caulier-Grice, J., 2010. How to Innovate: The Tolls for Social
Innovation. The Young Foundation.
Nelson, H.G., Stolterman, E., 2003. The Design Way: Intentional Change in an
Unpredictable World. Educational Technology Publications, New Jersey.
Segalas, J., Ferrer-Balas, D., Mulder, K.F., 2010. What do engineering students learn
in sustainability courses? The effect of the pedagogical approach. Journal of
Cleaner Production 18, 275e284.
Sherwin, C., 2004. Design and sustainability: a discussion paper based on personal
experience and observations. The Journal of Sustainable Product Design 4,
21e31.
Spangenberg, J.H., Fuad-Luke, A., Blincoe, K., 2010. Design for Sustainability (DfS):
the interface of sustainable production and consumption. Journal of Cleaner
Production 18, 1485e1493.
Steiner, G., Posch, A., 2006. Higher education for sustainability by means of trans-
disciplinary case studies: an innovative approach for solving complex, real-
world problems. Journal of Cleaner Production 14 (9e11), 877e890.
Sterling, S., 2001. Sustainable Education: Re-Visioning Learning and Change.
Schumacher Society, Devon.
Thackara, J., 2006. In the Bubble: Designing in a Complex World. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
UN, E. a. S. C, 2005. UNECE Strategy for Education for Sustainable Development.
United Nations, Vilinius.
UNESCO, 2004. United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development:
Draft International Implementation Scheme (IIS). United Nations Educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Paris.
Walker, S., 2006. Sustainable by Design. Earthscan. Earthscan.
Whiteley, N., 1993. Design for Society. Reaktion Books, London.