Int J Technol Des Educ DOI 10.1007/s10798-015-9327-y

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and design education Owain Pedgley1 • Valentina Rognoli2 • Elvin Karana3

Accepted: 11 August 2015  Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract An important body of research has developed in recent years, explaining ways in which product materials influence user experiences. A priority now is to ensure that the research findings are adopted within an educational context to deliver contemporary curricula for students studying the subject of materials and design. This paper reports on an international initiative to develop ‘materials experience’ as a formal subject of study, complementary to traditional technical and engineering approaches to materials and design education. General learning objectives for materials experience are established, followed by specific attention to three kinds of experience that arise during user–material– product interaction: gratification of senses, conveyance of meanings, and elicitation of emotions. For each of these kinds of experience, a specially devised active learning exercise is explained in detail. In combination, these exercises are argued to deliver a good foundation for student appreciation and action on designing for material experiences in product design. The paper concludes with recommendations for how to responsibly redress the imbalance that exists in materials and design education, by transitioning from a culture of ‘imparting knowledge about materials’ to a culture of ‘generating experience with materials’. Keywords Materials inspiration
Materials selection
Materials experience
Senses
Product design

& Owain Pedgley [email protected] 1

School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK

2

School of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Campus Bovisa, Via Durando, 20158 Milan, Italy

3

Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15, 2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands

123

O. Pedgley et al.

Introduction Materials have always been regarded as a fundamental element in industrial design education. Methodologies applied to materials and design teaching have fluctuated across the years, reflecting changes in context, the historical period, and renewal of institutional approaches within design schools. In the current era, within new product development teams, industrial designers and design engineers assume responsibility to choose the right combination of materials and processes not only for satisfying technical design requirements and meeting sustainability demands, but also for reaching a pleasurable and desirable product for people. In other words, it is a designer’s remit to use materials to help create intended product experiences for people in particular contexts of use: to define the materials experience (Karana et al. 2014). There has been an important body of research in recent years on how designers’ material choices affect the overall experience of a product and how materials are used as a contributor to intended product experiences (Karana 2009; van Kesteren 2008; Pedgley 2009; Rognoli and Levi 2004). We define materials experience broadly as both the experiences that people have with, and through, the materials of a product; as well as the knowledge and skills that designers must possess if they are to ‘design for experience’ through the application of materials. We may say that materials experience encompasses a concern not only for aesthetic (sensory) experiences provided by materials, but also the meanings that may be attributed to materials, and the emotional responses that the use of materials may evoke (Karana et al. 2015). Deciding upon the role that a material will play within a product is one of the major challenges faced by designers. Competence is needed in predicting and defining both the expressive qualities and the performance of a candidate material. From this standpoint, it is important for the designer to know how the properties of materials can be influential on the total experience of a product, by satisfying people’s pragmatic and hedonic needs tied to the ownership and use of products (Hassenzahl 2010). The implication here is that the designer’s vocabulary and understanding of materials should span both an ‘engineering perspective’ and an ‘experiential perspective’ (Pedgley 2010). However, in the case of tertiary design education, it is apparent that the engineering perspective is well developed, whereas the experiential perspective is less so. The merging of the two perspectives is also underdeveloped, as evidenced by fundamental research in the area being published only very recently (e.g. Wilkes et al. 2015; Schifferstein and Wastiels 2014). This is despite the general observation that industrial design students and practitioners are more comfortable to begin materials investigations from a perspective of sensorial-expressive characterization, rather than commencing with technical requirements. The situation leaves question marks over the efficacy of university course content in materials and design, especially given that materials teaching—for which the authors have collective experiences from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey—is often sourced outside of design departments, from materials science or engineering specialists. Our position is that the ‘fuzzier’ and more idiosyncratic approach dealing with user–material relations is not any less important in a proper materials selection process, but is under-developed as a field of design practice and education. Undoubtedly, adapting materials education in design by integrating different tools and methods for understanding tangible properties of materials alongside their intangible effects is a vital need when current professional practices in design are considered. In this regard, Pedgley (2010) has argued for ways in which materials education for industrial

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

design can be ‘invigorated’, in the sense of becoming aligned with, or even one step ahead of, contemporary design practice. He emphasised the role of materials experience in designers’ materials education, not only as subject clearly aligned to designerly thinking and contributions, but also pragmatically to ensure subject relevance and to develop a combination of new theory and selection tools that are distinct from, but complementary to, engineering approaches. In follow-up work, Pedgley (2014) identified five emerging areas of teaching and learning related to materials and industrial design, following a crosscomparison of research initiatives. • Generation of materials knowledge via analysis of material samples and product exemplars. • Development of a sensorial-expressive language of materials. • Consideration of materials as a user interface of a product. • Awareness of contextual considerations that limit materials selection and moderate material experiences. • Use of new material selection tools to guide experiential-based material selection activities. Each author of this present paper completed his/her PhD in the area of materials and design: Pedgley in 1999 from Loughborough University (England); Rognoli in 2004 from Politecnico di Milano (Italy), and Karana in 2009 from Delft University of Technology (The Netherlands). All three authors are presently responsible for the teaching and learning of newly developed materials courses integrating experiential aspects of materials, initially developed independently but now benefitting from cross-fertilization of ideas that are communicated throughout this paper. Each of the authors’ courses share the educational points just listed.

Technical–experiential imbalance Despite the growing body of research emphasising the value of experiential concerns and their integration to formal materials selection processes, in the current era we find materials education in industrial design programs, at least outside of art and design traditions, has persistently focused on engineering content and technical-led selection activities (Karana 2011; Pedgley 2010). The majority of available materials selection advice and resources is concomitantly oriented towards resolution of functional product decisions (Ashby 2010; Jee and Kang 2001; Sapuan 2010) and choosing materials based on their suitability to meet performance requirements (e.g. high strength, high stiffness, low weight, low carbon footprint, high durability). Current textbooks supporting this approach include Ashby et al. (2013), Ashby (2010) and Budinski and Budinski (2009). Some substantial open educational resources have been developed to support materials selection and engineering, such as the CORE-materials website (University of Liverpool 2014). CES Edupack (Granta Design 2014) is a powerful software package for materials selection in an educational context. It can serve both as a lecture-based learning tool (about material properties) as well as a project-based materials selection tool (leading to plotted charts of material properties such as in Fig. 1, suitable for quick identification of candidate materials for a target application). The vast majority of information contained within the CES Edupack database is technical data derived from measured materials tests. Although industrial and product design students benefit mostly from the more basic functionality of the software, its attraction is that the data, presented visually as comparative charts, avoids

123

O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 1 Typical materials chart from CES Edupack (Young’s modulus versus density)

the need for students to work initially with numerical data and promotes discussion around material possibilities. The concern, however, is that for the industrial designer, performance represents only one dimension of a materials selection rationale. Resources to help designers engage in materials selection for product supra-functionality (McDonagh-Philp and Lebbon 2000)— that is, to satisfy hedonic needs ‘beyond’ or ‘or additional to’ product performance, which can be manifest through expressivity—are currently very limited in scope and number. Yet without this principally human-centred perspective, a full understanding of materials experience cannot be achieved. For example, CES Edupack can be used to plot sensorial material qualities (e.g. hardness, rigidity, elasticity), but it stops short of making a connection to how people feel (or feel about) those qualities. If we look to the past with regard to materials and design education, we can glean some important points for the future. As Rognoli argued in her PhD thesis (2004), at the Bauhaus—the universally recognised first ‘school of design’—various professors developed their personal education methods around the teaching of materials. Johannes Itten’s work (1888–1967) is especially relevant to contemporary discourse on materials experience. He developed a ‘designerly’ approach to materials guided by senses and expressions, formulated as his ‘theory of contrasts’, which became fundamental to his educational approach for the Vorkurs (basic course) at the Bauhaus. Itten asked students to explore sensorial contrasts (Fig. 2), some of which directly referenced material properties (e.g. smooth-rough, soft-hard, light-heavy). In Itten’s Vorkurs, studies of the expressive attributes of material texturization and finishing were initiated, alongside phenomenological aspects that promoted discussion on

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 2 Principles from Johannes Itten’s ‘theory of contrasts’; adaptation from original diagram, circa 1920

the merits (or otherwise) of using particular materials. The theory of contrasts allowed students to question the ‘nature’ of materials, by showing the essential and diverse characteristics of different matter, in a manner that supported each student’s sensitivity and refinement for the topics involved. Furthermore, it was imperative that students ‘felt’ these contrasts. With this approach, Itten’s students were able to experience and appreciate the character of materials directly, through hands-on exploration (Wick 2000). Itten (1963, p. 12) describes the learning experience that was intended from his theory of contrasts, thus: Finding and listing the various possibilities of contrast was always one of the most exciting subjects, because the students realized that a completely new world was opening up to them (…) The students had to approach the contrasts from three directions: they had to experience them with their senses, objectivize them intellectually, and realize them synthetically. (…) As life and beauty unfold in the regions between the North Pole and the South Pole of our planet, so life and beauty of the world of contrast are to be found in the graduation between the poles of contrast. Examples of contrasts were made available via material samples, used for the creation of sculptures and compositions. The study of contrasts also prepared students for their project work in workshops, the organization of which by Walter Gropius—by material families (Fig. 3)—continues to be a major influence on design programs globally. In retrospect, Itten’s work can be regarded as a pioneering approach, placing the expressivity and sensorial characterization of materials in front of technical appraisal and description (Rognoli and Levi 2004).

123

O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 3 Organization of teaching at the Bauhaus around material families; adaptation from original diagram, circa 1963

This brings us to ask: what can design educators currently offer to students with regard to teaching and learning of materials experience, and in particular the chains of thinking that originate from encounters with material sensorial information? In recent years, several publications have been released that lay foundations for experience-centred materials selection (e.g. Ashby and Johnson 2002; Dent and Sherr 2014; Howes and Laughlin 2012; Karana et al. 2014; Karana 2009; Lefteri 2014). Design students can also visit material libraries for first-hand experiences. Samples can be ordered from materials suppliers, and existing products can be analysed according to their material usage. But these activities are largely disparate and independent, based on the initiatives of individual instructors. Despite the growing body of research emphasising the centrality of the ‘experiential’ aspect of materials, the integration of these aspects into formal materials selection processes or tools is at an early stage. What we observe that is missing are sufficient examples of structured activities for the teaching and learning of materials experience, as well as the elicitation and development of vocabulary and concepts that can be used to describe actual and intended material experiences. To this end, in this paper we report our efforts to consolidate the materials and design educational activities of three universities.

General learning objectives for materials experience Materials for use in product design can span nano-particles through to giant concrete pieces, in applications as diverse as telephones through to exhibition stands. The approach to the selection of an appropriate material across product sectors varies. However, common fundamental questions remain the same, namely: how do we select an ideal material for a particular application, and what are the main requirements and constraints?

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

In (design) engineering, materials requirements and constraints are usually technical and able to be expressed numerically in dimensions such as strength, thermal conductivity, rigidity and so on. However, for user-oriented design disciplines such as industrial design, requirements and constraints are constituted heavily on the designer’s (or the designer’s expectations for users’) sensory sensitivity. For example: how one perceives the coldness of a material; how that perception differs from the perception of other people; and what specific character of ‘perceived coldness’ is preferred in a particular context. Experiential appreciation and appraisal of materials is crucial in this regard (e.g. the ability to discern wood as ‘modern’; or the ‘fondness’ of textiles as a material to touch), as is the context in which the material–human interaction is anticipated to take place. For example, the valence and strength of feeling about materials and their uses will be tied strongly to people’s personal values (Trimingham 2008). We may expect stronger and more visceral responses in instances where social, cultural, ethical, economic and environmental issues run alongside material usage. Not surprisingly, formulating experiential material requirements is challenging. How can we train design students to gain proficiency in such formulation? By applying frameworks of product experience to the specific domain of product materials, it is possible to create a solid foundation for teaching and learning materials experience (Karana et al. 2015). Accordingly, we have identified three differentiated ‘components’ of experience as applied to product materials. • aesthetic (sensory) experience: e.g. people feeling the smoothness of a material; seeing its matte finish. • experience of meaning: e.g. people appraising a material as being traditional, looking cozy, seemingly toy-like. • emotional experience: e.g. people affected by a material, being surprised (‘wow!’), disgusted (‘urgh!’), enthralled (‘amazing!’). Our view is that teaching and learning of materials experience should properly span all three of these experience components. When taken in combination, they can help designers compose a storyline for how materials are intended to contribute to positive user experiences. That is, the aesthetic experience focuses the mind of the designer on those sensorial material qualities that will be appreciated by target users; the experience of meaning directs attention to consider the evaluative and judgemental tendencies of people; whilst the emotional experience is a focal point for personal gratification and added value that may arise anywhere between short or long term acquaintance with a product. For each experiential component, we aim to achieve the following learning goals. • For aesthetic (sensory) experience, students should be able to: argue the relations/ differences between numerical technical properties and associated perceived qualities; argue the individual differences in sensory perception. • For experience of meaning, students should be able to: identify diverse factors playing a role in the attribution of meanings to materials; identify the most commonly used sensorial properties to evoke material meanings; construe certain patterns for particular user(group)–material–meaning relationships; apply these patterns in designing a product intended to evoke certain meanings through materials. • For emotional experience, students should be able to: argue the individual differences and commonalities for a particular material-based emotional experience; argue on those aspects of material-product combinations that elicit emotional experiences; construe certain patterns as a guideline to elicit intended emotions through materials.

123

O. Pedgley et al.

Overall, after completing the authors’ courses, students are expected to have acquired understanding of the role and dynamics of materials experience and developed rationale for product material choices based on user–material–product relationships. Teaching and learning is supported through lectures, assignments, and active learning exercises—in our case characterized as educational situations in which students carry out and reflect upon practical task-based material appraisals linked to learning objectives (Felder and Brent 2009). Assignments and practical class activities are always directly related to presented theoretical content, either as a pre- or post-contribution. In the following sections, we will address the development and application of different active learning exercises and state-ofthe-art tools for user-centered materials selection, offering a separate example for each of the three components of materials experience.

Learning the aesthetic experience of materials To learn the sensorial effects of materials in a deep manner, we concur with the Bauhaus tradition that a hands-on approach to material appraisals is necessary. Accordingly, there is an imperative to use material and product samples to support the acquisition of materials experience, as well as to support students’ materials selection activities. By implication, we regard computer-, paper- or lecture-based teaching and learning, either individually or in combination, as not sufficient for a full understanding of aesthetics and materials. Collections of carefully chosen samples, organized within a library or repository, are an ideal source for educating designers about material properties and material applications (Akın and Pedgley 2015). With physical samples, material appraisals inevitably switch from visual (which can be somewhat reproduced in books and lecture slides) to multisensory—which directly echoes real-life material appraisals. In other words, first-hand sensory perception of materials, and the aesthetic experiences that result, can be said to be vital in transitioning from acquisition of materials knowledge to nurturing of materials experience. The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas is a tool focused on characterizing the sensory dimension of materials for consideration in a new product design. It was an outcome of doctoral studies at the Politecnico di Milano (Rognoli 2004) and is in use today for the development of materials and design courses and workshops, as well as a stimulus for research studies. The atlas is a collection of charts or tables, which report information in a structured yet flexible manner, without grading or privileging material. The atlas has a purposeful ‘work in progress’ format, rather than a completed entity—intended to grow according to the requirements and experiences of students. At the didactic level, the atlas is an interactive tool used to teach future designers about the existence of a sensory dimension of materials, consisting in tactile and photometric sensations that people perceive because of interaction with (sensorial exploration of) materials. These aspects are divided into top-level parameters (texture and touch for tactile sensations; brilliancy and transparency for photometric sensations), which in turn are divided into qualities (texture: smooth/engraved; touch: warm/cold, soft/hard, light/heavy, sliding/sticky; transparency: transparent, translucent, opaque; brilliancy: gloss/matte) (Rognoli 2010). On the basis of these considerations, four charts—texture, touch, brilliancy and transparency—have been developed for educational activities. These charts illustrate qualities independent of any specific material family. Samples of various materials are utilized to highlight differences between sensorial qualities. The charts provide a thorough illustration of sensorial qualities using a sample of material combined with a simple, concise textual definition (Fig. 4).

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 4 Property explanations and physical samples combined into the Expressive-Sensorial Atlas

The atlas was structured in this way for two reasons. First, the aim was to bring a semblance of order to a topic that is inherently complex, spanning the technical arena of materials engineering and the cognitive arena of human perception. Our experience is that the ‘feel’ of material properties is not a common consideration amongst engineers, yet it is a common reference amongst product and industrial designers. The atlas is structured in a way that promotes development of a common qualitative language to verbalize, share and understand sensorial qualities of materials, thereby strengthening the designer’s vocabulary. The second reason for structuring the atlas as described is related to the desire to create a clear correspondence between phenomenological aspects of materials (perceived sensorial information) and the underlying physical, chemical, mechanical and technological material properties. Such correspondence is regarded as fundamental to design education (Ashby and Johnson 2002; Miodownik 2007). The atlas helps nurture a sense of correspondence, and an ability to translate between material sensations and material properties, which we assert allows students to make more informed and inspired material selection decisions that can simultaneously attend to both product functionality and expression. From this point of view, the Expressive-Sensorial Atlas of materials is at an intersecting point between design and engineering cultures. Using the atlas, students have the opportunity to ‘feel’ the correspondence between phenomenological and technical profiles of materials. The atlas also helps explain discrepancies between subjectivity (of experience) and objectivity (of measurement). Let us describe one exercise with the atlas in detail, as shown in Fig. 5. Accompanying the atlas is a set of eight identically sized material samples (PMMA, PTFE, glass, stainless steel, titanium, aluminium, copper, lead). The samples have markedly different properties and sensorial qualities. Students are asked to rank order the samples from one sensorial extremity to the other: for example, from lightest sample to

123

O. Pedgley et al. Fig. 5 Ranking of material samples based on sensory perception

heaviest; coldest to warmest; softest to hardest. These rankings, based on personal sensation, result in a subjective and qualitative ‘sensorial scale’. Students then compare their sensorial scale with the scale derived from objective material measurements—and in doing so realize that correspondence is not always present. In this way, a powerful technique is offered to demonstrate that there can be differences between what is perceived subjectively and what can be measured objectively. Furthermore, students realise that sensorial ranking completed by their peers is diverse and that as a population, people live in different ‘sensorial universes’ (Le Breton 2006), perceiving sensorial qualities differently. Ultimately, the principal learning outcome is to appreciate that whatever material may be selected for a new design, there will always be a degree of difference regarding the exact aesthetic material experience that people will have, irrespective of its positive or negative association for the perceiver. The atlas approach has recently been extended to new areas, including specific classes of materials (the ‘hand’ of fabrics), manufacturing technologies (laser finishing) and colour properties of materials (Rognoli 2010).

Learning the meanings of materials What we touch, handle, hear, smell (and sometimes taste) when interacting with the materials of a product greatly influences our judgements. The main learning objective of our meanings of materials exercise is to support students in identifying and understanding the main factors that affect people’s attribution of meanings to materials. Students are encouraged to develop second-order understanding—that is, understanding of other people’s understanding of things (Krippendorff 2006)—by conducting an explorative study

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

with intended users in mind. They are supported with a method—meaning driven materials selection (MDMS)—developed by Karana (2009), which helps them not only to collect data for materials selection, but also to analyse the collected data in a systematic way. The ultimate objective of this exercise is for students to design a new product for which materials selection is based on the findings of an explorative user study. Below, we first explain the MDMS method and present the application of the method with an illustrative case. The MDMS method conveys the idea that many meanings can be attributed to many materials, dependent on different products and contexts. MDMS first offers a research approach to explore people’s material–meaning relationships. It then supports designers in applying the results of the conducted research to tangible material properties, which facilitate the attribution of the desired meanings to the materials of a new design. Furthermore, it familiarises designers with key aspects (such as shape, users, manufacturing processes) playing a modulating role in the attribution of meanings to materials (for detailed information see Karana 2009; Karana et al. 2010). To apply the method, a group of people are approached to participate in a study where they are given the following three tasks: (1) select a material embodied in a product (or part thereof) that you think expresses a specified meaning, (2) provide pictures of the material embodied in example products, and (3) explain your choice and evaluate the material on provided sensorial scales.1 From this point, students analyse their results, and based on their findings they select material(s) for their product design. This exercise provides students with the opportunity to explore material–meaning relationships with a pre-defined method and to apply their findings to material selection. Furthermore, after completing the first exercise with the Expressive-Sensorial Atlas, becoming familiar with the sensorial properties of materials and their subjectivity, this second exercise supports students in understanding the interrelationships between sensorial properties and intended meanings and expressions. Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 provide an illustrative case where a student applied the MDMS method to explore the material properties evoking or supporting the meanings modest and provocative (Figs. 6, 7). Analysing the results, the student extracted two meaning evoking patterns (Karana 2012) showing common, conflicting and unique material and product aspects to be considered in the final design of a product (Fig. 8). Her final product design— a plant pot and seed tablets made of ‘coffee waste composite’ (Fig. 9)—demonstrates how she interpreted the results of the study (for an extensive explanation of her work, see Zeeuw van der Laan 2013).

Learning the emotional experience of materials To probe the emotional experience of materials, we developed the exercise Love–Hate Experience of Product Materials. Its intention is to draw students’ attention to the various ways in which people may develop an emotional response to the materials embodied within products, and the subtopics that influence that response. The specific aim of the exercise is to investigate the extent to which people’s emotional experiences of product materials are shared or unique. Students are asked to bring two products to class: one having a material/finish that they especially like (or love) and one that they especially dislike (or hate). The products are collated and then every student in the class appraises 1

After conducting a number of studies, Karana (2009) grouped a set of sensorial properties under different sensory modalities. These properties (such as rough–smooth, opaque–transparent, soft–hard, etc.) together form a ‘scale’ and are promoted as the properties that are more commonly used for attributing meanings to materials.

123

O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 6 Collection of materials (left) and products (right) for ‘provocative’

each of his/her peers’ products on a Likert scale, indicating degrees of liking or disliking the product materials. The activity results in a rich pool of data to explore how material choices affect product perception and emotional experience. The numerical data from the Likert scale gives fascinating insights into preferred and less preferred material–product combinations (Fig. 10), with data that can be statistically analysed and significant results extracted to facilitate student discussion. Accompanying statements of explanation are transcribed onto individual sticky notes and analysed by students to piece together materials storytelling based on interconnections between aesthetic, meaning and emotional experiences. This allows multiple levels and rounds of categorization, helping students learn inter-related concepts.

Discussion and conclusions As a collection, our active learning exercises and associated experiences indicate that if industrial designers are to successfully achieve materials selection for product experience, it may be prudent for them to avoid a classic materials selection process, at least initially. That is, to avoid a hierarchical progression from the family (e.g., plastics) through the generic (e.g., polycarbonate) to the trade-named (e.g., Lexan 104). We say this because part of the remit of industrial design is to open doors, to play with the unusual and untested. This is not for some aimless experimentation, but to serendipitously hit upon a feasible material family or more specific material (and by implication finishes and shaping processes) that might just revolutionize a product sector or at very least provide an exciting new opportunity to differentiate a product from its competitors.

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 7 Collection of materials (left) and products (right) for ‘modest’

So, rather than undertake an impersonal materials selection process, the student industrial designer might be better encouraged to start out on a personal materials inspiration journey. This would constitute conscious hunts or subconscious encounters with existing materials that may be common or unusual to a product sector, to help set material and product design directions that can meet defined user experience goals. Materials selection as a phrase implies that much design thinking has already occurred prior to engaging with materials decisions, rather like a realization route for a worked-out plan. In contrast, materials inspiration implies material thoughts that occur synchronously with design ideation and which to some extent permit a material to ‘lead the way’ with regard to form-giving and possible user experiences. Of course, we must be cautious to emphasize that what we are promoting here is a shift in emphasis of material-related activities within industrial design projects. Especially further downstream in new product development, engineering and technically oriented selection methods are of increasing relevance. So we foresee as ideal the phasing of materials inspiration into materials selection through the progression of a design project. If we scan across the active learning exercises and initiatives outlined in this paper, we can identify common points that together define what is undoubtedly a challenging educational approach necessary to nurture student designers’ materials experience. • User research to uncover material values and experiential dimensions • Integration of materials selection from pragmatic and hedonic perspectives

123

O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 8 Meaning evoking patterns for ‘modest’ (top) and ‘provocative’ (bottom) (Karana et al., in press)

Fig. 9 Final product through MDMS method: pot and tablets

• Development of utilitarian and affective materials judgement • Familiarity with the sensorial-expressive language of materials • Learning by touching and feeling materials

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 10 Results of peer-reviewed products based on material–product combinations

Fig. 11 Dual language of materials supporting sensorial and numerical design decision-making

• Learning by designing and making with materials • Material and design critiques of existing products One point that resonates throughout the examples and arguments presented in the paper is the need to promote to students a complementary ‘dual language of materials’ that develops a correspondence between sensed material characteristics and measured material properties (Fig. 11). Such duality, we say, will help students navigate between sensorial and numerical decision-making and, hence, will broaden their vocabulary to engage in material discussions with a wide variety of product design stakeholders.

123

O. Pedgley et al.

In Pedgley’s (1999, p. 322) doctoral work, interviewed designers stated that ideally there should be no boundary to materials-related knowledge and that designers ‘‘should know as much as possible’’ and ‘‘could not have enough’’ materials knowledge. On reflection, and tempered by practical reality, such a position is not obtainable within the confines of university education. Even as a professional, a designer cannot hope to know about ‘all’ materials and processes, and know what ‘every’ product is made from and how. One of our responsibilities as educators is to demarcate what should be core course content, what can be optional and on the periphery, and what is better left for ‘on-the-job’ training. We consider the issues raised in this paper to have sufficient gravity to redefine the core of materials and design education for industrial designers. To conclude, our arguments and practical exercises have sought to shift materials teaching away from a predominantly technical subject to one that has product experience at its core. The new landscape for materials and design education that we are helping to construct can be characterized as follows. • Founded on a user–product interaction model People interact with materials through their embodiment in products; by adopting a user–product interaction model for defining product experience, materials teaching and learning can be achieved in a holistic, relevant and energizing manner. • Based on experiential evidence and rationale People’s experiences of materials are both shared and individual. To cope with this complexity, new materials selection methodologies and tools will continue to develop, aiming to bring designers and design students an evidence base on which they can design for product expression and aesthetics beyond personal intuition and idiosyncratic methods. Peer involvement in material appraisals is a good starting point; however, even better is the involvement of a sample of people from target/specialist user groups—this has already been implemented in the case of the MDMS method. • Contextually complex Simple causative or one-to-one relationships between materials, products, sensorial experiences, meaning attribution and emotional responses do not exist. Effective teaching and learning in this area must expose students to the complexity of contextual issues, whilst emphasising that with complexity comes richness in diversity and novelty. We should also not forget that materials are just a starting point for the creation of products. Shaping and finishing processes, alongside production issues and temporal effects, all influence materials experience and should necessarily be introduced into teaching and learning. For the work presented in this paper, in informal discussions, students expressed their satisfaction in being led through a new door into the materials world. They appreciated the combination of experiential learning and second-order understanding in developing a user-centred perspective on materials and design. The active learning exercises were seen as engaging, inspirational and informative and, crucially for us, effective in bridging the divide between ‘knowledge about’ and ‘experience in’ materials. Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Bahar Sener-Pedgley for her meticulous preparation of several figures appearing in this paper.

123

Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

References Akın, F., & Pedgley, O. (2015). Sample libraries to expedite materials experience for design: A survey of global provision. Materials and Design,. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.04.045. Ashby, M. (2010). Materials selection in mechanical design (4th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann. Ashby, M., & Johnson, K. (2002). Materials and design: The art and science of materials selection in product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann. Ashby, M., Shercliff, H., & Cebon, D. (2013). Materials: Engineering, science, processing and design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann. Felder R., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4). Budinski, K., & Budinski, M. (2009). Engineering materials, properties and selection. London: PrenticeHall. Dent, A., & Sherr, L. (2014). Material innovation: Product design. London: Thames & Hudson. Granta Design. (2014). CES Edupack 2014. http://www.grantadesign.com/education/edupack/edupack2014. htm. Accessed 20 June 2014. Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. San Francisco: Morgan & Claypool. Howes, P., & Laughlin, Z. (2012). Material matters: New materials in design. London: Black Dog Publishing. Itten, J. (1963). Design and form. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Jee, D., & Kang, K. (2001). A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory. Materials and Design, 21(3), 199–206. Karana, E. (2009). Meanings of materials. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Karana, E. (2011). Materials selection in design: From research to education. 1st International symposium for design education researchers. Cumulus Association/DRS, Paris. Karana, E. (2012). Characterization of ‘natural’ and ‘high-quality’ materials to improve perception of bioplastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 316–325. Karana, E, Barati, B., Rognoli, V, Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (in press). Material driven design (MDD): A method to design for material experiences. International Journal of Design. Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2010). A tool for meaning driven materials selection. Materials and Design, 31, 2932–2941. Karana, E., Pedgley, O., & Rognoli, V. (2014). Materials experience: Fundamentals of materials and design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Karana, E., Pedgley, O., & Rognoli, V. (2015). On materials experience. Design Issues, 31(3), 16–27. Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis CRC Press. Le Breton, D. (2006). La saveur du monde - une anthropologie des sens. Paris: E´ditions Me´tailie´. Lefteri, C. (2014). Materials for design. London: Laurence King. McDonagh-Philp, D., & Lebbon, C. (2000). The emotional domain in product design. The Design Journal, 3(3), 31–43. Miodownik, M. (2007). Toward designing new sensoaesthetic materials. Pure and Applied Chemistry, 79(10), 1635–1641. Pedgley, O. (1999). Industrial designers’ attention to materials and manufacturing processes: Analyses at macroscopic and microscopic levels. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University. Pedgley, O. (2009). Influence of stakeholders on industrial design materials and manufacturing selection. International Journal of Design, 3(1), 1–15. Pedgley, O. (2010). Special file: Futures for materials and industrial design education. METU Journal of The Faculty of Architecture, 27(2), 265–269. Pedgley, O. (2014). Materials selection for product experience: New thinking, new tools. In E. Karana, O. Pedgley, & V. Rognoli (Eds.), Materials experience: Fundamentals of materials and design (pp. 337–349). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann. Rognoli, V. (2004). The expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for design. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Design, Politecnico di Milano. Rognoli, V. (2010). A broad survey on expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for design education. METU Journal of The Faculty of Architecture, 27(2), 287–300. Rognoli V., & Levi M. (2004). How, what and where is it possible to learn design materials? The Changing Face of Design Education. 2–3 September, Delft, 1–8. ISBN/ISSN:90-5155-020.

123

O. Pedgley et al. Sapuan, S. (2010). A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design. Materials and Design, 22(8), 687–695. Schifferstein, H., & Wastiels, L. (2014). Sensing materials: Exploring the building blocks for experiential design. In E. Karana, O. Pedgley, & V. Rognoli (Eds.), Materials experience: Fundamentals of materials and design (pp. 15–26). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann. Trimingham, R. (2008). The role of values in design decision-making in design and technology education. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(2), 37–52. University of Liverpool. (2014). CORE-materials. http://core.materials.ac.uk. Accessed 15 May 2014. van Kesteren, I. (2008). Selecting materials in product design. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology. Wick, R. (2000). Teaching at the Bauhaus. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz. Wilkes, S., Wongsriruksa, S., Howes, P., Gamester, R., Witchel, H., Conreen, M., et al. (2015). Design tools for interdisciplinary translation of material experiences. Materials and Design,. doi:10.1016/j.matdes. 2015.04.013. Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (2013). Characterization of waste coffee grounds as a design material. MSc thesis, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology.

123