Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-fg9bn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-24T07:54:00.172Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DIMENSIONS OF MULTIDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION: A COMPARATIVE LITERATURE REVIEW WITHIN DESIGN CONTEXT

Part of: Design Innovation, Information and Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

Q. T. Nguyen  and
C. Mougenot
Q. T. Nguyen*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
C. Mougenot
Affiliation:
Imperial College London, United Kingdom
*
*m.nguyen@imperial.ac.uk

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In this paper, we review empirical studies of multidisciplinary collaboration in design and innovation activities. From 200 papers, we selected 17 for a meta-synthesis review. When revisited and compared, they present common themes and dichotomy in findings. This literature review discusses such diversity, offering a methodological critique of unclear areas. Four emerged themes were identified: (1) Knowledge diversity, (2) Trust, (3) Barrier and (4) Jargon and communication, providing perspectives for further research on how online collaboration will influence multidisciplinary team processes.

Keywords

multi-/cross-/trans-disciplinary approachesteamworkcollaborative design

Information

Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1335 - 1344
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Adams, R. et al. (2009), “Exploring the boundaries: Language, roles and structures in cross-disciplinary design teams”, About: Designing - Analysing Design Meetings, No. January.Google Scholar
Amabile, T.M. (1988), “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 123–167.Google Scholar
Awomolo, O. et al. (2017), “Communication and Design Decisions in Cross-Functional Teams”, Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, CRC Press, pp. 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. and Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994), Designing Engineers, MIT press.Google Scholar
Cash, P., Škec, S. and Štorga, M. (2019), “The dynamics of design: exploring heterogeneity in meso-scale team processes”, Design Studies. available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2019.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, B.C.K. and Pak, A.W.P. (2006), “Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness”, Clinical and Investigative Medicine, Canadian Society for Clinical Investigation, Vol. 29 No. 6, p. 351.Google ScholarPubMed
Christensen, B.T., Ball, L.J. and Halskov, K. (2017), Analysing Design Thinking: Studies of Cross-Cultural Co-Creation, CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'souza, N. and Dastmalchi, M.R. (2016), “Creativity on the move: Exploring little-c (p) and big-C (p) creative events within a multidisciplinary design team process”, Design Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 6–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Souza, N. and Reza, M. (2017), “‘Comfy’ Cars for the ‘Awesomely Humble’: Exploring Slang and Jargons in a Cross-Cultural Design Proces”.Google Scholar
Dong, A. (2005), “The latent semantic approach to studying design team communication”, Elsevier BV, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 445–461.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, S.E. (2004), “The five-stage model of adult skill acquisition”, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, Sage Publications, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Eck, N.J. and Waltman, L. (2011), “Text mining and visualization using VOSviewer”, ArXiv Preprint ArXiv, Vol. 1109, p. 2058.Google Scholar
Feast, L. (2012), “Professional perspectives on collaborative design work”, Vol. 0882, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2012.734828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilrane, V. (2019), “Working together when we're not together”, April.Google Scholar
Gloor, P.A. et al. (2012), “Measuring social capital in creative teams through sociometric sensors”, International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering Inderscience Publishers Ltd, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 380–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (1995), “The designer as a team of one”, Design Studies, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 189–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haines-Gadd, M. et al. (2015), “Cut the crap; design brief to pre-production in eight weeks: Rapid development of an urban emergency low-tech toilet for Oxfam”, Design Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 246–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewlett, S.A., Marshall, M. and Sherbin, L. (2013), “How diversity can drive innovation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91 No. 12, p. 30.Google Scholar
Hu, Y., Li, Y. and Du, X. (2017), “Thinking in Interdisciplinary Design Teams Based on Workshop”, pp. 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jutraz, A. and Zupancic, T. (2017), “The Role of Architect in Interdisciplinary Collaborative Design Studios”, No. October 2014. available at: https://doi.org/10.15292/IU-CG.2014.02.034-042CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasali, A. and Nersessian, N.J. (2015), “Architects in interdisciplinary contexts: Representational practices in healthcare design”, Design Studies, Elsevier Ltd., Vol. 41 No. 156, pp. 205–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinsmann, M. and Lugt, R.V.D. (2007), “Design Games for Simulating Design Communication”, International Conference on Engineering Design, No. August, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M. and Valkenburg, R. (2008), “Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects”, Design Studies, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kokotovich, V. and Dorst, K. (2016), “The art of ‘stepping back’: Studying levels of abstraction in a diverse design team”, Design Studies, Vol. 46, pp. 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mcdonnell, J. (2009), “Collaborative negotiation in design: A study of design conversations between architect and building users”, Informa UK Limited, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 35–50.Google Scholar
Moher, D. et al. (2009), “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (Reprinted from Annals of Internal Medicine)”, Physical Therapy, Vol. 89 No. 9, pp. 873–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ringel, M. (2019), “The Rise of AI, Platforms, and Ecosystems”, The Most Innovative Companies, Vol. 2019Google Scholar
Robson, C. and McCartan, K. (2016), Real World Research, Wiley.Google Scholar
Sheppard, B. et al. (2018), “The Business Value of Design”, McKinsey Quarterly, p. 16.Google Scholar
Sonnenwald, D.H. (1996), “Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process”, Design Studies, Elsevier BV, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, J. et al. (2001), “Mapping the conceptual design activity of interdisciplinary teams”, Vol. 22, pp. 211–232.Google Scholar
Stempfle, J. and Badke-schaub, P. (2002), “Analysis of team communication”, Vol. 23, pp. 473–496.Google Scholar
U.S. Congress. (1988), United States Code: Support and Scholarship in Humanities and Arts; Museum Services, 20 U.S.C. §§ 951-968, Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives. available at: https://www.loc.gov/item/uscode1988-008020026/Google Scholar
Wang, J.K. et al. (2018), “Institutionalizing healthcare hackathons to promote diversity in collaboration in medicine”, BMC Medical Education, Springer Nature, Vol. 18 No. 1, available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1385-x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasiak, J. et al. (2010), “Understanding engineering email: the development of a taxonomy for identifying and classifying engineering work”, Research in Engineering Design, Springer, Vol. 21 No. 1, p. 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Q. et al. (2019), “Sketching NLP: A Case Study of Exploring the Right Things To Design with Language Intelligence”, Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 185.Google Scholar
Zhang, X., Gloor, P.A. and Grippa, F. (2013), “Measuring creative performance of teams through dynamic semantic social network analysis”, International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, Vol. 3 No. 2, p. 165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zolin, R. et al. (2004), “Interpersonal trust in cross-functional, geographically distributed work : A longitudinal study”, Vol. 14, pp. 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar