1
“What do you mean?”
Exploring Interdisciplinary Frictions when Designing for Longevity
Elisa Cardamone
Advanced Care Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Yoni Lefévre
LUCA School of Arts, KU Leuven, Genk, Belgium & Edinburgh College of Art, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
United Kingdom
With a projected global population of 2.1 billion individuals aged 60 and older by
2050, there is an imperative to explore the implications of living longer and how
to design solutions that support individuals’ well-being and promote
independence. In this context, interdisciplinary collaborations, by bringing
together different forms of expertise, can provide creative and effective solutions.
However, the complexities of working in synergy with others are rarely
discussed. Drawing from our experiences as early academic researchers, we delve
into the nuances of interdisciplinary design research for an ageing population.
Through autoethnographic dialogues between the authors and semi-structured
interviews with professionals from various disciplines, we uncover and discuss
frictions inherent in interdisciplinary collaborations. Our findings reveal tensions
surrounding data interpretation, ontological and epistemological beliefs,
evaluation of project outcomes, and ethical considerations. We propose an initial
framework to navigate these frictions constructively, fostering dialogue and
understanding among team members. By prioritising lived experiences and
reflexivity, our work contributes practical insights for interdisciplinary
2
collaboration in designing for longevity, offering a lens into the complexities and
opportunities of navigating disciplinary boundaries.
Keywords: ageing, interdisciplinarity, friction, autoethnography
Introduction
November 12th, 2023
Today, I, Yoni Lefévre, a design researcher [author 2], was visiting Elisa Cardamone, a
medical anthropologist [author 1], a fellow PhD student. While we sat on her loafing light-
grey couch, chatting, on the coffee table next to me, I saw a book: Design Anthropology:
Theory and Practice (Gunn, et al., 2013). It was the same book I had just finished reading!
[Author 1] She immediately asked me what she thought of it. I told her that I was hoping to
understand further how researchers had been collaborating across the two disciplines. Later,
between a bite of lasagne and some white wine, we talked about design theories and
anthropological understandings of ageing, experiences of working with researchers from
other disciplines and various challenges. “We should do this again. Meet and talk more about
these interdisciplinary frictions,” she said. “Yes, we could even write an article about it.
There must be others experiencing the same thing,” I replied.
With a projected 2.1 billion people worldwide reaching the age of 60 and older by
2050 (WHO, 2022), in addition to new treatments and earlier identification of diseases
increasing individuals’ longevity, there is an urgent need to explore the complexities of living
longer, designing products and services for older adults that support their well-being and
quality of life (Merkel & Kucharski, 2019; Soto et al., 2022; Aigner-Walder et al., 2023).
With the advent of COVID-19 and digitisation becoming ubiquitous, new opportunities and
challenges have also arisen across all sectors, including inequalities in health and social care,
3
transport and mobility needs, and housing, requiring solutions that extend beyond single
fields of knowledge (Peine et al., 2021). New interdisciplinary frameworks and approaches
such as Socio-Gerontechnology (Peine et al., 2022) and Design for Longevity (D4L, Lee et
al., 2024) are now emerging at the intersection of different knowledge terrains (Carstensen,
2011; Lee et al., 2023), aiming to identify new design opportunities for products and services
that “allow people to thrive across their entire lifespan in the context of transforming age
demographics” (Lee et al., 2024; Marcelino et al., 2015; Rivero, 2018).
More recently, design for longevity (D4L) has been successfully translated and
applied to other fields, such as financial planning, business strategies, the built environment,
and social health (Lee et al., 2024; Manchester & Jarke, 2022; Engelen et al., 2022; Peine &
Neven, 2019; Marcelino et al., 2015; Coughlin, 2009; Wright, 2004; Lehrer, 2012; Hansson,
1999). In parallel, scholars across socio-gerontechnology have defined “longevity science
[as] a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach to resolving difficulties and questions posed
by a scenario in which most people […] live decades beyond the touchpoint of sixty-five”
(Carstensen, 2011. p. 186) requiring the design of solutions from different perspectives.
However, interdisciplinary work is rarely easy, and issues around diverging ethical,
methodological, ontological, and epistemological views often arise (Dusdal & Powell, 2021;
Klein, 2021; Specht & Crowston, 2022; Borgman, 2012; Bracken & Oughton, 2006), with
some scholars arguing that “effective collaboration across disciplinary or national boundaries
does not result from simply putting people together in a room and shutting the door”
(Panagiotidou et al., 2022: p. 2). Existing interdisciplinary frameworks to facilitate this kind
of work include: sets of questions to consider the benefits, motivations, and challenges of
international collaborative research (Dusdal & Powell, 2021), a research model encompassing
inputs (e.g., gender), mediators (e.g., cited publications), and outputs (e.g., personal
satisfaction) (Specht & Crowston, 2022), and a list of principles for synergistic
4
communication across science, design, and art (Ellison & Buckley Border, 2022). However,
how researchers negotiate differing views, epistemological and methodological beliefs, and
even cultural norms in design research for longevity is yet to be investigated.
Therefore, starting from the idea that bringing diverse perspectives in design practice
for longevity can be an opportunity to spur creativity and craft innovative, holistic solutions
to the challenges faced by the ageing population and that design for longevity (D4L) as a lens
can guide us in designing across multiple domains of life such as health, education,
investment, and community, we ask: how can we navigate ethical, epistemological,
ontological, and methodological differences productively, moving the design research project
forward?
To address this question, first, we embarked on a series of autoethnographic
interviews to explore our backgrounds, views on ageing, and expectations for design’s future
role. Then, we conducted semi-structured interviews with four experts from different
disciplines (Design Innovation, Public Health, Geriatric Medicine, and Industrial Design),
discussing the productive potential of friction in shaping innovative outcomes. Lastly,
building on our discussion of frictions and existing research on collaborative studies (Ellison
& Buckley Borden, 2022; Specht & Crowston, 2022; Dusdal & Powell, 2021), we developed
a framework with questions for navigating such frictions constructively.
Informed by a phenomenological perspective (Blackwell et al., 2009), our work
prioritises lived experiences to contribute practical insights for interdisciplinary collaboration
in design research for ageing populations. Suchman (2011, p. 15) has already argued for the
importance of revealing the curiosities and conflicts by “articulating the tricky politics of
friction (as) a continuing and integral aspect of engagement”. It is these very situations and
their frames that our work engages with.
5
Methodology
Our main concern was to record and analyse how researchers from different fields negotiate a
shared analytic framework to carry out design research projects that support people in living
long, healthy, and independent lives. Since we, the authors, are embedded in this research
ourselves and inquire into the everyday experiences of other researchers, we have adopted a
phenomenological, autoethnographic approach (Anderson, 2006; Wall, 2016; Poulos, 2021,
p. 4; Müller, 2021). By valuing knowledge generated through personal experience and self-
reflexivity (Ellis et al., 2010), autoethnography invites us to look inward, evaluating and
observing the effects of our practice, opening up a new space for learning in the design
research process (Schön, 1983). Although autoethnography is a subjective, first-person-based
methodology (Anderson, 2006; Wall, 2016), we believe that it represents a valuable tool to
unravel and make sense of our and others’ lived experiences, uncovering forms of implicit,
undatafied knowledge that often remains invisible in the design research process (Munro,
2011; Schouwenberg & Kaethler, 2021). Additionally, when triangulated with expert
interviews, autoethnography can be an innovative qualitative interview approach to
investigate implicit forms of expert knowledge, merging a theory-generating expert interview
with a problem-centred view, offering a dialogic procedure to investigate individual
perspectives and how they “affect [design] practices in a field of action” (Döringer, 2020,
p.1). See Figure 1 for an overview of the research steps.
6
Figure 1. The research process and steps for identifying key frictions in design for longevity. ©Illustration by
the authors.
Recruitment
The expert interviews aimed to understand how different frictions are experienced in
interdisciplinary teams (Table 1). Four participants were recruited through the authors’
academic and professional networks. They were chosen based on their backgrounds to add a
different contextual lens to the framework, building further on the author’s profiles. All
experts were invited and informed via email on the project’s aim—discussing a potential
framework for interdisciplinary frictions—and were asked to sign a consent form before the
interviews, agreeing to their voluntary participation. The discussion guide and consent form
of the expert interviews are documented in the Appendix.
7
Gender, age, nationality
Background and work context
Expert 1
Female, 30-40, UK
Anthropology, design innovation, industry
Expert 2
Female, 40-50, UK
Policy making, public health, education
Expert 3
Female, 50-60, UK
Geriatric medicine, clinical research, teaching
Expert 4
Male, 30-40, AU
Industrial design, ageing, academic research
Author 1
Female, 20-30, IT
Medical anthropology, ageing, technology
Author 2
Female, 30-40, NL
Participatory design, design research, ageism
Table 1. Demographics of participants and authors.
Research Method and Process
We first organised four two-hour-long autoethnographic dialogues between us, which took
place in a mix of online and in-person settings. The conversations were a preliminary
exploration of our respective research fields (design and anthropology), and we used them to
unpack methodological, epistemological, and ontological differences. This helped us sketch
an initial framework that could serve as a starting point to unravel such implicit frictions in
other interdisciplinary research environments through expert interviews.
Following the autoethnographic conversations, we organised four 40-minute long,
online, semi-structured interviews with experts. Our aim was to critically discuss in what
ways the identified frictions could be relevant for others when designing for longevity. Thus,
we worked on a pre-determined set of open questions, looking to understand people’s
motivations, values, and personal experiences (Lee et al., 2023). The interviews were
structured in three parts:
(1) Introductory questions: “From which perspective are you looking at ageing? How
would you describe your own discipline, and why do you think it is important [in the
context of longevity]?”
(2) Presentation of the initial framework through Miro—an online whiteboard (Figure
2)—and follow-up questions: “How did you discuss disciplinary differences relating
8
to ethical concerns and researchers’ positionality? Were there any conflicting
expectations from other disciplines about deliverables, outputs, or implementation?”
(3) Final reflection: “In what way would a framework that explicitly looks at frictions
contribute to your interdisciplinary work or practice?”
Figure 2. The initial framework shared during the expert interviews through Miro, concerning frictions around
positionality, interdisciplinary collaborations, and output. ©Illustration by the authors.
Analysis and Synthesis
The online interviews, both between the authors and with the experts, were automatically
transcribed using Microsoft Teams. Following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis,
we coded the autoethnographic dialogues separately, compared them to each other, creating
clusters of emerging topics in Miro, and drawing connections through iterative rounds. Data
analysis softwares, NVivo and Atlas.ti, were used to code and generate an initial TreeMap to
cross-compare emerging themes (Figure 3 & 4). One of us noticed a whole set of implicit
frictions—apparently tangential moments, exclamations, and comments in the conversation—
besides the originally defined themes of positionality, outputs, and temporality, in which we
9
disclosed different interpretations of the same data. Through further dialogues, additional
codes such as reflexivity emerged as part of positionality, and research approach and
interdisciplinarity as part of explicit frictions.
Figure 3. Tree Map generated on NVivo by author 1 to visualise and cross-compare codes.
Figure 4. Tree map generated on Atlas.ti by author 2 and added post-its in Miro to understand key differences
We then started visualising the interdisciplinary frictions on a double-diamond
timeline, generally used in design research processes (Figure 5). This allowed us to identify
possible key frictions along the different stages of the design research project.
10
Figure 5. Understanding interdisciplinary friction between author 1 and author 2, based on the double diamond
developed by The Design Council (2004).
Through further dialogues between the authors, we proposed an initial framework,
looking at frictions across different stages of a design research process. We discussed this
with participants during the expert interviews. Afterwards, the framework was refined based
on a second round of coding and analysis of the expert interviews (Table 1).
Code
Identify tensions
Understanding
own limitations
Language
barriers
Table 1. Example of codes used to analyse the semi-structured expert interviews.
11
Limitations
This work presents limitations based on personal experiences and realities, mainly reflecting
views of design, health, and care for an ageing population in the Global North. This impacted
the interpretation of the findings while potentially limiting their applicability to different
communities. Importantly, we acknowledge the existence of other beliefs and practices
around design, care, and longevity and encourage research considering other socio-technical
systems and contexts, which might present very different ontologies and epistemologies.
Moreover, for clarity, we have referred to participants in this text by their discipline,
oversimplifying their individual traits and possibly their knowledge areas.
Autoethnography as a methodology has also been critiqued as individualised and self-
absorbed (Anderson 2006; Atkinson 2006). However, we see autoethnography’s unruliness,
playfulness, and creativity as opening up a fertile space to record and assess struggles,
passions, lived experiences, and the collaborative sense-making in which we take part when
working in design for longevity (Ellis & Bochner, 2006). A salve to social scientific
criticism, autoethnographic conversations also offer a methodological space for value
frictions to co-exist or to be negotiated. Beyond its function as a tool for self-reflection,
autoethnography also worked as a tool for methodological enjoyability. We genuinely
enjoyed the process and found that autoethnography could be a social, cultural, and political
lubricant when discussing ageing, care, and design interventions, allowing ideas to flow into
fruitful and unexpected co-production relations.
Results
In conversation with different experts, we identified four main frictions that shape the
ideation, development, and implementation of design research projects. Each of the frictions
is discussed in the subsections below.
12
Friction 1: All researchers hold different views on ageing. How these influences
ontological and epistemological approaches and decision making in the design process
needs to be explored.
“How interesting that everybody starts with their personal story. Like there’s no other
[instance] where somebody will go [...] you know, ‘my brother has had a heart attack and
so I understand, or my sister-in-law has diabetes.’ [...] Everybody has a perspective on
[ageing]”.
With these words, a geriatrician shared with us why ageing would be different than
any other field of study: because it is almost impossible to research it without having a
preconceived idea of what it means to grow older. In other words, as researchers we never
come into a project as a tabula rasa but rather, we carry with us a baggage of experiences and
views that will influence how we make decisions.
Besides, working in a specific discipline or sector means having consolidated a set
of approaches to work with and ideas of who should be involved in creating knowledge – for
example survey research versus ethnography or workshops. Chances are that we often take
for granted those very ideas and views. It is when “brushing off” others, as it happens in
interdisciplinary research, that these assumptions are disclosed to us, coming to the forefront
of the design table.
Negotiating different ontological and epistemological positions with others to
establish what ageing “well” means, who to include in a design research project, how to
engage them, what data is relevant, and what defines impact, is not easy. Some of our experts
mentioned that interdisciplinary work is a process of constant learning by acknowledging
their own limitations and valuing the richness of the work when combined with other
disciplines to create meaningful change: “I think design is a method for change. It really felt
like I’m being given a framework to do what I wanted to do.”
13
However, this process also implicates designers and researchers being confronted
with unfamiliar approaches, methods, and vocabularies, requiring some guidance in
navigating new research domains, as two experts share:
“I really struggle with some of the verbose language that you encounter in qualitative
research. […] It immediately becomes alienating to decision makers, to the general
public, and to the people who really need to hear it and act on it.”
“I mean, there are challenges, but there are positives and we do need to think about the
converse of the frictions, which are the facilitators and the positives of working in
teams.”
Thus, even if navigating different views on ageing and what methods to employ is not
always a straightforward process, by engaging in dialogues with openness and reflexivity,
interdisciplinary teams can navigate differences, converging in the same direction.
Friction 2: How we generate, organise, interpret, and share data changes across
disciplines. Finding a common ground on how to use it can promote creative solutions.
What we think of as data, how we generate it, organise it, make sense of it, and share it vary
across disciplines. This became evident as soon as we looked at each other’s coding practices.
While author 2 as a designer coded explicitly articulated frictions, such as one of us stating “I
feel limited in my own discipline”, author 1 as an anthropologist underlined the implicit ones,
those that did not appear in the text but could be extrapolated from exclamations and long
pauses: “Mmm…I see…”. Furthermore, what data we have will impact the approach we take
in a project. Author 2 as a designer had a solution-oriented approach, seeking to address the
explicit frictions and challenges she identified. On the other end, author 1 emphasised how
implicit frictions could supersede our conversation, getting entangled with broader discourses
on personal values, motivations, and ethics—as such, they should not be ‘solved’ but
explored. If left unpacked, these differences in how we generate, interpret, and use data can
14
become disagreements, instances of miscommunication between colleagues, and hierarchical
views within a team of what data is trustworthy and relevant.
When talking to expert 1, a service designer, it became clear that finding common
ground for generating and using data in design research projects is not only essential but can
also promote creative solutions:
“Sometimes I get lost in my data and I really do make it incredibly complicated. When I
worked with designers, I was always in awe, and I really learned that skill of pulling
back from [the data]. No matter how complicated, no matter how paralysing, […]
[designers] will just make something out of it.”
Another expert highlighted that a certain degree of curiosity and flexibility towards
data is needed: “[One needs to] appreciate that through the process things will have to
change. So, [you should] be flexible to what the data shows and what use you can make of
it.”
Therefore, while different approaches to data interpretation across disciplines might
pose challenges to teams with experts from different fields, establishing a shared
understanding of how data will be collected, analysed, and communicated can allow teams to
come up with innovative insights and solutions which are the result of a unique data synthesis
process.
Friction 3: Ethical considerations when engaging communities look different across
disciplines but are also deeply personal.
Including human participants is not a standard practice across all disciplines. When it is,
engaging older adults raises questions about ethics and researchers’ positionality.
Anthropologists, for example, immerse themselves in communities for months or years while
designers engage with people for shorter amounts of time through workshops, cultural
probes, or interviews. Embedding oneself in a care home or a palliative care ward arguably
15
exposes the researcher to very different situations and conversations than meeting older
adults who are living independently during a workshop or a feasibility study. What we see
and hear in these contexts varies, and so does our personal ethical and moral stance to report
it or leave it, to ask more questions or to change the topic: “There’s an issue about excluding
[older] people from studies because it’s seen as complicated and difficult and therefore, we
only do research with the people for whom it seems to be easy.”
Design as a discipline also has an aptitude for intervening, entering spaces with
predefined ideas and activities tailored to achieve a specific purpose. Thus, it stimulates
participants it invites them to leave their space and share, rethink, and probe back.
Anthropologists prefer to recede in the background, observing and not intervening. They
want to understand what people would routinely do – they should not act differently because
a researcher is in the house or is going grocery shopping with them. Undoubtedly, both
approaches are charged with various ethical implications and bear the potential of disrupting
older adults’ privacy, sense of safety, and emotional state. Accordingly, what is ethical,
considerate, and appropriate needs to be discussed among interdisciplinary teams:
“I think anthropologists at least try to meet people where they are ... and that’s the bit
they want to know about. Whereas designers are maybe more inclined to take people out
of their comfort and put them into some form of creative workshop or like a different
space and let them engage and make things [...]. I think a lot of it is because designers
don’t have time and are not trained to jump into a context, explore it [in depth] like an
anthropologist.”
Most importantly, ethical concerns supersede disciplinary boundaries, tapping into
our own moral and ethical compass:
I’m thinking how I can have this conversation with someone: ‘I’m interested in you
because you’re over 50 but looking at where you live and your financial background,
you’re probably not gonna see 70,’ like that is a hard conversation.
16
Therefore, teams should discuss notions of positionality, ethics, vulnerability, and
resilience, reflecting on their responsibility to conduct research that will positively impact the
life of the people they are designing for.
Friction 4: How we evaluate project and design outcomes says a lot about whose lived
experience we value most.
What constitutes an output, our expectations around deliverables, and how we should
communicate our work to different audiences were some questions we first explored during
our autoethnographic dialogues. Designers possess skills to present their work in visually
creative and appealing formats. Sometimes, their output is a product or service. Other times,
it consists of a website, an exhibition, or other designed interventions. In anthropology, an
output often takes the shape of a report, a documentary, or a book. While exploring these
differences and asking each other how we know whether we have done well, we noticed a
particular tension between our disciplines about the notions of success and failure:
Author 2: So, your project can never fail?
Author 1: Yeah, not really.
Author 2: I think within design, there’s definitely a view of that we can fail. Because it’s
so solution-oriented (in industry) ...if it doesn’t work, we fail.
The pressure to perform well, to produce something that will work, can create friction
within interdisciplinary project teams, causing researchers to disagree on how long a
deployment should take or how many usability tests are feasible. Other outputs, such as
publications, can also vary in structure and content across disciplines. Tight budgets, limited
timeframes to deliver results, and rotation of team members bring additional pressures and
raise questions on how to keep producing excellent work while safeguarding data’s quality
and analysis in addition to team cohesion. When an expert was asked about the discrepancy
between best practice and constraints on timeframes and budgets, she mentioned that
17
investing time in the initial project set-up eventually translates into better team performances
and project outcomes:
“I think the set-up is really important and often timelines are tight, money is tight…And
it is not really considered important to have a well performing team that actually has a
healthy tension between the different disciplines or it’s an assumption that it just happens
anyway[...]. There’s very little actual guidance around understandings of time, set up,
and purpose.”
Nevertheless, another expert argued that teams should be allowed to fail and
complicated this dichotomy further:
“You must be able to fail, you should be able to fail... Sometimes it’s actually very
helpful to fail because we learn from it. […] I don’t know how much it matters you
know; we are talking about binary stuff but I don’t think that’s particularly structured by
disciplinary conversations. [Failure and success] are more about the values that you’re
bringing into it. And that’s important, I would like to be quite pluralistic about it.”
Therefore, while we often measure design outcomes based on briefs and pre-written
guidelines, we should instead open the conversation and consider whose lived experience we
are privileging in this process. If we are to design something that can be translated into the
lives of the people around us, “creating opportunities for others to flourish”, what we need is
a framework that assesses the impact of a project based on a plurality of voices, especially
those who are often marginalised.
Discussion
The findings of this study underscore the importance of interdisciplinary work in design,
bridging notions of technology, well-being, and sustainability to address the complex
challenges of living longer (Manchester & Jarke, 2022; Engelen, et al., 2022; Peine & Neven,
18
2019; Wright, 2004; Panagiotidou et al., 2022).
Through the identification and critical discussion of key frictions when designing for
longevity, such as divergent approaches in data interpretation and ethical considerations, we
have highlighted the importance of open communication, curiosity, and reflexivity in
navigating disciplinary boundaries while getting attuned to others and their perspectives.
Thus, one of the key contributions of our paper is offering insights into the lived
experience of interdisciplinary research collaborations. By prioritising the voices and
perspectives of different professionals, we provide valuable reflections on the challenges and
opportunities of designing for the ageing population. An autoethnographic approach, as we
have demonstrated, also allows for a deeper exploration of how personal experiences and
perceptions intersect decision-making in research projects while allowing divergent
perspectives to co-exist and be negotiated. Reflexivity and auto-ethnography in design are not
new, as they developed from a reflection-in-action practice (Schön, 1983; Schouwenberg and
Kaethler, 2021). What we are arguing is that they deserve more attention as 1) they allow
undatafied instances of the research process to be revealed and critically discussed, 2) they
invited us to reflect on our praxis and scientifically disciplined process of inquiry, 3) they
made this process genuinely enjoyable and, therefore, fruitful.
As a result of these conversations, we propose a set of questions that we see as a
supporting structure for interdisciplinary teams to navigate frictions together, ultimately
supporting the realisation of new design products and services for longevity across various
fields (Table 2). Our framework proposes a synthesis of models (see p. 26-27), encapsulating
notions of data, epistemology, ontology, outputs, responsibility, ethics, and communication
while considering how personal and professional views might evolve throughout the design
project. Most importantly, this framework should be seen as a starting point for dialogue and
critical reflections within interdisciplinary teams rather than a prescriptive solution.
19
Navigating interdisciplinary frictions
Friction #1
All researchers hold different views on ageing
which influence ontological and epistemological
approaches and decision making in the design
research process
•In what way do you see your work contributing
to individuals’ quality of life and longevity as they
live longer? What does ageing “well” mean to
you?
•When you are confronted with contrasting views
on knowledge-production, is there a mediator in
the group who can facilitate
difficult conversations to reach a consensus?
Friction #2
How we generate, interpret, and share data changes
across disciplines. Finding a common ground on how
to use it can promote creative solutions.
•What kind of methods and approaches do you
usually work with? What kind of data does it
generate? How might other disciplines complement
and enrich your data?
•How will you make data accessible for others to
work with? What could influence different
interpretations of the data?
Friction #3
Ethical considerations look different across
disciplines but are also deeply personal.
•Do you have any ethical concerns? How are you
planning on addressing them?
•When engaging with the community, how will
you ensure that your research will not be causing
any harm or distress to participants and yourself?
•Have you reflected on your positionality and how
it might impact others?
Friction #4
How we evaluate project and design outcomes says a
lot about whose lived experience we value most.
•How will you evaluate the outcome and impact of
the project? When is it a success or a failure, and for
whom?
•Will the deliverables be communicated to your
audience, such as reach the ageing community? If so,
how will you overcome language barriers?
Table 2. A set of questions to support interdisciplinary teams in navigating frictions.
As interdisciplinary research across longevity, design, and healthcare continues to
evolve, it will be essential to keep adapting and refining the framework to meet the changing
needs, challenges, and opportunities for interdisciplinary teams.
20
Conclusion
With an irreversible demographic transition, interdisciplinary collaboration in design can play
a fundamental role in addressing the complex constellation of challenges and opportunities
brought by longevity and increasing demand for services and products that will support
individuals’ quality of life. Our exploration, rooted in autoethnographic dialogues and semi-
structured interviews, offers a nuanced understanding of the frictions inherent in
interdisciplinary design research for the ageing population. Through thematic analysis, we
have uncovered four key frictions: ontological and epistemological beliefs, data
interpretation, ethical considerations, and evaluation of project outcomes. These frictions,
while presenting challenges, also serve as opportunities for growth, creativity, innovation,
and meaningful collaboration.
Firstly, negotiating ontological and epistemological beliefs underscores the
importance of reflexivity and openness to unfamiliar approaches. By engaging in dialogue
and mutual learning, interdisciplinary teams can navigate differences in research paradigms
and methodologies, enriching the design process and fostering creativity.
Secondly, the divergent approaches to data interpretation across disciplines highlight
the importance of establishing common ground and shared understanding within
interdisciplinary teams. By acknowledging and navigating differences in data generation,
organisation, and interpretation, teams can foster more effective communication and
collaboration. Our findings underscore the need for openness to diverse methodologies and
perspectives, recognising the richness that interdisciplinary collaboration brings.
Thirdly, ethical considerations surrounding community engagement highlight the
importance of reflexivity, sensitivity, and respect for diverse perspectives and experiences.
By critically examining their positionality, researchers can navigate ethical challenges and
ensure meaningful and respectful engagement with communities of older adults. By
21
acknowledging and addressing moral and social values, teams can create a more inclusive
and equitable research environment, fostering mutual respect and understanding.
Fourthly, the tension surrounding the evaluation of project outcomes underscores the
need for a pluralistic approach that considers a diversity of perspectives and lived
experiences. By embracing a broader understanding of success and failure, teams can foster a
more inclusive and equitable design process, prioritising the needs and experiences of ageing
populations.
In conclusion, our work offers valuable insights into the complexities and
opportunities of interdisciplinary collaboration in designing for longevity. By prioritising
reflexivity, dialogue, and mutual learning, interdisciplinary research teams can navigate
frictions constructively, fostering innovation and meaningful change. As we move forward,
we must continue exploring the challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinary
collaboration, our responsibilities as designers, how to adapt to change with curiosity and
empathy, and working to design a more inclusive and equitable future. Through our research
and initial framework, we hope to have demonstrated that autoethnographic reflections and
interdisciplinary conversations are one way of navigating these complex intersections.
22
Elisa Cardamone
Advanced Care Research Centre, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
[email protected]
ORCID 0000-0002-4979-4767
Elisa is a PhD candidate at the Advanced Care Research Centre of the University of Edinburgh, where she explores digital
health interventions for self-care in later life. With a master’s in medical anthropology from the University of Oxford, she
brings a unique interdisciplinary perspective to her work, integrating human-centred design principles, design justice, and
anthropological sensitivities into research on longevity.
Yoni Lefévre
LUCA School of Arts, KU Leuven, Genk, Belgium & Edinburgh College of Art, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh,
United Kingdom
[email protected]
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1881-9896
Yoni Lefévre is a doctoral researcher looking at sexuality in care homes through participatory design. She has a Bachelor of
Design from Design Academy Eindhoven and completed a Master of Research at The Glasgow School of Art. She has
experience as a Senior Design Researcher at STBY where she contributed to innovative projects for international clients and
worked as a Research Associate at the Innovation School, The Glasgow School of Art.
References
Aigner-Walder, B., Gruber, M., Hagendorfer-Jauk, G., Krainer, D., Oberzaucher, J., &
Pichler, C. (2023). Participatory research and development approaches in applied
ageing research. In, A., Urbaniak & A., Wanka (Eds.). Routledge International
Handbook of Participatory Approaches in Ageing Research (1st ed.), Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003254829
Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic Autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35
(4), 373–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449.
Atkinson P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35,
400–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241606286980
23
Blackwell, A. F., Eckert, C. M., Bucciarelli, L. L., & Earl, C. F. (2009). Witnesses to Design:
A Phenomenology of Comparative Design. Design Issues, 25 (1), 36–47.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/20627792.
Borgman, C. L. (2012), The conundrum of sharing research data. Journal of the American
Society for Information Science Technology, 63, 1059-1078.
https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22634
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Bracken, L., & Oughton, E. (2006). 'What do you mean?' The importance of language in
developing interdisciplinary research. Transactions of the Institute of British
Geographers, 31 (3), 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2006.00218.x
Carstensen, L. L., Turan, B., Scheibe, S., Ram, N., Ersner-Hershfield, H., Samanez-Larkin,
G. R., Brooks, K. P., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2011). Emotional experience improves
with age: Evidence based on over 10 years of experience sampling. Psychology and
Aging, 26(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021285
Coughlin, J. F. (2009). Longevity, lifestyle and anticipating the new demands of aging on the
transportation system. Public Works Management & Policy, 13 (4), 301–311.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724X09335609
Döringer, S. (2020). ‘The problem-centred expert interview’. Combining qualitative
interviewing approaches for investigating implicit expert knowledge. International
Journal of Social Research Methodology, 24 (3), 265–78.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766777
Dusdal, J. & Powell, J. J. P. (2021). Benefits, Motivations, and Challenges of International
Collaborative Research: A Sociology of Science Case Study, Science and Public
Policy, 48(2), 235–245, https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1093/scipol/scab010
24
Ellis C., & Bochner A. P. (2006). Analyzing analytic autoethnography. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 35, 429–449.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241605280449
Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2010). Autoethnography: An Overview. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-12.1.1589
Ellison, A. M., & Borden, D. B. (2022). Constructive Friction Creates a Third Space for
Art/science Collaborations. Leonardo 2022; 55 (3): 283–288.
https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_02200
Engelen, L., Rahmann, M., & de Jong, E. (2022). Design for healthy ageing – the
relationship between design, well-being. Building Research and Information,
50(21),1–17 https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2021.1984867
Gunn, W., Otto, T., & Smith, R. (Eds.) (2013). Design Anthropology: Theory and Practice.
Bloomsburry.
Hansson, B. (1999). Interdisciplinarity: for what purpose? Policy Sciences, 32(4), pp. 339–43.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4532474
Klein, E. (2021). Unpaid care, welfare conditionality and expropriation. Gender Work Organ,
28: 1475-1489. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12679
Lee, S., Coughlin, J. F., Balmuth, A., Lee, C., Cerino, L., Yang, M., Klopfer, E., de Weck, O.
L., & Ochsendorf, J. (2023) Designing Longevity Planning Blocks through
experimental participatory observation and interviews. In D. De Sainz Molestina, L.
Galluzzo, F. Rizzo, D. Spallazzo (Eds.), IASDR 2023: Life-Changing Design, 9-13
October, Milan, Italy. https://doi.org/10.21606/iasdr.2023.172
Lee, S-H., Coughlin, J. F., Hodara, S., Yang, M. C., de Weck, O. L., Klopfer, E., &
Ochsendorf, J. (2024) Design for Longevity Literature Review in Product Lifecycle,
25
Financial Planning, and Gerontology. In C. Gray, E. Ciliotta Chehade, P. Hekkert, L.
Forlano, P. Ciuccarelli, P. Lloyd (Eds.), DRS2024: Boston, 23–28 June, Boston, USA.
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2024.363
Lee, S-H., Yang, M., de Weck, O. L., Lee, C., Coughlin, J. F., Klopfer, E., & Ochsendorf, J.
(2023). Service Design in Action: Transformation, Consideration, and System
Thinking. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design
(ICED23), Bordeaux, France, 24-28 July 2023. https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.315
Lehrer, J. (2012). Groupthink, The New Yorker. Retrieved April 2024 from: Groupthink | The
New Yorker
Manchester, H., & Jarke, J. (2022). Considering the role of material gerontology in
reimagining technology design for ageing populations. International Journal of
Ageing and Later Life, 15(2), 181–213. https://doi.org/10.3384/ijal.1652-8670.3531
Marcelino, I., Laza, R., Domingues, P., Gómez-Meire, S., & Pereira, A. (2015). eServices–
service platform for pervasive elderly care. In Ambient Intelligence – Software and
Applications: 6th International Symposium on Ambient Intelligence (ISAmI 2015)
(pp. 203–211). Springer International Publishing.
Merkel, S. & Kucharski, A. (2019). Participatory Design in Gerontechnology: A Systematic
Literature Review, Gerontologist 59(1), e16–e25
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny034
Müller, F. (2021). Design Ethnography: Epistemology and Methodology. Springer Nature,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60396-0.
Munro, A. J. (2011). Autoethnography as a Research Method in Design Research at
Universities. 20/20 Design Vision. Sixth International DEFSA Conference
Proceedings, pp. 156–163.
26
Panagiotidou, G., Poblome, J., Aerts, J., & Vande Moere, A. (2022). Designing a Data
Visualisation for Interdisciplinary Scientists. How to Transparently Convey Data
Frictions? Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 31(4), 633–667.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-022-09432-9
Peine, A., Marshall, B., Martin, W., & Neven, L. (2022). Socio-gerontechnology
Interdisciplinary Critical Studies of Ageing and Technology. Routledge.
Peine, A., & Neven, L. (2019). From intervention to co-constitution: New directions in
theorizing about aging and technology, the Gerontologist, 59 (1), 15–21.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gny050
Poulos, C. N. (2021). Conceptual foundations of autoethnography. In C. N. Poulos,
Essentials of autoethnography (pp. 3–17). American Psychological Association.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0000222-001.
Rivero, A. M. (2018). Aging suit: An accessible and low-cost design tool for the
gerontodesign. In Handbook of Research on Ergonomics and Product Design (pp.
56–69). IGI Global.
Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Temple
Smith.
Schouwenberg, L. & Kaethler, M. (eds.) (2021). The auto-ethnographic turn in Design.
Valiz.
Soto, M., Xue, H., & Tsekleves, E. (2022). Design for balance: Wellness and Health. Base
Diseño e Innovación, 7(6):4-11. https://doi.org/10.52611/bdi.num6.2022.786
Specht, A. & Crowston, K. (2022). Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams
can produce significant outcomes. PLoS ONE, 17 (11): e0278043.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278043
27
Suchman, L. (2011). Anthropological Relocations and the Limits of Design. Annual Review
of Anthropology, Vol. 40: 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.041608.105640
The Design Council (2004). Framework for Innovation. Retrieved from:
https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/our-resources/framework-for-innovation/ on 15
sept. 2024.
World Health Organisation (2022). Retrieved in January 2024 from:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ageing-and-health.
Wright, E. (2004). Designing for an ageing population: An inclusive design methodology.
Art, Design & Communication in Higher Education, 2 (3), 155–165.
https://doi.org/10.1386/adch.2.3.155/0
Wall, S. (2016). Toward a Moderate Autoethnography. International Journal of Qualitative
Methods, 15(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916674966