What do you mean? Exploring Interdisciplinary Frictions when Designing for Longevity

Article Sidebar

pdf (Español (España)) pdf
Published: Sep 15, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52611/bdi.num11.2024.1122
Keywords:
  • Ageing
  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Friction
  • autoethnography
How to Cite
Cardamone, E., & Lefevre, Y. (2025). What do you mean? Exploring Interdisciplinary Frictions when Designing for Longevity . Base Diseño E Innovación, 9(11), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.52611/bdi.num11.2024.1122
Societal impact

Issue
Vol. 9 No. 11 (2025): Design and longevity: New perspectives, and challenges
Section
Research
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Elisa Cardamone
University of Edinburgh
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4979-4767
Yoni Lefevre
University of Edinburgh
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1881-9896

Abstract

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 collaboration in designing for longevity, offering a lens into the complexities and opportunities of navigating disciplinary boundaries. 

Article Details

Author Biographies

Elisa Cardamone, University of Edinburgh

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 Lefevre, University of Edinburgh

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

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, cience and Public Policy, 48(2), 235–245, https://doi-org.kuleuven.e-bronnen.be/10.1093/scipol/scab010

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, 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/psd.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.

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

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