design and anthropology: an interdisciplinary proposition

1

DIVERSITY:DESIGN / HUMANITIES

Dijon De Moraes

regina Álvares Dias

roseMary BoM Conselho sales

(eDitors)

PRocEEDINGS of foURTH INTERNATIoNAl foRUM of DESIGN AS A PRocESS

SCIENTIFIC THEMATIC MEETING OF THE LATIN NETWORKFOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN PROCESSES

in CollaBoration with:hUManities Design laBPoliteCniCo Di Milano, DePartaMento inDaCo (italy)esCola De Design UeMgCentro t&C DesignMestraDo eM Design (PPgD)UniversiDaDe Do estaDo De Minas gerais (BraZil)

sCientiFiC CoMMitteeDijon De Moraes(Universidade do estado de Minas gerais - UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)Flaviano Celaschi(Coordinator of the latin network, Politecnico di Milano, italy)Paulo Belo Reyes(Universidade do vale do rio dos sinos - Unisinos, Porto alegre, Brazil)Raquel Pelta Resano(Universidad de Barcelona, spain)Roberto Iñiguez Flores(tecnológico de Monterrey, Campus guadalajara, Mexico)Rui Roda(Universidade de aveiro, Portugal)Sebastiana Bragança Lana (Universidade do estado de Minas gerais - UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)

MeMBers oF the hUManities Design laBAntonella Penati (Politecnico di Milano, italy)Eleonora Lupo (Politecnico di Milano, italy)Salvatore Zingale (Politecnico di Milano, italy)

sCientiFiC seCretary anD organiZing CoMMitteesElena Formia (Politecnico di torino, italy)Rita Engler(Universidade do estado de Minas gerais – UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)Giselle Hissa Safar(Universidade do estado de Minas gerais – UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)Mariana Misk Moysés(Universidade do estado de Minas gerais – UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)Regina Álvares Dias(Universidade do estado de Minas gerais – UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)Danielly Tolentino(Universidade do estado de Minas gerais – UeMg, Belo horizonte, Brazil)

reviewers (aBstraCts)alessandro Deserti (Politecnico di Milano, italy)antonella Penati (Politecnico di Milano, italy)Chiara Colombi (Politecnico di Milano, italy)Cristina Portugal (PUC-rio, Brazil) Dijon De Moraes (UeMg, Brazil)elena Formia (Politecnico di torino, italy)eleonora lupo (Politecnico di Milano, italy)Flávia nízia ribeiro (PUC-rio, Brazil)Francesca rizzo (Politecnico di Milano, italy)gregory sedrick (Christian Brothers University, Us)lia Krucken Pereira (UeMg, Brazil)Manuela Celi (Politecnico di Milano, italy)Marcelina das graças de almeida (UeMg, Brazil)Marizilda Menezes (Unesp, Brazil) Paulo Belo reyes (Unisinos, Brazil)

raffaella trocchianesi (Politecnico di Milano, italy)raquel Pelta resano (Universidad de Barcelona, spain)rita aparecida da C. ribeiro (UeMg, Brazil)rita de Castro engler (UeMg, Brazil)roberto iñiguez Flores (tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico)rosemary Bom Conselho sales (UeMg, Brazil)rui roda (Universidade de aveiro, Portugal)salvatore Zingale (Politecnico di Milano, italy)sebastiana luiza Bragança lana (UeMg, Brazil)sérgio antônio silva (UeMg, Brazil)

reviewers (FUll PaPers)Dijon De Moraes (UeMg, Brazil)regina Álvares Dias (UeMg, Brazil)rosemary Bom Conselho sales (UeMg, Brazil)sebastiana luiza Bragança lana (UeMg, Brazil)solange Pedra (UeMg, Brazil)

ProDUCtion teaM eventalice andrade guimarãesana Paula de sousa nastaandré Molantonnione Franco leone ribeiroBárbara Dias lageBianca teixeira oliveiraCaio lacerdaCarlos Magno Pereira Daniela Menezes MartinsDébora de assis watanabeelisangela Batista da silvaFernanda Melo almeida (UFMg)gilberto almeida jr.iara Mollia Paletta BenattiMaria Cristina ibarra hernandeznadja Maria Mourãoorlando gama da silva juniorPaula glória BarbosaPaula Maria areias de FreitasPriscila Bruna Medeiros Ferreira rachel Menezes Coelho de souzarafaela guatimosim assumpçãoraquel Canaansoraia Cabral simõesteresa Campos vianavinicius gomes Marques

UniversiDaDe Do estaDo De Minas geraisRectorDijon Moraes júniorVice-rectorsantuza abrasCabinet Chiefeduardo andrade santa CecíliaPro-rector of Planning, Management and Financesthiago henrique Barouche BregunciPro-rector of Research and Post Graduationterezinha abreu gontijoPro-rector of Teachingrenata nunes vasconcelosPro-rector of Extensionvânia aparecida Costa

Escola de Design da Universidade do Estado de Minas GeraisDirectorjacqueline Ávila ribeiro MotaVice-Directorsimone Maria Brandão M. de abreuApoio financeiroFundação de amparo à Pesquisa do estado de Minas gerais – FaPeMigCapes – Coordenação de aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de nível superior

Editors Dijon De Moraesregina Álvares Diasrosemary Bom Conselho sales

© 2014, edUeMg | editora da Universidade do estado de Minas gerais

Diversity: design/ humanities. Proceedings of Fourth

international Forum of Design as a Process. /organização:

Dijon De Moraes, regina Álvares Dias, rosemary Bom

Conselho sales - Barbacena: edUeMg, 2014.

806p.: il. – v2

e-book / isBn: 978-85-62578-33-5

1. Design. 2. Design como processo. 3. Design

e humanidades. 4. Diversidade. 5. identidade. 6.

inovação. i. Moraes, Dijon De (org.). ii. Dias, regina

Álvares, iii rosemary Bom Conselho sales, (org.).

iv. Universidade do estado de Minas gerais. v.

título. vi. série.

CDU: 7.05

FICHA CATALOGRÁFICA

eDUeMg - eDitora Da UniversiDaDe Do estaDo De Minas geraisavenida Coronel josé Máximo, 200 - Bairro são sebastiãoCeP 36202-284 - Barbacena /Mg | tel.: 55 (32) 3362-7385 e-mail: [email protected]

eDitoral CoUnCil oF eDUeMgDijon Moraes junior (Presidente)Fuad Kyrillos netohelena lopesitiro iidajosé eustáquio de Brito josé Márcio BarrosPaulo sérgio lacerda Beirãovânia a. Costa

ProDUCtion eBooKedUeMg | editora da Universidade do estado de Minas geraisCoordinationDaniele alves ribeiro de Castrographic projectlaboratório de Design gráfico (lDg) da eD/UeMgCoordinationMariana Misk e iara Mol

Design and Anthropology: An interdisciplinary proposition

Zoy Anastassakis [email protected]

Escola Superior de Desenho Industrial, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilAdjunct Professor

AbstractIn the last 30 years there has been, in the academic field of Design, a considerable investment in the approach to Anthropology. The movement has expanded in such a way that today it is possible to find anthropologists that have been hired by design offices, as well as two Masters programs in ‘Design Anthropology’ (in Scotland and Australia). As well as these two programs there are three other Master programs that are engaged in a ‘Design Anthropology’ education (in Denmark, England and Scotland). Furthermore, it is important to note that this movement comes not only from Design to Anthropology, but also, and more recently, from Anthropology to Design. Taking this context into account, this paper examines how these Masters degree programs present, on their websites, what ‘design anthropology’ means to them. With this preliminary analysis, we look to pursue the complexity of meanings, scopes and limits of this new knowledge area.

Keywordsdesign – anthropology – interdisciplinarity – master degree programs

CHA

PTER

24

Design and Anthropology: An interdisciplinary proposition p. 240–247 240


Introduction

In the last 30 years there has been in the field of Design, a considerable approximation to Social Sciences (Frascara, 2002). If, at first, this approach found room in Cognitive Psychology (Souza, 2008), and interacted with Sociology, the progressive interest in Anthropology by Design is notable (Wasson, 2000; Clarke, 2011, Gunn and Donovan, 2012). It is this specific approximation that guides the construction of this paper, which is part of a more thorough research about what has been proposed by some authors and institutions of higher education as a new field of knowledge, a combination of Design and Anthropology, that is, ‘Design Anthropology’.

Seeking to look at processes through which the term ‘design anthropology’ is being built, this pa-per’s main purpose is to investigate the semantic outlines traced around the terminology by the several agents that trigger it, in certain contexts, for different purposes. Hence, it is an effort to bring to light, and, at the same time, point at the conformation which is being forged for the cat-egory ‘design anthropology’, at present. In order to meet that goal in a more specific and punctual way, the paper focuses on the analysis of some websites that divulge Graduate programs where ‘design anthropology’ is presented as a main category.

It is relevant, here, to understand how the terms design and anthropology arise, close or joined together, on the presentation texts that can be found on the websites of the Graduate programs picked out for analysis. Hence, it is a partial and preliminary mapping of patterns of use of the category, ‘design anthropology’, to those who use it, for academic publishing purposes. Meanwhile, we must note, as shall be explained throughout the text, that, in recent years, the term ‘design anthropology’ has been used not only by designers, but also by anthropologists and research insti-tutions in Anthropology. Therefore, it is valid to declare that the category is not restricted to the field of Design, manifesting itself also ‘on the other side’, Anthropology (Latour, 2008; Rabinow and Marcus, 2008, among others).

Having said that, it becomes clear that the approach between Design and Anthropology is not a one-way exercise. If the interest of Design in this Social Science dates back to the second half of the 1970s and the next decade (Clarke, 2011, Wasson, 2000), we must note that, in the same time frame, Anthropology focuses on the universe of material culture, from where a significant part of the earliest studies in this area started, early in the 20th Century.

The identity crisis that affects Design in the post-1968 period, leading it to question its participa-tion in industrial and developmental processes within the gears of capitalism, regarded, at that mo-ment, as mean and wrecker of the powers of cultural diversity. Such crises leads the discipline to discuss the very presence of the terminology ‘industrial’ in its name (Cara, 2010), helping making the use of the word ‘design’ popular, without the attendance of the adjectivation ‘industrial’. This very thing is part of the movement leading Design to develop a growing interest in Social Sciences.

Meanwhile, we can state that a crisis of the same sort strikes Anthropology as well, at the context post-1968. From that point on, the discipline finds itself dipped in a review process of the mechanisms and procedures it was built from, partly associated to colonialist efforts. This crisis leads Anthropology to discuss the way we read those social worlds, as it was dedicated to, resulting in different pursuits of other ways to keep making Anthropology (Marcus and Fischer, 1986), less involved with theoretical, conceptual and methodological aspects associated to the gears of imperialist capitalism, aspects also taken into consideration, then, contrary to the purpose of the discipline, were often mean towards the social groups involved in the researches carried out by Anthropologists.


One of the movements arising from the questioning of the stepping stones of Anthropology is the pursuit of a more substantial engagement with whom it conducts researches (Ingold, 2011; Gunn and Donovan, 2012). It is not a coincidence that this is one of the points made by Anthropologists, who are currently making use of the category ‘design anthropology’, thus defending its relevance. Let’s look at how the term is used amidst electronic advertising media of some academic Design and Anthropology institutions, all engaged, through its Graduate programs associated to ‘design anthropology’, to the pursuit of new ways to exercise the production of knowledge in its fields of learning and practice.

Design Anthropology on Graduate Program Divulgation Websites

In this section, our aim is to conduct a first approach to the uses of the term ‘design anthropology’, as formulated by academic institutions with Graduate programs organized around this new field of knowledge, looking at the way the category is triggered in its divulgation websites. First of all, we must clarify that the choice for those observation environments derives from an understanding of the analytic potential that such electronic advertising venues present, when one aims to carry out an initial approach to the use of the term ‘design anthropology’ by certain institutional agents.

The websites divulgating Graduate programs are communication gears that aim to be synthetic, co-herent and objective. Because of those features, they condense the strategic narratives formulated by academic institutions that propose the Graduate courses, which in those contexts are engaged in an attempted objectification, profitable for a preliminary analysis of the semantic outlines with which certain authorized agents in their respective fields of knowledge seek to validate the cate-gory, at the present moment.

As far as we could see, until 2012, two Masters degree programs called ‘design anthropology’ had been created: the first was offered by the Design Department at Swinburne University of Technol-ogy, in Australia; the second, by the Anthropology Department at the University of Aberdeen, in Scotland. Other than those two, The University of Dundee’s Duncan of Jordanstone College of Art & Design, also in Scotland, offers the Masters program ‘Design Ethnography’.

Also, there are other two Masters programs that, despite having other names, claim to be working with ‘design anthropology’: “Culture, Materials & Design”, offered by the Anthropology Depart-ment at the University College London, England, and “Information Technology – Product Design”, through SPIRE (Sondenborg Participatory Research Centre), from the Mads Clausen Institute, The Engineering School at the University of Southern Denmark, in Sondenborg, Denmark. We can tell, then, that three of these programs, Swinburne, Dundee and Sondenborg, arise from Design De-partments, whereas two of them, namely Aberdeen and London, come from Anthropology Depart-ments, and all of them are Masters level courses. In this paper, we analyze two of them, Swinbourne and Aberdeen.

“Design Anthropology” at Swinburne University of Technology, Australia

Let us start by looking at the Australian program, which opened the first class in 2011. At the website home section (www.swinburne.edu.au/design/courses/design-anthropology-postgradu-ate-course.html), you can find an “Overview” on “Design Anthropology”, which reads:


Design Anthropology represents the synthesis of academic anthropology with the professional practice of

design. It seeks to understand how design helps define what it means to be human the diversity of human

values, and then how design translates these values into tangible experience (visited in: September 2012,

website: www.swinburne.edu.au).

After that, the three ‘design anthropology’ specializations offered by the program are introduced, namely: “Cross-Cultural Communication Design”, “Indigenous Knowledge” and “Sustainable De-sign”. The specialization course in “Cross-Cultural Communication Design” involves “brand iden-tity strategy, global contexts, brand identity in a multi-cultural environment, and cross-cultural communication” (idem), whereas “Indigenous Knowledge” covers “global contexts, designing for cultural wellness, situated knowledge and co-design, and indigenous futures” (idem). “Sustainable Design”, on the other hand, features “principles and theories, building sustainable design practices, eco-design studio, and a capstone project in sustainable design” (idem).

As for career opportunities for the “design anthropologist”, “anthrodesigner” or “ethnographer”, the website highlights the following ones: “user experience (UX) designer and/or researcher, in-teraction designer and/or researcher, branding insights specialist, consultant insights specialist and social and product innovation consultant” (idem), all of them related to a “wide variety of industries involved in the creation of products, services or environments” (idem).

According to the course coordinator,

The purpose of Design Anthropology is to understand how the processes and artifacts of design help define

what it means to be human. By taking into account how others see and experience the world differently,

products and services can be designed that work to people and nature rather than disrupt them (idem).

From her perspective, “design anthropology methods seek to understand the many different back-grounds and cultures so as to assist and empower them” (idem). The main point that the Australian program raises, then, is: “how do the process and artifacts of design help define what it means to be human” (idem). From this point of view,

the intersection of the fields of design and anthropology are seen as having intrinsic values for exploration

of their theories and practices. This exploration can get leveraged back into design processes. Yet by doing

so, it actually attempts to change the design process, not just in terms of including users, but by challenging

some of the underlying values and principles of the design process in various forms of practice (business,

government, and social system) (idem).

Therefore, it is suggested here that the intersection between Design and Anthropology may cause an impact on the theory and practice of the two fields of knowledge, and that such two-way ex-ploitation may, finally, affect traditional design processes in an unsettling way, helping reconfigure values and principles of modern Design, which used to involve the idea of changing socio-cultural habits through shape. In this sense, it proposes a Design that meets the diversity of human values, trying not so much to forge new habits than to translate existing values in tangible experiences, thus acting in the sense of empowering social groups as to their technological artifacts.

The ultimate goal is to change conventional design processes, linked to a modernist paradigm, which is sets out to do by means of engagement to native knowledge of the groups involved on design processes. This process would cause design social systems built to develop from native methods, seeking to align design processes intentions and outcomes via (anthropological) artifactual and technological products and processes to be analyzed and redesigned.


Here, Anthropology is perceived as an agent for the transformation of Design processes. Since the program is offered by a Design department, Anthropology is seen from the point of view of Design. However, both designers and anthropologists, as well as other professionals, are eligible to register on the course. That way, the possibility also opens for Social Sciences professionals to take part, in an accredited way, in the research and development of innovation in products and processes asso-ciated to the artifactual and technological universe. In this sense, such formulation implies that the approximation between Anthropology and Design could, as a consequence, affect also this Social Science, changing it.

“Design Anthropology”, at University of Aberdeen, Scotland

Now, let’s look at the Masters program created in the University of Aberdeen’s Anthropology De-partment, in Scotland, a program released in September 2010, starting its academic activities in the Autumn of 2012. At that ‘home’ section of the website, the aims of the program are defined that way:

Design Anthropology is a novel and exciting interface where the speculative imagination of possible futures

meets the comparative study of humans ways of living and knowing. It is about how the creation of new archi-

tectures and new things can be informed by in-depth understanding of how people inhabit the structures they

build and relate to the things they use. It offers a radical rethinking of the ideas and concepts that have tradi-

tionally underpinned design practice, such as nature and artifact, form and content, knowledge and skill, making

and using, creativity and innovation. And it seeks to place design in its wider political and institutional context,

amidst concerns about environmental change, sustainable development and the conservation of energy visited

in: September 2012, website: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology/designanthropology.php)

Even though it proposes a radical rethinking of the traditional Design practice, and seeking to repo-sition Design in the face of a wider political and institutional context, the Aberdeen program does not mean to be a Design major (idem), as is made clear on the following text, part of the definition of the programs aims, according to its website:

The MSc in Design Anthropology is not a course in design. It is rather intended to provide designers, or those

with an interest in design, with a set of critical, conceptual and methodological tools, drawn from contem-

porary anthropology, that they can bring to bear in their own practice – above all outside the academy.

Students will be encouraged to experiment with the ideas and methods developed through the course by the

way of internships or other placements towards the end of the program (idem).

It is, then, a proposal of “application of anthropology in widely conceived processes of design” (idem). This way, the program addresses primarily Designers and those interested Design that want to be closer to methodological, conceptual and critical tools of contemporary Anthropology that may present profits to a re-qualification of its professional practices associated to Design process-es, notably outside academic grounds. Here, as well as in the Swinburne program, Anthropology is introduced as a methodological-conceptual tool which may change Design processes.

So, even if both programs belong to different fields of knowledge, Aberdeen being part of an Anthropology department and Swinburne being part of a Design department, both of them are aimed at Design professionals or Social Scientists acting in the fields of Design and Technology, and, moreover, both programs use Anthropology as an element of change for Design processes.

On the presentation of the Scottish program, this proposal is justified face the “increasing visibility


and currency in contexts outside academia” (idem) gained in the last decade, “by anthropological methods of research and analysis” (idem), with emphasis on the business world, such as Philips, HP and Microsoft, which increasingly “recognize that the qualitative data gathering techniques of anthropology are of benefit in understanding marketing and consumers in new ways” (idem), especially when it comes to Anthropology, which brings to light the cultural differences, and that, once absorbed by the field of Design, “has promised to generate tailored innovation in product and service design” (idem).

Thus, in the case of Aberdeen, we are talking about the same proposal to change Design processes through Anthropology, but, here, unlike the Australian program, it is an Anthropology department that houses the Master course. Hence, it is from the Anthropological point of view that we notice the increasing interest for that Social Science outside the academy and that the role of offering a Graduate-level education for those interested in acting on that interface, in the market, is taken on. Such a market is pointed at, on these websites, as the main destination for those taking that career path, both in the Scottish and in the Australian cases.

Finally, the presentation text for the Aberdeen program mentions “recent developments in the discipline of Anthropology which have brought sustained attention to technology, to architecture, to materials and objects, and to knowledge production and exchange” (idem), such developments which “offer opportunities for engagement with external partners and users” (idem). Therefore, this excerpt brings recent developments in Anthropology - which have already been mentioned at the beginning of the paper - to light, reinforced by a new interest on what one might call a material culture universe.

In this context, as on the Australian program presentation website, we also emphasize the pos-sibility of a greater engagement with the social groups involved in the material culture universe, so important to Design. At this stage, it is suggested, both on the Australian and on the Scottish websites, and in different ways, something the also re-occurs in the other three programs, and that is introduced, in these texts, as a handicap, both for Designers and Anthropologists, namely: the possibility of a greater engagement with the social groups involved in the Anthropological research and Design processes, in both fields of knowledge.

In the particular case of the Aberdeen program presentation website, they mention that such de-velopments have led Anthropology to a reflexivity process, which calls for the relevance of an inter-face with industry, making way for a growing discussion about the manners in which Anthropology could help, in new ways, innovation processes and its potential impact beyond academy. According to the same text, this movement would be leading the discipline to (Anthropological) researches taking by object the potential impact of direct engagements over the discipline. Hence, it is not-ed that even if both programs, Aberdeen and Swinburne, emphasize primarily the applicability of ‘design anthropology’ to the professional field of Design, through the category ‘engagement’ both point at the possibility that this emerging field to affect, and change, also the (most) academic field of Anthropology.

This way, the proposal of a “potential application of anthropology in widely conceived processes of design” (idem), as shown on both websites, points to the possibility of this very application of An-thropology to Design, to change and complete Anthropology as well. If a greater engagement with social groups would lead to new ways of design, this very engagement would conduct, ultimately, to a new way of making Anthropology. In which terms, we still need to look.


Some preliminary conclusions

If we analyze and compare these Graduate programs presentation texts, paying attention at how they define what they mean by ‘design anthropology’, we can understand that, even in different ways, they see that Anthropology and Design have much to add to one another, and that both disciplines have the potential to point at issues and reclassify the ways one and the other conduct their academic and professional practices. Even if each of the two programs emphasizes differently the direction of those potentials, either Anthropology causing an impact on Design, or the other way around, it does seem to be the search for a hybrid domain of knowledge, in each of those cases hybridization (itself) is more or less the central interest.

In these Master programs, the question of engagement is central. Roughly speaking, their proposals seek to create qualified alternatives to deal with issues related to the universe of material culture in a more engaged way. That is, they seem to have in common the search for the creation of appropri-ate skills for a reclassified engagement of researchers and professionals, both to the social groups involved with technology and the universe of products, and mastery of material culture itself.

Considering this paper as part of a greater research effort to observe how semantic outlines of the category ‘design anthropology’ has been configured, through a preliminary analysis of the presen-tation texts of two Masters Degree programs, located in their divulgation websites, we have tried to understand how the category ‘design anthropology’ is activated and how the proposals of these respective programs are related to it. Hence, we have selected and analyzed excerpts from texts where there is an attempt to define ‘design anthropology’, as well as excerpts that list the pros and the professional applicability of the training offered by those programs, in the area.

Through comparative analysis, we aim to make visible some narrative strategies used by academic institutions engaged with research and education in ‘design anthropology’, nowadays, seeing where and how they are alike or different in their specific proposals, when it comes to understanding what ‘design anthropology’ means. We highlight, however, that a more thorough analysis, under progress, requires a more painstaking investigation, not only of the programs’s narrative strategies, as pre-sented in electronic divulgation media, but also by their histories, their student body and teachers profiles, and by direct observation, in loco, of their teaching and research practices, and the results obtained from that.

Bibliography

CARA, M. S. 2010. Do desenho industrial ao design no Brasil. Uma bibliografia crítica para a disciplina. São Paulo, Blucher.

CLARKE, A. J. (Ed.). 2011. Design Anthropology. Object culture in the 21st century. Wien, Springer-Verlag.

FRASCARA, J. (Ed.). 2002. Design and the social sciences: making connections. Taylor & Francis.

GUNN, W.; DONOVAN, J. (Eds.). 2012. Design and Anthropology. London, Ashgate.

HALSE, J.; BRANDT, E.; CLARK, B.; BINDER, T. (Eds.). 2010. Rehearsing the future. Denmark, The Danish Design School Press.

INGOLD, T. 2011. Being Alive. Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London and New York: Routledge.

LATOUR, B. November, 3th, 2008. “A Cautious Promethea: a Few Steps Toward a Philosophy of Design (with Special

Attention to Peter Sloterdijk)”. Keynote Lecture for the Networks of Design Meeting of the Design History Society.

Falmouth, Cornwall, 13 pp.


MARCUS, G. and FISCHER, M. 1986. Anthropology as Cultural Critique: An Experimental Moment in the Human

Sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

RABINOW, P. and MARCUS, G. (with J.D. FAUBION and T. REES). 2008. Designs for an Anthropology of the Contemporary.

Durham: Duke University Press.

SOUZA, P. L. P. 2008. Design moderno: a Natureza. Exclusive text made available to students of the course “Design

moderno: a Natureza”, carried out at the Centro de Design de Recife, Pernambuco, Brasil.

Wasson, C. 2000. Ethnography in the field of design. In: Human Organization, vol. 59, n. 4. Society for Applied

Anthropology, p. 377-388.

Websites

Visited in: September, 2012, website: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/anthropology/designanthropology.php.

Visited in: September, 2012, website: http://designethnography.dundee.ac.uk/

Visited in: January 2013, website: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/djcad/programmes/postgraduate/mscdesignethnography/

Visited in: September, 2012, website: http://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/institutter_centre/c_spire.

Visited in: September, 2012, website: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/courses/design-anthropology-

postgraduate-course.html.

Visited in: September, 2012, website: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/culture-materials-design/.

design and anthropology: an interdisciplinary proposition

Documents