Disentangling collaborative design for sustainability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between collaborative design (CD) and design for sustainability (DfS) is an emerging focus in design literature, driven by the urgency of the environmental crisis. Historically perceived as driving consumption, designers are increasingly recognised as critical actors in sustainability initiatives. Based on a scoping review, this study investigates the connections and relationships between CD and DfS with the aim of understanding the interrelations between these two themes. Adopting a tailored scoping strategy, the authors developed a dataset of publications from design journals indexed in Scopus and extracted relevant excerpts (i.e. rich quotes). The rich quotes were analysed thanks to activity theory and statement card analysis, resulting in the Collaborative Design for Sustainability framework. Based on the activity system, this framework provides a structured approach for practitioners to integrate diverse perspectives, emphasising the importance of systemic thinking in collaborative sustainability efforts. The paper also highlights limitations in existing literature, particularly around methods for operationalising collaboration, and calls for further research to apply the proposed framework in practical and educational contexts to enhance collaborative practices for sustainability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".