The Deadline for abstracts for Pivot 2021 has been extended.
You can download the call here: https://lnkd.in/eG37-uz
Follow Lesley Ann Noel, PhD – Professor of Practice; Associate Director, Design Thinking for Social Impact
I recently peer-reviewed an academic paper that explored how well architects and other designers understand and value ‘research’. The author also looked at the degree to which architects engage in or initiate research studies, and then apply original findings to their projects. Reading this paper led me to reflect on how architects define research, and the place of it within the myriad of other information sources that influence architectural work. It also led me back to some research that I conducted earlier in my academic career in conjunction with the then Royal Australian Institute of Architects that investigated the sources of information that architects preferred to use to support their practice.[1]
Grappling with complex structural health care issues requires medical professionals to have training in skills and knowledge that go beyond the basic and clinical sciences. It is also crucial for health care professionals to be able to work collaboratively. However, medical education has only limitedly institutionalized the teaching of these skills.
In fall 2014, a one-semester crossover course called Hacking Healthcare was developed by the University of Amsterdam in cooperation with the Gerrit Rietveld Academie of Fine Arts and six health care institutions in the greater Amsterdam area. The course comprised one or two weekly three-hour evening sessions consisting of a lecture, workshop, and group work. It was structured using the three stages of the design thinking process—inspiration, ideation, and implementation. Twenty-seven medicine, psychology, other science disciplines, and art students participated, working in interdisciplinary groups on an assigned case study.
The course yielded both unconventional and holistic key insights and a wide range of tangible outcomes, which were also considered to be relevant by the patient. Among university (i.e., nonart) students (n = 14), the average overall score of the course was 8.5 out of 10, with 10 being the highest rating. Aspects of the course that were mentioned as positive points were the activating teaching environment, academic development, and development of collaboration skills and creative capabilities.
This approach could be applied in other fields, such as medical education on a larger scale, clinical practice, and the design of scientific research.
Join the group health innovation strategy at currnt here
