First edition

The first edition of MbM enabled students to complete their coursework by creating a material/semi-finished product based on circular economy principles, empirically experimenting with their ideas and producing DIY material samples (Rognoli et al., Reference Rognoli, Bianchini, Maffei and Karana2015), along with their respective physical and sensory characterizations. During this initial edition, references to other sciences – such as biology and materials science – were merely “borrowed,” with no direct contributions from experts in these fields. Students adopted a purely DIY approach, relying primarily on case studies and online databases related to DIY materials. On this basis, the first edition’s approach can be classified as multidisciplinary or pluridisciplinary (Max-Neef, Reference Max-Neef2005) (Moreno and Villalba, Reference Moreno and Villalba2018). That is, design leveraged knowledge previously developed in other disciplines, attempting to integrate it into the design of new materials without specific coordination among the disciplines involved. In this context, while the design approach shared numerous perspectives with other fields of knowledge, its aim was to borrow references from other disciplines without losing its distinctive creative and experimental nature, which was oriented toward achieving practical solutions. At the end of the workshop, feedback from students was collected informally through a classroom work session and direct observation. The results of the final feedback proposed to participants showed a general satisfaction with the students’ experience, especially regarding the exploratory phase and the material tinkering process. However, the informal feedback also highlighted some critical issues, including: the limited basic knowledge of materials design by students (due to the absence of contributions from other disciplines and methodologies), the lack of a laboratory and the necessary tools for material modification and, finally, the poor knowledge of biological materials and processes – such as fungi, algae and bacteria – especially regarding their functional and microscopic aspects (due to the lack of adequate equipment). The workshop program ended with a final exhibition at the Design Campus (University of Florence), where all the projects were displayed (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Pictures of the final show at Design Campus with student’s works.

Second edition

The second edition of MbM enhanced the “Explore Materials” and “Roll Up Your Sleeves” steps from the first edition by incorporating contributions from other disciplines, particularly biology, chemistry and materials science, to address some of the shortcomings identified during the initial workshop. Specifically, a biology researcher, a professor specializing in wood technology, a professor of materials engineering, and four design researchersFootnote ¹ affiliated with the Design4Materials Network (Carullo et al., Reference Carullo, Cecchini, Ferrara, Langella and Lucibello2017) contributed their expertise. These experts introduced approaches to materials design that bridged design and other sciences. The aim was to provide students with technical knowledge to deepen their understanding of materials. Contributions from these disciplines sought to broaden students’ perspectives and scenarios, encouraging them to rethink both the types of waste materials selected for experimentation and the transformation processes, along with the potential applications of the new materials. The interactions between participants and experts also aimed to stimulate reflection on “material flow” and the potential ecological impact of their experiments. These contributions enriched the coaching activities as well; by engaging in reflections and discussions across different disciplines, it was possible to provide support during tinkering activities by offering technical knowledge related to material manipulation. Thus, the second workshop edition can be described as interdisciplinary (Moreno and Villalba, Reference Moreno and Villalba2018), meaning that the interactions between the involved disciplines involved sharing experiences, methods, tools and models. The results obtained, compared to the previous edition, were more coherent and integrated, addressing complex real-world problems related to the circular economy. The interdisciplinarity in the second workshop was therefore intentional or pragmatic (Max-Neef, Reference Max-Neef2005), meaning that it connected disciplines at the pragmatic level – Design – with disciplines at the empirical level. According to Max-Neef’s theory, design thus became interdisciplinary, providing a defined purpose to the empirical field represented by biology and materials science through the project. However, despite this approach, students were unable to fully grasp certain aspects of materials, particularly at the microscopic scale and in terms of laboratory material manipulation. The creation of samples still followed an exclusively DIY approach, as in the first edition. Furthermore, the experimental design process was not fully optimized, lacking the necessary connection between design thinking and scientific methodology to ensure that project outcomes were evaluable, replicable and self-correcting.

The second workshop concluded with the exhibition UP TO THE CRAFT – Generative Paths – at the International Handicrafts Trade Fair in Florence, organized by OMA (Osservatorio Mestieri d’Arte) (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Pictures of the final show “UP TO THE CRAFT – Percorsi generativi” at “MIDA - Fiera Internazionale dell’artigianato 2023” with student’s works.

The survey conducted at the end of this edition highlighted the significant impact of contributions from other disciplines. Many students expressed satisfaction in interacting with experts from other fields, especially regarding the support they provided in the technical and practical choices made for the sample designs and the microscopic understanding of material properties, including their chemical and physical characteristics. At the same time, the survey revealed persistent challenges, such as limited foundational knowledge, inadequate tools and facilities and – among some students – a need for greater proficiency in biology and laboratory practices (Appendix 1 for further details).

Third edition, TMBT method definition

In the third edition of MbM, named the Biodesign edition, students collaborated throughout all stages of the design process with a biologist and an agronomist-entrepreneurFootnote ² experienced in cultivation of fungi at all stages of the design process (Figure 4). The methodological structure introduced in the previous section (TMBT) represents an evolution of the approaches adopted in the first two workshops. It enabled the research group to address the scientific and experimental demands of an approach integrating design and scientific disciplines. As is often the case in transdisciplinary collaborations, specific tools for interaction between participants were created progressively (Moreno and Villalba, Reference Moreno and Villalba2018). The TMBT method described in the earlier section was not clearly predefined but rather evolved alongside the project itself. In other words, the practical development nurtured the theoretical framework and vice versa, in a dialogic process oriented toward discovering and defining a shared space between the involved disciplines. In this sense, the methodological definition can be considered an instance of Research Through Design (RtD) (Frayling, Reference Frayling1993) (Zimmerman et al., Reference Zimmerman, Stolterman and Forlizzi2010) (Pollini, Reference Pollini2024), combining design practices with scientific inquiry. As Cross (Reference Cross1982) notes, the invention of the method preceded the theoretical understanding: action came before methodological comprehension. According to Varela and Shear (Reference Varela and Shear1999), through reflection, cognitive approaches and practical experience, subjective practices can transform into a structured body of knowledge, as occurred in the development of TMBT.

Figure 4. Participants engaged in the Transdisciplinary Material BioTinkering (TMBT) method during the MbM III – Biodesign Edition. Highlights include activities: a) To Know; b) To Understand; c) To Think; d) To Select; e) To View; f) To Design Micro; g) To Test; h) To Imagine, i) To Collect.

TMBT combines a traditional design method (Bonsiepe, Reference Bonsiepe1993) – characterized by the reflective analysis and understanding of the problem, the creative design phase of concept definition and development and the project realization phase – with the Material-Driven Design (MDD) approach, which focuses on experiential and direct material research to produce physical samples. It also integrates the scientific method, whose steps include: formulating a hypothesis, designing and conducting experiments, collecting and analyzing data and interpreting results. In a way, TMBT bridges the “ways of knowing” of science and design (Cross, Reference Cross1982) to establish a methodological framework for transdisciplinary approaches in the biodesign context, aimed at designing new materials. This methodology does not dilute the distinct cognitive processes of design but instead enriches them with a scientific dimension essential for tackling the complexities of contemporary challenges. As a result, students were able to achieve outcomes that were not only more intricate and reliable but also easier to validate and replicate. This was made possible by the experimental design process and the biodesign agenda, which served both as a project management tool and as a laboratory notebook. By building on a traditional design process, TMBT respects the discipline’s “ways of knowing” (Cross, Reference Cross1982, Reference Cross2006) while expanding and harmonizing them toward a transdisciplinary dimension. Designer, as Cross (Reference Cross1982) explains, typically aim to find a workable solution – not necessarily the best one – among many possible alternatives. In TMBT, a brainstorming session involving all disciplines occurs in the Into Material step to identify a range of potential solutions. One of these solutions is then developed during the Concept Design and Material Experience Vision steps, progressing to experimental design and laboratory implementation and culminating in collecting final samples.

While TMBT retains the designer’s rapid solution-finding approach, it also allows for exploration of multiple alternatives if the initial solution does not meet the design intentions. Steps such as Material Experience Vision, Material Lab Experiment Design and Lab Experiment, along with the overarching Concept Design, incorporate recursive processes similar to the scientific method. These steps rely on inductive and deductive insights, supplemented by the abductive reasoning typical of designer. Thus, with TMBT, a possible solution is quickly identified; the difference compared to a traditional design process lies in the ability to investigate a number of possible solutions if the first one does not align with the design intentions. Indeed, steps 2 – Material Experience Vision, 3 – Material Lab Experiment Design and 4 – Lab Experiment and in a transversal way step 5 – Concept Design, in analogy with the scientific method, are recursive and based on inductive-deductive intuitions but fueled by the abductive thinking process typical of designers. In these four stages, the use of the biodesign agenda was essential, as students took notes, described the material, designed the material and the experiment – from the micro scale to sensory aspects – along with the conceptualization of possible applications (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Biodesign Agenda – Transdisciplinary Tool.

The solution-oriented approach described by Cross (Reference Cross1982) is closely linked to the type of problems that designers typically face, namely Wicked Problems (Buchanan, Reference Buchanan1992). In this sense, the ways of knowing of designer can only be constructive; that is, unlike science, which seeks solutions in an analytical way, focusing on how things are, designers are interested in how things should be (Simon, Reference Simon1988). In the proposed method, indeed, in the iterative steps between Material Experience Vision and Lab Experiment, students, using sketches as a communication method with scientists (Langella, Reference Langella2019a) (Langella in Pollini, Reference Pollini2021) – sketches of the material, the experiment and the potential design application – tried to establish the foundations of the design concept in order to define the design problem and offer an immediate possible solution. On the other hand, scientists sought solutions with an inductive-deductive approach, side by side with the designers, to reach the conceptualized design hypothesis. Conversely, scientists adopted an inductive-deductive approach, working closely with designers to refine the initially conceptualized design hypothesis. During these dialogs between science and design in the third workshop, another “way of knowing” theorized by Cross (Reference Cross1982) was emphasized: the use of codes – sketches and the integration of heterogeneous domains. These codes allowed designers to translate abstract concepts – such as Material Experience Vision, Concept Design and Material Lab Experiment Design – into concrete solutions during the Lab Experiment and Sample Production steps. In particular, in the Material Lab Experiment Design step, students undertook a novel activity for designers: planning scientific experiments. However, they still applied the codes typical of design disciplines – sketches, and the ability to synthesize heterogeneous domains – to effectively communicate with the other sciences.

During the Concept Design step, in addition to leveraging the “way of knowing” through sketches, designers also applied their ability to interpret and rewrite material culture. As Cross (Reference Cross1982) notes, objects carry vast knowledge through their forms, functions and materials. Immersed in material culture, designers are uniquely equipped to interpret and recontextualize this knowledge into new objects. This “way of knowing” was particularly evident in the Concept Design step, where students proposed potential applications for the developed material solutions. Using sketches, designers demonstrated the feasibility of their ideas to scientists, fostering a more grounded and expansive dialog. In the Lab Experiment step (Figure 6), students, having acquired prior knowledge, wore lab coats and entered a self-constructed laboratory equivalent to a Biosafety Level I Lab. They worked hands-on to produce material samples under the supervision of biologists and agronomists specializing in mycology (Designer in Lab, Pollini, Reference Pollini2024) (Langella in Pollini, Reference Pollini2021). Even in the laboratory, the biodesign agenda proved indispensable – not only as a tool for dialog across disciplines but also as a means of constructing a shared process. Scientists actively collaborated, using sketches to contribute to the workflow. Based on this experience, we can conclude that designer, as Pollini (Reference Pollini2024) argue, initially hesitant about the scientific approach and laboratory methods, achieved more complex results than in previous editions through continuous transdisciplinary engagement and the acquisition of new knowledge.

Figure 6. The participants take on the role of “Designer in Lab” and, guided by a biologist, starting experimentation within a BSL1 (Biosafety Level 1) laboratory with P. ostreatus.

The outcomes reveal that the third edition of MbM employed a transdisciplinary biotinkering approach, fostering collaboration between designer and scientists across design and scientific methods throughout all process phases. This methodology engaged all hierarchical levels proposed by Max-Neef (Reference Max-Neef2005). In fact, during the workshop, empirical disciplines – biology, agriculture and materials science – were made to interact, allowing us to understand “what exists”; pragmatic and normative disciplines – such as architecture and design – helped answer “what are we capable of doing?” (with what we have learned from the empirical level) and “what do we want to do?”. Finally, disciplines related to value and ethics – now incorporated into the design for sustainability field – posed the question “what should we do?” or rather “how should we do what we want to do?”. According to Max-Neef (Reference Max-Neef2005), any multiple relationship that includes all four of the levels described above defines a transdisciplinary action.

The final survey, submitted to the future biodesigners, highlights meaningful insights and areas for further reflection. In general, the simultaneous contribution of the different disciplines was positively evaluated by all students, especially in the laboratory phases. Instead, among the main difficulties that emerged were the laboratory practice and the difficult understanding of the organism and consequently the difficulty in generating ideas related to it. However, these difficulties, as highlighted by some students, were overcome thanks to the collaboration between the different expertize involved. Another important piece of data that emerged from the survey, which reinforces the theme of transdisciplinarity, was the direct contact with an external company expert in mushroom cultivation (Appendix 1 for further details).

The third workshop concluded with students presenting their work at Milano Design Week 2024 as part of the exhibition “Design Across the Borders in Times of Global Crisis,” organized by the Design for Sustainability Lab at BASE Milano/We Will Design. Additionally, the results of MbM III were showcased at the “From Material Design to Research” exhibition, organized by the bottom-up group SID (Società Italiana di Design), Design4Material, held at Saperi&Co, Sapienza University of Rome, in June 2024 (Figure 7).

Figure 7. a) Final show at BASE Milano/We Will Design during Milan Design Week 2024 with student’s works – Photo Credits Giulia Ficarazzo; b) Final show at BASE Milano/We Will Design during Milan Design Week 2024 with student’s works; c & d) Final show at Sapienza Università di Roma at Saperi&Co.