Int J Technol Des Educ

DOI 10.1007/s10798-015-9327-y

Materials experience as a foundation for materials

and design education

Owain Pedgley1 • Valentina Rognoli2 • Elvin Karana3

Accepted: 11 August 2015

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract An important body of research has developed in recent years, explaining ways
in which product materials influence user experiences. A priority now is to ensure that the
research findings are adopted within an educational context to deliver contemporary
curricula for students studying the subject of materials and design. This paper reports on
an international initiative to develop ‘materials experience’ as a formal subject of study,
complementary to traditional technical and engineering approaches to materials and
design education. General learning objectives for materials experience are established,
followed by specific attention to three kinds of experience that arise during user–material–
product interaction: gratification of senses, conveyance of meanings, and elicitation of
emotions. For each of these kinds of experience, a specially devised active learning
exercise is explained in detail. In combination, these exercises are argued to deliver a
good foundation for student appreciation and action on designing for material experiences
in product design. The paper concludes with recommendations for how to responsibly
redress the imbalance that exists in materials and design education, by transitioning from
a culture of ‘imparting knowledge about materials’ to a culture of ‘generating experience
with materials’.

Keywords Materials inspiration
Materials selection
Materials experience
Senses

Product design

& Owain Pedgley

o.pedgley@liverpool.ac.uk
1
School of Engineering, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, UK
2
School of Design, Politecnico di Milano, Campus Bovisa, Via Durando, 20158 Milan, Italy
3
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Landbergstraat 15,
2628 CE Delft, The Netherlands

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Introduction

Materials have always been regarded as a fundamental element in industrial design edu-
cation. Methodologies applied to materials and design teaching have fluctuated across the
years, reflecting changes in context, the historical period, and renewal of institutional
approaches within design schools. In the current era, within new product development
teams, industrial designers and design engineers assume responsibility to choose the right
combination of materials and processes not only for satisfying technical design require-
ments and meeting sustainability demands, but also for reaching a pleasurable and desir-
able product for people. In other words, it is a designer’s remit to use materials to help
create intended product experiences for people in particular contexts of use: to define the
materials experience (Karana et al. 2014).
There has been an important body of research in recent years on how designers’
material choices affect the overall experience of a product and how materials are used as a
contributor to intended product experiences (Karana 2009; van Kesteren 2008; Pedgley
2009; Rognoli and Levi 2004). We define materials experience broadly as both the
experiences that people have with, and through, the materials of a product; as well as the
knowledge and skills that designers must possess if they are to ‘design for experience’
through the application of materials. We may say that materials experience encompasses a
concern not only for aesthetic (sensory) experiences provided by materials, but also the
meanings that may be attributed to materials, and the emotional responses that the use of
materials may evoke (Karana et al. 2015).
Deciding upon the role that a material will play within a product is one of the major
challenges faced by designers. Competence is needed in predicting and defining both the
expressive qualities and the performance of a candidate material. From this standpoint, it is
important for the designer to know how the properties of materials can be influential on the
total experience of a product, by satisfying people’s pragmatic and hedonic needs tied to
the ownership and use of products (Hassenzahl 2010). The implication here is that the
designer’s vocabulary and understanding of materials should span both an ‘engineering
perspective’ and an ‘experiential perspective’ (Pedgley 2010). However, in the case of
tertiary design education, it is apparent that the engineering perspective is well developed,
whereas the experiential perspective is less so. The merging of the two perspectives is also
underdeveloped, as evidenced by fundamental research in the area being published only
very recently (e.g. Wilkes et al. 2015; Schifferstein and Wastiels 2014). This is despite the
general observation that industrial design students and practitioners are more comfortable
to begin materials investigations from a perspective of sensorial-expressive characteriza-
tion, rather than commencing with technical requirements.
The situation leaves question marks over the efficacy of university course content in
materials and design, especially given that materials teaching—for which the authors have
collective experiences from the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey—is
often sourced outside of design departments, from materials science or engineering spe-
cialists. Our position is that the ‘fuzzier’ and more idiosyncratic approach dealing with
user–material relations is not any less important in a proper materials selection process, but
is under-developed as a field of design practice and education.
Undoubtedly, adapting materials education in design by integrating different tools and
methods for understanding tangible properties of materials alongside their intangible
effects is a vital need when current professional practices in design are considered. In this
regard, Pedgley (2010) has argued for ways in which materials education for industrial

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

design can be ‘invigorated’, in the sense of becoming aligned with, or even one step ahead
of, contemporary design practice. He emphasised the role of materials experience in
designers’ materials education, not only as subject clearly aligned to designerly thinking
and contributions, but also pragmatically to ensure subject relevance and to develop a
combination of new theory and selection tools that are distinct from, but complementary to,
engineering approaches. In follow-up work, Pedgley (2014) identified five emerging areas
of teaching and learning related to materials and industrial design, following a cross-
comparison of research initiatives.
• Generation of materials knowledge via analysis of material samples and product
exemplars.
• Development of a sensorial-expressive language of materials.
• Consideration of materials as a user interface of a product.
• Awareness of contextual considerations that limit materials selection and moderate
material experiences.
• Use of new material selection tools to guide experiential-based material selection
activities.
Each author of this present paper completed his/her PhD in the area of materials and
design: Pedgley in 1999 from Loughborough University (England); Rognoli in 2004 from
Politecnico di Milano (Italy), and Karana in 2009 from Delft University of Technology (The
Netherlands). All three authors are presently responsible for the teaching and learning of
newly developed materials courses integrating experiential aspects of materials, initially
developed independently but now benefitting from cross-fertilization of ideas that are
communicated throughout this paper. Each of the authors’ courses share the educational
points just listed.

Technical–experiential imbalance

Despite the growing body of research emphasising the value of experiential concerns and
their integration to formal materials selection processes, in the current era we find materials
education in industrial design programs, at least outside of art and design traditions, has
persistently focused on engineering content and technical-led selection activities (Karana
2011; Pedgley 2010). The majority of available materials selection advice and resources is
concomitantly oriented towards resolution of functional product decisions (Ashby 2010;
Jee and Kang 2001; Sapuan 2010) and choosing materials based on their suitability to meet
performance requirements (e.g. high strength, high stiffness, low weight, low carbon
footprint, high durability). Current textbooks supporting this approach include Ashby et al.
(2013), Ashby (2010) and Budinski and Budinski (2009).
Some substantial open educational resources have been developed to support materials
selection and engineering, such as the CORE-materials website (University of Liverpool
2014). CES Edupack (Granta Design 2014) is a powerful software package for materials
selection in an educational context. It can serve both as a lecture-based learning tool (about
material properties) as well as a project-based materials selection tool (leading to plotted
charts of material properties such as in Fig. 1, suitable for quick identification of candidate
materials for a target application). The vast majority of information contained within the
CES Edupack database is technical data derived from measured materials tests. Although
industrial and product design students benefit mostly from the more basic functionality of
the software, its attraction is that the data, presented visually as comparative charts, avoids

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 1 Typical materials chart from CES Edupack (Young’s modulus versus density)

the need for students to work initially with numerical data and promotes discussion around
material possibilities.
The concern, however, is that for the industrial designer, performance represents only
one dimension of a materials selection rationale. Resources to help designers engage in
materials selection for product supra-functionality (McDonagh-Philp and Lebbon 2000)—
that is, to satisfy hedonic needs ‘beyond’ or ‘or additional to’ product performance, which
can be manifest through expressivity—are currently very limited in scope and number. Yet
without this principally human-centred perspective, a full understanding of materials
experience cannot be achieved. For example, CES Edupack can be used to plot sensorial
material qualities (e.g. hardness, rigidity, elasticity), but it stops short of making a con-
nection to how people feel (or feel about) those qualities.
If we look to the past with regard to materials and design education, we can glean some
important points for the future. As Rognoli argued in her PhD thesis (2004), at the Bau-
haus—the universally recognised first ‘school of design’—various professors developed
their personal education methods around the teaching of materials. Johannes Itten’s work
(1888–1967) is especially relevant to contemporary discourse on materials experience. He
developed a ‘designerly’ approach to materials guided by senses and expressions, for-
mulated as his ‘theory of contrasts’, which became fundamental to his educational
approach for the Vorkurs (basic course) at the Bauhaus. Itten asked students to explore
sensorial contrasts (Fig. 2), some of which directly referenced material properties (e.g.
smooth-rough, soft-hard, light-heavy).
In Itten’s Vorkurs, studies of the expressive attributes of material texturization and
finishing were initiated, alongside phenomenological aspects that promoted discussion on

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 2 Principles from Johannes Itten’s ‘theory of contrasts’; adaptation from original diagram, circa 1920

the merits (or otherwise) of using particular materials. The theory of contrasts allowed
students to question the ‘nature’ of materials, by showing the essential and diverse char-
acteristics of different matter, in a manner that supported each student’s sensitivity and
refinement for the topics involved. Furthermore, it was imperative that students ‘felt’ these
contrasts. With this approach, Itten’s students were able to experience and appreciate the
character of materials directly, through hands-on exploration (Wick 2000). Itten (1963,
p. 12) describes the learning experience that was intended from his theory of contrasts, thus:
Finding and listing the various possibilities of contrast was always one of the most
exciting subjects, because the students realized that a completely new world was
opening up to them (…) The students had to approach the contrasts from three
directions: they had to experience them with their senses, objectivize them intel-
lectually, and realize them synthetically. (…) As life and beauty unfold in the regions
between the North Pole and the South Pole of our planet, so life and beauty of the
world of contrast are to be found in the graduation between the poles of contrast.
Examples of contrasts were made available via material samples, used for the creation of
sculptures and compositions. The study of contrasts also prepared students for their project
work in workshops, the organization of which by Walter Gropius—by material families
(Fig. 3)—continues to be a major influence on design programs globally. In retrospect,
Itten’s work can be regarded as a pioneering approach, placing the expressivity and
sensorial characterization of materials in front of technical appraisal and description
(Rognoli and Levi 2004).

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 3 Organization of teaching at the Bauhaus around material families; adaptation from original diagram,
circa 1963

This brings us to ask: what can design educators currently offer to students with regard
to teaching and learning of materials experience, and in particular the chains of thinking
that originate from encounters with material sensorial information? In recent years, several
publications have been released that lay foundations for experience-centred materials
selection (e.g. Ashby and Johnson 2002; Dent and Sherr 2014; Howes and Laughlin 2012;
Karana et al. 2014; Karana 2009; Lefteri 2014). Design students can also visit material
libraries for first-hand experiences. Samples can be ordered from materials suppliers, and
existing products can be analysed according to their material usage. But these activities are
largely disparate and independent, based on the initiatives of individual instructors.
Despite the growing body of research emphasising the centrality of the ‘experiential’
aspect of materials, the integration of these aspects into formal materials selection pro-
cesses or tools is at an early stage. What we observe that is missing are sufficient examples
of structured activities for the teaching and learning of materials experience, as well as the
elicitation and development of vocabulary and concepts that can be used to describe actual
and intended material experiences. To this end, in this paper we report our efforts to
consolidate the materials and design educational activities of three universities.

General learning objectives for materials experience

Materials for use in product design can span nano-particles through to giant concrete
pieces, in applications as diverse as telephones through to exhibition stands. The approach
to the selection of an appropriate material across product sectors varies. However, common
fundamental questions remain the same, namely: how do we select an ideal material for a
particular application, and what are the main requirements and constraints?

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

In (design) engineering, materials requirements and constraints are usually technical

and able to be expressed numerically in dimensions such as strength, thermal conductivity,
rigidity and so on. However, for user-oriented design disciplines such as industrial design,
requirements and constraints are constituted heavily on the designer’s (or the designer’s
expectations for users’) sensory sensitivity. For example: how one perceives the coldness
of a material; how that perception differs from the perception of other people; and what
specific character of ‘perceived coldness’ is preferred in a particular context. Experiential
appreciation and appraisal of materials is crucial in this regard (e.g. the ability to discern
wood as ‘modern’; or the ‘fondness’ of textiles as a material to touch), as is the context in
which the material–human interaction is anticipated to take place. For example, the
valence and strength of feeling about materials and their uses will be tied strongly to
people’s personal values (Trimingham 2008). We may expect stronger and more visceral
responses in instances where social, cultural, ethical, economic and environmental issues
run alongside material usage.
Not surprisingly, formulating experiential material requirements is challenging. How
can we train design students to gain proficiency in such formulation? By applying
frameworks of product experience to the specific domain of product materials, it is pos-
sible to create a solid foundation for teaching and learning materials experience (Karana
et al. 2015). Accordingly, we have identified three differentiated ‘components’ of expe-
rience as applied to product materials.
• aesthetic (sensory) experience: e.g. people feeling the smoothness of a material; seeing
its matte finish.
• experience of meaning: e.g. people appraising a material as being traditional, looking
cozy, seemingly toy-like.
• emotional experience: e.g. people affected by a material, being surprised (‘wow!’),
disgusted (‘urgh!’), enthralled (‘amazing!’).
Our view is that teaching and learning of materials experience should properly span all
three of these experience components. When taken in combination, they can help designers
compose a storyline for how materials are intended to contribute to positive user experi-
ences. That is, the aesthetic experience focuses the mind of the designer on those sensorial
material qualities that will be appreciated by target users; the experience of meaning directs
attention to consider the evaluative and judgemental tendencies of people; whilst the
emotional experience is a focal point for personal gratification and added value that may
arise anywhere between short or long term acquaintance with a product. For each expe-
riential component, we aim to achieve the following learning goals.
• For aesthetic (sensory) experience, students should be able to: argue the relations/
differences between numerical technical properties and associated perceived qualities;
argue the individual differences in sensory perception.
• For experience of meaning, students should be able to: identify diverse factors playing
a role in the attribution of meanings to materials; identify the most commonly used
sensorial properties to evoke material meanings; construe certain patterns for particular
user(group)–material–meaning relationships; apply these patterns in designing a
product intended to evoke certain meanings through materials.
• For emotional experience, students should be able to: argue the individual differences
and commonalities for a particular material-based emotional experience; argue on those
aspects of material-product combinations that elicit emotional experiences; construe
certain patterns as a guideline to elicit intended emotions through materials.

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Overall, after completing the authors’ courses, students are expected to have acquired
understanding of the role and dynamics of materials experience and developed rationale for
product material choices based on user–material–product relationships. Teaching and
learning is supported through lectures, assignments, and active learning exercises—in our
case characterized as educational situations in which students carry out and reflect upon
practical task-based material appraisals linked to learning objectives (Felder and Brent
2009). Assignments and practical class activities are always directly related to presented
theoretical content, either as a pre- or post-contribution. In the following sections, we will
address the development and application of different active learning exercises and state-of-
the-art tools for user-centered materials selection, offering a separate example for each of
the three components of materials experience.

Learning the aesthetic experience of materials

To learn the sensorial effects of materials in a deep manner, we concur with the Bauhaus
tradition that a hands-on approach to material appraisals is necessary. Accordingly, there is an
imperative to use material and product samples to support the acquisition of materials expe-
rience, as well as to support students’ materials selection activities. By implication, we regard
computer-, paper- or lecture-based teaching and learning, either individually or in combination,
as not sufficient for a full understanding of aesthetics and materials.
Collections of carefully chosen samples, organized within a library or repository, are an
ideal source for educating designers about material properties and material applications
(Akın and Pedgley 2015). With physical samples, material appraisals inevitably switch
from visual (which can be somewhat reproduced in books and lecture slides) to multi-
sensory—which directly echoes real-life material appraisals. In other words, first-hand
sensory perception of materials, and the aesthetic experiences that result, can be said to be
vital in transitioning from acquisition of materials knowledge to nurturing of materials
experience.
The Expressive-Sensorial Atlas is a tool focused on characterizing the sensory
dimension of materials for consideration in a new product design. It was an outcome of
doctoral studies at the Politecnico di Milano (Rognoli 2004) and is in use today for the
development of materials and design courses and workshops, as well as a stimulus for
research studies. The atlas is a collection of charts or tables, which report information in a
structured yet flexible manner, without grading or privileging material. The atlas has a
purposeful ‘work in progress’ format, rather than a completed entity—intended to grow
according to the requirements and experiences of students.
At the didactic level, the atlas is an interactive tool used to teach future designers about the
existence of a sensory dimension of materials, consisting in tactile and photometric sensations
that people perceive because of interaction with (sensorial exploration of) materials. These
aspects are divided into top-level parameters (texture and touch for tactile sensations; bril-
liancy and transparency for photometric sensations), which in turn are divided into qualities
(texture: smooth/engraved; touch: warm/cold, soft/hard, light/heavy, sliding/sticky; trans-
parency: transparent, translucent, opaque; brilliancy: gloss/matte) (Rognoli 2010).
On the basis of these considerations, four charts—texture, touch, brilliancy and trans-
parency—have been developed for educational activities. These charts illustrate qualities
independent of any specific material family. Samples of various materials are utilized to
highlight differences between sensorial qualities. The charts provide a thorough illustration
of sensorial qualities using a sample of material combined with a simple, concise textual
definition (Fig. 4).

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 4 Property explanations and physical samples combined into the Expressive-Sensorial Atlas

The atlas was structured in this way for two reasons. First, the aim was to bring a
semblance of order to a topic that is inherently complex, spanning the technical arena of
materials engineering and the cognitive arena of human perception. Our experience is that
the ‘feel’ of material properties is not a common consideration amongst engineers, yet it is a
common reference amongst product and industrial designers. The atlas is structured in a way
that promotes development of a common qualitative language to verbalize, share and
understand sensorial qualities of materials, thereby strengthening the designer’s vocabulary.
The second reason for structuring the atlas as described is related to the desire to create
a clear correspondence between phenomenological aspects of materials (perceived sen-
sorial information) and the underlying physical, chemical, mechanical and technological
material properties. Such correspondence is regarded as fundamental to design education
(Ashby and Johnson 2002; Miodownik 2007). The atlas helps nurture a sense of corre-
spondence, and an ability to translate between material sensations and material properties,
which we assert allows students to make more informed and inspired material selection
decisions that can simultaneously attend to both product functionality and expression.
From this point of view, the Expressive-Sensorial Atlas of materials is at an intersecting
point between design and engineering cultures. Using the atlas, students have the oppor-
tunity to ‘feel’ the correspondence between phenomenological and technical profiles of
materials.
The atlas also helps explain discrepancies between subjectivity (of experience) and
objectivity (of measurement). Let us describe one exercise with the atlas in detail, as shown
in Fig. 5. Accompanying the atlas is a set of eight identically sized material samples
(PMMA, PTFE, glass, stainless steel, titanium, aluminium, copper, lead). The samples
have markedly different properties and sensorial qualities. Students are asked to rank order
the samples from one sensorial extremity to the other: for example, from lightest sample to

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 5 Ranking of material

samples based on sensory
perception

heaviest; coldest to warmest; softest to hardest. These rankings, based on personal sen-
sation, result in a subjective and qualitative ‘sensorial scale’. Students then compare their
sensorial scale with the scale derived from objective material measurements—and in doing
so realize that correspondence is not always present. In this way, a powerful technique is
offered to demonstrate that there can be differences between what is perceived subjectively
and what can be measured objectively. Furthermore, students realise that sensorial ranking
completed by their peers is diverse and that as a population, people live in different
‘sensorial universes’ (Le Breton 2006), perceiving sensorial qualities differently. Ulti-
mately, the principal learning outcome is to appreciate that whatever material may be
selected for a new design, there will always be a degree of difference regarding the exact
aesthetic material experience that people will have, irrespective of its positive or negative
association for the perceiver. The atlas approach has recently been extended to new areas,
including specific classes of materials (the ‘hand’ of fabrics), manufacturing technologies
(laser finishing) and colour properties of materials (Rognoli 2010).

Learning the meanings of materials

What we touch, handle, hear, smell (and sometimes taste) when interacting with the
materials of a product greatly influences our judgements. The main learning objective of
our meanings of materials exercise is to support students in identifying and understanding
the main factors that affect people’s attribution of meanings to materials. Students are
encouraged to develop second-order understanding—that is, understanding of other peo-
ple’s understanding of things (Krippendorff 2006)—by conducting an explorative study

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

with intended users in mind. They are supported with a method—meaning driven materials
selection (MDMS)—developed by Karana (2009), which helps them not only to collect data
for materials selection, but also to analyse the collected data in a systematic way. The ultimate
objective of this exercise is for students to design a new product for which materials selection
is based on the findings of an explorative user study. Below, we first explain the MDMS
method and present the application of the method with an illustrative case.
The MDMS method conveys the idea that many meanings can be attributed to many
materials, dependent on different products and contexts. MDMS first offers a research
approach to explore people’s material–meaning relationships. It then supports designers in
applying the results of the conducted research to tangible material properties, which
facilitate the attribution of the desired meanings to the materials of a new design. Fur-
thermore, it familiarises designers with key aspects (such as shape, users, manufacturing
processes) playing a modulating role in the attribution of meanings to materials (for
detailed information see Karana 2009; Karana et al. 2010). To apply the method, a group of
people are approached to participate in a study where they are given the following three
tasks: (1) select a material embodied in a product (or part thereof) that you think expresses
a specified meaning, (2) provide pictures of the material embodied in example products,
and (3) explain your choice and evaluate the material on provided sensorial scales.1
From this point, students analyse their results, and based on their findings they select
material(s) for their product design. This exercise provides students with the opportunity to
explore material–meaning relationships with a pre-defined method and to apply their
findings to material selection. Furthermore, after completing the first exercise with the
Expressive-Sensorial Atlas, becoming familiar with the sensorial properties of materials
and their subjectivity, this second exercise supports students in understanding the inter-
relationships between sensorial properties and intended meanings and expressions.
Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9 provide an illustrative case where a student applied the MDMS
method to explore the material properties evoking or supporting the meanings modest and
provocative (Figs. 6, 7). Analysing the results, the student extracted two meaning evoking
patterns (Karana 2012) showing common, conflicting and unique material and product
aspects to be considered in the final design of a product (Fig. 8). Her final product design—
a plant pot and seed tablets made of ‘coffee waste composite’ (Fig. 9)—demonstrates how
she interpreted the results of the study (for an extensive explanation of her work, see
Zeeuw van der Laan 2013).

Learning the emotional experience of materials

To probe the emotional experience of materials, we developed the exercise Love–Hate

Experience of Product Materials. Its intention is to draw students’ attention to the various
ways in which people may develop an emotional response to the materials embodied
within products, and the subtopics that influence that response. The specific aim of the
exercise is to investigate the extent to which people’s emotional experiences of product
materials are shared or unique. Students are asked to bring two products to class: one
having a material/finish that they especially like (or love) and one that they especially
dislike (or hate). The products are collated and then every student in the class appraises

1
After conducting a number of studies, Karana (2009) grouped a set of sensorial properties under different
sensory modalities. These properties (such as rough–smooth, opaque–transparent, soft–hard, etc.) together
form a ‘scale’ and are promoted as the properties that are more commonly used for attributing meanings to
materials.

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 6 Collection of materials (left) and products (right) for ‘provocative’

each of his/her peers’ products on a Likert scale, indicating degrees of liking or disliking
the product materials. The activity results in a rich pool of data to explore how material
choices affect product perception and emotional experience. The numerical data from the
Likert scale gives fascinating insights into preferred and less preferred material–product
combinations (Fig. 10), with data that can be statistically analysed and significant results
extracted to facilitate student discussion. Accompanying statements of explanation are
transcribed onto individual sticky notes and analysed by students to piece together mate-
rials storytelling based on interconnections between aesthetic, meaning and emotional
experiences. This allows multiple levels and rounds of categorization, helping students
learn inter-related concepts.

Discussion and conclusions

As a collection, our active learning exercises and associated experiences indicate that if
industrial designers are to successfully achieve materials selection for product experience,
it may be prudent for them to avoid a classic materials selection process, at least initially.
That is, to avoid a hierarchical progression from the family (e.g., plastics) through the
generic (e.g., polycarbonate) to the trade-named (e.g., Lexan 104). We say this because
part of the remit of industrial design is to open doors, to play with the unusual and untested.
This is not for some aimless experimentation, but to serendipitously hit upon a feasible
material family or more specific material (and by implication finishes and shaping pro-
cesses) that might just revolutionize a product sector or at very least provide an exciting
new opportunity to differentiate a product from its competitors.

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 7 Collection of materials (left) and products (right) for ‘modest’

So, rather than undertake an impersonal materials selection process, the student industrial
designer might be better encouraged to start out on a personal materials inspiration journey.
This would constitute conscious hunts or subconscious encounters with existing materials
that may be common or unusual to a product sector, to help set material and product design
directions that can meet defined user experience goals. Materials selection as a phrase
implies that much design thinking has already occurred prior to engaging with materials
decisions, rather like a realization route for a worked-out plan. In contrast, materials inspi-
ration implies material thoughts that occur synchronously with design ideation and which to
some extent permit a material to ‘lead the way’ with regard to form-giving and possible user
experiences. Of course, we must be cautious to emphasize that what we are promoting here is
a shift in emphasis of material-related activities within industrial design projects. Especially
further downstream in new product development, engineering and technically oriented
selection methods are of increasing relevance. So we foresee as ideal the phasing of materials
inspiration into materials selection through the progression of a design project.
If we scan across the active learning exercises and initiatives outlined in this paper, we
can identify common points that together define what is undoubtedly a challenging edu-
cational approach necessary to nurture student designers’ materials experience.
• User research to uncover material values and experiential dimensions
• Integration of materials selection from pragmatic and hedonic perspectives

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Fig. 8 Meaning evoking patterns for ‘modest’ (top) and ‘provocative’ (bottom) (Karana et al., in press)

Fig. 9 Final product through MDMS method: pot and tablets

• Development of utilitarian and affective materials judgement

• Familiarity with the sensorial-expressive language of materials
• Learning by touching and feeling materials

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

Fig. 10 Results of peer-reviewed products based on material–product combinations

Fig. 11 Dual language of materials supporting sensorial and numerical design decision-making

• Learning by designing and making with materials

• Material and design critiques of existing products
One point that resonates throughout the examples and arguments presented in the paper
is the need to promote to students a complementary ‘dual language of materials’ that
develops a correspondence between sensed material characteristics and measured material
properties (Fig. 11). Such duality, we say, will help students navigate between sensorial
and numerical decision-making and, hence, will broaden their vocabulary to engage in
material discussions with a wide variety of product design stakeholders.

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

In Pedgley’s (1999, p. 322) doctoral work, interviewed designers stated that ideally
there should be no boundary to materials-related knowledge and that designers ‘‘should
know as much as possible’’ and ‘‘could not have enough’’ materials knowledge. On
reflection, and tempered by practical reality, such a position is not obtainable within the
confines of university education. Even as a professional, a designer cannot hope to know
about ‘all’ materials and processes, and know what ‘every’ product is made from and how.
One of our responsibilities as educators is to demarcate what should be core course content,
what can be optional and on the periphery, and what is better left for ‘on-the-job’ training.
We consider the issues raised in this paper to have sufficient gravity to redefine the core of
materials and design education for industrial designers.
To conclude, our arguments and practical exercises have sought to shift materials
teaching away from a predominantly technical subject to one that has product experience at
its core. The new landscape for materials and design education that we are helping to
construct can be characterized as follows.
• Founded on a user–product interaction model People interact with materials through
their embodiment in products; by adopting a user–product interaction model for
defining product experience, materials teaching and learning can be achieved in a
holistic, relevant and energizing manner.
• Based on experiential evidence and rationale People’s experiences of materials are
both shared and individual. To cope with this complexity, new materials selection
methodologies and tools will continue to develop, aiming to bring designers and design
students an evidence base on which they can design for product expression and
aesthetics beyond personal intuition and idiosyncratic methods. Peer involvement in
material appraisals is a good starting point; however, even better is the involvement of
a sample of people from target/specialist user groups—this has already been
implemented in the case of the MDMS method.
• Contextually complex Simple causative or one-to-one relationships between materials,
products, sensorial experiences, meaning attribution and emotional responses do not
exist. Effective teaching and learning in this area must expose students to the
complexity of contextual issues, whilst emphasising that with complexity comes
richness in diversity and novelty.
We should also not forget that materials are just a starting point for the creation of
products. Shaping and finishing processes, alongside production issues and temporal effects,
all influence materials experience and should necessarily be introduced into teaching and
learning. For the work presented in this paper, in informal discussions, students expressed
their satisfaction in being led through a new door into the materials world. They appreciated
the combination of experiential learning and second-order understanding in developing a
user-centred perspective on materials and design. The active learning exercises were seen as
engaging, inspirational and informative and, crucially for us, effective in bridging the divide
between ‘knowledge about’ and ‘experience in’ materials.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to extend their gratitude to Bahar Sener-Pedgley for her
meticulous preparation of several figures appearing in this paper.

123
Materials experience as a foundation for materials and…

References
Akın, F., & Pedgley, O. (2015). Sample libraries to expedite materials experience for design: A survey of
global provision. Materials and Design,. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2015.04.045.
Ashby, M. (2010). Materials selection in mechanical design (4th ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.
Ashby, M., & Johnson, K. (2002). Materials and design: The art and science of materials selection in
product design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.
Ashby, M., Shercliff, H., & Cebon, D. (2013). Materials: Engineering, science, processing and design.
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.
Felder R., & Brent, R. (2009). Active learning: An introduction. ASQ Higher Education Brief, 2(4).
Budinski, K., & Budinski, M. (2009). Engineering materials, properties and selection. London: Prentice-
Hall.
Dent, A., & Sherr, L. (2014). Material innovation: Product design. London: Thames & Hudson.
Granta Design. (2014). CES Edupack 2014. http://www.grantadesign.com/education/edupack/edupack2014.
htm. Accessed 20 June 2014.
Hassenzahl, M. (2010). Experience design: Technology for all the right reasons. San Francisco: Morgan &
Claypool.
Howes, P., & Laughlin, Z. (2012). Material matters: New materials in design. London: Black Dog
Publishing.
Itten, J. (1963). Design and form. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Jee, D., & Kang, K. (2001). A method for optimal material selection aided with decision making theory.
Materials and Design, 21(3), 199–206.
Karana, E. (2009). Meanings of materials. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft
University of Technology.
Karana, E. (2011). Materials selection in design: From research to education. 1st International symposium
for design education researchers. Cumulus Association/DRS, Paris.
Karana, E. (2012). Characterization of ‘natural’ and ‘high-quality’ materials to improve perception of bio-
plastics. Journal of Cleaner Production, 37, 316–325.
Karana, E, Barati, B., Rognoli, V, Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (in press). Material driven design (MDD): A
method to design for material experiences. International Journal of Design.
Karana, E., Hekkert, P., & Kandachar, P. (2010). A tool for meaning driven materials selection. Materials
and Design, 31, 2932–2941.
Karana, E., Pedgley, O., & Rognoli, V. (2014). Materials experience: Fundamentals of materials and
design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Karana, E., Pedgley, O., & Rognoli, V. (2015). On materials experience. Design Issues, 31(3), 16–27.
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis
CRC Press.
Le Breton, D. (2006). La saveur du monde - une anthropologie des sens. Paris: Éditions Métailié.
Lefteri, C. (2014). Materials for design. London: Laurence King.
McDonagh-Philp, D., & Lebbon, C. (2000). The emotional domain in product design. The Design Journal,
3(3), 31–43.
Miodownik, M. (2007). Toward designing new sensoaesthetic materials. Pure and Applied Chemistry,
79(10), 1635–1641.
Pedgley, O. (1999). Industrial designers’ attention to materials and manufacturing processes: Analyses at
macroscopic and microscopic levels. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Design and Technology, Lough-
borough University.
Pedgley, O. (2009). Influence of stakeholders on industrial design materials and manufacturing selection.
International Journal of Design, 3(1), 1–15.
Pedgley, O. (2010). Special file: Futures for materials and industrial design education. METU Journal of The
Faculty of Architecture, 27(2), 265–269.
Pedgley, O. (2014). Materials selection for product experience: New thinking, new tools. In E. Karana, O.
Pedgley, & V. Rognoli (Eds.), Materials experience: Fundamentals of materials and design (pp.
337–349). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.
Rognoli, V. (2004). The expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for design. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty
of Design, Politecnico di Milano.
Rognoli, V. (2010). A broad survey on expressive-sensorial characterization of materials for design edu-
cation. METU Journal of The Faculty of Architecture, 27(2), 287–300.
Rognoli V., & Levi M. (2004). How, what and where is it possible to learn design materials? The Changing
Face of Design Education. 2–3 September, Delft, 1–8. ISBN/ISSN:90-5155-020.

123
 O. Pedgley et al.

Sapuan, S. (2010). A knowledge-based system for materials selection in mechanical engineering design.
Materials and Design, 22(8), 687–695.
Schifferstein, H., & Wastiels, L. (2014). Sensing materials: Exploring the building blocks for experiential
design. In E. Karana, O. Pedgley, & V. Rognoli (Eds.), Materials experience: Fundamentals of
materials and design (pp. 15–26). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinmann.
Trimingham, R. (2008). The role of values in design decision-making in design and technology education.
Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 13(2), 37–52.
University of Liverpool. (2014). CORE-materials. http://core.materials.ac.uk. Accessed 15 May 2014.
van Kesteren, I. (2008). Selecting materials in product design. Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Industrial Design
Engineering, Delft University of Technology.
Wick, R. (2000). Teaching at the Bauhaus. Ostfildern-Ruit: Hatje Cantz.
Wilkes, S., Wongsriruksa, S., Howes, P., Gamester, R., Witchel, H., Conreen, M., et al. (2015). Design tools
for interdisciplinary translation of material experiences. Materials and Design,. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.
2015.04.013.
Zeeuw van der Laan, A. (2013). Characterization of waste coffee grounds as a design material. MSc thesis,
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology.

123