Sensemaking-As-Trace in Researcher-Led Synthesis of Co-Design Materials

Authors

  • Julia Bugler Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Department of Applied Design, PO Box 652, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa
  • Ryna Cilliers Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Department of Applied Design, PO Box 652, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa
  • Veronica Barnes Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Department of Applied Design, PO Box 652, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1711-8569

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2026.1836

Keywords:

Co-design, Design Synthesis, Design Research, Traceability, Sensemaking-as-trace

Abstract

Co-design scholarship stresses connecting participant contributions to research outcomes but gives limited attention to the common practice of researcher-led synthesis after participation ends. This study asks how researcher-led sensemaking unfolded through synthesis actions and how connections to participant contributions were retained or restored. An instrumental case study examined a digital whiteboard workspace and reflective walkthrough transcript from a practice-based co-design project. The transcript was process-coded inductively and categorised deductively using design synthesis categories; workspace configurations were examined alongside it throughout both analytical passes. Sensemaking unfolded through making and revising representations, narrowing material and forming connections. Five mechanisms described how origins, sources, relationships and earlier states remained available, and how the researcher returned to participant material: provenance encoding, source linking, relationship marking, versioning and retracing. Sensemaking-as-trace brings practices dispersed across design, provenance and documentation research into design synthesis by asking whether interpretations remain connected or can be connected back to participant contributions.

References

Ananny, M., & Crawford, K. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Carcary, M. (2009). The research audit trail: Enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative inquiry. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 7(1), 11–24.

Cashman, S. B., Adeky, S., Allen, A. J., Corburn, J., Israel, B. A., Montaño, J., Rafelito, A., Rhodes, S. D., Swanston, S., Wallerstein, N., & Eng, E. (2008). The power and the promise: Working with communities to analyze data, interpret findings, and get to outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1407–1417. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.113571

Claisse, C., Petrelli, D., & Dulake, N. (2019). Design synthesis: An act of Research through Design. In Proceedings of the 4th Biennial Research Through Design Conference, Delft and Rotterdam, The Netherlands (Article 39, pp. 1–16). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7855826.v1

Dalsgaard, P., & Halskov, K. (2012). Reflective design documentation. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’12) (pp. 428–437). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2318020

Gutierrez Lopez, M., Rovelo Ruiz, G., Luyten, K., Haesen, M., & Coninx, K. (2018). Re-thinking traceability: A prototype to record and revisit the evolution of design artefacts. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM Conference on Supporting Groupwork (pp. 196–208). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3148330.3148334

Johnson, M. P., Ballie, J., Thorup, T., & Brooks, E. (2017). CO/DEsign: Building a shared dialogue around analysis within co-design. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S4241–S4252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352922

Klein, G., Moon, B., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Making sense of sensemaking 1: Alternative perspectives. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(4), 70–73. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIS.2006.75

Kolko, J. (2010a). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2010.26.1.15

Kolko, J. (2010b). Sensemaking and framing: A theoretical reflection on perspective in design synthesis. In D. Durling, R. Bousbaci, L. Chen, P. Gauthier, T. Poldma, S. Roworth-Stokes, & E. Stolterman (Eds.), Design and complexity: DRS International Conference 2010, Montreal, Canada. https://dl.designresearchsociety.org/drs-conference-papers/drs2010/researchpapers/67

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.

Mahajan, S. (2025). Participatory provenance: Measuring input transformation in AI-mediated collective synthesis. Available at SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5709064

Masterson, D., Lindenfalk, B., Kjellström, S., Robert, G., & Ockander, M. (2024). Mechanisms for co-designing and co-producing health and social care: A realist synthesis. Research Involvement and Engagement, 10, Article 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00638-3

Ragan, E. D., Endert, A., Sanyal, J., & Chen, J. (2016). Characterizing provenance in visualization and data analysis: An organizational framework of provenance types and purposes. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 22(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2015.2467551

Rogers, J., Akbaba, D., Brown, J. S., Lex, A., & Meyer, M. (2026). Reflections on traceability for visualization research. Computer Graphics Forum, 45(3), e70445. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.70445

Saldaña, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE Publications.

Vargas, C., Zorbas, C., Longworth, G. R., Ugalde, A., Needham, C., Sunil, A., Venegas Hargous, C., Bennett, R., Forrester-Bowling, T., Cardoso Richter, A. P., & Allender, S. (2025). Exploring co-design: A systematic review of concepts, processes, models, and frameworks used in public health research. Journal of Public Health, 47(4), e616–e639. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaf084

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

Wood, C., Lindvig, K., Hillersdal, L., & Earle, D. (2025). Reflections on inclusive approaches to research co-design and participant-led analysis: The potential of CoNavigator. Journal of Participatory Research Methods, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.35844/001c.143839

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2026-09-16

How to Cite

Bugler, J., Cilliers, R., & Barnes, V. (2026). Sensemaking-As-Trace in Researcher-Led Synthesis of Co-Design Materials. CERN IdeaSquare Journal of Experimental Innovation, 10(2), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.23726/cij.2026.1836

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 2 (2026): Special Issue on Co-Creation

Section

Part 1: Power and Participation

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2026 Julia Bugler, Ryna Cilliers, Veronica Barnes

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  • Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  • Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).