On Monday after our lectures we finished building the manual board, by adding the title Hinterlasse deine Spur, the metal paper clips for the photos, the holes to attach a ceramic object (aka ZEIGLING), text about posting a photo of the object on instagram with the hashtag #ZEIGLING, and numbers for the illustrations. We also 3D printed the fourth and final stamp for the manual board.

We also spent time structuring and preparing our presentation for the following day (Tuesday) at the Ateliers-Living Museum in Wil.

Also important to mention I think was our late morning lecture with Martin Dusek, who spoke to us about evaluation: What does it mean to evaluate? How do we evaluate? With what methods? What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative methods? Etc. We had an exercise after the lecture where we had to consider evaluation in the context of our IAD Process Project, in other words with ZEIGLING. What aspects would we want to evaluate on? With what methods would we evaluate?

We agreed we would want to evaluate the following: participation, durability, usability, and our personal learnings (see pink post it notes). The possible methods for evaluation are desirability testing for participation, web analytics and checking uploads of photos for durability, and interviews, as well as thinking aloud, for usability.

On our last day of production week we used this time to build our final prototype of the “Zeigling” manual (this includes the stamp and mould), as well as edit our video. With regards to the manual, based on the feedback from the patients, we worked towards developing a prototype that better integrated the step-by-step instructions with the tools. The instructions consist of 7 illustrations and and 4 tools (i.e. mould, stick, stamp, and zip ties).

With the illustrations we initially thought about using the laser cutter to etch/engrave them, but then realized we could use acetone to transfer the image onto the mdf. Before transferring the images directly onto the mdf we tested the method to see how we could produce the sharpest image. At first we struggled quite a bit, and even considered transferring the image onto a lighter mdf to have a stronger contrast between the lines of the illustration and the mdf. However, after many attempts we discovered how to transfer the image to our liking.

Additionally, we decided that the stamp would work better and give the affordance of actually being a stamp IF it was not a part of the mould, but a separate tool that is recognizable as a stamp.

With regards to the video we wanted to create something that would not only help to narrate the concept of the project, but also inspire people to take part. We begin the video with an introduction about how humans leave traces in their surroundings, whether intentional or not. Then we move onto the discovery of the creative environment in a ceramics atelier, and briefly explain how we would like to see more traces of this creativity in other spaces. We show parts of the ZEIGLING process, how the small ceramic objects are made and then placed in other environments. The purpose of this video was not to show that the ceramics were not necessarily made in the Living Museum, but that it could take place in ceramic ateliers in general.

Yesterday in we spent the morning at ZHdK mainly refining our stamp. The hashtag we had on Wednesday, was #LEATR, which stands for leave a trace. This however confused the patients, so we created a variety of new hashtags to evaluate together with the patients: #ZEIGLING, #ZEIGDI, #CLAYMI, #CLAYLI, #CLAYMLI. When we discussed these options with the patients in Wil in the afternoon, most preferred #ZEIGLING. With these new stamps we created more clay objects together with the patients (see images below). We also filmed more of the patients working on the clay objects.

Before we headed back to Zürich we placed more of the fired clay objects in Wil, not only on the way to the bahnhof, but also around the city.

On Wednesday we made our way out to Wil, arriving at the Atelier Living Museum around 11am. We first had coffee and discussed how the workshop would run and what scenes we needed to film. With a general outline of the day we headed into the ceramics atelier, excited that we were able to see our fired clay objects. They turned out to be almost perfect, except that we didn’t have a stamp for them yet and the hole to fit the zip tie through had shrunk—though we already expected this.

We had prepared for this though, and are still refining our mould. In fact we prepared a new mould, with a larger hole for the zip tie, as well as a stamp for the hashtag, for another workshop we wanted to lead. Initially we set up a separate table for the workshop, but it quickly became clear that this format wasn’t working. Even though our first workshop worked relatively well, this time we found it difficult to motivate patients to volunteer. We figured the reason could be that the workshop method is probably not well suited to the open working structure in the atelier, as all patients are involved in their individual work. As a result we brought our moulds, etc. over to their work space and began making clay objects beside them. This helped us motivate two participants individually, which lead to two more patients taking part.

From the few patients that took part, we gained some important feedback for both the moulds and the prototype manual board, etc. What are the clay objects called? What does the hashtag #LEATR mean? How do we stop the stamp from squishing the clay? Does it need to be a separate piece and not attached to the mould? Can the mould be refined even further? How can we make the manual more clear? Do we need additional text on the backside of the manual board? We will take this all into consideration for tomorrow and make some refinements.

In addition to the “workshop” we also filmed some scenes of us, as well as a patient, placing ceramic objects around Wil and actually making the clay objects. We will use this footage to create a short 1-3min film to help narrate the project.

During production week one of our goals is to produce a short, 1-3min video, which will help to provide a narration for the project. We are focusing on the story of humans leaving traces behind, and how we would like to leave traces of the ceramics atelier in other places/environments. The following are some quick sketches of frames from various videos found while searching for inspiration.

For our next visit in Wil, we wanted to refine our prototype in order to show it to the patient and the staff. The moulds needed to get bigger holes and get placed on a set, which is meant to hang up to the wall in the ceramics atelier. We also tried out different forms of a stamp that can be placed on the side of our base form. The instruction drawing have also been redrawn and refined.

In preparation for our presentation this afternoon we sat down for a couple of hours discussing what exactly our narrative is. The difficulty is that our project has many layers and how do we express all of them without being too wordy or complicated. Despite the challenge, we tried to describe the project in one word or sentence, not only to help others understand our narrative, but to help ourselves as well.

After hours of discussing and articulating our narrative, we came up with one word: traces. Humans have a tendency to leave traces, whether intentional or not. Maybe these traces are personal, maybe they are community based.

At the Ateliers Living Museum in Wil we were struck by the creativity of the patients, and wanted to develop a way for them to leave traces of said creativity in other places/environments.

Today we spent the morning in Wil, completing a few tasks in preparation for our production week. We did the following:

1. Scout out possible spaces for placement of kit in the ceramics atelier
2. Speak with Stefan about our plans for next week (i.e. timing with firing ceramic objects, workshop with patients, and placement of kit)
3. Brief discussion with Rose about her contact with the living museum in New York, as well as other locations; we would like to invite other living museums to be apart of this project
4. Check on ceramic objects made by patients during the last workshop
5. Catching up with the patients

Yesterday we were introduced to the idea of storytelling in relation to the design process. Storytelling is a kind of framework for the design process, allowing both the designer and the user/client to better understand the purpose behind the idea.

For our project, defining the narrative was initially a bit of a challenge. This concept of translating the “feeling” of the ceramics atelier to another place is more abstract, and what it means or the purpose behind it is quite subjective, depending on the experience of each, individual patient. Furthermore, this is an aspect we wanted to leave up to the patients.

As a result, we tried to think first about why this project is important to the patients — what is the purpose. We thought perhaps the placing of ceramics in another location was a way of leaving a memory to come back to, maybe an acknowledgement of work, or even becoming a part of something bigger. After brainstorming these ideas we then attempted to understand what the overarching motivational theme is for patients. We thought back to our bodystorming exercise and how placing something we created, though only an origami paper bird, was a way of leaving a marker behind, a part of yourself. Therefore we feel as if our narrative is not only a way of marking a place with your artwork, but also expanding the boundaries of the living museum and the self. Of course this is something we need to explore more with the patients; the cultural probes did not provide enough feedback.

After deciding a narrative for the project we sketched a rough storyboard directed towards the patients, showing the process of building a ceramics object with the mould we created, placing the object in another place, as well as the idea of being apart of a larger community of people involved in this project.

Global Perspectives of Mental Illness

“Investing in global mental health: the time for action is now” (2016) — Summergrad, P.

This paper is in fact a comment from the May 2016 issue of The Lancet Psychiatry, an online periodical focused on original clinical research, expert reviews, and comment and opinion pieces regarding mental health. The author Summergrad uses this opportunity to argue for a widespread investment by governments and non-governmental organizations to advance global mental health infrastructures. He outlines five ways to support both the government and non-governmental organizations in this task:

1. There must be a recognition of the impact of mental illness, not only on our general health goals, but also on social and economic development.
2. Although extensive data exists to prove the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic and psychopharmacological methods, more work to demonstrate this must be done in countries with limited medical infrastructure.
3. There needs to be a continuously updated map that takes into account the work of organizations, such as WHO (i.e. how investment changes the burden of disease over time).
4. Due to a large amount of stigmatization towards mental health, a campaign to to destigmatize these disorders will need to run in parallel to investments made.
5. In order to achieve our goal of advancing global mental health infrastructures, all relevant parties must be involved (i.e. governments, major international organizations, and foundations).

This research is important to our work, because depending on the narrative we choose to tell, we might need to understand the global perspectives on mental health.

“Community mental health: a brief, global perspective (2016) — Abdulmalik, J. & Thornicroft, G.

Mental health is gaining acknowledgment and attention slowly but steadily, from The World Health Organization’s (WHO) 2001 report titled “mental health: new understanding, new hope” to The United Nations’ (UN) involvement on the WHO Mental Health Action Plan 2013-2020. Despite these efforts, Abdulmalik and Thornicroft (2016) note the hurdles that still hinder the attainment of “affordable, accessible and evidence-based, qualitative mental health care services for people in need, across the world” (p. 102). These challenges are as follows:

1. A large treatment gap exists, between those who do and do not receive the care they need with regards to mental health. Abdulmalik and Thornicroft state: “This treatment gap is highest in low and middle income countries (LMICs)” (p. 102).
2. Despite the long standing myth that mental illnesses do not reduce life expectancy, it is incorrect.
3. The distribution of mental health resources is lopsided. Abdulmalik and Thornicroft state: “It is estimated that about 70% of the global burden of MNS disorders occur in LAMICs while high income countries enjoy about 90% of the global mental health resources” (p. 102). *MNS = mental, neurological and substance use
4. And of course, the issue of stigma against mental health still exists. Many individuals will not reach out to others for help, because they fear the potential discrimination they may face.

In response to these challenges, Abdulmalik and Thornicroft propose not only a rethinking of the organization of the mental health care services, but also a focus on more community based mental health services. They propose the balanced care model: a combination of both organized mental health care services and community based services that will best suit the needs of the specified region or country.

Perhaps what we can take from the research of Abdulmalik and Thornicroft is the uneven global distribution of mental health resources. As previously stated above, depending on how we choose to narrate the project this information may come in hand, specifically if we view the project through an activist lens.