The delirious high of having discovered an exciting research question has now lasted for the best part of the week. There is a new found spring in my stride, the flowers look good and I can actually smell the fresh air! This euphoria is like a drug that courses deep in my veins, filling every pore, every corner. My attempts to clinically dissect the topic have been biased, undoubtedly.
‘I want this to work!” my mind cries.
So I did the next best thing I could sanely do. My flash of epiphany, my inspiration, my precious – I shared my proposal on products life-cycles and sensoriality with a few colleagues in the field. My excitement was echoed by the few who read it. My friend from an acclaimed university in Great Britain mentioned that what I was referring to, was the concept of circular economy and Europe was making big strides in it. Upon a cursory search, I found significant literature from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, World Economic Forum, Product Life Institute amongst others. The idea of the circular economy is fairly new and is taking its infant steps, as I write. The vision statement of the European commission was released last month (June 2015) which tells us how recent this is. The reports available are prolific – with key indicators, vision documents, areas of focus being highlighted. McKinsey, the global consulting firm has dedicated a huge resource set, signifying that environment, conservation and sustainability are all valuable in today’s context. A quick search in the databases of research literature reveals interesting insights: the term circular economy is new and all encompassing, but the idea is not. Defined as sustainability in the early part of this century, it pointedly refereed to, in a myopic sense of the term, to waste management and recycling thereof. Literature between 2000-2015 abounds with waste and related publications. Product Service Systems (PSS) made its early appearance in the first decade of 2000 but seems to have gained traction between 2011-15. A casual search reveals several articles on Google scholar and several hundred on Scopus. A key paper in 2011 gives us an overarching idea of the emerging field and focuses on the metrics – number of journals, number of citations, countries where the publications are coming from etc. Very helpful if one were to seek an overall view of the field and asses his / her own position. An interesting fact is that a majority of the publications are in Elsevier’s – Journal of Cleaner Production. Some literature from China is available which could be because China adopted the goals of circular economy as a part of its five year plan. Which meant that researchers in china have a reason to study the phenomenon and which in turn, made the rest of the world sit up and take notice? So in short – sustainability in the first decade, PSS and Circular Economy in the second. The problem is with the viewpoints that the researcher takes. There lies my confusion and dilemma. Most of the papers seem to refer to waste management or frameworks.
Am I being short sighted?
CE focuses on 3 major topics – Food, Mobility and Built Environment. The logic is simple – these consume 80% of the natural resources that we need to survive and proper as a race. So if I were to choose CE (and I am inclined to so, simple because it fulfills a deep need to be at the economic side of design) should I look at application of CE to issues in Oceania? In a recent workshop at the University, the coordinator referred to 3 types of PhD theses. The big innovation or big shift in thinking, adapt a known concept to a new area and finally, the thesis that doesn’t go anywhere. While I personally aspire to attempt the first, I am dogged by a deep uncertainty:
“Industrial design is a practitioner art, not one that supports critical inquiry”?
Whatever I do, will I be able to affect global dynamics? Is my aspiration to research a topic at the forefront of the field forcing me to be blind to simple and maybe simple and more profound issues? I don’t know. What I do know is that I want my work to be useful, to be actually influential. Here sounds an ominous warning “it is just a PhD, not a Nobel prize!” How true and wise. But, will I have the necessary strength to go the distance on a topic or a domain that does not interest me? Probably no.
What is bothering me so much?
In my own escapist way, I hope that my advisers will suggest the easy path of adaptation of CE to a particular area of interest to Oceania. I just need the direction, the path. Point me to the right path and I shall be off like a bullet. But my mind…the feverish, foolish, delirious mind ….Oh the devil’s advocate! It doesn’t like things so simple! Stands in the shadows and in a quiet voice says,
“But what about your ambition to change the world?”
Blistering barnacles!
bhaskar.me 