No abstract

This paper explores different approaches taken when 'wearing two hats'; that of academic researcher and the industry entrepreneur. It considers the barriers and opportunities in combining these two roles in order to acquire new knowledge. To understand how future researchers could best do this and why this might be desirable, the paper presents Author1's insights from field research experience; wearing both hats within a textile industry context. A literature review, reflective practice and an annotated portfolio method enabled the authors to identify three approaches -Divide, Switch and Blend. These form a model for researching with any two hats on: Divide entails wearing both hats separately on different occasions; Switch is wearing both hats but interchanging between the two on a single occasion; Blend is wearing both hats simultaneously. The authors conclude that fluidity between approaches and an understanding of the dominant hat is vital.

is famously quoted saying "I never teach my pupils; I only attempt to provide the conditions in which they can learn". This paper explores the conditions and adaptive methods used by practice design researchers to enable circular design knowledge exchange between a university research community and the student body. This paper explores and draws on the experience of the authors across three academic years (2018-2020) as PhD practice researchers at Centre for Circular Design (CCD). It unpicks the adaptive practice research approaches used by the authors which enabled them to set up and deliver a series of activities under the 'Circular Design Lab' an education and teaching platform at CCD. Through its creation it supported a thriving community of circular designers. Using reflective practice, the paper explores the authors practice design methods to create a bridge between emerging research practice and the taught courses.

Background: The problem of difficult-to-recycle textile waste is an ongoing challenge.  One of the issues is the lack of exchange between the recovery sector and design/manufacture of recycled materials. This paper seeks to addresses the gap in knowledge between sorting (in recovery) and blending activities (in manufacture), expanding current design strategies towards textile recovery. To achieve this, the research explores sorting practices of wool/acrylic blends in the mechanical wool recycling industry and applies this knowledge to the design of new yarns. Methods: A bricolage of methods was used to conduct this research in three parts. First, an overview of a previous study by Author1 is presented from which this research builds. Second, field research using conversation methods with the owner of a closed wool recycling company was conducted centring around their material archive. Thirdly, practice research was conducted in a spinning facility where Author1 applied knowledge from part 1 and 2 by designing four recycled yarns. This was supported by interviews with a sorter and recycler to expand on the findings.   Results: Four methods of sorting and the sorting grades/thresholds that are found in the wool recycling industry are outlined, and five methods of recycled blending historically used in the wool recycling industry are established. This knowledge (sorting methods/grades and recycled blending techniques) were applied in practice and from the methods employed, the relationship between sorting in recovery and recycled blending in manufacture was established across three themes: fibre quality, fibre type and fibre colour. Conclusions: The paper concludes that understanding the link sorting and blending provides the foundations for a ‘Design for Sorting’ methodology. When lessons from each theme (quality, type and colour) are combined, this enables fibre value to be retained in recovery and thus, provides a route for longevity of our textile fibres.

No abstract