With textile waste growing, it is increasingly important to consider creative ways to reuse and repair clothing. The purpose of this study was to use co-creative methodology to explore what opportunities exist to encourage more personal creativity when reusing and repairing discarded clothing. The qualitative research uses levels of creativity (do, adapt, make and create) defined by Sanders (2005) as an initial framework for understanding the participants’ creativity and aspirations for reusing and repairing clothing. There is a growing desire to be creative, and the motivation and requirements drive the creativity for each individual (Sanders, 2005). Co-creative research methods were used in a series of qualitative visual interviews and creative workshops with women between 21-60 years old. The findings of this research supported co-creative research methods for textiles and apparel and revealed opportunities to encourage creativity in reusing and repairing clothing through participants’ ability to adapt their current wardrobes.
AmabileT. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 357–376.
2.
BrandtE.BinderT.SandersE. B. -N. (2013). Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making and enacting. In SimonsenJ.RobertsonT. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of participatory design (pp. 145–181). New York, NY: Routledge.
3.
ChapmanJ. (2009). Design for (emotional) durability. Design Issues, 25, 29–35.
CramerJ. (2011). Made to keep: Product longevity through participatory design in fashion. Design Principles and Practices: An International Journal, 5, 437–446.
6.
CreswellJ. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
CsikszentmihalyiM. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
8.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2014, February). Municipal solid waste generation, recycling, and disposal in the United States: Facts and figures for 2012(EPA-530-F-14-001). Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved fromhttp://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf
9.
FisherT.CooperT.WoodwardS.HillerA.GoworkH. (2008). Public understanding of sustainable clothing: A report to the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs. London, England: Defra.
10.
FletcherK. (2012). Durability, fashion, sustainability: The processes and practices of use. Fashion Practice: The Journal of Design, Creative Process & the Fashion Industry, 4, 221–238.
11.
FrankeN.SchreierM.KaiserU. (2010). The “I designed it myself” effect in mass customization. Management Science, 56, 125–140.
12.
GustafssonE.EkströmK. M. (2012). A growing mountain of clothing. In WeibullL.Oscarsson, H. BergströmA. (Eds.), The shadow of the future, SOM-study 2011 (pp. 285–296), Gothenburg, Sweden: University of Gothenburg, SOM Institute.
13.
HawleyJ. M. (2006). Digging for diamonds: A conceptual framework for understanding reclaimed textile products. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 24, 262–275.
14.
HirscherA. L.NiinimäkiK. (2013). Fashion activism through participatory design. Crafting the future: 10th European academy of design conference, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
15.
HurE.BeverleyK. (2011). The role of craft in a co-design system for sustainable fashion. Paper presented at Making futures: The crafts as change makers in sustainable aware cultures Conference, Plymouth College of Art, Plymouth, England.
16.
KarpovaE.MarckettiS.BarkerJ. (2011). The efficacy of teaching creativity: Assessment of student creative thinking before and after exercises. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 29, 52–66.
KitzingerJ. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16, 103–121.
19.
LeeJ. Y.HalterH.JohnsonK. K.JuH. (2013). Investigating fashion disposition with young consumers. Young Consumers: Insight and Ideas for Responsible Marketers, 14, 67–78.
20.
MoreauP. (2011). Inviting the amateurs into the studio: Understanding how consumer engagement in product design creates value. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28, 409–410.
21.
NorumP. (2013). Examination of apparel maintenance skills and practices: Implications for sustainable clothing consumption. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 42, 124–137.
22.
NuttavuthisitK. (2010). If you can’t beat them, let them join: The development of strategies to foster consumers’ co-creative practices. Business Horizons, 53, 315–324.
23.
PottsJ.HartleyJ.BanksJ.BurgessJ.CobcroftR.CunninghamS.MontgomeryL. (2008). Consumer co-creation and situated creativity. Industry and Innovation, 15, 459–474.
24.
RichardsR. (2010). Everyday creativity process and way of life—Four key issues. In Kaufman J.SternbergR. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity. (pp. 189–215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25.
SandersE. B. -N. (2006). Scaffolds for building everyday creativity. In FrascaraJ. (Ed.), Design for effective communications: Creating contexts for clarity and meaning. (pp. 65–77). New York, NY: Allworth Press.
26.
SandersE. B. -N.StappersP. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 4, 5–18.
27.
SandersL.SimonsG. (2009, December). A social vision for value co-creation in design. Open Source Business Resources, 27–34.
28.
SchwandtT. A.LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2007, 11–25.
29.
Sleeswijk VisserF. S.StappersP. J.Van der LugtR.SandersE. B. -N. (2005). Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 1, 119–149.
30.
Sleeswijk VisserF. S.VisserV. (2006). Re-using users: Co-create and co-evaluate. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 10, 148–152.
31.
SteenM.ManschotM.De KoningN. (2011). Benefits of co-design in service design project. International Journal of Design, 5, 53–60.
32.
van RijnH.StappersP. J. (2008). Expressions of ownership: Motivating users in a co-design process. 10th Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.
