The Communities and Materials of Repair: Collectively Reflecting on Repair Practices of Everyday Artefacts

While conducting our research, rather than following a strictly structured research design we decided to follow an explorative way of producing and collecting data while preserving the framing around the research question and aims. This explorative nature appeared naturally, as our reflections from the repair process related to several issues that did not directly contribute to research findings but shaped the way we understood how we repair.

When conducting research, by relying on their designerly ways of knowing (Cross 2001), design researchers employ their skills, tools, and vocabulary to investigate large issues and translate these into new solutions and suggestions. Similarly, we used our embodied knowledge of designing as well as repairing to make use of all elements of our lives to express how sociomaterial entanglements of repair were advancing our practices.

Studying more than one researcher's lived experiences has been previously identified as duoethnography (Burleigh and Burm 2022, 3, 5), or collaborative autoethnography (Bowers et al. 2022). Autoethnography – or duoethnography when conducted by two researchers – allows for 'engaging in a meaningful conversation' and '[its] transformative quality of building relationship' (Burleigh and Burm 2022, 3, 5). In collaborative research projects, duo-ethnography overcomes the barriers of space and time as researchers individually create settings where they can tackle the research question. This way, researchers can develop a shared understanding of the research topic and generate personal insights (Vega et al. 2021). In collaborative autoethnography, 'team members

leverage their own experience as data sources and are both researchers and research participants' (Bowers et al. 2022, 19). For this reason, they also tend to alternate their roles among each other and within the research process. Similarly, in our project, we also alternated the roles of moderator, convener, data collector, participant, and researcher. These changing roles made it possible to exchange experiences, suggest techniques and tools to run the repairs and contemplate the use of materials for the fixes we needed.

The alternating roles are also in line with the nature of design research. Design researchers put many different hats on while conducting research activities. In recent decades, the distinction between two types of participatory practices in design research has become evident: one where the design researcher actively engages in the design process, gaining a deep, firsthand understanding of its development and complexities, and another where the researcher observes designers, users, and other co-creators, resulting in a detailed analysis of the design process and its characteristics (van Oorschot et al. 2022). At times, these types conjoin, and the researchers become practitioner-researchers (Mäkelä 2007) that support them accessing different ways of knowing, making, and exchanging. This approach encourages researchers to articulate their experiences to explicate the findings.

More specifically to design research in repair studies, as part of the circular economy and circular design, research necessitates a regenerative and restorative approach that addresses the environmental damage caused by the linear industrial cycle of consumption (Davis 2023, 135). This need emphasises 'regenerative and restorative design' as an essential approach rather than an option (135). Accordingly, there is an emerging need for tools and methods specific to design research, as current methods may not fully address the unique challenges and opportunities within design practice (135). For this reason, we combined autoethnography with hands-on group-making in the form of workshops. Ingold (2013, 29) proposes that following a making process where one is engaging with materials can facilitate articulating conceptual discussions as material experiences can cross boundaries emerging from various insights. This is also a way to become an insider of the phenomena as it leads to learning by doing (Aktaş 2020, 56; Ingold 2013). Organising workshops provided our participants, and us, with material-based reflections to better explain our thinking process and experiences.

By relying on our personal experiences throughout the project, we examined how the design process is experienced while repairing everyday objects (Figure 1). We unravelled the impact of these interactions through reflections and conversations between the researchers, that acted as collective reflections.

In the first part of our collaboration, we lived in different states of the US and maintained our collaboration via bi-weekly online meetings. In our own times, we repaired objects at home while keeping in mind the project's aims. Therefore, we did not merely repair; instead, we intentionally observed and reflected on our own repairs. Every other week, we met online to discuss our experiences, reasonings, learnings, inspirations, and ideas about repairing. We documented these discussions via notes, photographs, and sometimes video recordings. These meetings and our data collection process followed autoethnography as a method to generate and collect data from the repair process. During

these conversations, several times we discussed our childhoods, family lives, living arrangements, and personal needs. These conversations or the autoethnographic approach, allowed us to transition from a third-person perspective to a first-person perspective on the topic, integrating our subjective viewpoint with objective ones (Uğur Yavuz and Gümüş Çiftçi 2021, 411).

For the second part of the project, which lasted for 4 months, we were in the same city and conducted our study in person. To prepare for this, just the two of us had an online workshop as a pilot study. Then, Bilge participated in Hazal's ongoing workshop series at the Arizona State University's Art Museum. Overall, we documented three in-person, and one online workshop. Our primary goal was to encourage individuals to participate in creative repair activities and become less dependent on consumption. All these workshops were open to the general public and this study protocol was reviewed and approved by Arizona State University's IRB committee and exemption was granted. The ones at the museum were announced via the museum's newsletter, and the online one was advertised via Bilge's collective which focuses on sustainable life skills. Three of these workshops were led by Hazal and one by Bilge while both authors attended the others' workshop.

The workshops followed a similar structure: before the beginning of each workshop, participants were asked to fill out a survey to collect information about the participants' prior experience and thoughts about repairing things. Then, the convener, either Hazal or Bilge, briefly demonstrated and introduced the topic, tool, or technique of the workshop. This was followed by participants' working on their projects. If needed, participants asked for recommendations or help, however, the workshops mainly progressed through learning by doing. Once the time (2 hours for each in-person workshop and 1 hour for the online workshops) was up, the participants were asked to fill out another survey to evaluate if their ideas about repair had changed. This allowed us to gather immediate insights into participants' positive and negative thoughts about repairing, and what, if anything, they learned that was new.

For this article, we will investigate three of the workshops, two in-person and one online, as one of the in-person workshops (toy repair) had low participation. Additionally, we examine a variety of individual repairs that happened in the last 2 years (Table 1). In both parts, we collected data via photography, video recording, notes, and surveys.

Next, we will introduce the workshop settings and our roles in them.

This workshop was organised to teach how to use a darning loom – a basic weaving loom for patching torn textiles – for simple repairs. The group consisted of six people. The loom was an unfamiliar tool for the group, though some had experience with weaving, and this sparked the group's interest to learn more about the darning loom. The group searched for information online and shared ideas. The conversations around how to use the loom, showing each other how they were progressing and making design decisions resembled a group work setting rather than an independent repair activity. Participants bonded over the repair theme, exchanged ideas and executed repairs together (Figure 2).

In this workshop, the participants worked with items that they found at home and needed fixing, such as T-shirts, shopping bags, and shoes (Figure 3). Materials and tools were limited to what the participants could find in their homes. The experience level was also diverse, in that, while some participants did not know how to thread the needle, some mentioned they practiced handicrafts. Although the workshop progressed smoothly, at times it became clear that the participants who did not know how to sew did not ask for help or questions until the convener asked them specific questions, such as if they were able to thread the needle or make a simple knot.

The workshop was about repairing by needle felting. None of the participants had previous experience in felting and only one had visible mending experience. There were nine participants, and some of them brought woven items to be fixed by felting (Figure 4). The participants who did not have woven goods to do felting with created felt patches to be used afterwards. Although the workshop included templates for felt patch-

making, the majority of the participants used their imagination and creativity to develop their creations.

Over 2 years, we also repaired various belongings either during our online conversations or during the workshops. These repairs ranged from garments to plastic boxes to flip-flops. This repository of the objects showed that some repairs are temporary, quick fixes

while others require long-term planning and skilful intervention. Another observation emerging from these practices was that the act of repairing is seldom an independent act. Even if the repaired item belongs to one person, and takes place individually, often these objects have histories or are displayed in public, thus carrying social meanings.

For example, in one of the meetings, when Bilge was explaining her process of repairing the cushion covers (Figure 5), she referred to her home life and making this as a housewarming gift to her spouse, whereas while discussing a broken door frame, she had to discuss her dog's overprotectiveness and the landlord's expectations regarding maintaining the apartment.

Similarly, in workshops, the participants were encouraged to share the stories of the objects they were repairing or their previous experiences with repairing. Although these anecdotes may not seem significant, they draw the sociomaterial connections of the practice, and through such connections, one decides to participate, or perform, repairing or not. In this study, to attain the insider's, often implicit and internal, experiences, we relied on our own experiences and followed an autoethnographic approach. To explicate

the implicit, conversation became an important tool for us as the research team. Next, we will explain how we employed this tool.

To examine the visual and textual data we collected during the project, we utilised conversation as a method (Aktaş and Gümüş-Çiftçi 2024; Goodwin and Heritage 1990). Conversation analysis as an established research method typically focuses on the content of the conversations taking place the research participants as well as their attitude (Liddicoat 2021). Differently from this approach, we utilised conversation as a way of reflecting on research questions, findings, and insights. When conversations are assigned

a reflective role, they can facilitate the examination of one's own ideas and practice as well as their colleague's (O'Reilly et al. 2020). This leads to developing evidence-based and ideal ways of working (O'Reilly et al. 2020).

Through internal conversations, we examined our reflections emerging from personal interactions. In collaborative research projects, synthesising individual insights becomes crucial to generating comprehensive research findings. When research relies on a single person's experiences, questions about its shareability and validity may arise (Vega et al. 2021). Interpersonal exchanges among different stakeholders, such as researchers or research participants, make the research process more diverse and inclusive as they bring multiple ways of knowing (Vega et al. 2021). Similarly, in this study, we relied on our knowledge to examine the collected data from multiple angles. To take it even further, we triangulated the research data. We examined our autoethnographic notes, the artefacts that were repaired as part of the study, both by the researchers and by the participants, and the participants' survey answers.

Each researcher generated their autoethnographic notes, in their own styles. Then these were shared and discussed in detail through conversations in bi-weekly meetings. Conversations and informal sharing facilitated the comprehensive synthesis of each researcher's findings. By asking mundane and pre-formulated questions to each other our conversations helped us track our thinking processes. For example, in Part 1, we discussed what we repaired the previous week and how the repairs went, whereas, in Part 2, we discussed moments from the workshops when interesting exchanges were taking place (Table 1). These also encouraged peer feedback between us to develop shared insights collaboratively. Rather than one researcher conducting the analysis, autoethnographic accounts made it possible to build a shared understanding. Thus, conversing with each other became the main method of identifying crucial information and analysing our data.

For the autoethnographic notes, the analysis started with describing events or experiences that the researchers found significant and that were referred to repetitively while discussing the workshops. These significant instances were identified through lengthy conversations about each researcher's thoughts on the workshops. Turning these instances to textual form also led to identifying the elements involved in generating their significance, such as the tool use, materials interactions, or the other people's role in decision-making. Overall, we identified 12 instances that we continually referred to as an example to explain some of the insights emerging from the workshops. One of the instances is based on a group exploration that happened organically while learning how to use the darning loom. The other instances have one participant in its centre and their interactions with their peers, other users of the garments, or their repair process.

For the study of the artefacts (Table 2), we selected nine objects from the workshops and individual repair sessions that raised enriching discussions during our conversations. This selection was a result of conversations based on our observations, how these objects culminated in unique exchanges and generated deep reflections. After identifying the objects, we investigated what they were made of before the repair practice, what type of tools, materials, and people were involved during the repair practice, and what they looked like after the repair practice. Additionally, we noted down what type of a designerly or creative approach was employed in repairing, such as if the repaired

object was also redesigned or if the repairer needed to come up with a tool. This examination aimed at studying the participants' interactions on a micro level to understand how their repair process was emerging. This analysis revealed the invisible stakeholders of repaired objects, such as their other and previous users. It also showed how creativity was experienced while repairing. For example, in some cases, while the outcome might look the same as before, the process of repairing requires creative thinking. For instance, in one session facilitated by Hazal, Bilge acted as a regular participant. A figure model needed to be fixed and as a workshop participant, Bilge used almost an hour to find the best way to reattach the split arm of the model. After several failed attempts with found objects, such as paper clips, elastic bands, and threads, as a binder; the other piece of the model also fell off. This incident revealed the original mechanism of the arm connection, which simply required a tiny screw and spring attachment. Thus, in this instance, the solution relied on not being fixated on the broken part but learning how to repair it from the original part.

In some others, the process might be a straightforward one, while the outcome looks significantly different from before since the participant gets inspiration from visible mending. Especially, the darning loom created opportunities for transformative repairs for long loved and worn clothes. One such instance was when a participant hid the hole in her cashmere sweater, which was purchased from a thrift store with the hole, by felting a mushroom on it (Figure 6). Thus, object analysis showed different layers of socio-material interactions and how embodied they are in the repaired object.

Finally, we studied the workshop survey. This analysis of the surveys was mainly based on examining the before and after perceptions of the workshop participants to evaluate if the workshop facilitated any type of self-reflection.

We analysed the three types of information by following protocols similar to thematic analysis. The thematic analysis offers flexibility in approaching studying the collected

data in ways most suitable for understanding the representative voices emerging from the data (Braun and Clarke 2012). By looking into information about experiences, reasonings, reflections, and questions, thematic analysis allows using the most accurate way to identify participants' representative voices. Accordingly, we followed an inductive bottom-up approach, to generate insights from the data (Braun and Clarke 2012).

In the first iteration, for each kind of data, we grouped the information bits based on what each piece of information entails. For example, in the online garment repair workshop, some notes were about how some people were shyer than others, or how showing some examples to each other helped some participants develop their repair ideas. After doing the identification for each data set, we conducted the second iteration where these initial categories were grouped into themes (Figure 7). For example, the categories mentioned in the first iteration generated the theme 'communication' as they both highlighted the importance of facilitating different kinds of communication. After these two iterations, we studied how each category was related to each other.

Though our analysis was structured in the sense that we followed a well-established analysis method and its suggested protocols, the way we conducted the analysis was still explorative and collaborative. In each step, we discussed how to take the insights further. The triangulation, data bits, highlights, and grouping also appeared through our internal conversations.

Our analysis shows that repairing can contribute to a person's development in many areas, including environmental impact, skill acquisition, creative expression, self-confidence, and teamwork (Figure 7).

We discovered in our analysis that learning and skill acquisition lie at the centre of workshops and repair practices (Figure 7). We identified that working in a community setting made the repairs more joyful and conversing with people while working with the

hands was inevitable. We also uncovered the reasons why people were interested in joining the repair workshops because of their sustainable consumption decisions and being responsible for their actions.

As an outcome, all participants felt that they learned something new whether it was about repairing or the community they joined. When asked about the positive and negative sides of the workshop, the common denominator was learning a useful skill among the positive answers, and on the negative side was the steep learning curve, especially if a new tool was introduced to them. Indeed, previous research shows that lack of skill is one of the main blockades in mending and repairing (Gwilt 2014). Though research also shows natural skills and creativity often suffice to repair and even these skills improve over time as the practice continues (Terzioğlu 2021), our participants also mentioned not knowing as their main reason for not repairing. The findings show that workshops can facilitate overcoming this barrier in a fruitful way that also results in building self-confidence.

One reason for this confidence build is that in our workshops, a plethora (~50) of items, objects, and garments were fixed, and all the repairs were successful since the participants left the workshops satisfied. One of the participants said they felt more appreciative of the item they mended and another claimed that putting time into repairing their belongings created a stronger relationship with the item. The tools and materials used for the fixes ranged from embroidery floss to needles to darning looms and Sugru mouldable glue. Most repairs ended up as visible mending projects whereas some participants preferred invisible repairing. The freedom to be creative and playful encouraged participants to try new things without getting stuck with the fear of failure. The community played a significant role in creative decision-making as well, as despite having different skill levels, all participants were there to learn and explore. Thus, one of the main findings is that the working environment and group dynamic significantly affect building positive perceptions regarding repair.

Working with our know-how and knowledge provided us with a particular viewpoint to look at the ongoing debate about repair. Building our discussion from this unique position and vision enables making connections and showing possible paths for building knowledge (Haraway 1988, 590). Thus, while following autoethnography, we work with our situated knowledge (Haraway 1988) to collect data and study how materiality was demonstrated in repair.

Reflections became one of the main tools for us to communicate with each other and generate findings. Reflections have been used by creative practitioners to make sense of their decision-making and experiences emerging from the creative process. According to philosopher Bengt Molander (2008, 5), one can gain knowledge or insights through reflecting on content, structure, or processes as reflections facilitate roaming the attention to see better. Thus, relying on our reflections and experiences in this study provided a creative space where we could bring together conceptual thinking with concrete examples. However, as the study continued, we realised that we had primary and secondary roles that we both acted upon (Figure 8). Primarily, we hosted the workshops as convenors, while observing the participants, being a participant at times in designing

our repairs and collecting data. As experienced designers and researchers, these roles were appearing intuitively without much planning how we would divide them between us. Both of us systematically acted upon these roles. Secondly, we acted as helpers to the community tinkering with tools and materials, sometimes fixing participants' belongings while listening to the repair issues with an educator mindset. For example, when a participant appeared shier than the rest of the group, we had to rely on our experiences as educators to ensure their comfort and engagement. This meant asking further questions or having casual conversations without singling them out or pressuring them. More importantly, we were becoming community members.

We constantly changed our tones and mannerisms to support the learning experience of the participants. However, this change mainly occurred intuitively by relying on our embodied knowledge. We recognised the roles we gained through conversing after each workshop and during analysis. Autoethnography helped us reveal these various roles and bring together our experiences to further develop them.