SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORIAL Design Contributions for the COVID-19 Global Emergency (Part 1): Empirical Approaches and First Solutions

This is a landmark publication for the field of design. It was catalysed by unprecedentedcircumstances, as designers around the world had to rapidly deploy their competencies instrategic problem-solving to help humanity in the fight against an invisible enemy during aglobal pandemic. In alliance with other disciplines, from medicine to mechanical engineering,from computing to anthropology, designers everywhere have addressed the challenges andproduced remarkable results through a diversity of initiatives. This Special Issue presents apeer-reviewed sample of these initiatives.

materials science, where the term is also often utilized, in human society resilience is the result of the transformation choices that a community makes, more or less consciously.

THEMATIC CLUSTERS
The papers contained in the Special Issue's Part 1 can be categorized into five thematic clusters.
The first group of papers critically reviews and maps design responses and citizens' needs in relation to the COVID-19 emergency. The second cluster of papers is the largest, and includes contributions presenting and/or reflecting on specific design responses to the ongoing crisis, ranging from physical artefacts (e.g. PPE, field hospitals) to digital solutions (e.g. apps to monitor the pandemic).

DATA INTERPRETATION
The papers collected in this first Special Issue portray the complex scenario concerning empirical approaches and first solutions developed by designers and researchers to tackle the pandemic. The issue clearly reflects the collective effort performed by the design community.
By comparing the concepts discussed and the geographical distribution of studies, it is possible to illustrate dimensions of the emergency in relation to regional priorities ( Figure 1). In particular, 6 studies deal with Design for Social Innovation, which is the most important research topic found across all papers. A large group of studies (18) explore the following topics: Multidisciplinarity (5), Emotion, Psychology and Wellbeing (5), Human recognized that the medium scale is the most suitable dimension to operate effective interventions. Studies on the remaining dimensions -Companies, Universities, Homes and Hospitals -are important for the quality of design outcomes, but have a marginal relevance in terms of number of studies (altogether 10 studies). These patterns also reinforce the ones previously introduced about the regional priorities, confirming that Design for Social

Inclusion, Multidisciplinarity, Emotion, Psychology and Wellbeing and Open Designs and Open
Processes have a significant influence on the medium scale.   This map is also useful for readers to apprehend the range of papers found in Part 1. In terms of intervention dimensions, readers will find a significant number of studies focused on Communities/Regions, followed by Homes and Hospitals; these papers will therefore present a comprehensive set of studies focused on the various domains of the discipline: from product design to service design, from design for social innovation to human-centred design, from the development of methodological tools to the development of complete sets of design-oriented analyses. Readers of this Special Issue can therefore navigate this map to find the various experimentations and understanding the specific areas of intervention considered by the design community as a first reaction to face the pandemic.
The next two maps (Figures 5 and 6) have been created with the aim to simplify the interpretation and the comprehension of papers contained in this Part 1 in relation to all key topics used for their classification -Clusters, Concepts Discussed, Main Focus and Area/Region of Experimentation -as well as to give readers the possibility to find and readily compare the papers using common interpretative lenses that could simplify the analysis of data and the understanding of field experiences.

CONCLUDING NOTES ON ARTICLES COMPOSING PART 1
An overall view of these papers points to the conclusion that the pandemic produced a phenomenon of fast tracking various technological and societal changes that were already taking place but otherwise would have taken years to fully occur. The integration of remote working into urban lifestyles, a more intensive use of data-driven design and hybrid approaches for teaching and learning are some examples. At the same time, it shed light on new issues that were not on the radar of the design community.
Foremost, the articles show an active community working around the clock to frame new and complex problems, co-creating solutions with a variety of stakeholders, having limited time to put these ideas into the real world whilst at the same time having to deal with the limitations imposed by social isolation. The frenetic pace of design contributions during the pandemic, linked with the social isolation, provided reduced opportunities for reflection.
Thus, this publication provides the necessary space for reflection by registering the lessons learnt during this period. It is a solid contribution to leverage our knowledge on how to engage design and designers during a global health crisis. It also provides insights for transition scenarios for the aftermath of the pandemic, with a contribution to build upon what we have learnt so far.
The design community, like any other profession, has been heavily affected by the pandemic.
However, the articles presented in this Part 1 show that it was not powerless. When rapid innovation was required to deal with a global scale emergency, design was the discipline that was able to rapidly frame the problem, creatively shape ideas, and connect various fields of knowledge to deliver viable propositions. When the centralized and slow production systems demonstrated their incapacity to deliver results at the speed required by the pandemic, designers brought more distributed strategies for enabling production through digital fabrication. When collaboration and co-creation was necessary at global scale, designers put into place their know-how on open-design approaches, drastically accelerating the speed of knowledge sharing. Without doubt, design demonstrated its capacity to save human lives.
At the same time, the papers illustrate well that the pandemic has forced designers to realize that many assumptions they took for granted in the past were no longer in place: in order to reduce the spread of the virus most designers could not have direct contact with a user apart from digital channels; moving across the city to do a follow-up on the production of a prototype was not advisable; the synchronicity of people-to-people interactions become increasingly difficult if not impossible. This and so many other impossibilities were converted into new possibilities by the creative minds of the design community.
For all these reasons, the guest editors believe that this historical edition in two Parts of the Strategic Design Research Journal is a solid contribution to enrich the scientific debate regarding what we have learnt from the actions taken during the COVID-19 emergency scenario. We hope that this knowledge will contribute to develop further our collective capabilities and readiness to deal with present as well as future global emergencies.