Between the workbench and the screen

One initial observation from her interviews concerns the role of team building. Especially in Design Thinking, collaboration is no trivial matter. Teams must build trust, define roles, communicate openly with one another, and tolerate uncertainty. This is possible digitally but apparently not always equally well.

“An important point is team collaboration at the beginning of the process. Students first want to get to know each other better. After that, the process can continue online.”

Hybrid teams present particular challenges in this regard. Some team members are physically together in one room, while others join from other countries. Hande describes, for example, teams in which students in Finland worked on-site, while others participated remotely from Colombia or Portugal. The digital connection enables international collaboration – but it also creates new imbalances.

Those on-site experience the space, the materials, the team dynamics, and spontaneous communication. Those participating remotely often see only a fraction of it: the screen, the presentation, perhaps a digital whiteboard. This can work, but it changes the experience.

This difference becomes particularly clear during the prototyping phase. Design Thinking thrives on experimentation, building, testing, and discarding ideas.

Facilities like the Aalto Design Factory feature large workshops, machines, and prototyping areas. For students on-site, this is a central part of the learning process. For team members joining remotely, however, this part often remains indirect.

“During the prototyping phase, remote participants are often more passive. They create presentations or digital work that can improve the prototype, but they don’t really interact with the physical prototype.”

That doesn’t mean digital collaboration has no value here. Remote team members can conduct research, provide feedback, create visualizations, handle documentation, or develop digital versions of a product. But the experience of handling materials, operating a machine, or working together to overcome challenges and continue building an object is difficult to fully replace.

For Hande, it is precisely this distinction that is crucial: Not every element in the Design Thinking process is equally suited to digital or hybrid formats. Some phases can be more efficient online, while others lose depth when physical interaction is missing.

Another focus of her research is empathy – a central component of Design Thinking. Anyone who designs for people must understand their needs, routines, problems, and unspoken cues. But how well does this work in digital spaces?
Hande points out a tension: Online interviews make it easier to reach people. They save time, reduce organizational hurdles, and enable conversations across distances. At the same time, important nonverbal cues are lost.

“In online environments, it’s harder to observe gestures and facial expressions and truly understand people. That’s a challenge for the digital learning process.”

Especially when observing users, understanding contexts, or recognizing subtle reactions, being physically present can be valuable. How does someone move through a space? How does a person use an object? Where do they hesitate? What body language reveals uncertainty, irritation, or enthusiasm? Such cues are often only partially visible during video calls.

At the same time, Hande also recognizes the advantages: Online interviews are easier to organize and often get to the point more quickly. Here, too, it becomes clear that digital isn’t simply better or worse. It changes the conditions.

“It has advantages and disadvantages – like everything else.”

Although artificial intelligence isn’t the focus of her dissertation, Hande also explores it. She finds it particularly fascinating how students and faculty are already using AI in their day-to-day project work.

“Some teams use AI to translate language, understand each other better, or summarize meetings.”

In international teams, this can help reduce misunderstandings and facilitate collaboration. AI tools can also play a role in prototyping – for example, in visualizations, idea generation, or digital designs. Nevertheless, Hande remains cautious: her research isn’t focused solely on AI. She views AI as part of a larger shift in digital learning environments. For her, what matters isn’t the individual tool, but rather how such tools influence the learning experience, team dynamics, and the design process.

Hande deliberately chose the HPI d-school in Potsdam as a case study. For her, it is one of the key pioneering institutions in Design Thinking. Stanford was difficult to access, whereas Potsdam, thanks to existing contacts and the significance of the location, offered a suitable opportunity for her research.

“I was looking for pioneers among Design Thinking institutions. Stanford is the first, and Potsdam is its sister institution here in Europe.”

Hande is interested not only in the curriculum but more in the physical space. She explains that she also wants to get to know the HPI d-school as a learning environment: How is the space designed? How do teams move within it? How do analog and digital ways of working come together? How does an institution that thrives on in-person interaction, teamwork, and physical spaces change when digital and hybrid formats are introduced?

What is already becoming clear from Hande’s research: The future of Design Thinking education does not lie in a simple choice between online and offline. Rather, it’s about understanding more precisely which phase requires which environment.
Team building, empathy exercises, and physical prototyping often benefit from in-person interaction. Research, documentation, international collaboration, translation, brainstorming, or follow-up discussions can work very well digitally.

Hybrid formats open up new possibilities but also require new pedagogical attention. This is because as soon as part of the team is in the room and another part is only on screen, an asymmetry arises that must be managed.

Hande’s research reveals that learning spaces today are more than just rooms with furniture, whiteboards, and workshops. They consist of physical locations, digital tools, social relationships, pedagogical decisions, and individual experiences. Those who teach Design Thinking therefore design not only tasks and methods, but entire learning ecosystems.

Or to put it another way: The most important question is not whether students learn digitally or analogously. The more important question is when they need proximity, when distance is helpful and how both can be connected in a way that truly enables learning to succeed.