Advertisement

Drifting in Four Epistemic Traditions

  • Peter Gall Krogh
  • Ilpo Koskinen
Chapter
  • 35 Downloads
Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)

Abstract

The previous chapter mapped some of the most important characteristics in which constructive design research differs from professional practices and conditions for design. Our focus was on the implications of a shift from design practice to a knowledge-based discipline. We paid attention specifically to how this shift has been interpreted in constructive design research, and how this shift changes the outcomes of design. We saw a wide variation on perspectives from those focusing on how artifacts carry knowledge to those authors who want to turn design into a science. Although constructive design research focuses on artifacts and cannot exist without them, it differs radically from design practice in one respect, which is the context in which claims are justified. In design practice, the context of justification are the design world and the market. In constructive design research, the context of justification is knowledge and design research community.

Literature

  1. Blessing, L., & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a design research methodology. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bossen, C., Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2010). User gains and PD aims: Assessment from a participatory design project. In Proceedings of participatory design conference (pp. 141–150). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  3. von Busch, O. (2008). Fashion-able: Hacktivism and engaged fashion design. Göteborg: School of Design and Crafts (HDK), Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  4. Dindler, C. (2010). Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. Aarhus: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  5. Dindler, C., Iversen, O. S., & Krogh, P. G. (2011). Engagement through mixed modalities. Interactions, 18(4), 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum.Google Scholar
  7. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. In Royal college of art research papers (Vol. 1, pp. 1–5). London: RCA. http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/.Google Scholar
  8. Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  9. Gaver, W. (2012). What should we expect from research through design? In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 937–946). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  10. Presence Project, Gaver, W., Hooker, B., Dunne, A., & Farrington, P. (2001). CRD projects series. London: RCA.Google Scholar
  11. Goffman, E. (1978). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Koskinen, I., & Krogh, P. G. (2015). Design accountability: When design research entangles theory and practice. International Journal of Design, 9, 121–127.Google Scholar
  13. Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness. Activity theory and human-computer interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, J.-J. (2012). Against method: The portability of method in human-centered design. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  15. Lynch, M. (1993). Scientific practice and ordinary action: Ethnomethodology and social studies of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University.Google Scholar
  18. Niedderer, K., & Roworth-Stokes, S. (2007). The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge. In Proceedings of IASDR. Hong Kong SAR.Google Scholar
  19. Valtonen, A. (2007). Redefining industrial design: Changes in the design practice in Finland. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  20. Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 493–502). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of designing interactive systems (pp. 310–319). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Gall Krogh
    • 1
  • Ilpo Koskinen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of EngineeringSocio-Technical design, Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Design NextUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations