Abstract
Thinking is the property of the human mind. Scientists engage in constructive thinking: they set up hypotheses and test them, and develop logical chains of arguments to decide which assumptions are facts and which are not. They also create new perspectives for searching out truths by designing more accurate concepts, which allow them to ask new types of questions concerning the states of affairs.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
There is an annoying difference in semantic fields and meanings between the English word ‘science’ and the respective words in other European languages, such as ‘Wissenschaft’, ‘vetenskap’, ‘ciencia’, ‘tiede’, etc. The latter refer to any form of reason applied in research. For example, such fields of learning as ‘literature’ and ‘history’ are forms of Wissenschaft, or vetenskap. However, they are not ‘sciences’. When discussing human research, this difference often causes difficulties. Therefore, in this context, ‘research’ is used as an equivalent term for the European words that describe all forms of investigative activities.
- 2.
It is important to distinguish between general and product-specific HTI design ontologies. General design ontologies describe properties of HTI solutions that are common to all products. Product-specific ontologies concern properties typical to individual products. Only general ontologies are discussed here.
References
Anderson, J. R., Matessa, M., & Lebiere, C. (1997). ACT-R: A theory of higher-level cognition and its relation to visual attention. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 439–462.
Anscombe, G. E. M. (1957). Intention. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Aristotle. (1984). (1.1–15.32) Categories. In J. Barnes (Ed.), Complete works of Aristotle (W. Ross, & J. Urmson, Trans.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bahder, T. B. (2003). Relativity of GPS measurement. Physical Review D, 68, 1–18.
Bernal, J. D. (1969). Science in history. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Boven, W. R. (2009). Engineering ethics. London: Springer.
Bowen, W. R. (2009). Engineering ethics: Outline of an aspirational approach. London: Springer.
Bunge, M. (1959). Causality and modern science. New York: Dover.
Bunge, M. (1967). Scientific research (Vols. I–II). New York: Springer.
Bynum, T. (2010). The historical roots of information and computer ethics. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics (pp. 20–38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, J. M. (1995). Scenario-based design: envisioning work and technology in system development. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Carroll, J. M. (1997). Human computer interaction: Psychology as science of design. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 61–83.
Chandrasekaran, B. (1990). Design problem-solving—A task-analysis. Ai Magazine, 11, 59–71.
Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why do we need them? Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, 14, 20–26.
Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. In Proceedings of the 4th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Changing Roles (pp. 165–174).
Cockton, G. (2013). Usability evaluation. In C. Ghaoui (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed.). Hershey, PA: Idea Group.
Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: The essentials of interaction design. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3, 221–227.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17, 49–55.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 2, 427–441.
Cross, N., Naughton, J., & Walker, D. (1981). Design method and scientific method. Design Studies, 2, 195–201.
de Souza, C. S. (2005). The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Derry, T. K., & Williams, T. I. (1960). A short history of technology. New York: Dover.
Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2009). Engineering design. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem-solving. Psychological Monographs, 58, 1–113.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120.
Dym, C. L., & Brown, D. C. (2012). Engineering design: Representation and reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eder, W. (1998). Design modelling—A design science approach (and why does industry not use it?). Journal of Engineering Design, 9, 355–371.
Eder, W., & Hosnedl, S. (2008). Design engineering. A manual for enhanced creativity. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Eimer, M., Nattkemper, D., Schröger, E., & Printz, W. (1996). Involuntary attention. In O. Neuman & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action 3. Attention (pp. 155–184). London: Academic Press.
Franken, R. (2002). Human motivation. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1988). The laws of emotion. American Psychologist, 43, 349–358.
Galiz, W. O. (2002). The essential guide to user interface design. New York: Wiley.
Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11, 26–36.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). The backtalk of self-generated sketches. Design Issues, 19, 72–88.
Griggs, L. (1995). The windows interface guidelines for software design. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.
Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5, 199–220.
Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 43, 907–928.
Hall, A. S., Holowenko, A. R., & Laughlin, H. G. (1961). Theory and problems of machine design. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hempel, C. (1965). Aspects of scientific explanation. New York: Free Press.
Hu, J., Chen, W., Bartneck, C., & Rauterberg, M. (2010). Transferring design knowledge: Challenges and opportunities. In X. Zhang, S. Zhong, Z. Pan, K. Wong, & R. Yun (Eds.), Entertainment for education, digital techniques and systems (pp. 165–172). Berlin: Springer.
Iivari, J. (2007). A paradigmatic analysis of information systems as a design science. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(5), 39–64.
Indulska, M., Recker, J., Rosemann, M., & Green, P. (2009). Business process modeling: Current issues and future challenges. In The 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering, 8–12 June, Amsterdam (pp. 501–514). Berlin: Springer.
Karwowski, W. (2006). The discipline of ergonomics and human factors. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 3–31). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1997). An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 391–438.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Leikas, J., Saariluoma, P., Heinilä, J., & Ylikauppila, M. (2013). A methodological model for life-based design. International Review of Social Sciences and Humanities, 4(2), 118–136.
Leppänen, M. (2006). An ontological framework and a methodological skeleton for method engineering. Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä University Press.
Long, H. (2014). An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003–2012). Creativity Research Journal, 26, 427–438.
March, S. T., & Smith, G. F. (1995). Design and natural science research on informational technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, 251–266.
March, S. T., & Storey, V. C. (2008). Design science in information systems discipline: An introduction to the special issue on design science research. MIS Quarterly, 32, 725–730.
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Nolan, V. (2003). Whatever happened to synectics? Creativity and Innovation Management, 12, 24–27.
Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. Norman & S. Draper (Eds.), User-centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction (pp. 31–60). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Norman, D. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Orlikowski, W. J. (1991). Duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3, 398–427.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practical lens for studying technology in organizations. Organization Science, 11,404–428.
Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Berlin: Springer.
Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (1997). Cognition and emotion: From order to disorder. Hove: Psychology Press.
Rauterberg, M. (2006). HCI as an engineering discipline: To be or not to be? African Journal of Information and Communication Technology, 2, 163–183.
Roaf, R. (1960). A study of the mechanics of spinal injuries. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, British Volume, 42, 810–823.
Rock, I. (1983). The logic of perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rosson, B., & Carroll, J. (2002). Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human-computer interaction. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Saariluoma, P. (2005). Explanatory frameworks for interaction design. In A. Pirhonen, H. Isomäki, C. Roast, & P. Saariluoma (Eds.), Future interaction design (pp. 67–83). London: Springer.
Saariluoma, P., Hautamäki, A., Väyrynen, S., Pärttö, M., & Kannisto, E. (2011). Microinnovations among the paradigms of innovation research. Global Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 11, 12–23.
Saariluoma, P., & Jokinen, J. P. (2014). Emotional dimensions of user experience: A user psychological analysis. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 30, 303–320.
Saariluoma, P., & Leikas, J. (2010). Life-based design—An approach to design for life. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 10, 17–23.
Saariluoma, P., & Oulasvirta, A. (2010). User psychology: Re-assessing the boundaries of a discipline. Psychology, 1, 317–328.
Schneider, W., Dumais, S., & Shiffrin, R. (1984). Automatic and controlled processing and attention. In R. Parasuraman & D. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schumpeter, J. (1939). Business cycles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sixsmith, A., & Gutman, G. M. (2013). Technologies for active aging. New York: Springer.
Skolimowski, H. (1966). The structure of thinking in technology. Technology and Culture, 7, 371–383.
Sowa, J. F. (2000). Ontology, metadata, and semiotics. In B. Ganter & G. W. Mineau (Eds.), Conceptual structures: Logical, linguistic, and computational issues (pp. 55–81). Berlin: Springer.
Standing, L., Conezio, J., & Harber, R. N. (1970). Perception and memory for pictures: Single trial learning of 2560 stimuli. Psychonomic Science, 19, 73–74.
Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2011). Product design and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992). Selective attention in vision. London: Routledge.
van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1996). Visual attention. In O. Neuman & A. F. Sanders (Eds.), Handbook of perception and action 3. Attention. London: Academic Press.
Venable, J. (2006). The role of theory and theorising in design science research. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Science in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST 2006) (pp. 1–18).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Saariluoma, P., Cañas, J.J., Leikas, J. (2016). Research and Innovation. In: Designing for Life. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53047-9_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53047-9_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-53046-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-53047-9
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)