Abstract
Teaching design and product development at upper secondary school level in Sweden is a matter of interdisciplinary considerations. Education in product development, at this level, prepares students for further studies and career in engineering or industrial design. Knowledge of artefacts is an important element in the education. In coherence with the visual and rhetorical strategies characterising the knowledge field, students learn how to develop an idea to a final product. In this study twelve engineers and industrial designers, professionals representing the knowledge field of product development are studied regarding their interpretations of eight pre-selected artefacts. Data is collected and analysed using repertory grid technique. The aim of the study is to examine whether/what we can learn from the informants’ experiences and knowledge that is relevant to education in design and product development at upper secondary school level. Findings show that four of the artefacts appear to be carriers of attributes that reveal the interviewees’ definitions of the artefacts’ functional nature. From these findings it is shown that the interviewees’ definitions of concepts concerning aesthetics/decoration and function can be seen as cultural expressions. How the repertory grid technique is used in this particular study is thoroughly described and the results relevance for education is discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Example of higher educational programme for industrial designers. http://www.uid.umu.se/en/education/programmes/.
Examples of higher educational programme for engineers. http://www.kth.se/en/studies/programmes/master/programmes/me/integrated-product-design, http://www.kth.se/utbildning/program/civilingenjor/design-produktframtagning/civilingenjor-design-och-produktframtagning-300-hp-1.4118 (in Swedish).
Example of teacher education regarding design. http://www.konstfack.se/en/Education/Teacher-Education/.
Example of teacher education regarding the technology field. http://www.kth.se/en/studies/programmes/swedish-programmes/msc/master-of-science-in-engineering-and-of-education-300-credits-1.62981.
References
Arnheim, R. (1997). Visual thinking. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bechy, B. A. (2003). Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109, 720–752.
Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2001). The role of the qualifying function concept in systems design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 14(1), 79–93.
Björklund, L. (2008a). Från Novis till Expert: Förtrogenhetskunskap i kognitiv och didaktisk belysning. (Doctoral dissertation). Norrköping: Linköpings universitet, 2008. Norrköping. Accessed 29 June 2015, http://www.synvillan.net/Lasse/_AVH_LEB080417_TOTAL.pdf
Björklund, L. (2008b). The repertory grid technique: Making tacit knowledge explicit: Assessing creative work and problem solving skills. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Researching technology education: Methods and techniques (pp. 46–69). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Kultursociologiska texter. (New ed.). Stockholm: B. Östlings bokförl. Symposion.
Brunnström, L. (Ed.). (2004). Svensk industridesign: en 1900-talshistoria (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Prisma.
Clouser, R. (2010). A brief sketch of the philosophy of Herman Dooyeweerd. Axiomathes, 20, 3–17. doi:10.1007/s10516-009-9075-2.
De Vries, M. (2005). Teaching about technology: An introduction to the philosophy of technology for non-philosophers. Dordrecht: Springer.
Dreyfus, H. L., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2000). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and expertise in the era of the computer. New York: Free Press.
Engineering and Product Design Education Conference. (2005). Crossing design boundaries. In Proceedings of the 3rd engineering & product design education international conference, Edinburgh, UK, 15–16 Sept 2005. London: Taylor & Francis.
Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.
Grenfell, M. (Ed.). (2012). Pierre Bourdieu: Key concepts (2nd ed.). Durham: Acumen.
Haraway, D. J. (2008). Apor, cyborger och kvinnor: att återuppfinna naturen. Eslöv: Brutus Östlings bokförlag Symposion.
Hiort af Ornäs, V., & Persson, S. (2007). Things, constructs and meanings. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordcode seminar & workshop. Accessed 29 June 2015, http://www2.uiah.fi/sefun/DSIU_papers/DSIU%20_%20Hjort&Persson%20_%20ThingsConstructsMeanings.pdf
Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA.: Addison-Wesley.
Jankowicz, D. (2004). The easy guide to repertory grids. Chichester: Wiley.
Jordan, P. W., & Persson, S. (2007). Exploring users’ product constructs: How people think about different types of product. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 3(S1), 97–106.
Kelly, G. A. (1963). A theory of personality: The psychology of personal constructs (New ed.). New York: Norton.
Kirkham, P. (Ed.). (1996). The gendered object. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Knorr-Cetina, K., & Bruegger, U. (2002). Traders’ engagement with markets: A postsocial relationship. Theory Culture Society, 19, 161–185. doi:10.1177/026327602761899200.
Latour, B. (1999). Pandora’s hope: Essays on the reality of science studies. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Linander, C. (2002). En för alla, alla för en: sjuksköterskors och ingenjörers syn på ledarskap: nn enkät och repertory grid studie sista terminen i utbildning och efter ett till ett och halvt år i arbete. (Doctoral dissertation). Lund: Lund universitet.
Lindström, L. (2001). Från novis till mästare. En studie av bedömningskriterier i slöjd. Visioner om slöjd och slöjdpedagogik, 251–280.
Lymer, G. (2009). Demonstrating professional vision: The work of critique in architectural education. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 16(2), 145–171. doi:10.1080/10749030802590580.
Mattsson, H., & Wallenstein, S. (Eds.). (2010). Swedish modernism: Architecture, consumption and the welfare state. London: Black Dog.
Meijers, A. (Ed.). (2009). Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, 9. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Nationalmuseum. (2005). Konceptdesign. Stockholm: Nationalmuseum.
OECD. (2013). Education at a glance 2013: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. doi:10.1787/eag-2013-en.
Persson, S., Hiort af Ornäs, V., & Jordan, P. W. (2007). Product constructs: Investigating differences between human factor specialists, industrial designers and engineers. In Proceedings of the 39th Nordic ergonomics society conference. Accessed 29 June 2015, http://www.nordiskergonomi.org/nes2007/CD_NES_2007/papers/A69_Persson.pdf
Rep 5. (n.d.). Accessed 29 June 2015, http://repgrid.com
Säljö, R., & Linderoth, J. (Eds.). (2002). Utm@ningar och e-frestelser: IT och skolans lärkultur. Stockholm: Prisma.
Schatzki, T. R., Knorr-Cetina, K., & Savigny, E. V. (Eds.). (2001). The practice turn in contemporary theory. London: Routledge.
Skogh, I., & De Vries, M. J. (Eds.). (2013). Technology teachers as researchers: Philosophical and empirical technology education studies in the Swedish TUFF Research School. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Skolverket. (2012). Upper secondary school 2011. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Skolverket. (2013). Curriculum for the upper secondary school. Stockholm: Skolverket.
Sparke, P. (2009). Design och postmodernitet: en introduktion. Stockholm: Raster.
Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Yorke, D. M. (1978). Repertory grids in educational research: Some methodological considerations. British Educational Research Journal, 4(2), 63–74.
Yorke, D. M. (1983). Straight or bent? An inquiry into rating scales in repertory grids. British Educational Research Journal, 9(2), 141–151.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Elements | Constructs: left pole | Constructs: right pole | Elements | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1, Engineer O1 | ||||
1:1 (4) | RF, O(1) E(2) = 3 CTO, O(2) E(2) = 4 | One material Easy to use (87.5 %) | Several materials. Complicated (87.5 %) | MS, S(M) C(M) = 4 RPP, S(M) C(M) = 4 |
2, Engineer O2 | ||||
2:2 (4) | RF, D(2) A(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) A(2) = 4 | Decoration Appearance (87.5 %) | Function/usefulness Protect (87.5 %) | MS, F(2) P(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) P(1) = 3 |
2:3 (3) | CTO, S(2) E(2) = 4 | Soft Easy to produce (81.2 %) | Hard Difficult to produce (81.2 %) | MS, H(1) D(1) = 2 RPP, H(2) D(1) = 3 |
3, Industrial Designer O3 | ||||
3:4 (4) | RF, F(2) F(1) = 3 CTO, F(2) F(2) = 4 | Feminine. Playful, decorative Fragile (87.5 %) | Masculine materials, including function Stable (87.5 %) | MS, M(2) S(2) = 4 RPP, M(2) S(2) = 4 |
3:5 (3) | RF, I(2) O(2) = 4 | Industrial design, designer Ornate (84.4 %) | Engineering design, production method determines Stripped (84.4 %) | MS, E(1) S(2) = 3 RPP, E(2) S(2) = 4 |
3:6 (3) | RF, P(2) O(2) = 4 | Playfulness Ornate (84.4 %) | Functional design Stripped (84.4 %) | MS, F(2) S(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) S(2) = 4 |
3:7 (4) | RF, P(2) F(1) = 3 CTO, P(1) O(2) = 3 | Playfulness Fragile (84.4 %) | Functional design Stable (84.4 %) | MS, F(M) S(M) = 4 RPP, F(M) S(M) = 4 |
3:8 (4) | RF, D(2) F(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) F(2) = 4 | Decorative Feminine. Playful, decorative (84.4 %) | Technological Masculine materials, including function (84.4 %) | MS, T(M) M(M) = 4 RPP, T(M) M(M) = 4 |
3:9 (3) | RF, M(2) D(2) = 4 CTO,M(2) D(2) = 4 | Mechanical Decorative (84.4 %) | A shell with something electric. Smartness Technological (84.4 %) | MS, A(2) T(2) = 4 |
3:10 (4) | RF, P(2) I(2) = 4 CTO, P(1) I(2) = 3 | Playfulness Industrial design, designer (81.2 %) | Functional design Engineering design, production method determines (81.2 %) | MS, F(2) E(1) = 3 RPP, F(2) E(2) = 4 |
3:11 (4) | RF, D(2) P(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) P(1) = 3 | Decorative Playfulness (81.2 %) | Technological Functional design. (81.2 %) | MS, T(2) F(2) = 4 RPP, T(2) F(2) = 4 |
4, Industrial Designer O4 | ||||
4:12 (4) | RF, D(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) D(2) = 4 | Decoration, to hang and look at Décor (96.9 %) | They can be used, there are end users Function - related product (96.9 %) | MS, T(2) F(2) = 4 RPP, T(2) F(2) = 4 |
4:13 (4) | RF, T(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, T(2) D(2) = 4 | The main function is the appearance Decoration, to hang and look at (93.8 %) | The main function is that it functions They can be used, there are end users (93.8 %) | MS, T(1) T(2) = 3 RPP, T(2) T(2) = 4 |
4:14 (4) | RF, T(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, T(2) D(2) = 4 | The main function is the appearance Décor (90.6 %) | The main function is that it functions Function-related product (90.6 %) | MS, T(1) F(1) = 2 RPP, T(2) F(2) = 4 |
4:15 (4) | RF, T(2) F(2) = 4 CTO, T(2) F(2) = 4 | The main function is the appearance Fulfils its purpose even with low functionality (84.4 %) | The main function is that it functions Requires high functionality to be appreciated as a product (84.4 %) | MS, T(1) R(1) = 2 RPP, T(2) R(1) = 3 |
4:16 (4) | RF, D(2) F(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) F(2) = 4 | Decoration, to hang and look at Fulfils its purpose even with low functionality (84.4 %) | They can be used, there are end users Requires high functionality to be appreciated as a product (84.4 %) | MS, T(2) R(1) = 2 RPP, T(2) R(1) = 3 |
4:17 (4) | RF, F(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, F(2) D(2) = 4 | Fulfils its purpose even with low functionality Décor (81.2 %) | Requires high functionality to be appreciated as a product Function-related product (81.2 %) | MS, R(1) F(2) = 3 RPP, R(1) F(2) = 3 |
5, Industrial Designer O5 | ||||
5:18 (4) | RF, S(1) P(2) = 3 CTO, S(M) P(1) = 3 | Soft values. Should be in home environment Placed so it will be exposed, will be noticed (81.2 %) | Technical, very mechanical, tool Stored somewhere until it will be used (81.2 %) | MS, T(1) S(1) = 2 RPP, T(2) S(2) = 4 |
5:19 (3) | RF, W(2) P(2) = 4 | Whole, to function independently Placed so it will be exposed, will be noticed (81.2 %) | Designed to function together with someone or something Stored somewhere until it will be used (81.2 %) | MS, D(2) P(1) = 3 RPP, D(2) S(2) = 4 |
6, Industrial Designer O6 | ||||
6:20 (4) | RF, S(2) P(2) = 4 CTO, S(1) P(1) = 2 | Social behaviour Pleasure purchase (93.8 %) | Functional behaviour Need-based purchase (93.8 %) | MS, F(2) N(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) N(2) = 4 |
6:21 (4) | RF, A(2) S(2) = 4 CTO, A(2) S(1) = 3 | Aesthetics Social behaviour (87.5 %) | Function Functional behaviour (87.5 %) | MS, F(2) F(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) F(2) = 4 |
6:22 (4) | RF, A(2) P(2) = 4 CTO, A(2) P(1) = 3 | Aesthetics Pleasure purchase (87.5 %) | Function Need-based purchase (87.5 %) | MS, F(2) N(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) N(2) = 4 |
6:23 (3) | RF, N(2) I(1) = 3 CTO, N(2) I(1) = 3 | Non-active use Interest in how things look (81.2 %) | Active use Interest in how things function (81.2 %) | RPP, A(2) I(2) = 4 |
7, Industrial designer O7 | ||||
7:24 (4) | RF, D(2) P(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) P(1) = 3 | Decorates the home Personal satisfaction/expression (93.8 %) | Personal function Function (93.8 %) | MS, P(2) F(2) = 4 RPP, P(2) F(2) = 4 |
7:25 (3) | RF, U(2) D(1) = 3 | Unstable Divided (87.5 %) | Stable Unified (87.5 %) | MS, S(1) U(1) = 2 RPP, S(2) U(2) = 4 |
7:26 (4) | RF, P(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, P(1) D(2) = 3 | Personal satisfaction/ expression Decoration (84.4 %) | Function Tool (84.4 %) | MS, F(2) T(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) T(2) = 4 |
7:27 (4) | RF, D(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) D(2) = 4 | Decorates the home Decoration (84,4 %) | Personal function Tool (84,4 %) | MS, P(2) T(2) = 4 RPP, P(2) T(2) = 4 |
8, Engineer O8 | ||||
8:28 (3) | RF, O(2) O(1) = 3 CTO, O(2) O(2) = 4 | Ornaments Old-fashioned (90.6 %) | Functional that you rather not see New (90.6 %) | MS, F(1) N(1) = 2 |
8:29 (3) | RF, O(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, O(2) D(1) = 3 | Ornaments Decoration stuff (87.5 %) | Functional that you’d rather not see Necessary but not sufficiently stylish (87.5 %) | MS, F(1) N(1) = 2 |
8:30 (3) | RF, C(1) R(1) = 2 CTO, C(1) R1) = 2 | Christmas ornament Rarely used (84.4 %) | Everyday stuff Often used (84.4 %) | MS, E(2) O(M) = 4 |
8:31 (3) | RF, D(2) U(2) = 4 | Decoration stuff Unnecessary stuff/Does not exist in Swedish homes (84.4 %) | Necessary but not sufficiently stylish Exist in Swedish homes (84.4 %) | MS, N(1) E(2) = 3 RPP, N(1) E(1) = 2 |
8:32 (4) | RF, D(2) O(2) = 4 CTO, D(1) O(2) = 3 | Decoration stuff On view/To be seen (81.2 %) | Necessary but not sufficiently stylish Picked away (81.2 %) | MS, N(1) P(1) = 2 RPP, N(1) P(2) = 3 |
8:33 (3) | RF, O(2) O(2) = 4 CTO, O(2) O(2) = 4 | Ornaments On view/To be seen (81.2 %) | Functional, that you’d rather not see Packed away (81.2 %) | MS, F(1) P(1) = 2 |
9, Engineer O9 | ||||
9:34 (4) | RF, O(2) A(2) = 4 CTO, O(2) A(2) = 4 | Ornaments Aesthetics (96.9 %) | Useful Function (96.9 %) | MS, U(2) F(2) = 4 RPP, U(2) F(2) = 4 |
9:35 (4) | RF, A(2) I(2) = 4 CTO, A(2) I(2) = 4 | Aesthetics Interior, want it displayed (84.4 %) | Function Garage, not for display, want to hide away (84.4 %) | MS, F(2) G(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) G(2) = 4 |
9:36 (4) | RF, O(2) I(2) = 4 CTO, O(2) I(2) = 4 | Ornaments Interior, want it displayed (81.2 %) | Useful Garage, not for display, want to hide away (81.2 %) | RPP, U(2) G(2) = 4 MS, U(2) G(2) = 4 |
10, Industrial Designer O10 | ||||
10:37 (3) | RF, N(2) S(2) = 4 CTO,NI(1) S(1) = 2 | Not useful Short life (90.6 %) | Useful Long life (90.6 %) | RPP, U(2) L(2) = 4 |
10:38 (4) | RF, D(2) N(2) = 4 CTO, D(2) N(1) = 3 | Decorations Not useful (87.5 %) | Tool Useful (87.5 %) | MS, T(2) U(1) = 3 RPP, T(2) U(2) = 4 |
10:39 (4) | RF, O(2) A(2) = 4 CTO, P(NM) E(M) = 3 | Ornaments Aesthetics (87.5 %) | Function Ergonomics (87.5 %) | MS, F(2) E(1) = 3 RPP, F(2) E(2) = 4 |
10:40 (4) | RF, O(2) N(2) = 4 CTO, O(1) N(1) = 2 | Ornaments Not useful (84.4 %) | Function Useful (84.4 %) | MS, F(2) U(1) = 3 RPP, F(2) U(2) = 4 |
10:41 (4) | RF, O(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, O(1) D(2) = 3 | Ornaments Decorations (84.4 %) | Function Tool (84.4 %) | MS, F(2) T(2) = 4 RPP, F(2) T(2) = 4 |
10:42 (3) | RF, O(2) S(2) = 4 CTO, O(1) S(1) = 2 | Ornaments Short life (81.2 %) | Function Long life (81.2 %) | RPP, F(2) L(2) = 4 |
10:43 (4) | RF, A(2) D(2) = 4 CTO, A(2) D(2) = 4 | Aesthetics Decorations (81.2 %) | Ergonomics Tool (81.2 %) | MS, E(1) T(2) = 3 RPP, E(2) T(2) = 4 |
10:44 (4) | RF, A(2) N(2) = 4 CTO, A(2) N(1) = 3 | Aesthetics Not useful (81.2 %) | Ergonomics Useful (81.2 %) | MS, E(1) U(1) = 2 RPP, E(2) U(2) = 4 |
11, Industrial Designer O11 | ||||
11:45 (4) | RF, T(2) E(2) = 4 CTO, T(1) E(2) = 3 | The shape guides the design Entertaining (93.8 %) | The function guides the design Suited to its purpose (93.8 %) | MS, T(2) S(2) = 4 RPP, T(2) S(2) = 4 |
11:46 (4) | RF, A(2) E(2) = 4 CTO, A(2) E(2) = 4 | An elaborated shape Entertaining (90.6 %) | The shape a result of the construction Suited to its purpose (90.6 %) | MS, T(1) S(2) = 3 RPP, T(2) S(2) = 4 |
11:47 (4) | RF, E(2) N(1) = 3 CTO, E(2) N(2) = 4 | Entertaining Nostalgic, sentimental value (84.4 %) | Suited to its purpose No feelings for the product (84.4 %) | MS, S(2) N(2) = 4 RPP, S(2) N(2) = 4 |
11:48 (4) | RF, A(2) N(1) = 3 CTO, A(2) N(2) = 4 | An elaborate shape Nostalgic, sentimental value (81.2 %) | The shape a result of the construction No feelings for the product (81.2 %) | MS, T(1) N(2) = 3 RPP, T(2)N(2) = 4 |
12, Engineer O12 | ||||
12:49 (4) | RF, S(2) N(2) = 4 CTO, S(1) N(1) = 2 | Sentimental value No function (87.5 %) | Tool Function (87.5 %) | MS, T(2) F(2) = 4 RPP, T(1) F(1) = 2 |
12:50 (3) | RF, F(1) S(2) = 3 CTO, F(1) S(1) = 2 | Festival Sentimental value (81.2 %) | Everyday Tool (81.2 %) | RPP, E(2) T(2) = 4 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Persson, H.I. What is the function of a figurine? Can the repertory grid technique tell?. Int J Technol Des Educ 26, 541–565 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9323-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-015-9323-2