Advertisement

Ways of Drifting in Design Experiments

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

Abstract

In Chap.  4, we presented a Knowledge-Relevance model (K-R) that maps design activities in terms of evaluation and hypothesis construction, and knowledge and relevance interests. We analyzed some of the ways in which hypotheses construction takes shape in the four traditions we have identified in Chap.  3. In this chapter our focus will be at the very heart of the model: how design experiments articulate research interests, how drifting happens in experimentation, and how drifting happens between design experiments. Based on the corpus of PhD dissertations that form the foundations of this book, we provide a typology comprised of five types of design experiments. We will label these as accumulative, comparative, serial, expansive and probing.

References

  1. Bang, A. L. (2011). Emotional value of applied textiles. Kolding: Kolding School of Design.Google Scholar
  2. Bang, A. L., & Eriksen, M. A. (2014). Experiments all the way in programmatic design research. Artifact 3, no. 2 (December 3, 2014): 4-1-4.14.  https://doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.3976.
  3. Bang, A. L., Peter, K. G., Ludvigsen, M., & Markussen, T. (2012). The role of hypothesis in constructive design research. In Proceedings of the art of research 2012. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  4. Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  5. Brandt, E. (2006). Designing exploratory design games: A framework for participation in participatory design? In Proceedings of the ninth conference on participatory design expanding boundaries in design. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2007). Experimental design research: Genealogy, intervention, argument. Proceedings of International association of societies of design research, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Deckers, E., Hummels, C., Feijs, L., & Wensveen, S. (2013). Perceptive qualities in systems of interactive products. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. http://repository.tue.nl/753907.Google Scholar
  9. Dindler, C. (2010). Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. Aarhus: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  10. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  12. Fogtmann, M. H. (2011). Designing with the body in mind: Kinesthetic, empathy, interaction. Aarhus: Arkitektskolen Aarhus.Google Scholar
  13. Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice. From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  16. Krogh, P. G., Markussen, T., & Bang, A. L. (2015). Ways of drifting—Five methods of experimentation in research through design. In Proceedings of ICoRD15 — Research into design across boundaries (pp. 39–50). New Delhi: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krogh, P. G., Petersen, M. G., O’Hara, K., & Groenbaek, J. E. (2017). Sensitizing concepts for socio-spatial literacy in HCI. In Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 6449–6460). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Lynggaard, A. B. (2012). Homing interactions: Tactics and concepts for highly mobile people. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.Google Scholar
  19. Mogensen, P. (1992). Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4, 31–53.Google Scholar
  20. Niedderer, K. (2004). Designing the performative object: A study in designing mindful interaction through artefacts. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  21. Rasmussen, M. K. (2015). Changing the shape of interaction: Shape-changing interfaces. Aarhus: Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  22. Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Redström, J. (2011). Some notes on programme-experiment dialectics. In Proceedings of Nordic design research conference. http://www.nordes.org/opj/index.php/n13/article/view/91.Google Scholar
  24. Ross, P. (2008). Ethics and aesthetics in intelligent product and system design. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  25. Säde, S. (2001). Cardboard Mock-ups and Conversations. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.Google Scholar
  26. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitione: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  27. Suppes, P. (1960). A comparison of the meaning and uses of models in mathematics and the empirical sciences. Technical report no. 33. Stanford: Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences of Applied Mathematics and Statistical Laboratories.Google Scholar
  28. Thomsen, J., & Schnedler, J. (2017). Designing interactive interiors for value-driven healthcare informed by socio-spatial concerns. Aarhus: Aarhus University. Master thesis.Google Scholar
  29. Trotto, A. (2011). Rights through making: Skills for pervasive ethics. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  30. Worbin, L. (2010). Designing dynamic textile patterns. Borås: University of Borås.Google Scholar
  31. Wu, Y. (2017). Bicycles and Plants. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  32. Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design Artifacts in design theory construction. Art, 2, 41–45.Google Scholar
  33. 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