Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


In this book, we deal with the epistemology of design. Epistemology is one of the grand terms of philosophy, where it means discourse about knowledge — usually about certainty, whether we can trust our senses, thoughts, and other pieces of knowledge. For us, two design researchers, the concept is more specific. We deal with epistemology in one particular context, constructive design research, in which design artefacts are vehicles of knowledge creation. In our work we have identified four epistemic traditions in constructive design research: (1) experiential; (2) methodic; (3) programmatic; and (4) dialectic. These are described in Chap.  3. Our aim is not to contribute to philosophy; our aim is to clarify how knowledge works in constructive design research. Rather than tightening the bridle this book is our attempt to maximize the freedom of research as it happens in constructive design research. The descriptions and methodologies provided in this book is our attempt to give research legitimacy to a cherished design practice we call drifting — however, drifting by intention.


  1. Bang, A. L., & Eriksen, M. A. (2014). Experiments all the way in programmatic design research. Proceedings of Nordic Design Research Conference, 2013.
  2. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Blomberg, J., Giacomi, J., Mosher, A., & Swenton-Wall, P. (1993). Ethnographic field methods and their relation to design. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 123–155). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  4. Box, G. E. P. (1979). Robustness in the strategy of scientific model building. In R. L. Launer & G. N. Wilkinson (Eds.), Robustness in statistics (pp. 201–236). New York: Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Box, G. E. P. (1976). Science and statistics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 791–799.CrossRefGoogle 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. Branzi, A. (2013). Seven degrees of separation. In The New Italian design (pp. 14–17). Milano: Triennale di Milano.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum.Google Scholar
  11. Jan Pieter van, S., Elisa, G. (2017). The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
  12. Keller, A. I. (2005) “For Inspiration Only: Designer Interaction with Informal Collections of Visual Material.”.Google Scholar
  13. Kensing, F., & Blomberg, J. (1988). Participatory design: Issues and concerns. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 7(3–4), 167–185.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Koskinen, I., & Krogh, P. G. (2015). Design accountability: When design research entangles theory and practice. International Journal of Design, 9, 121–127.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. Kurvinen, E. (2007). Prototyping social action. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  18. Manzini, E. (2015). Design, when everybody designs: An introduction to design for social innovation. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University.Google Scholar
  20. Mattelmäki, Tuuli, Kirsikka, V., and Ilpo, K. (2013). “What Happened to Empathic Design?” Design Issues 30, no. 1 (December 19, 2013): 67–77.
  21. Mattelmäki, T., & Visser, F. S. (2011). Lost in Co-X: Interpretations of co-design and co-creation. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on design research (pp. 1–12).Google Scholar
  22. Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2003). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Niedderer, K. (2004). Designing the performative object: A study in designing mindful interaction through artefacts. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  25. Popper, K. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Redström, J. (2011). Some notes on programme-experiment dialectics. In Proceedings of Nordic design research conference. Scholar
  27. Sanders, E. B-N. (2005). “Information, Inspiration and Co-Creation.” In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European Academy of Design. University of the Arts Bremen.Google Scholar
  28. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules of competition by radically innovating what things mean. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  30. Wensveen, S. (2005). A tangibility approach to affective interaction. Delft: Technical University of Delft.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EngineeringSocio-Technical design, Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Design NextUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations