Shift to Knowledge

Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


In the previous chapter we outlined the background of this book — constructive design research — and unpacked how constructive design research, being partly based on design practices, needs to pay respect to both professional and academic worlds of design. We introduced the concept of ‘drifting’ as an ostentatious way of articulating how processes of design change and adopt as new knowledge is build and the need for reframing its concerns emerges. Stated metaphorically: not as driftwood, but as in car rally; intentionally and controlled. The chapter also outlined how constructive design research in increased self-efficacy bridges ideas and ways of working from other disciplines in its particular ways.


  1. Alexander, C. (1971). The state of the art in design methods. DMG Newsletter, 5(3), 3–7.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, M. (2000). The foundations of practice-based research: Introduction. In Working papers in art and design 1. Hertfordshire: University of Hertfordshire. Scholar
  3. Bødker, S., & Kyng, M. (2018). Participatory design that matters — Facing the big issues. ACM Transaction on Computer-Human Interaction, 25(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bødker, Susanne, Morten, K., Pelle, E., John, K., & Yngve, S. (1987). “A Utopian Experience – On Design of Powerful Computer-Based Tools for Skilled Graphic Workers.” Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, J., & Kellogg, W. A. (1989). Artifact as theory-Nexus: Hermeneutics meets theory-based design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 7–14). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Dalsgaard, P. (2014). Pragmatism and design thinking. International Journal of Design, 8, 143–155.Google Scholar
  7. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects. Basel: August/Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  8. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum.Google Scholar
  9. Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. In Royal college of art research papers (Vol. 1, pp. 1–5). London: RCA. Scholar
  10. Fitts, P. M. (1954) “The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movement.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 47, no. 6 (1954): 381–91.
  11. Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  12. Gaver, William W., Ben H., & Anthony, D. (2001). The Presence Project. London: RCA Computer Related Design Research.Google Scholar
  13. Presence Project, Gaver, W., Hooker, B., Dunne, A., & Farrington, P. (2001). CRD projects series. London: RCA.Google Scholar
  14. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  15. Gentes, A. (2017). The In-discipline of design. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (2015). Knowledge and human interests. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28, 75–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jones, C. (1991). Designing designing. London: Architecture Design and Technology Press.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Mäkelä, M., & Routarinne, S. (2006). The art of research: Research practices in art and design. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  22. Maldonado, T. (1984) Ulm Revisited. Rassegna, Anno 19/3, settembre. (trans: Sparado, F.).Google Scholar
  23. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University.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. Overbeeke, K., Wensveen, S., & Hummels, C. (2006). Design research: Generating knowledge thorough doing. In Proceedings of third symposium of design research (pp. 51–69). Swiss Design Network: Geneva.Google Scholar
  26. Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Redström, J. (2011). Some notes on programme-experiment dialectics. In Proceedings of Nordic design research conference. Scholar
  28. Rothman, L. (2017). “Manhattan Almost Had a Highway Running Across It. Here’s What It Would Have Looked Like.” Time. Accessed March 11, 2019.
  29. Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4, 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stappers, P. J., Sleeswijk Visser, F., & Keller, I. (2014). The role of prototypes and frameworks for structuring explorations by research through design. In P. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds.), Routledge Companion to Design Research (pp. 163–174). Florence: Routledge., 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Summatavet, K. (2005). Folk tradition and artistic inspiration: A womans life in traditional Estonian jewelry and crafts as told by Anne and Roosi. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  32. Wensveen, S. (2005). A tangibility approach to affective interaction. Delft: Technical University of Delft.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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

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

Personalised recommendations