Design Hypothesis: Knowledge-Relevance Model

Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


This chapter asks how constructive design researchers construe hypotheses. What guides the construal process, is it theory, research program, or design reasoning? We will argue that this question involves two sub-questions: one concerns the hypothesis that guides research, another the hypothesis that guides design. We argue that constructive design research has to balance both of these to be effective, and we also point out that many of the controversies we have discussed in the previous chapters are in fact efforts to grapple with the Janus-faced character of the discipline. It is this character that has inspired us to suggest the Knowledge-Relevance model that help the constructive design researcher to balance the core research activities when the process is driven by design.


  1. 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
  2. Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  3. Beaver, J., Kerridge, T., & Pennington, S. (2009). Material beliefs. London: Goldsmiths, Interaction Research Studio.Google Scholar
  4. Bertola, P. (Ed.). (2009). Sistema design Milano / Milan design system. Milano: Abitare Segesta.Google Scholar
  5. Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Linde, P., Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2006, November 1–4). Exemplary design research. DRS Wonderground Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  7. Bowers, J. (2012). The logic of annotated portfolios: Communicating the value of research through design. In Proceedings of the designing interactive systems conference (pp. 68–77). New York: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, R. (2001). Design research and the new learning. Design Issues, 17, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross, N. (2018) “Developing Design as a Discipline.” Journal of Engineering Design 29, no. 12 (December 2, 2018): 691–708.
  10. Deckers, E., Hummels, C., Feijs, L., & Wensveen, S. (2013). Perceptive qualities in systems of interactive products. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Scholar
  11. DiSalvo, C. (2012). Adversarial Design. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum.Google Scholar
  14. Koskinen, I., & Joep, F. (2017). “Research Prototypes.” Archives of Design Research 30, no. 3 (August 31, 2017): 5–14.
  15. Presence Project, Gaver, W., Hooker, B., Dunne, A., & Farrington, P. (2001). CRD projects series. London: RCA.Google Scholar
  16. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2008). Entre concepts et connaissances: éléments d’une théorie de la conception. In A. H. e. B. Weil (Ed.), Les Nouveaux Régimes de la Conception: Langages, Théories, Métiers. Paris: Vuibert/Cerisy.Google Scholar
  17. Hatchuel, A., & Weil, B. (2011). Experts in organizations: A knowledge-based perspective on organizational change. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hauser, S., Oogjes, D., Wakkary, R., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2018). An annotated portfolio on doing Postphenomenology through research products. In Proceedings of designing interactive systems conference (pp. 459–471). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Hummels, C. (2000). Gestural design tools: Prototypes. In Experiments and scenarios. Delft: Delft University of Technology.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. Koskinen, I., & Krogh, P. G. (2015). Design accountability: When design research entangles theory and practice. International Journal of Design, 9, 121–127.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Ludvigsen, M. (2006). Designing for social interaction: Physical, co-located social computing. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Manzini, E. (2016). Design culture and dialogic design. Design Issues, 32, 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markussen, T., Krogh, P. G., & Bang, A. L. (2015). On what grounds?: An intra-disciplinary account of evaluation in research through design. In Proceedings of 6th international association of societies of design research conference (pp. 1415–1429). Brisbane.Google Scholar
  27. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University.Google Scholar
  28. Meroni, A. (2017). Creative communities: People inventing sustainable ways of living. Milan: Edizioni Polidesign.Google Scholar
  29. Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (Eds.). (2011). Design for services. Adelshot: Gower Publishing.Google Scholar
  30. Mitcham, C. (1986). Computers: From Ethos and Ethics to Mythos and Religion. Notes on the New Frontier Between Computers and Philosophy. Technology in Society Vol. 8: 171–201.Google Scholar
  31. Mogensen, P. (1992). Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4, 31–53.Google Scholar
  32. Odom, W., Wakkary, R., Lim, Y.-k., Desjardins, A., Hengeveld, B., & Banks, R. (2016). From research prototype to research product. In Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 2549–2561). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible. (trans: Rockhill, G.). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  35. Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitione: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  37. Stappers, P. (Jan 2007). Doing design as a part of doing research. In R. Michel (Ed.), Design research now (pp. 81–91). Basel: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Thomsen, J. R., Krogh, P. G., Schnedler, J. A., & Linnet, H. (2018). Interactive interior and proxemics thresholds: Empowering participants in sensitive conversations. In Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  40. Thomsen, J., & Schnedler, J. (2017). Designing interactive interiors for value-driven healthcare informed by socio-spatial concerns. Aarhus: Aarhus University. Master thesis.Google Scholar
  41. Wensveen, S. (2005). A tangibility approach to affective interaction. Delft: Technical University of Delft.Google Scholar
  42. 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

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