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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This work is based on the five ways of drifting’ paper (Krogh et al. 2015) and provides a general outline of the characteristics which point to the methodological roles that design experiments and design work may contribute in constructive design research.
- 2.
We use the term in line with Richard Feldman (2003) that knowledge do not require certainty and that claims and theories are to be considered provisional and open to change and revision.
- 3.
Here we bridge the design practice of sketching with C.S. Pierce’ notion of abduction (1979). In our terms a sketch is the physical manifestation in any material of a design concern, which enters into conversational dialogue with the designer as suggested by Schön (1983). Sketching in this way is neither inductive or deductive, by may be considered abductive in the sense that it is a bold suggestion of a likely structure/ pattern at hand. Dorst (2015) suggest the notion of ‘designerly abduction’ pointing to the designers concern of making suggestions for a potential future; bridging the gap of logic reason and creative proposals. In Chap. 7 we get back to the various notions of bridging reason and creative suggestive practice in the context of constructive design research.
References
Bang, A. L. (2011). Emotional value of applied textiles. Kolding: Kolding School of Design.
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.
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.
Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.
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.
Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2007). Experimental design research: Genealogy, intervention, argument. Proceedings of International association of societies of design research, Hong Kong.
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.
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.
Dindler, C. (2010). Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
Fogtmann, M. H. (2011). Designing with the body in mind: Kinesthetic, empathy, interaction. Aarhus: Arkitektskolen Aarhus.
Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
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.
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice. From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.
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.
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.
Lynggaard, A. B. (2012). Homing interactions: Tactics and concepts for highly mobile people. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.
Mogensen, P. (1992). Towards a provotyping approach in systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 4, 31–53.
Niedderer, K. (2004). Designing the performative object: A study in designing mindful interaction through artefacts. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
Rasmussen, M. K. (2015). Changing the shape of interaction: Shape-changing interfaces. Aarhus: Department of Computer Science, Aarhus University.
Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
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.
Ross, P. (2008). Ethics and aesthetics in intelligent product and system design. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Säde, S. (2001). Cardboard Mock-ups and Conversations. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitione: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Thomsen, J., & Schnedler, J. (2017). Designing interactive interiors for value-driven healthcare informed by socio-spatial concerns. Aarhus: Aarhus University. Master thesis.
Trotto, A. (2011). Rights through making: Skills for pervasive ethics. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Worbin, L. (2010). Designing dynamic textile patterns. Borås: University of Borås.
Wu, Y. (2017). Bicycles and Plants. Helsinki: Aalto University.
Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design Artifacts in design theory construction. Art, 2, 41–45.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krogh, P.G., Koskinen, I. (2020). Ways of Drifting in Design Experiments. In: Drifting by Intention. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37896-7_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37896-7_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37895-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37896-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)