Four Epistemic Traditions of Evaluation

Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


On what grounds do we judge whether a theory for design is useful, valuable or successful? What is validity in constructive design research? What is the role of theory produced from design? Chapter  4 dealt with ways of construing hypotheses and how the K-R model may help map the constituent parts of a research process. Chapter  5 presented the typology of ways of drifting explaining how design experiments inform and urges design researchers to drift. This chapter turns to how design researchers can evaluate and justify their claims about knowledge. And completes our core trilogy of dialectic activities serving the dual ambition of relevance and knowledge production in constructive design research.


  1. Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2, 6–13.Google Scholar
  2. Archer, L. B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1, 17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  4. Borgmann, A. (1995). The depth of design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design (pp. 13–22). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cross, N. (1999). “Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation.” Design Issues 15, no. 2 (1999): 5–10.
  6. 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
  7. Dindler, C. (2010). Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. Aarhus: Aarhus University.Google Scholar
  8. Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (1989). On the uses of members responses to researchers accounts. Human Organization, 47, 189–198.CrossRefGoogle 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. Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Hamilton, J., & Jaaniste, L. O. (2009). The effective and the evocative: Practice-led research approaches across art and design. In R. Woodrow (Ed.), Interventions in the public domain. Brisbane: ACUADS Publishing, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University.Google Scholar
  13. Koskinen, I. (2003). Empathic Design in Methodic Terms. In I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee, & T. Mattelmäki (Eds.), Empathic design. Helsinki: IT Press.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. (2015). Four cultures of analysis in design research. In P. A. Rodgers & J. Yee (Eds.), The Routledge companion to design research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Koskinen, I., & Krogh, P. G. (2015). Design accountability: When design research entangles theory and practice. International Journal of Design, 9, 121–127.Google Scholar
  17. Lynggaard, A. B. (2012). Homing interactions: Tactics and concepts for highly mobile people. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.Google Scholar
  18. Mäkelä, M. (2003). Saveen piirtyvia muistoja. Helsinki: Aalto University. [‘Memories Written in Clay’, in Finnish].Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Niedderer, K. (2004). Designing the performative object: A study in designing mindful interaction through artefacts. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
  21. Niedderer, K., & Roworth-Stokes, S. (2007). The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge. In Proceedings of IASDR. Hong Kong SAR.Google Scholar
  22. Ross, P. (2008). Ethics and aesthetics in intelligent product and system design. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  23. Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Trotto, A. (2011). Rights through making: Skills for pervasive ethics. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  26. Wallace, J. (2007). Emotionally Charged: A Practice-Centred Enquiry of Digital Jewellery and Personal Emotional Significance. Sheffield: Shefield-Hallam University.Google Scholar
  27. Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design Artifacts in design theory construction. Art, 2, 41–45.Google Scholar
  28. 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