New Experimentalism

Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


This book has argued that the heart of constructive design research is usually a design experiment; it is a key vehicle of knowledge creation. In this chapter we study design experiments through a fairly recent philosophical debate that has been targeted against the theory-centric view of research. It is called ‘new experimentalism,’ which argues that experiments often create knowledge regardless of theory. Following new experimentalism, the hypothesis we explore in this chapter is that design experiments generate knowledge, but also that there are several kinds of experimental protocols in constructive design research.


  1. Ahde-Deal, P. (2013). Women and jewelry: A social approach to wearing and possessing Jewelry. 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. Binder, T., De Michelis, G., Ehn, P., Linde, P., Jacucci, G., & Wagner, I. (2011). Design things. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2006, November 1–4). Exemplary design research. DRS Wonderground Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Bunge, M. (1977). Treatise on basic philosophy: Ontology I: The furniture of the world. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Koskinen, I. (2003). Empathic Design in Methodic Terms. In I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee, & T. Mattelmäki (Eds.), Empathic design. Helsinki: IT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Koskinen, I. (2016). “Agonistic, Convivial, and Conceptual Aesthetics in New Social Design.” Design Issues 32, no. 3 (July 2016): 18–29.
  11. 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
  12. Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kurvinen, E. (2007). Prototyping social action. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.Google Scholar
  14. Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lakatos, I. (1974). “The Role of Crucial Experiments in Science.” Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A 4, no. 4 (1974): 309–325.Google Scholar
  16. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes. Aalto University.Google Scholar
  17. Mattelmäki, T., Kirsikka V., & Ilpo K. (2013). “What Happened to Empathic Design?” Design Issues 30, no. 1 (December 19, 2013): 67–77.
  18. Mayo, D. (1996). Error and the growth of experimental knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mikkonen, J. (2016). Prototyping interactions. Tampere: Tampere Univrsity of Technology.Google Scholar
  20. Paavilainen, H. (2013). Dwelling with design. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  21. Peteri, V. (2017). Bad enough ergonomics: A case study of an office chair. SAGE Open, 7(1).
  22. Säde, S. (2001). Cardboard Mock-ups and Conversations. Helsinki: University of Art and Design.Google Scholar
  23. Vaajakallio, K. (2012). Design games as a tool, a mindset and a structure. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  24. 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