At the Frontiers of Knowledge

Part of the Design Research Foundations book series (DERF)


In this chapter we recap what we have presented so far and point to future directions. As noted in the first lines of Chap.  1, this book is about how constructive design researchers build knowledge through acts of designing. The descriptions and methodologies provided in this book represent our attempt to give legitimacy to a cherished design practice we recognize as intentional drifting. Drifting is typical to design, and it cannot be avoided in it. It is better to know it so that it can be turned into a useful instrument of research. We have argued that drifting is a characteristic of constructive design research just as it is a characteristic of design practice, but that there are significant differences as well. In our view, drifting consists of several ill-understood practices that are, however, crucially important to understand how design researchers create knowledge.


  1. Acharya, K. (2016). Opening the Electrome. 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. Borges, A. (2011). Design+craft: The Brazilian path. Sao Paulo: Terceiro Nome.Google Scholar
  4. Botero, A. (2013). Expanding Design Spaces. Design in Communal Endeavors. Helsinki, Aalto University.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. Deckers, E. (2013). Perceptive Qualities in Systems of Interactive Products. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  7. Deckers, E., Hummels, C., Feijs, L., & Wensveen, S. (2013). Perceptive qualities in systems of interactive products. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven. Scholar
  8. Djajaginingrat, T. (1998). Cubby: What You See is Where You Act. Delft, the Netherlands: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  9. Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2001). Design noir: The secret life of electronic objects. Basel: August/Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  10. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum.Google Scholar
  11. Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  12. Gadamer, H.-G. (1975). Truth and method. London: Sheed & Ward.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Gentes, A. (2017). The In-discipline of design. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hummels, C. (2000). Gestural design tools: Prototypes. In Experiments and scenarios. Delft: Delft University of Technology.Google Scholar
  17. Jucide, A. (2014). Design for Hope. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  18. Koskinen, I. (2003). Empathic Design in Methodic Terms. In I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee, & T. Mattelmäki (Eds.), Empathic design. Helsinki: IT Press.Google Scholar
  19. 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
  20. 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
  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., Martin, L., & Andreas L. (2004). “‘Help Me Pull That Cursor’ A Collaborative Interactive Floor Enhancing Community Interaction.” Australasian Journal of Information Systems 11, no. 2 (2004).
  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. Lee, J.-J. (2012). Against method: The portability of method in human-centered design. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  25. Ludvigsen, M. (2006). Designing for social interaction: Physical, co-located social computing. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magrisso, S., Mizrahi, M., & Zoran, A. (2018). Digital joinery for hybrid carpentry. In Proceedings of conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  27. McIntyre, J. (1995). The department of design research at the royal college of art: Its origins and legacy 1959-1988. In C. Frayling (Ed.), Design of the times: One hundred years of the royal college of art (pp. 58–62). Shepton Beauchamp: Somerset.Google Scholar
  28. Narotzky, V. (2000). A different and new refinement’ design in Barcelona, 1960–1990. Journal of Design History, 13, 227–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Polanyi, M. (2009). The Tacit Dimension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Redström, J. (2017). Making design theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ross, P. (2008). Ethics and aesthetics in intelligent product and system design. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  32. Saad-Sulonen, J. (2014). Combining Participations. Expanding the Locus of Participatory E-Planning By Combining Participatory Approaches in the Design of Digital Technology and in Urban Planning. Helsinki: Aalto University.Google Scholar
  33. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitione: How professionals think in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Wensveen, S. (2005). A tangibility approach to affective interaction. Delft: Technical University of Delft.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