The Methodological Pivot

  • Michael FilimowiczEmail author
Part of the Human–Computer Interaction Series book series (HCIS)


This essay formalizes a mode of inquiry called ‘transdiscursive material practice’ based on the communication theory of Niklas Luhmann. Technologies are understood to be in the environment of discourse, and thus amenable to an indeterminate number of disciplinary investigations, which are articulated within the operational closure of communication systems. This mode of inquiry begins with material practices which are refracted through any number of discursive lenses that are brought to bear on the prototype through the process of the methodological pivot.


  1. Collins HM, Evans RJ (2002) The third wave of science studies: studies of expertise and experience. Soc Stud Sci 32(2):235–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins H, Evans R, Gorman ME (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise. In: Groman ME (ed) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Creswell J (2007) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks. Google Scholar
  4. Cross N (2011) Design thinking. Bloomsbury, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dewey J (2013) Logic – the theory of inquiry. Saerchinger Press. Amazon Kindle editionGoogle Scholar
  6. Dewey’s Moral Philosophy (2005). Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy:
  7. Feilizer M (2010) Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. J Mixed Methods Res 4(1):6–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Filimowicz M, Tzankova V (eds) (2017) Teaching computational creativity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Galison P (1997) Image and logic. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  10. Gorman ME (ed) (2010) Trading zones and interactional expertise: creating new kinds of collaboration. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall R (2013) Mixed methods: in search of a paradigm. In: Le T, Le Q (eds) Conducting research in a changing and challenging world. Nova Science Publishers Inc, New York, pp 71–78Google Scholar
  12. Ihde, D (2012) Experimental phenomenology: multistabilities. 2nd ed. State University of New York, Albany. Amazon Kindle editionGoogle Scholar
  13. Luhmann N (2012) Theory of society: volume 1. Stanford University Press, Palo AltoGoogle Scholar
  14. Lukács G (1980) Ontology of social being Vol 3: Labour. Merlin Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Mattheis C (2012) The system theory of Niklas Luhmann and the Constitutionalization of the world society. Goettingen J Int Law 4:625–647Google Scholar
  16. Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Ries E (2011) The lean startup: how Today’s entrepreneurs use continuous innovation to create radically successful businesses. Crown Business, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Rogers M (2012) Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. Qual Rep 17(48):1–17. Google Scholar
  19. Schön D (2008) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books, New York. Amazon Kindle EditionGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simon Fraser UniversitySurrey, BurnabyCanada

Personalised recommendations