Skip to main content

Expanding Design Research: From Researcher Ego-Systems to Stakeholder Ecosystems

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Learning, Design, and Technology

Abstract

Although design research in wide-ranging fields organizes user-centered and use-inspired design processes, established approaches to design research in the learning sciences and educational technology have typically developed insights and innovations through efforts led by researchers. However, several emerging approaches to design research in these fields organize increasingly participatory forms that leverage human diversity as a resource. Approaches to design research among many complementary disciplines underscore evolving processes not only to couple thought and action but also to foster more inclusive visions and more distributed forms of agency among stakeholders in design projects. Building on this existing literature, the chapter characterizes and compares four emerging approaches with particular attention to processes of designing and their implications for designs. By considering the expanding repertoire of participatory approaches to design research, the chapter explores three interrelated questions about design research. First, we will consider who forms a design and how do they go about doing it. Second, we will consider how answers to these preliminary questions, in turn, frame expertise as design processes unfold. Third, we will consider the influence of design processes on the reach and impact of design research with respect to both educational change and theoretical refinement. In answering these questions, we seek to better resolve the ecological affordances of design research that not only mobilizes stakeholder perspectives in order to inform design processes but also sustains stakeholder networks in order to improve and evolve designs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amiel, T., & Reeves, T. (2008). Design-based research and educational technology: Rethinking technology and the research agenda. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 11(4), 29–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25. doi:10.3102/0013189X11428813.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193. doi:10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S. A. (2014). Design-based research: A methodological toolkit for engineering change. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (2002). Comment: Educational research. The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 18–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. (1997). Quantifying analyses of verbal data: A practical guide. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 6(3), 271–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2012). Analyzing educational policies: A learning design perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(4), 487–521. doi:10.1080/10508406.2011.630849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, C. E., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1979). Foreword. In U. Bronfenbrenner (Ed.), The ecology of human development (pp. vii–vix). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. (1992). Towards a design science of education. In E. Scanlon & T. O’Shea (Eds.), New directions in educational technology (pp. 15–22). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Touchstone.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo, C. (2009). Design and the construction of publics. Design Issues, 25(1), 48–63. doi:10.1162/desi.2009.25.1.48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo, B., & DiSalvo, C. (2014). Designing for democracy in education: Participatory design and the learning sciences. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, S. Jurow, …, L. D’Amico (Eds.), Proceedings of the eleventh international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 793–799). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiSalvo, C., Clement, A., & Pipek, V. (2012). Participatory design for, with, and by communities. In S. Jesper & T. Robertson (Eds.), International handbook of participatory design (pp. 182–209). Oxford, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehn, P. (1993). Scandinavian design: On participation and skill. In D. Schuler & A. Namioka (Eds.), Participatory design: Principles and practices (pp. 41–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2008). From teams to knots: Activity-theoretical studies of collaboration and learning at work. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Engeström, Y. (2011). From design experiments to formative interventions. Theory & Psychology, 21(5), 598–628. doi:10.1177/0959354311419252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (2006). Studying side by side: Collaborative action ethnography in educational research. In G. Spindler & L. Hammond (Eds.), Innovations in educational ethnography: Theory, methods and results (pp. 235–257). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishman, B., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. H. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 136–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D. (2016). Designing resilient ecologies: Social design experiments and a new social imagination. Educational Researcher, 45(3), 187–196. doi:10.3102/0013189X16645430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Jurow, A. S. (2016). Social design experiments: Toward equity by design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 565–598. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1204548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19–23. doi:10.3102/0013189X13520289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., & Vossoughi, S. (2010). Lifting off the ground to return anew: Mediated praxis, transformative learning, and social design experiments. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 100–117. doi:10.1177/0022487109347877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, K. D., Engeström, Y., & Sannino, A. (2016). Expanding educational research and interventionist methodologies. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 275–284. doi:10.1080/07370008.2016.1183347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(10), 39–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jurow, A. S., Teeters, L., Shea, M., & Van Steenis, E. (2016). Extending the consequentiality of “invisible work” in the food justice movement. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 210–221. doi:10.1080/07370008.2016.1172833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching. New York, NY/London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (1991). Editorial: The journal of the learning sciences: Effecting changes in education. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1(1), 1–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (2004). The learning sciences: Past, present, and future. Educational Technology, 44(3), 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228–245. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0304_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LeDantec, C. A., & DiSalvo, C. (2013). Infrastructuring and the formation of publics in participatory design. Social Studies of Science, 43(2), 241–264. doi:10.1177/0306312712471581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. C. (2012). Conducting educational design research. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moses, J., & Knutsen, T. (2012). Ways of knowing: Competing methodologies in social and political research. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J., Rummel, N., & Hay, K. E. (2014). Growing the learning sciences: Brand or big tent? In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 151–170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, D. K. (2016). When form follows fantasy: Lessons for learning scientists from modernist architecture and urban planning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(1), 133–152. doi:10.1080/10508406.2015.1094736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, E., & Reeves, T. (2010). The implications of the differences between design research and instructional systems design for educational technology researchers and practitioners. Educational Media International, 4(47), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Packer, M. (2011). The science of qualitative research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Haugan Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. doi:10.3102/0013189X11421826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., Cole, M., & O’Neill, D. K. (2016). Introduction to the special issue. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 487–496. doi:10.1080/10508406.2016.1215753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N. (2006). Design research in 2006. Design Research Society, 1(1), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L. (2008). On modeling: An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions, 15(6), 13–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., Brandt, E., & Binder, T. (2010). A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. In Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference (pp. 195–198). New York, NY: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shavelson, R. J., Phillips, D. C., Towne, L., & Feuer, M. J. (2003). On the science of education design studies. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human-Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451. doi:10.1080/07370020701638814.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. doi:10.1080/14719037.2014.930505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations (Vol. 3). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuiker, S. J. (2012). Educational virtual environments as a lens for understanding both precise repeatability and specific variation in learning ecologies: EVEs for repeatability and variation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(6), 981–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01266.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven J. Zuiker .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Zuiker, S.J., Piepgrass, N., Evans, M.D. (2017). Expanding Design Research: From Researcher Ego-Systems to Stakeholder Ecosystems. In: Spector, M., Lockee, B., Childress, M. (eds) Learning, Design, and Technology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_74-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17727-4_74-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-17727-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics