No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Designwissenschaft als Empirische Disziplin
Abstract
Der Beitrag argumentiert für eine Designwissenschaft, die lebensweltlich verankert einen Beitrag zur Disziplin und damit den übergeordneten Zielen des Designs leistet. Nach unserer Auffassung muss sie dafür nach etablierten Standards international und auch über die Disziplin hinaus anschlussfähig sein. Eine solche Designwissenschaft ist eine den Sozial- und Technikwissenschaften zugeordnete empirische Wissenschaft, die etablierten Qualitätsstandards folgt, aber dennoch ihr eigenes Profil in angewandter und Grundlagenforschung entwickelt. Wir zeigen, welches Potenzial in einer eigenständigen empirischen Designwissenschaft als Akteur in einem Netzwerk akademischer Disziplinen steckt und was das für die praktische Disziplin des Designs bedeuten kann.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The increasingly transdisciplinary context of design, where designers collaborate with other disciplinary and domain experts, means there is a growing need to evidence the effectiveness of design methods. We address this need in two ways. First, we propose a ‘chain of evidence’, from motivation to claims, operationalising this in a systematic assessment framework. Second, we systematically review current design method research. Our results reveal that while all links in the chain of evidence are reported across the literature and best practices can be identified, no individual paper either reports all links or consistently achieves best practice. Our framework and results demonstrate the need for standards of evidence in this area, with implications for design method research, development, education, and practice.
The importance of inter- and transdisciplinary research for addressing today’s complex challenges has been increasingly recognised. This requires new forms of communication and interaction between researchers from different disciplines and nonacademic stakeholders. Demonstrators constitute a crucial communication tool in technology research and development and have the potential to leverage communication between different bodies of knowledge. However, there is little knowledge on how to design demonstrators. This research aims to understand how demonstrators from the fields Internet of Things and Robotics are designed to communicate technology. The goal is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of demonstrator practice with readily implemented design knowledge and to advance theoretical knowledge in the field of communicating artefacts. We thematically analysed 28 demonstrator design cases, which led to a typology that assists in categorising and understanding 13 key design principles. The typology is built from three perspectives: First, in terms of the overall goal communication, second, in terms of visitor engagement goals (attraction, initial engagement, deep engagement) and third, in terms of resource-related goals (low effort in development and operation). With this typology, we have taken a significant step towards understanding demonstrator design principles for effective technology communication between different stakeholders.
Twenty years ago, we published an article in the first issue of the i-com entitled “Usability ist nicht alles” (Burmester et al., 2002), that is, “Usability isn’t everything”. This was certainly a provocative title. For most German researchers and practitioners of Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) usability was all there is and all that was ever needed to guarantee humane technology. Back then, we profoundly disagreed. We were convinced that there is more to the quality of interactive technology than mere effectiveness and efficiency. Now, twenty years later it seems safe to say that we had a point. Let’s take this as an opportunity to take a brief and utterly anecdotal look back, to take stock of the current perspective on designing the (user) experience, as well as to discuss some future opportunities and challenges.
The pressure that the human species exerts on the natural environment through the extraction of materials and generation of wastes is widely recognised. Circular economy has emerged as a potential solution to make better use of resources. Positioned as a technology-focused concept that can generate economic gains while alleviating pressure on the environment, circular economy enjoys a positive reception by organisations in public, private and civic sectors and, increasingly, academia alike. However, concerns have been raised regarding some purported circular economy practices being promoted as ‘sustainable’ yet resulting in detrimental impacts on environment and society. We briefly revisit the systems ecology literature that construed the context for both circular economy and sustainable development. Values and principles in core sustainable development literature are analysed to offer a foundation against which circular economy can be discussed. We then analyse and critically reflect upon the strengths, shortcomings and theoretical flaws within the values and principles that emerged from the evolving circular economy literature. We propose a value framework and set of ten principles for the design, implementation and evaluation of a sustainable circular economy. We finish with a call for action for both practitioners and a research agenda for academia.
With the introduction of ‘5G’ data transfer gets faster and further reaching than ever before. This new communication technology paves the way for an exchange of skills and competencies between humans and machines. This raises the question of how future users can profit and understand the potential brought about by these technologies. This paper elaborates the use of demonstrators in a pilot study as research tools and assesses their potential. It gives first insights why demonstrators are suitable to set a basis for public recognition for body-worn CPS and how to promote innovative visions.
Designers are entrusted with increasingly complex and impactful challenges. However, the current system of design education does not always prepare students for these challenges. When we examine what and how our system teaches young designers, we discover that the most valuable elements of the designer’s perspective and process are seldom taught. Instead, some designers grow beyond their education through their experience working in industry, essentially learning by accident. Many design programs still maintain an insular perspective and an inefficient mechanism of tacit knowledge transfer.
Meanwhile, skills for developing creative solutions to complex problems are increasingly essential. Organizations are starting to recognize that designers bring something special to this type of work, a rational belief based upon numerous studies that link commercial success to a design-driven approach.
So, what are we to do? Other learned professions such as medicine, law, and business provide excellent advice and guidance embedded within their own histories of professionalization. In this article, we borrow from their experiences to recommend a course of action for design. It will not be easy: it will require a study group to make recommendations for a roster of design and educational practices that schools can use to build a curriculum that matches their goals and abilities. And then it will require a conscious effort to bootstrap the design profession toward both a robust practitioner community and an effective professoriate, capable together of fully realizing the value of design in the 21st century. In this article, we lay out that path.
This article discusses the relevance of science and scientific methods in the design process. Opportunities and limitations are presented and implications for the German design educations are proposed.
Bloomsbury Publishing describes Practice-Based Design Research as “a companion to master's and PhD programs in design research through practice.” But the companionship offered is one where many conflicting perspectives, presented as replicable methods, are uncomfortably woven into a tradition that has often found its strength in isolated moments of genius. This volume includes chapters that move design toward the synthesis of theory and artifact. Even so, core claims fall short on many points, especially when authors rush to find solutions without support from evidence. These inconsistencies seem to reflect external demands, which the authors suggest are not impossible to overcome.
Over the last decade many educational programs have integrated methodologies of design thinking across a variety of curriculums. This has cast a welcome light on creative processes and facilitated innovative solutions. Faculty and students in the sciences, humanities, business and technology now have resources to explore new possibilities and solutions that match their technologic capabilities. However, this framework for creative problem solving falls short in teaching core design and aesthetic principles. The challenge for educators becomes how to build shared learning environments between design and external domains. As an assistant professor in the New Media Design program at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), I have applied core design curriculum in an interdisciplinary program across design, development and digital humanities to begin this shared design education. This paper explores how an undergraduate design curriculum can be leveraged across technology and liberal arts fields to provide actionable skills, design vocabulary and aesthetic appreciation to the design thinking and practice.
Klappentext: Der Klassiker zu den Forschungsmethoden – rundum erneuert, didaktisch verbessert und aktueller denn je! Dieses Buch ist ein fundierter und verlässlicher Begleiter für Studierende, Forschende und Berufstätige – da ist alles drin:
Grundlagen: Wissenschaftstheorie, Qualitätskriterien sowie ethische Aspekte.
Anwendung: Alle Phasen des Forschungsprozesses von der Festlegung des Forschungsthemas, des Untersuchungsdesigns und der Operationalisierung über Stichprobenziehung, Datenerhebungs- und Datenanalysemethoden bis zur Ergebnispräsentation.
Vertiefung: Effektgrößen, Metaanalysen, Strukturgleichungsmodelle, Evaluationsforschung.
Die 5. Auflage wurde grundlegend überarbeitet:
Klarheit: Verbesserte Gliederung der Kapitel sowie des gesamten Buches.
Aktualität: Beiträge zu Online-Methoden, Mixed-Methods-Designs und anderen neueren Entwicklungen.
Lernfreundlichkeit: Viele Abbildungen, Tabellen, Definitionsboxen, Cartoons, Übungsaufgaben und Lernquiz mit Lösungen.
Praxisbezug: Reale Studienbeispiele aus verschiedenen sozial- und humanwissenschaftlichen Fächern (z.B. Psychologie, Kommunikationswissenschaft, Erziehungswissenschaft, Medizin, Soziologie).
Eine Begleit-Website bietet Lern-Tools für Studierende und Materialien für Lehrende: http://lehrbuch-psychologie.springer.com/forschungsmethoden-und-evaluation-den-sozial-und-humanwissenschaften
full paper available at http://www.drs2016.org/365/
This paper traces the roots of theories on experience and experiencing in the history of science of the 19th and 20th century. From the concepts of Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911) and others, a phenomenological model of experiencing has been derived for industrial design around 1990, which is to be published internationally for the first time in this paper. From a current view, this model does not provide new opportunities on designing or evaluating user experience. However, it can be used to bridge theories and findings from the late 19th and early 20th century with current models of user experience, which are more comprehensive and can be used beyond the description of experiencing. These models also offer methods for designing, evaluating and even quantitatively measuring user experience, or have a stronger focus on emotions.
Abstract This paper describes the development of a model for classifying the different type of 'design demonstrator' that might be used in translating scientific activity from the laboratory to the market. Two detailed case studies are described in which designers worked closely with scientists. In one of the projects, the scientists were seeking to commercialise their research. In the other, the research was at an early stage and the scientists had not considered commercialisation. Different types of physical artefact produced in these collaborative projects were analysed to identify the extent to which they might contribute to science, technology, application or market. Evidence indicates that demonstrators might fulfil multiple purposes and that the translation from science to market is more complicated than is often shown in linear models. An original classification of the role of demonstrators through this journey is provided.
The role of making in the design process has been growing, taking on new forms and involving new players over the past 10 years. Where we once primarily saw designers using making to give shape to the future, today we can see designers and non-designers working together, using making as a way to make sense of the future. In this paper, we describe the landscape of design research and practice at the end of 2013 with special attention to the role of making across these perspectives: approach (cultural probes, generative toolkits and design prototypes), mindset (designing for people and designing with people), focus in time (the world as it is, the near future and the speculative future) as well as variations in design intent (provoking, engaging and serving).
Design research is not simply concerned with speculations regarding the relationship of theory and practice. Design research also brings out significant questions regarding the nature of research and the position occupied by the doctorate in university education. This paper reviews the major epistemological positions informing theories of design research. Analyses of examples from subjectivist, constructivist and objectivist epistemologies are presented. The paper concludes by considering the pedagogical implications of the role of disciplinarity in discourses of design research. The paper does not aim to seek statistical generalization but rather to explore the complexity of the issue.
Germany has a long tradition of excellence in design, highlighted by influential institutions such as the Bauhaus and the Ulm School, which continue to globally influence design practice and education. Design fields are principally located in three of the major Institutions types in Germany: the Fachhochschulen (Applied Universities/Polytechnics), and Kunsthochschulen (Art & Design Schools), and the traditional universities. In all schools and departments practice based work and traditional research approaches compete for a focus in postgraduate education. The implementation of the Bologna restructuring of Higher Education in Germany in the different Bundesländer (federal states) has contributed to this greater focus on research. In this new context, what design as an academic discipline (Designwissenschaft) looks like is being defined and debated by academics without much reference to the content and nature of existing programs. In addition, there has been little empirical input from students, whose experiences and understanding are a key measure. Based on qualitative and quantitative data (n=154) from a survey of enrolled and completed doctoral (n=39) and masters students (n=116) gathered during a German government sponsored research exchange, this preliminary study assesses the motivations, experiences and understanding of design research. The study concludes with an assessment of design as a discipline in Germany based on this data.
I will take the title as suggested by the editor and reflect upon the relation between design research and the methodological development of the discipline. Neither concept is sufficiently clarified.
Subsumed under the umbrella of User Experience (UX), practitioners and academics of Human–Computer Interaction look for ways to broaden their understanding of what constitutes
“pleasurable experiences” with technology. The present study considered the fulfilment of universal psychological needs, such
as competence, relatedness, popularity, stimulation, meaning, security, or autonomy, to be the major source of positive experience
with interactive technologies. To explore this, we collected over 500 positive experiences with interactive products (e.g.,
mobile phones, computers). As expected, we found a clear relationship between need fulfilment and positive affect, with stimulation,
relatedness, competence and popularity being especially salient needs. Experiences could be further categorized by the primary
need they fulfil, with apparent qualitative differences among some of the categories in terms of the emotions involved. Need
fulfilment was clearly linked to hedonic quality perceptions, but not as strongly to pragmatic quality (i.e., perceived usability),
which supports the notion of hedonic quality as “motivator” and pragmatic quality as “hygiene factor.” Whether hedonic quality
ratings reflected need fulfilment depended on the belief that the product was responsible for the experience (i.e., attribution).
Die Evaluation interaktiver Produkte ist eine wichtige Aktivität im Rahmen benutzerzentrierter Gestaltung.
Eine Evaluationstechnik, die sich meist auf die Nutzungsqualität oder â Gebrauchstauglichkeit â eines Pro-
dukts konzentriert, stellen Fragebögen dar. Zur Zeit werden allerdings weitere, sogenannte â hedonische â
Qualitätsaspekte diskutiert. Diese beruhen auf den menschlichen Bedürfnissen nach Stimulation und Identi-
tät, während bei Gebrauchstauglichkeit (bzw. â pragmatischer Qualität â ) der Bedarf zur kontrollierten Mani-
pulation der Umwelt im Vordergrund steht. In diesem Beitrag wird der â AttrakDiff 2 â Fragebogen vorge-
stellt, der sowohl wahrgenommene pragmatische als auch hedonische Qualität zu messen vermag. Ergebnis-
se zur Reliabilität und Validität werden vorgestellt und diskutiert. AttrakDiff 2 stellt einen ersten Beitrag zur
Messung von Qualitätsaspekten dar, die über die reine Gebrauchstauglichkeit hinausgehen.
Beginning design research projects by defining success criteria, judged by numerical measurements, is a very attractive idea. But defining a priori success criteria is problematic, as is using numerical metrics to assess the success of a new method or computer tool. The paper points out some pitfalls of using metrics for success. It argues from experience of studying design processes that projects should begin with objectives derived from research questions, but these objectives should be revised as needs and opportunities emerge. Success criteria for of new methods and tools should be derived later from a detailed specification of requirements. Researchers should aim first for understanding their effects, and derive evaluations from that.
How Designers Think is based on Bryan Lawson's many observations of designers at work, interviews with designers and their clients and collaborators. This extended work is the culmination of twenty-five years' research and shows the author's belief that we all can learn to design better. The creative mind continues to have power to surprise and this book aims to nurture and extend this creativity. This book is not intended as an authoritative description of how designers should think but to provide helpful advice on how to develop an understanding of design. 'How Designers Think' will be of great interest, not only to designers seeking a greater insight into their own thought processes, but also to students of design in general from undergraduate level upward.
Approaches and methods on designing for a sustainable circular economy are developing solutions for sustainable development. For such solutions to succeed, market and social acceptance of circular products and services must improve. Currently, there is a mixed reception among consumers and hence a stagnating market share of circular solutions. In this chapter, the authors discuss these limitations and relate them to psychological aspects of consumer and user experience and behavior. Research on user experience and experience design has delivered theories, approaches and methods on how to design for people as they experience and behave in the world. One core finding is that psychological needs play an important role in human-product interaction. The fulfillment of such needs results in positive experiences, and can raise acceptance of products and services. We illustrate how psychological needs can be addressed in a sustainable circular design. They present a fictitious case to illustrate how specific non-instrumental qualities of offerings can address psychological needs and hence fundamentally influence overall judgments and behavior in interaction with sustainable circular solutions. Finally, we discuss how such needs-based experience design can be implemented in design processes.
Das Standardwerk zur empirischen Sozialforschung, grundlegend überarbeitet und didaktisch aufbereitet in der 13. Auflage. Ausgehend von wissenschaftstheoretischen Fragen werden alle relevanten Schritte des realen Forschungsprozesses detailliert und anwendungsnah erklärt sowie Unterschiede zur qualitativ-interpretativen Perspektive aufgezeigt. Das Buch eignet sich sowohl zu einem tiefergehenden Verständnis als auch zum Einstieg ohne Vorkenntnisse in die empirische Sozialforschung.
The concept of user experience as a product development approach has been well established in interaction design. Today, it is also widely used in industrial design practice in the field of consumer products. However, human experiencing is important in the field of industrial goods as well. Due to differences in the whole lifecycle, experience approaches and methods cannot be transferred from consumer products to industrial goods without further ado. In this paper, we examine a theoretical framework of industrial goods experience and present first results of an empirical evaluation of this concept.
Industriedesign ist die ganzheitliche Gestaltung eines industriell hergestellten Produktes im
Rahmen einer interdisziplinären Produktentwicklung. Das Produkt wird dabei verstanden
als ein interaktives Objekt innerhalb von technischen, sozialen, kulturellen, ökologischen
und ökonomischen Kontexten. Derartige Objekte sind zunehmend nicht mehr nur
physische Produkte, sondern müssen als komplexe und vernetzte Produkt-Service-Systeme
betrachtet werden. Im Folgenden wird aus Gründen der einfachen Lesbarkeit der Begriff
Produkt in dieser übergreifenden Bedeutung verwendet.
Das Industriedesign berücksichtigt neben technischen Zielsetzungen insbesondere
die psychologischen und physiologischen Bedürfnisse verschiedener Stakeholder,
insbesondere der Nutzer, über den gesamten Produktlebenszyklus. Dies sind u. a.
Anforderungen an die Qualität der Benutzbarkeit (Usability, Gebrauchstauglichkeit, vgl.
Kap. 8, Kap. 7 und Abschn. 17.8) sowie die bewusste und unbewusste Wahrnehmung
und Bewertung in Form des umfassenden Erlebens (Joy of Use, Bedeutsamkeit) vor,
während und nach der Verwendung eines Produktes.
Entsprechend ist Industriedesign eine Entwurfsdisziplin, die „psychische
Wirkdimensionen“ von Produkten und Systemen antizipiert und ganzheitlich gestaltet
(Uhlmann 1995; Steinmeier 1998). Industriedesign ist wesentlicher Bestandteil einer
systematischen Produktentwicklung (Strategie, Planung, Konzept, Entwurf und Ausarbeitung
vgl. Abschn. 3) im Rahmen einer umfassenden Innovations- und Designstrategie
(Cagan und Vogel 2002).
[...]
This Workshop marks the thirtieth anniversary of the event which is normally regarded as the birth of modern design methodology and the design methods movement - the Conference on Design Methods held in London in 1962. The movement almost died in the 1970s, but seems now to have hung on to life and to have re-emerged and grown with some vigour in the last decade. This paper reviews this relatively short history of design methodology, maps out some of the major themes that have sustained it, and tries to establish some agreed understanding for the concepts of scientific design, design science and the science of design.
full-text PDF at http://tu-dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/imm/ktc/td/forschung/knowing_reasoning_visualizing_in_industrial_design
Industrial design processes can be described as human design problem solving, incorporating the acquisition, evaluation, production and transfer of specific knowledge. In this paper, we will describe the connection and interaction between visualization and reasoning during different stages of the design process. Thereby we focus on three early stages of this process: clarifying the task, concepting and designing an overall solution.
This paper provides a rather general description of design processes and more detailed remarks on design knowledge and design actions. It specifically focuses on design concepts as visual key elements in industrial design processes. We will address the importance of externalization and visualization as means for thinking and knowledge generation and transfer in industrial design in general.
The design process is described as an interplay of the parallel and iterative developments of three domains: knowledge, concept and design. In contrast to linear schemes, this paper proposes a design process scheme focusing on iterative circles and parallel processing possibilities. Industrial design knowledge will be described and compared to relevant knowledge in other disciplines, in particular, engineering design knowledge. We will describe the strong link between the designer's individual biographies, design knowledge and the outcome of design processes.
Design concepts will be discussed as extremely compact representations of core characteristics of the artifacts to be designed, serving as a guide to the design process.
Design actions as described in this paper are characterized by the simultaneous occurrence of thought and externalization processes. Different kinds of visualization are discussed in regard of their role in reasoning during industrial design processes.
This paper concludes by sketching two perspectives. One addresses the need for interdisciplinary research on new visualization tools with regard to human reasoning in design processes. The second one gives an impression of how visualization tools and methods of industrial design can supplement other disciplines.
This paper compares three framing methodologies of design research from: (a) ontological (what the framing methodologies actually are and why they exist), (b) epistemological (what the sources, structures, and contents of knowledge are), (c) methodological (what processes the framing methodologies imply, and what methods they involve), and (d) praxiological (to which problems the framing methodologies have been applied, and how they are working in the practice) aspects. The three framing methodologies are: (i) research in design context, (ii) design inclusive research, and (iii) practice-based design research. The first methodology supports analytical disciplinary research aiming at insights, understanding, and predictions, relies mainly on the knowledge of background disciplines, uses the research methods of these disciplines, lends itself to mono-disciplinary approaches, and concentrates on building and proving theories, which add to the disciplinary knowledge of design. The second methodology supports analytic disciplinary and constructive operative design research by the involvement of various manifestations of design in research processes as research means, integrates knowledge of multiple source domains, and lends itself to multi-disciplinary insights, explanations and predictions, but can also generate knowledge, know how, and tools for problem solving. The third methodology extracts knowledge from concrete practical design processes, environments, and artefacts, and it supports the improvement of design problem solving intelligence by exploring and constructing common principles, rules, and standards in a reflexive manner. In general, the three research methodological approaches are characterized by a growing level of contextualization, and by an increasing level of knowledge synthesis. They together offer a genuine methodological platform for doing design research.
„Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem - solution.“ In Design Studies
- Kees Dorst
- Nigel Cross
The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design, and about Design
- Lois Frankel
- Martin Racine
Frankel, Lois, Martin Racine. 2010. "The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through
Design, and about Design." In DRS Biennial Conference Series.
„Grund genug. Beiträge zur Existenzmöglichkeit einer Designwissenschaft
- Alfred Hückler
Designwissenschaft als Netz von Theorien und Akteuren -10 Anmerkungen
- Wolfgang Jonas
Jonas, Wolfgang. 2010. "Designwissenschaft als Netz von Theorien und Akteuren -10 Anmerkungen." In Positionen zur Designwissenschaft, herausgegeben von Felicidad
Romero-Tejedor und Wolfgang Jonas, 79-85. Kassel: Kassel University Press.
Evaluation in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft
- Helmut Kromrey
Kromrey, Helmut. 2003. "Evaluation in Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft." In Zeitschrift für
Evaluation, Jg. 2, Nr. 1, S. 93-116.