All posts tagged design research

  • Fallman | The Interaction design Research Triangle…

    Literature review: Fallman, Daniel. “The Interaction Design Research Triangle of Design Practice, Design Studies, and Design Exploration.” Design Issues 24.3 (2008): 4-18. Print.

    What is the main argument of the author?

    The goal of this paper was to present ‘refined models of interaction design research; embracing both what it currently is as well as pointing towards what it could be…” through tools that Fallman creates (4). He basically outlines the three ways that design research models: industry, academia, and society. He describes the different ways we approach and research design from these areas but encourages to work consider a more fluid way of moving between the models in order to create better designs.

    Some of the high-level differences he notes are that industry is more concerned with long-term collaborations and the industry. Academia is more concerned with building an intellectual tradition with reflections on the design field and what they could mean for the future. Finally, design exploration isn’t concerned with commercialization, but rather sketching or experimenting with things speculatively to shape the future.


    Thallman’s detailed triangle.

    Why might this be relevant to my thesis?

    I’m not sure. Maybe a final form for whatever my thesis is to take? The thing is, I still feel like this creates too much distance between practicing designers and academics. Like, this paper is talking about the need for these types of researchers to interface more in order to enhance whatever industry they are working in—but the only people who are reading this are probably academics. I do want my thesis to effect more people. Food for thought.


  • Krippendorf | Design Research, an oxymoron?

    Literature review// Krippendorf, Klaus (2007). “Design Research, an Oxymoron” from Design Research Now. 


    What was the author arguing? 

    Krippendorf was explaining how the design research (the design process) is fundamentally different from scientific research. It’s goals, process, and intention are different. One of his main points was that design is created for a desired future (as Herbert Simon states), where as scientific research looks to observe the present. This different goal has a waterfall affect on the design research process (some, not all of his points):

    • Design puts a user/stakeholder at the center of its mission since it’s creating a preferred future for individuals. Design is social.
    • Designers focus on what is variable and what can change, not what has been varied. Because of this, designers work on innovation and possibilities more than scientists might.

    Krippendorf also expands upon Herbert Simon’s famous statement that designers goal is “changing existing situations into preferred ones,” say that this goal is only won part of the three motivation categories of a designer: challenge, opportunities, and possibilities of introducing variation.

    challenges…troublesome conditions/problems that don’t have a solution (wicked problems). This supports Krippendorf’s argument that designers are more comfortable with unstructured problems. He claims that Simon’s problem solving would be here.

    opportunities…not seen by others to do something to improve others’ lives.

    possibilities of introducing variations...perhaps for the sake of doing something different. Generally open to exploring something that hasn’t been considered by others before.

    Why is this relevant? 

    Perhaps less relevant to my actual thesis topic, but I thought it was a really interesting article in that, while making comparisons to both scientists and Herbert Simon, I got to read about how the motivations and philosophies behind design. It’s important to consider the motivations behind a design author’s actions to their user/reader since micro interactions is uniquely constantly interacting with a participant. Suguru mentioned that I would have to decide who I’m focusing on (designer, user, or both) and Krippendorf makes a strong and repetitive case for remembering stakeholders.