Abstract
On what grounds do we judge whether a theory for design is useful, valuable or successful? What is validity in constructive design research? What is the role of theory produced from design? Chapter 4 dealt with ways of construing hypotheses and how the K-R model may help map the constituent parts of a research process. Chapter 5 presented the typology of ways of drifting explaining how design experiments inform and urges design researchers to drift. This chapter turns to how design researchers can evaluate and justify their claims about knowledge. And completes our core trilogy of dialectic activities serving the dual ambition of relevance and knowledge production in constructive design research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Archer, B. (1995). The nature of research. Co-Design Journal, 2, 6–13.
Archer, L. B. (1979). Design as a discipline. Design Studies, 1, 17–20.
Battarbee, K. (2004). Co-experience: Understanding user experiences in social interaction. Helsinki: University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Borgmann, A. (1995). The depth of design. In R. Buchanan & V. Margolin (Eds.), Discovering design (pp. 13–22). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cross, N. (1999). “Design Research: A Disciplined Conversation.” Design Issues 15, no. 2 (1999): 5–10. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511837
von Busch, O. (2008). Fashion-able: Hacktivism and engaged fashion design. Göteborg: School of Design and Crafts (HDK), Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, University of Gothenburg.
Dindler, C. (2010). Fictional space in participatory design of engaging interactive environments. Aarhus: Aarhus University.
Emerson, R. M., & Pollner, M. (1989). On the uses of members responses to researchers accounts. Human Organization, 47, 189–198.
Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. In Royal college of art research papers (Vol. 1, pp. 1–5). London: RCA. http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/384/.
Frens, J. (2006). Designing for rich interaction: Integrating form, interaction, and function. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
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.
Hamilton, J., & Jaaniste, L. O. (2009). The effective and the evocative: Practice-led research approaches across art and design. In R. Woodrow (Ed.), Interventions in the public domain. Brisbane: ACUADS Publishing, Queensland College of Art, Griffith University.
Koskinen, I. (2003). Empathic Design in Methodic Terms. In I. Koskinen, K. Battarbee, & T. Mattelmäki (Eds.), Empathic design. Helsinki: IT Press.
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redström, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design research through practice. From the lab, field, and showroom. Waltham: Morgan Kaufmann.
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.
Koskinen, I., & Krogh, P. G. (2015). Design accountability: When design research entangles theory and practice. International Journal of Design, 9, 121–127.
Lynggaard, A. B. (2012). Homing interactions: Tactics and concepts for highly mobile people. Aarhus: Aarhus School of Architecture.
Mäkelä, M. (2003). Saveen piirtyvia muistoja. Helsinki: Aalto University. [‘Memories Written in Clay’, in Finnish].
Markussen, T., Krogh, P. G., & Bang, A. L. (2015). On what grounds?: An intra-disciplinary account of evaluation in research through design. In Proceedings of 6th international association of societies of design research conference (pp. 1415–1429). Brisbane.
Niedderer, K. (2004). Designing the performative object: A study in designing mindful interaction through artefacts. Plymouth: University of Plymouth.
Niedderer, K., & Roworth-Stokes, S. (2007). The role and use of creative practice in research and its contribution to knowledge. In Proceedings of IASDR. Hong Kong SAR.
Ross, P. (2008). Ethics and aesthetics in intelligent product and system design. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Snow, C. P. (1959). The two cultures and the scientific revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Trotto, A. (2011). Rights through making: Skills for pervasive ethics. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit Eindhoven.
Wallace, J. (2007). Emotionally Charged: A Practice-Centred Enquiry of Digital Jewellery and Personal Emotional Significance. Sheffield: Shefield-Hallam University.
Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design Artifacts in design theory construction. Art, 2, 41–45.
Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach. In Proceedings of designing interactive systems (pp. 310–319). New York: ACM.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Krogh, P.G., Koskinen, I. (2020). Four Epistemic Traditions of Evaluation. In: Drifting by Intention. Design Research Foundations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37896-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37896-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37895-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37896-7
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)