Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-l82ql Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T07:12:05.270Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

NOVICE DESIGNERS TACKLE AND REFLECT ON THEIR PROCESS USING THE DESIGNERLY ACTIVITY THEORY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Virginie Tessier  and
Mithra Zahedi
Virginie Tessier*
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
Mithra Zahedi
Affiliation:
University of Montreal
*
Tessier, Virginie, University of Montreal, School of Design, Canada, virginie.tessier@umontreal.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Schön used the metaphor of the swamp and mountain to express the divide between the problems tackled by practitioners and scientists. This research is concerned about the same persisting dilemma between design practice and design theory. In an attempt to discuss this dilemma, we propose to explore research through design (RtD) as a privileged approach where novice designers gain knowledge as practitioners and as researchers. Being aware that RtD approach has received criticisms regarding validity, bias and reliability, we put forward a set of theoretical tools allowing designers to simultaneously proceed with design activity and data gathering processes. To do so, the designerly activity theory framework was presented and explained to two novice designers. They were asked to use the theory's model during an internship project experience, to record their daily actions and later, to proceed with analysis of gathered data. Doing so, we gained a clearer interpretation of the impacts of using a theoretical model as a complement for research through design. We discuss the depth of the participants' reflections, the awareness to less noticeable components, and the enriched dialog between practice and theory.

Keywords

Collaborative designDesign theoryDesign educationDesign process
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 2257 - 2266
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Cash, P. J. (2018), “Developing theory-driven design research”, Design Studies, Vol. 56, No. C, pp. 84–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2006), Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y. (1999), “Expansive visibilization of work: An activity-theoretical perspective”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Vol. 8, pp. 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008648532192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engeström, Y. (2001), “Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization”, Journal of Education and Work, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 133–156.10.1080/13639080020028747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findeli, A. (2004), “La recherche-projet : une méthode pour la recherche en design”, Symposium de recherche sur le design, Bâle, 13–14 May, Swiss Design Network, Swiss.Google Scholar
Frayling, C. (1993), “Research in Art and Design”, Royal College of Art Research Papers, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
Friedman, K. (2003), “Theory construction in design research: Criteria: approaches, and methods”, Design Studies, Vol. 24, No. 6, pp. 507–522. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godin, D., & Zahedi, M. (2014), “Aspects of research through design: a literature review”, Design's Big Debates, Sweden, 16-19 June, Design Research Society, Umeå, pp. 1667–1680.Google Scholar
Herriott, R. (2019), “What kind of research is research through design?”, International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference 2019, 2–5 Sept 2019, IASDR, Manchester School of Art.Google Scholar
Jonas, W. (2007), “Design research and its meaning to the methodological development of the discipline”, In Michel, R. (Ed.), Design Research Now: Essays and Selected Projects, Birkhäuser Verlag AG, Basel, Boston, Berlin, pp. 187–206.10.1007/978-3-7643-8472-2_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonas, W. (2006). “Research through DESIGN through research - a problem statement and a conceptual sketch”. Design Research Society International Conference, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M., Deken, F., Dong, A. and Lauche, K. (2012), “Development of design collaborative skills”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 485–506. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2011.619499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (1989), “On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that 'Design is making sense (of things)'”, Design Issues, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 9–39.10.2307/1511512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1996), The structure of scientific revolution, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.10.7208/chicago/9780226458106.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzini, E. (2008), “New design knowledge”, Design Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 4–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sannino, A. (2008), "From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions”, Mind, Culture, and Activity, Vol. 15, pp. 243–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10749030802186769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savic, S. and Huang, J. (2014), “Research through design: What does it mean for a design artifact to be developed in the scientific context?”, STS Italia Conference, Milan, 12-14 June, STS Italia, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983), The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996), The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Stompff, G., & Smulders, F. (2013), “Mirroring: The boundary spanning practice of designers”, In de Bont, C., den Ouden, E., Schifferstein, R., Smulders, F., & van der Voort, M. (Eds.), Advanced Design Methods for Successful Innovation, Design United, Eindhoven, p. 144–163.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E. and Forlizzi, J. (2010), “An analysis and critique of research through design: Towards a formalization of a research approach”, ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, Aarhus, August, ACM Press, Denmark, pp. 310–319. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/1858171.1858228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahedi, M. (2011), Modèle novateur de conception d'interface humain-ordinateur centrée sur l'utilisateur: Le designer en tant que médiateur, Ph.D., Université de Montréal.Google Scholar
Zahedi, M., Tessier, V., & Hawey, D. (2017), “Understanding collaborative design through activity theory”. The Design Journal, Vol. 20(Sup 1), pp. 4611–4620. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahedi, M., & Tessier, V. (2018a), “Designerly activity theory: Toward an ontology for design research” Catalyst, Ireland, 25-28 June, Design Research Society, Limerick, pp. 319–333.Google Scholar
Zahedi, M., Tessier, V., & Heaton, L. (2018b), “Designerly Activity Theory insights on the design processes of a Korean company”, Design Thinking Research Symposium, 15-16 Dec, DTRS, Ulsan.Google Scholar