Designing and Learning by Technological Mediation

Kybernetes, 2007

In Time for Change: Building a Design Discipline, design educator Sharon Poggenpohl argues “that design practice and education are changing, particularly in relation to…research and collaboration. If design is to develop as a discipline, it must necessarily develop further based on these themes.”(1) At the center of this development, Poggenpohl continues, is the transformation of the tacit knowledge that designers traditionally employ, to explicit knowledge that is a core asset to cross-disciplinary communication and collaboration. “This is the shortcoming that makes design appear elusive, special, inarticulate, and even unknowable. As long as designers consider themselves to be first and foremost aesthetic finishers of ideas that are well advanced in the development process, they will be trapped by the tacit and unable to provide a clear explanation.”(5) Since Poggenpohl’s call, design discourse has been increasingly focused on this building of explicit, critical knowledge. Designers are no longer comfortable or willing to be the “aesthetic finishers” that Poggenpohl aptly names. But as Richard Buchanan and Victor Margolin have argued, much of the evaluation of design has been dictated by those outside of design practice—and in doing so, the focus has leaned to the artifacts that are a result of design practice, rather than the practice itself. In The Idea of Design, Margolin and Buchanan call for an integration of the liberal arts into the evaluation of design — to both broaden the discussion of design evaluation to include that which is focused on the human experience, but also to connect design philosophy and practice (x). This call is in part a response to designs focus on “wicked” problems, and a necessary shift in motivation from what we (as designers) can do, to what we should do. As architectural practice dips into urbanism and visual communication; and as graphic design expands into strategies that involve spaces, places and environments, the ability for students to see across disciplines to find patterns and commonalities as well as differences is increasingly critical. This paper will look at how a cross-disciplinary design studies course for sophomore students at NC State University evaluates design artifacts, environments, experiences and impacts through a series of common, contemporary and critical themes that sit above any specific discipline. By looking at design through its technology, usability, morality, economy, sustainability, and cultural context and impacts, students focus on how design shapes, and is shaped by, the human experience. As a course for non-studio majors, the work in this course can provide insight for studio instructors into how the language and evaluation of design might evolve to include more cross-disciplinary, systems-based perspectives, to help young designers see the work that they do as part of a larger design theory and practice.

In this chapter we offer a framework for thinking about the design of technology. Our approach draws on critical perspectives from both social theory and science and technology studies (STS). We understand design to be the process of consciously shaping an artifact to adapt it to specific goals and environments. Our framework conceptualizes design as a process whereby technical and social considerations converge to produce concrete devices that fit specific contexts. How this happens – and the possibility that it might happen differently – is a crucial point for philosophers and other students of technology to consider. To date, design studies have been focused predominantly on the work of what we might call proximate designers, while work in the field of STS has focused on the role of non-designers such as clients, stakeholders, and other socially relevant groups. However, little attention has been paid to ways in which historical choices and cultural assumptions about technology shape the design process. Our goal is to address this oversight. We begin by posing a seemingly simple question: is design intentional? A review of the literature draws our attention to at least three possible levels of analysis: that of proximate designers, the immediate design environment, and broader society. We then present a critical theory of technology that provides a non-deterministic, non-essentialist approach to the study of technology. We argue that critical theory, with its emphasis on examining taken-for-granted assumptions, offers a theoretical space for thinking differently about design. Finally, we discuss the possibilities opened up by critical theory and some of the obstacles that stand in the way of realizing a richer world of design.

Many scholars who study user-technology relations have shown from different perspectives that such relations are mutually constructive: users shape technology, and technology shapes users. This awareness raises questions about the part a designer plays in the workings of society. Are designers responsible for the social role of their products? Can designers promote the well-being of users and society at large? These questions are still largely absent in design education. In this paper we argue the importance and benefit of integrating concepts from Philosophy of Technology and the related field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) in design education. We will discuss a threefold benefit of a combined approach that draws on both traditional design education (generally focused on individual users and objects) and theoretical approaches to technology (generally focused on how technology marks and transforms the way we live our lives). In the first place such an integrated approach e...

2011

The CSCL community and the learning sciences is concerned with (among others) theories of learning, social and situated cognition, socio-cultural perspectives on learning, understanding knowledge building and knowledge creation as well as the design and use of technology in learning. The domain needs to reflect the relation between research and design, analysis and synthesis, descriptive and prescriptive action. This paper classifies education as a design discipline and conceptualizes design as inquiry. The focus is on the epistemological and methodological foundation of design. Processes of research through design aim at generating knowledge and contributing to technology development. The role of the artifact as epistemic and transformative (transforming knowledge practices) and the artifact as hypothesis is stressed.

The design of artifacts and how designers make them have garnered renewed societal interest as interactive technologies create new opportunities and challenges. The world we experience has never before been as diverse, socially and materially, or as malleable as it now. Increased computation and interactivity are changing the appearance, evolution, and interactions of the personal and collective artifacts that shape our everyday experiences, family and community life, and learning and work activity. These digital artifacts increasingly leverage sensing and physical interaction to provide information at our fingertips and connect us to people around the globe. This new generation of digital technologies gives people a great deal of discretion as to what artifacts and services they use and how they use them (Grudin, 2005). Adoption and appropriation of new digital artifacts is increasingly part of everyday life, and this change draws our attention-and sense of curiosity-to how these artifacts are designed. When we talk about designing, we share Herbert Simon's (1969) broad view that ''everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones'' (p. 129). The articles in this special issue can usefully be read with that broad view of design. That said, we and the authors focus on design professionals, students, and researchers as canonical instances. As computational artifacts take on new shapes and play new roles, so do designers (Moggridge, 2007). Designers of digital artifacts face more complex constraints than, say, furniture designers a century ago. Their work must integrate diverse considerations, physical and mechanical engineering, software engineering, user interface design and user experience, and aesthetics, as well as diverse culture and human values (Dreyfuss, 1955). The position of design and designers at the nexus of so many complex

FORMakademisk, 2014

If we focus on Practice-Based Design Research (PBDR) in its various forms and terminologies one can consider Design Research as a process of “generating the unknown from the known” or of “organizing the transition from knowns to unknowns” (Hatchuel, 2013: 5). It is thereby confronted with the fundamental problems of control (non-reducible complexity in design situations), of prediction (not-knowing of evolutionary emerging futures) and of incompatible domains of knowing. The problems become apparent in causal gaps between bodily, psychic and communicative systems and between the phases of evolutionary development. PBDR explores the possibilities of bridging these gaps in the medium of design projects and thereby creates new knowledge. This is necessarily done with scientific support, but in a situated, “designerly” mode, which means that the designer is part of the design / inquiring system. This is the epistemological characteristic of design. The text argues for a strong coupling ...

International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2001

2011

Research on design of IT traditionally treats the production of scholarly knowledge and the design of new systems as related, but separate processes. We propose the fruitfulness of practicing a closer relation informed by interventionist design re- search (appreciating a problem through attempts at solving it) and actor network theory (reality is enacted and constructed through our engagement). Through three concrete design interventions with cardiatric healthcare, we illustrate how diverse agendas of sociological inquiry and practical de- sign considerations are intertwined and come to enact healthcare in specific ways. We suggest this as a strategy of multiple becomings, wherein as- semblages of patients, health professionals, dis- eases, information technology, prototypes, and de- sign researchers together perform shifts between promoting new practical design solutions and rais- ing novel questions on the socio-material com- plexities of healthcare.

Education, Design and Practice – Understanding skills in a Complex World, 2019

This project presents an implemented alternate pedagogical approach utilizing ‘prototypes’ as means of inquiry, investigation, design process and outcome realization. The approach described as “learning by making” , challenges the linear-sequential pedagogical design process commonly implemented in design studios. The presented pedagogical approach (Design and Built) is a well-documented, tried methodology in design schools worldwide. Our unique pedagogical experience stems from its social context and participants’ background. The timeline spans across four academic semesters of three cohorts of female Emirati students and one of male students, who had no prior experience in making nor prototyping. Situated within a consumerism-driven society, the project is seen as a catalyst for change. The participants come from a background that is rich with culture and tradition situated amidst a global and international setting, yet still from an isolated sheltered environment regarding design and manufacturing processes. The process is initiated as knowledge transient with the utilization of fabrication technology aimed at ‘empowering; individuals through experiential learning via ‘making’. The proposed paper highlights an approach that instills ‘maker’ culture’ in collaboration with a design process that utilizes learners’ participation in the community.

Designing Cultures of Care, 2018

Design. Care. Designing. Care(ing). This mixture of nouns and verbs, of things and actions, of dispositions and propositions-in the singular and/or the collective, is the focus of this discussion. On first encounter it seems so simple or straightforward. We shall design with care. It is in or through care that we will design outcomes of meaning and connectivity. But as one explores more deeply, and considers each of the elements, alone and together, the complexity becomes apparent and you realize this combination of words is both an invitation and a declaration for how we might design, why we will design, and the value of this designing in the present and for the future. In this chapter, I will explore what care might offer for how we practice design. As many readers will know, over the past ten to fifteen years there has been a shift in how we understand and articulate design and its capacity to contribute to the world that we manifest or destroy. Through contemporary discourses and movements in sustainable design, human-centered design, participatory methods, codesign, and the possibilities of connectivity through digital technologies, definitions of design as a problem solving, materials-oriented suite of professions have been, and continue to be, challenged. With this some have argued that design is a socio-technical domain of practice (Kimbell 2015), which leads us in the right direction for expanding our thinking about design. Such critiques capture the links between social and cultural aspects of design, while retaining a focus on the material practices that are for the most part the basis for design practice. At the same time we have also seen the rise of design thinking as a particular articulation of design and its application to organizational or business contexts in particular.

(Re) searching the Digital Bauhaus, 2009

In this essay I explore a view of design that emphasizes the multiplicity of relationships between designer, the community for whom the design is intended and the development of the design over time. Rather than focus on the design as produced, attention here is given to the network of design relationships that makes design possible and to how we enter into those relationships.

Handbook of Research on Trends in Product Design and Development: Technological and Organizational Perspectives , 2010

Design has been described by Bruno Latour as the missing masses, and tellingly as “nowhere to be said and everywhere to be felt” (2005: 73). Traditionally, not only objects, but design’s presence in general has gone largely unnoticed by the public, but that is changing, due, in considerable part, to the ubiquitous presence of computing technology. Design, as representative of unnoticed and neutral objects, is no longer feasible, but design, as a participative presence in the lives of its users, is fast gaining ground in our complex society. Designers are no longer fully in control of the design process, meaning design practice, and as a result design education, must change to adapt to the increasing pace at which different social groups are evolving new ways of communicating and living.

We chart a historical analysis of a collaborative design-based research project investigating the emergence of mathematical meaning from embodied interaction with a technological trackingsystem supporting the learning of proportionality. Recounting iterative cycles of a conceptually critical perceptual feedback element, we articulate three interconnected images of researchbased designers: (a) Janus the two-headed keeper of passageways who sees artifacts alternately as a student would or as an expert would; (b) an investigator searching to explicate design decisions coherently in light of learning-sciences theory; and (c) a reflective practitioner who embraces tradeoffs and is open to constructive criticism and to implementing radical changes to design and theory. Ultimately, we posit, we as researchers are continuously developing professional vision for our own design even as the design changes.

International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 2005

The Design Way. Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Foundations and Fundamentals of Design Competence. Englewood Cliffs, Educational Technology Publications, 2003. ISBN 0-87778-305-5. 328 pages. Although there are quite a few books on design available for those who want to get to know this important field of activity, the book by Nelson and Stolterman offers something not available in many of its predecessors. It almost can be said to present a sort of 'philosophy of design,' whereas most of the other books tend to have a rather instrumental character and focus more on how to design than on the nature of the design process itself. The book contains several references to well known philosophers, together with many themes that feature in current philosophical debates on technology and design. This makes this volume, written with an audience of design educators and students particularly in mind, an interesting resource for reflecting on the nature of design. The Prelude opens the book with the statement that design is an activity that is fundamental to almost all human behavior. Whenever and wherever humans make an effort to change their environment according to their needs, this is what the authors call 'design.' They even talk about a 'culture of inquiry and action' as a new philosophical tradition that is defined and promoted by design; perhaps something of an overstatement. Larry Hickman, a contemporary philosopher of technology, in his book 'Philosophical Tools for Technological Culture' (2001) has convincingly shown that we find the origins of this philosophical tradition in the writings of John Dewey. Hickman himself also reckons his work belongs in this pragmatist tradition. In Part 1 of their book, Nelson and Stolterman call design the 'first tradition' among many traditions of inquiry and action developed over time. This too, may be a somewhat strong claim, as one can argue that imagining 'that-which-does-not-yet-exist' (a phrase used by the authors to indicate design) most probably is accompanied, and perhaps even proceeded by, observing 'that-which-is-already-at hand' (my own expression for the activity on which science is based). Nevertheless, the authors are totally correct in emphasizing the importance of design as part of our human being. Also, their remark that design also has to deal with unintended consequences and unpleasant surprises is both true and an often unmentioned characteristic of design. Here the authors make an interesting reference to the work of Horst Rittel who has shown that design problems have the nature of 'wicked' rather than 'tame' problems. Intention is mentioned by the authors as a basic human characteristic underlying design.