How Is the Map Organized? The design research map is defined and described by two intersecting dimensions: One is defined by approach and the other is defined by mind-set. Approaches to design research have come from a research-led perspective (shown at the bottom of the map) and from a design-led perspective (shown at the top of the map). The research-led perspective has the longest history and has been driven by applied psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, and engineers. The design-led perspective, on the other hand, has come into view more recently. (See Figure 1.) There are two opposing mind-sets evident in the practice of design research today. The left side of the map describes a culture characterized by an expert mind-set. Design researchers here are involved with designing for people. These design researchers consider themselves to be the experts, and they see and refer to people as “subjects,” “users,” “consumers,” etc. The right side of the map describes a culture characterized by a participatory mind-set. Design researchers on this side design with people. They see the people as the true experts in domains of experience such as living, learning, working, etc. Design researchers who have a participatory mind-set value people as co-creators in the design process. It is difficult for many people to move from the left to the right side of the map (or vice versa), as this shift entails a significant cultural change. (See Figure 2.) The largest and most developed of the areas on Design research is in a state of flux. The design research landscape has been the focus of a tremendous amount of exploration and growth over the past five to 10 years. It is currently a jumble of approaches that, while competing as well as complementary, nonetheless share a common goal: to drive, inspire, and inform the design development process. Conflict and confusion within the design research space are evident in the turf battles between researchers and designers. Online communities reveal the philosophical differences between the applied psychologists and the applied anthropologists, as well as the general discontent at the borders between disciplines. At the same time, collaboration is evident in the sharing of ideas, tools, methods, and resources in online design research communities. We can also see an increase in the number and quality of global design research events and a growing emphasis on collaborative projects between industry and the universities, particularly in Europe.
[1]
Jörn Messeter,et al.
Facilitating collaboration through design games
,
2004,
PDC 04.
[2]
Pelle Ehn,et al.
Work-oriented design of computer artifacts
,
1989
.
[3]
Eduardo Corte-Real,et al.
Design Research in 2006
,
2006
.
[4]
Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.
Contextmapping: experiences from practice
,
2005
.
[5]
William W. Gaver,et al.
Design documentaries: inspiring design research through documentary film
,
2006,
DIS '06.
[6]
Jacob Buur,et al.
Designing with Video: Focusing the user-centred design process
,
2007
.
[7]
Helene Furján,et al.
Design/Research
,
2007
.
[8]
Tuuli Mattelmäki,et al.
Collaborative design exploration: envisioning future practices with make tools
,
2007,
DPPI.
[9]
Daria Loi,et al.
Reflective probes, primitive probes and playful triggers
,
2007
.
[10]
William W. Gaver,et al.
Design: Cultural probes
,
1999,
INTR.
[11]
Anthony Dunne,et al.
Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects
,
2001
.