What should we expect from research through design?

Abstract

In this essay, I explore several facets of research through design in order to contribute to discussions about how the approach should develop. The essay has three parts. In the first, I review two influential theories from the Philosophy of Science to help reflect on the nature of design theory, concluding that research through design is likely to produce theories that are provisional, contingent, and aspirational. In the second part, I discuss three possible interpretations for the diversity of approaches to research through design, and suggest that this variation need not be seen as a sign of inadequate standards or a lack of cumulative progress in the field, but may be natural for a generative endeavour. In the final section, I suggest that, rather than aiming to develop increasingly comprehensive theories of design, practice based research might better view theory as annotation of realised design examples, and particularly portfolios of related pieces. Overall, I suggest that the design research community should be wary of impulses towards convergence and standardisation, and instead take pride in its aptitude for exploring and speculating, particularising and diversifying, and -especially -its ability to manifest the results in the form of new, conceptually rich artefacts.

Exploring Research through Design in Animal Computer Interaction

“…Developed to foster design innovation, Research through Design is a research approach that emphasizes the creation of knowledge through reflective design practice and the making of a series of physical objects, where that knowledge is embodied in the artifacts themselves [13][34], with theory providing context and relevance in the form of annotations on the documented designs. With regard to the type of knowledge expressed through the designed object, Gaver explains that each artifact is the culmination of a series of decisions made by the designer and that the artifact is therefore an exemplification of those choices Zimmerman et al [35] provide a critique of RtD as a method for generating knowledge via design research, highlighting the following advantages: (i) it is useful for making inquiries into complex situations; (ii) researchers focus on future (non-existing) designs, leading to (iii) consideration of the associated ethics and potential outcomes.…”

“…Bardzell et al [1] find this to be problematic, asking whether such designs can ever be legitimized, because their distinct nature means they cannot be used to support a generalized theory. The designs may raise more questions than they answer, and moreover, may not fit easily into a more general body of work, thus making it difficult to draw broader conclusions that contribute to a wider theoretical framework [13].…”

Concept models for design practice

“…As has often been said (Zimmerman, Forlizzi and Evenson, 2007;Gaver, 2012;van de Weijer, van Cleempoel and Heynen, 2014), these fields are interested primarily in possible futures, rather than in getting a better understanding of the present and the past. This is in large part the reason why design has historically made use of so many research methods and concept models from other disciplines.…”

“…These methods are typically characterized as research through design or research by design (Frayling, 1993;Zimmerman, Stolterman and Forlizzi, 2010;Gaver, 2012), where the research outcomes are achieved using design approaches such as prototyping. These decades of work have brought design research to the point where it is now ready to focus on the development of its own concept models for use in design practice.…”

Shybo – Design of a Research Artefact for Human-robot Interaction Studies

“…Although methods and theories of RtD are still questioned (Zimmerman et al, 2010), there is a general agreement about three key aspects of RtD: getting in contact with the potential audience, exploring a wide spectrum of multiple potential designs, and considering the practice of making a route for discovery (Gaver, 2012).…”