research-article

De-scription at early phases of artifact design

Authors:

Carlos Henrique Araujo de Aguiar,

Keith GreenAuthors Info & Claims

Academic Mindtrek '22: Proceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference

Pages 179 - 191

https://doi.org/10.1145/3569219.3569380

Published: 16 November 2022 Publication History

Abstract

This paper reflects on the push and pull forces that go into co-designing an artifact at the early phase of the design process, and which typically lose touch in later design stages. The design method and approach, how users and designers interact, and the relationship between process and result are all interests. The goal is to analyze a case study and reflect on how the change in the user-designer-artifact relationship also changes the mechanisms by which an artifact is shaped. Following the work of Madeline Akrich, which advises design researchers to explore instances where the design and use of an artifact are not well-matched, this paper investigates how participants and designers collaboratively define the boundaries between the “inside” and “outside” of an artifact at the early phase of the design process.

References

[1]

B. Latour, W. Bijker, and J. Law, “Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts,” 1992, pp. 225–258.

[2]

M. Akrich, “The De-scription of Technical Objects,” Shap. Technol.- Build. Soc. Stud. Sociotechnical Change, Jan. 1992.

[3]

M. Callon, “The Sociology of an Actor-Network: The Case of the Electric Vehicle,” in Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology, M. Callon, J. Law, and A. Rip, Eds. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1986, pp. 19–34.

[4]

M. Callon, “Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis,” Bijker Hughes Pinch, Jan. 1990.

[5]

H. A. Simon, The sciences of the artificial, 4. Print. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press, 1974.

[6]

P. G. Rowe, Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987.

[7]

H. W. J. Rittel and M. M. Webber, “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning,” Policy Sci., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 155–169, Jun. 1973.

[8]

B. Lawson, How Designers Think: the Design Process Demystified. Burlington: Elsevier Science, 2014. Accessed: Jul. 31, 2022. [Online]. Available: http://qut.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1879663

[9]

L. Suchman, “Organizing Alignment: A Case of Bridge-Building,” Organization, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 311–327, May 2000.

[10]

B. Ewenstein and J. Whyte, “Knowledge Practices in Design: The Role of Visual Representations as `Epistemic Objects’,” Organ. Stud., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 07–30, Jan. 2009.

[11]

D. A. Schön, The Reflective Practitioner, 0 ed. Routledge, 2017.

[12]

D. A. Schon and G. Wiggins, “Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing,” Des. Stud., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 135–156, Apr. 1992.

[13]

D. Schön and J. Bennett, “Reflective conversation with materials,” in Bringing design to software, T. Winograd, Ed. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 1996, pp. 171–189.

Digital Library

[14]

W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, and T. Pinch, Eds., The social construction of technological systems: new directions in the sociology and history of technology, Anniversary ed. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2012.

[15]

W. E. Bijker, Of bicycles, bakelites, and bulbs: toward a theory of sociotechnical change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

[16]

D. A. MacKenzie and J. Wajcman, Eds., The social shaping of technology, 2nd ed. Buckingham [Eng.] ; Philadelphia: Open University Press, 1999.

[17]

B. Latour, Aramis, or, The love of technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.

[18]

J. Law, “The Olympus 320 Engine: A Case Study in Design, Development, and Organizational Control,” Technol. Cult., vol. 33, no. 3, p. 409, Jul. 1992.

[19]

K. Grint and S. Woolgar, The machine at work: technology, work, and organization. Cambridge, UK ; Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers: Polity Press, 1997.

[20]

S. Woolgar, “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials,” Sociol. Rev., vol. 38, no. 1_suppl, pp. 58–99, May 1990.

[21]

S. Hyysalo, T. E. Jensen, and N. Oudshoorn, Eds., The new production of users: changing innovation collectives and involvement strategies. London, New York: Routledge, 2016.

[22]

C. Fortin, K. Hennessy, and H. Sweeney, “The ‘Making of’ Mégaphone, an Interactive ‘Speakers’ Corner’ and Digitally-Augmented Agora in Public Space,” in Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, Copenhagen Denmark, Jun. 2014, pp. 110–111.

Digital Library

[23]

K. Grønbæk, K. J. Kortbek, C. Møller, J. Nielsen, and L. Stenfeldt, “Designing Playful Interactive Installations for Urban Environments – The SwingScape Experience,” in Advances in Computer Entertainment, vol. 7624, A. Nijholt, T. Romão, and D. Reidsma, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012, pp. 230–245.

Digital Library

[24]

M. McCullough, Digital ground: architecture, pervasive computing, and environmental knowing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.

Digital Library

[25]

E. Brandt, T. Binder, and E. Sanders, “Tools and techniques: Ways to engage telling, making and enacting,” 2012, pp. 145–181.

[26]

S. Vyzoviti, Folding architecture: spatial, structural and organizational diagrams, 13. Print. Amsterdam: BIS Publ, 2012.

Cited By

Stark DBroeck P(2024)Principles of Algorithmic ManagementOrganization Theory10.1177/263178772412572135:2Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241257213
Zhiyu SKoh HAguiar CShihang JWang Y(2023)Could Socially Interactive Architectural Robotics Promote Restorative Environments?International Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-023-01040-x16:5(919-936)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01040-x

Recommendations

Co-Design with Older Adults: Examining and Reflecting on Collaboration with Aging Communities
CSCW2

Co-design methods have involved older adults in the design process to fill the knowledge gap that younger adult designers might encounter when designing for an aging population. A focus of co-design means establishing equal and equitable relationships ...
Proposing Co-Design of Personas as a Method to Heighten Validity and Engage Users: A Case from Higher Education

This paper proposes co-designing personas with users as a strategy to overcome a challenge inherent in the design of personas or fictitious users: On one hand, personas should appear realistic and believable as individuals, and on the other hand, ...
Tracing situated effects of innovative design methods: inexperienced designers' practices
DESIRE '11: Procedings of the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design

In recent years the design research community has been active in developing new methods for user involvement and collaboration in the design process. The new methods, often called innovative design methods, correspond more to designer's genuine ways of ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences

Academic Mindtrek '22: Proceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek Conference

November 2022

407 pages

ISBN:9781450399555

DOI:10.1145/3569219

Copyright © 2022 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 16 November 2022

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

Academic Mindtrek 2022

Academic Mindtrek 2022: 25th International Academic Mindtrek conference

November 16 - 18, 2022

Tampere, Finland

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 110 of 207 submissions, 53%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
68
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)31
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 03 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Stark DBroeck P(2024)Principles of Algorithmic ManagementOrganization Theory10.1177/263178772412572135:2Online publication date: 18-Jun-2024
https://doi.org/10.1177/26317877241257213
Zhiyu SKoh HAguiar CShihang JWang Y(2023)Could Socially Interactive Architectural Robotics Promote Restorative Environments?International Journal of Social Robotics10.1007/s12369-023-01040-x16:5(919-936)Online publication date: 25-Aug-2023
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-023-01040-x

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents