Design Research: Methodological Innovation Through Messiness

• Adelman C (1993) Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educ Action Res 1(1):7–24

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Barab S, Thomas M, Dodge T, Squire K, Newell M (2004) Critical design ethnography: designing for change. Anthropol Educ Q. Jun 2004; 35, 2; ProQuest Central pg. 254

  Google Scholar 

• Bayazit N (2004) Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research. Des Issues 20(1):16–29

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Blackler A, Popovic V (2015a) Special issue: intuitive interaction. Interact Comput 27(3)

  Google Scholar 

• Blackler A, Popovic V (2015b) Towards intuitive interaction theory. Interact Comput 27(3):203–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwv011

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Blackler A, Popovic V, Mahar D (2010) Investigating users’ intuitive interaction with complex artefacts. Appl Ergon 41(1):72–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2009.04.010

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Blackler A, Popovic V, Mahar D (2014) Applying and testing design for intuitive interaction. Int J Design Sci Technol 20(1):7–26

  Google Scholar 

• Blomberg J, Burrell M, Guest G (2009) An ethnographic approach to design. In: Sears A, Jacko JA (eds) Human-Computer interaction: development process, CRC Press, Boca Raton 293:71–94

  Google Scholar 

• Bodker S, Ehn P, Kammersgaard J (1987) A Utopian experience: on design of powerful computer-based tools for skilled graphic workers. In: Bjerknes G, Ehn P, Kyng M (eds) Computers and democracy: a Scandinavian challenge. Brookfield, Gower

  Google Scholar 

• Bradbury H (2015) The SAGE handbook of action research, 3rd edn, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks

  Google Scholar 

• Button G (2003) Studies of work in human-computer interaction. In: HCI models, theories and frameworks: toward a multidisciplinary science. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 357–380

  Google Scholar 

• Chamorro-Koc M, Popovic V, Emmison M (2008) Using visual representation of concepts to explore users and designers’ concepts of everyday products. Des Stud 29(2):142–159

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cole R, Purao S, Rossi M, Sein M (2005) Being proactive: where action research meets design research. ICIS 2005 Proceedings. 27. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2005/27

• Cross N (2006) Designerly ways of knowing. Springer, London

  Google Scholar 

• Dick B (2000) Beginners’ guide to action research. http://www.aral.com.au/resources/guide.html

• Durling D, Niedderer K (2007) The benefits and limits of investigative designing. Paper presented at the IASDR07, Hong Kong

  Google Scholar 

• Fischer S, Itoh M, Inagaki T (2014) Prior schemata transfer as an account for assessing the intuitive use of new technology. Appl Ergon 46(2015):8–20

  Google Scholar 

• Fischer S, Itoh M, Inagaki T (2015) Screening prototype features in terms of intuitive use: design considerations and proof of concept. Interact Comput 27(3):256–270

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Forlizzi J, Zimmerman J, Evenson S (2008) Crafting a place for interaction design research in HCI. Des Issues 24(3):19–29

  Google Scholar 

• Foth M, Axup J (2006) Participatory design and action research: identical twins or synergetic pair? In: Jacucci G, Kensing F, Wagner I, Blomberg J (eds) Proceedings Participatory Design. Conference 2006: Expanding Boundaries in Design 2, pp 93–96

  Google Scholar 

• Frayling C (1993) Research in art and design. Royal Coll Art Res Pap 1(1):1–5

  Google Scholar 

• Glaccardi E, Karana E (2015) Foundations of materials experience: an approach for HCI. Digital & Materials Fabrication CHI, Seoul, Korea

  Google Scholar 

• Goldkuhl G (2013) Action Research vs. Design Research: Using Practice Research as a Lens for Comparison and Integration. In The 2nd International SIG Prag Workshop on IT Artefact Design & Workpractice Improvement (ADWI-2013), 5 June, 2013, Tilburg, the Netherlands. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:688095

• Greenbaum J, Kyng M (1991) Design at work. Cooperative design of computer systems. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale

  Google Scholar 

• Greenbaum J, Loi D (2012) Participation, the camel and the elephant of design: an introduction. CoDesign 8(2–3):81–85

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q 30(3):811–842

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Grundy S (1982) Three Modes of Action research. First Publ Curric Perspect 2(3): 23–34. Cited in “The Action research reader” edited by Kemmis and McTaggart, Deakin University Melbourne:1988 p 353

  Google Scholar 

• Halskov K, Hansen NB (2015) The diversity of participatory design research practice at PDC 2002–2012. Int J Hum Comput Stud 74(Supplement C):81–92

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hevner AR, March ST, Park J (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28(3):75–105

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hurtienne J, Blessing L (2007) Design for Intuitive use – testing image schema theory for user interface design. Paper presented at the 16th international conference on engineering design, Paris, 2007

  Google Scholar 

• Hurtienne J, Israel JH (2007) Image schemas and their metaphorical extensions – intuitive patterns for tangible interaction. Paper presented at the TEI’07. First International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, New York.

  Google Scholar 

• Hurtienne J, Klöckner K, Diefenbach S, Nass C, Maier A (2015) Designing with image schemas: resolving the tension between innovation, inclusion and intuitive use. Interact Comput 27(3):235–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwu049

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R (2013) The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

  Google Scholar 

• Kraal B, Popovic V, Chamorro-Koc M, Blackler A (2011) An actor-network research frame for analysing complex socio-technical situations. In: Roozenburg N, Chen L-L, Stappers PJ (eds) 4th World Conference on Design Research, IASDR2011. Delft University of Technology, Delft

  Google Scholar 

• Kumar V (2012) 101 design methods: a structured approach for driving innovation in your organization. Wiley, Hoboken

  Google Scholar 

• Law J (1992) Notes on the theory of the actor-network: ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Syst Pract Action Res 5(4):379–393

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Lazar J, Feng JH, Hochheiser H (2017) Chapter 9 – Ethnography research methods in human computer interaction, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston, pp 229–261

  Google Scholar 

• McCarthy J, Wright P (2005) Putting ‘felt-life’ at the centre of human-computer interaction (HCI). Cogn Tech Work 7:262–271

  Google Scholar 

• Mohs C, Hurtienne J, Israel JH, Naumann A, Kindsmüller MC, Meyer HA, Pohlmeyer A (2006) IUUI – intuitive use of user interfaces. Paper presented at the usability professionals 2006, Stuttgart

  Google Scholar 

• Niedderer K, Clune S, Ludden G (eds) (2017) Design for behaviour change: theories and practices of designing for change, Routledge, London

  Google Scholar 

• O’Brien MA, Rogers WA, Fisk AD (2008) Developing a framework for intuitive human-computer interaction. Paper presented at the 52nd annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society, New York, 52, 1645

  Google Scholar 

• Plowman T (2003) Ethnography and critical design practice. Design Res Methods Perspect:30–38

  Google Scholar 

• Russell DM, Pirolli P, Furnas G, Card SK, Stefik M (2009) Sensemaking workshop CHI 2009. In: CHI’09 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 4751–4754

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Sanders L, Stappers PJ (2012) Convivial design toolbox: generative research for the front end of design. BIS.

  Google Scholar 

• Swann C (2002) Action research and the practice of design. Des Issues 18(1):49–61

  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

• Swann L, Popovic V, Blackler AL, Kraal BJ (2014) Airport security screeners expertise and implications for interface design. In Design Research Society Conference 2014, 16–19 June 2014, Umea, Sweden

  Google Scholar 

• Visser FS, Stappers PJ, Van der Lugt R, Sanders EB (2005) Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2):119–149

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organisations. Sage, London

  Google Scholar 

• Zborowsky T, Bunker-Hellmich L (2010) Integrating healthcare design research into practice: setting and new standard of practice. In Health Environments Research & Design Journal (HERD). Vol 4 No 1 Fall 2010, pp 115–130

  Google Scholar 

• Zelenko O (2012) Design and ethics in mental health promotion. In: Felton E, Zelenko O, Vaughn S (eds) Design and ethics: reflections on practice. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 97–110

  Google Scholar 

Download references