image

Peter Gall Krogh Aarhus University Denmark pkrogh@cc.au.dk

Ilpo Koskinen

University of New South Wales Australia


Contents

  1. Drifting 1

    1. Drifting in Profession and Research 4

    2. Constructive Design Research 5

    3. Drifting in Design and in Constructive Design Research 7

    4. New Experimentalism as a Lens 9

    5. Explicating Drifting 10

    6. On Terminology and the Structure of the Book 12

  2. Shift to Knowledge 15

    1. Knowledge as Method and as Aesthetic 16

    2. Artifacts as Knowledge 18

    3. Frameworks and Programs: Discourse as Knowledge 21

    4. Knowledge as Participation: How Users Motivate Drifting 22

    5. What to Expect From Constructive Design Research:

      Re-Articulation 25

    6. Sum Up 27

  3. Drifting in Four Epistemic Traditions 29

    1. Experiential Tradition and Drifting 30

    2. Methodic Tradition and Drifting 34

    3. Programmatic Tradition and Drifting 36

    4. Dialectic Tradition and Drifting 40

    5. Drifting, Accountability, and Context: The Art of Being

      Robust 44

  4. Design Hypothesis: Knowledge-Relevance Model 47

    1. Mapping Design Practice in Relation to Knowledge 48

    2. The Knowledge-Relevance (K-R) Model 50

    3. Design Hypothesis in the Four Epistemic Traditions 53

      1. Hypothesis in the Experiential Tradition 53

      2. Hypothesis in Methodic Epistemic Tradition 54

xi

xii Contents


4.3.3 Hypotheses in Programmatic Epistemic Tradition . . . . . . .

55

4.3.4 Hypothesis Emerging in Dialectic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

4.4 Hypothesis in the Knowledge-Relevance Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

5

Ways of Drifting in Design Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

5.1 Drifting in Constructive Design Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

5.2 Drifting Through Design Experiments: Five Methods . . . . . . . . . .

61

5.2.1 Accumulative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

5.2.2 Comparative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

5.2.3 Expansive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

5.2.4 Serial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

5.2.5 Probing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

65

5.3 How the Methods Work Over a Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

5.3.1 Comparative — An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

5.3.2 Accumulative — An Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

5.4 What the Typology of Drifting Methods Reveals . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

6

FourEpistemic Traditions of Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

6.1 Evaluation in the Experiential Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

6.2 Evaluation in Methodic Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

6.3 Evaluation in Programmatic Tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

6.4 Evaluation in Dialectic Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

78

6.5 Accountability as Drifting Heuristic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

7

CrossingtheHermeneuticGap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

7.1 Crossing the Hermeneutic Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

7.1.1 Experiential: The Hermeneutic Gap as Creative Space . . . .

85

7.1.2 Methodic: Making the Gap Transparent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

7.1.3 Programmatic Tradition and the Hermeneutic Gap . . . . . . .

89

7.2 From Research to Concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

8

New Experimentalism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

95

8.1 How Knowledge Depends on Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

96

8.2 Against Method: Methods as Achievements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

98

8.3 Design is Stubborn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

8.4 Discourse is Equally Stubborn. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

100

8.5 Design Practice, Programs and Discourse in Empathic Design . . .

101

8.6 Experimentation as a Site of Intentional Drifting . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

104

9

At the Frontiers of Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

107

9.1 Knowledge-Relevance: Talking to Two Audiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 9.2 Epistemic Traditions in Their Full Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 9.3 Drifting in Conceptual Scaffoldings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 9.4 New Experimentalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 9.5 Towards Technical Humanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 9.6 The Limits of Eurocentricism 116

Contents

xiii


    1. Constructive Design Research Beyond Europe 118

    2. The Future of Design as a Knowledge-Based Discipline 119

  1. Corpus 123

    1. Primary Corpus 125

    2. Expanded Corpus 126

Literature 129

Index 139