Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T09:36:57.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scaffolds for design communication: Research through design of shared understanding in design meetings

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2013

Jelle van Dijk  and
Remko van der Lugt
Jelle van Dijk*
Affiliation:
Research Centre Technology and Innovation, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
Remko van der Lugt
Affiliation:
Research Centre Technology and Innovation, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Utrecht, The Netherlands Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands
*
Reprint requests to: Jelle van Dijk, Research Centre Technology and Innovation, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 182, 3500 AD Utrecht, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we explore the influence of the physical and social environment (the design space) son the formation of shared understanding in multidisciplinary design teams. We concentrate on the creative design meeting as a microenvironment for studying processes of design communication. Our applied research context entails the design of mixed physical–digital interactive systems supporting design meetings. Informed by theories of embodiment that have recently gained interest in cognitive science, we focus on the role of interactive “traces,” representational artifacts both created and used by participants as scaffolds for creating shared understanding. Our research through design approach resulted in two prototypes that form two concrete proposals of how the environment may scaffold shared understanding in design meetings. In several user studies we observed users working with our systems in natural contexts. Our analysis reveals how an ensemble of ongoing social as well as physical interactions, scaffolded by the interactive environment, grounds the formation of shared understanding in teams. We discuss implications for designing collaborative tools and for design communication theory in general.

Keywords

Collaborative DesignCreative MeetingDesign CommunicationEmbodied CognitionInteractive SystemsResearch Through DesignScaffoldingSituated CognitionTraces
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 27 , Issue 2: Studying and Supporting Design Communication , May 2013 , pp. 121 - 131
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allen, T.J. (1984). Managing the Flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. (1985). Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass.Google Scholar
Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., & Scharff, E. (2000). Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design. Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(1), 84–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, T. (2007). Why design: labs. Proc. “Design Inquiries,” the 2nd Nordic Design Research Conf. Accessed at http://www.dkds.dk/Forskning/Personer/Thomas_BinderGoogle Scholar
Bjørn, P., and Hertzum, M. (2006). Project-based collaborative learning: negotiating leadership and commitment in virtual teams. CHI-SA 2006: Proc. 5th Conf. Human Computer Interaction in Southern Africa, pp. 6–15. New York: ACM Press.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1996). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, J. (Ed.). (2003). HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Carroll, J., Neale, D., & Isenhour, P. (2003). Notification and awareness: synchronizing task-oriented collaborative activity. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 58, 605–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciolfi, L., Fitzpatrick, G., & Bannon, L. (2008). Settings for collaboration, the role of place. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 17, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancey, W.J. (1997). Situated Cognition: On Human Knowledge and Computer Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, A. (1997). Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Crilly, N., Maier, A., & Clarkson, P. (2008). Representing artefacts as media: modelling the relationship between designer intent and consumer experience. International Journal of Design 2(3). Accessed at http://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/429Google Scholar
De Jaegher, H., & Di Paolo, E. (2007). Participatory sense-making: an enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 6(4), 485–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djajadiningrat, J.P., Matthews, B., & Stienstra, M. (2007). Easy doesn't do it: skill and expression in tangible aesthetics. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 11(8), 657–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehn, P. (2011). Design things: drawing things together and making things public. Technoscienza: Italian Journal of Science and Technology Studies 2(1), 31–52.Google Scholar
Forlizzi, J. (2007). The product ecology: understanding social product use and supporting design culture. International Journal of Design 2(1), 11–20.Google Scholar
Geyer, F., Pfeil, U., Höchtl, A., Budzinski, J., & Reiterer, H. (2011). Designing reality-based interfaces for creative group work. Proc. Creativity & Cognition 2011, pp. 165–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, B. (2001). The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted With Description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32, 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollan, J., Hutchins, E., & Kirsh, D. (2000). Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human–computer interaction research. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(2), 174–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2000). A few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectica 1(30), 19–51.Google Scholar
Kirsh, D. (2010). Thinking with external representations. AI & Society 25, 441–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirsh, D., & Maglio, P. (1994). On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cognitive Science 18, 513–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaptelinin, V., & Nardi, B. (2006). Acting With Technology: Activity Theory and Interaction Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kleinsmann, M. (2008). Barriers and enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design projects. Design Studies 29(4), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field and Showroom. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In Representation in Scientific Practice (Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S., Eds.), pp. 19–68. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Sciences. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Maier, A.M., Dönmez, D., Hepperle, C., Kreimeyer, M., Lindemann, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2011). Improving communication in design: recommendations from the literature. Proc. Int. Conf. Engineering Design, ICED '11, Technical University Denmark, August 15–18.Google Scholar
Maier, A.M., Kreimeyer, M., Lindemann, U., & Clarkson, P.J. (2009). Reflecting communication: a key factor for successful collaboration between embodiment design and simulation. Journal of Engineering Design 20(3), 265–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKim, R.H. (1972). Experiences in Visual Thinking. Boston: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
McNiff, J. (1988). Action Research: Principles and Practice. Basingstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norman, D.A. (2002). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
Schön, D., & Wiggins, G. (1992). Kinds of seeing and their functions in designing. Design Studies 13(2), 135–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuler, D., & Namioka, A. (Eds.) (1993). Participatory Design: Principles and Practices. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stappers, P.J. (2007). Doing design as a part of doing research. In Design Research Now (Michel, R., Ed.), pp. 81–91. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, L. (2000). Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind, Culture and Activity 7(1–2), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Susman, G.I., & Evered, R.D. (1978). An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23(4), 582–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trotto, A., Hummels, C.C.M., & Cruz Restrepo, M. (2011). Towards design-driven innovation: designing for points of view using intuition through skills. Proc. Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces 2011, Milano, Italy, 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaajakallio, (2008). Design dialogues studying co-design activities in an artificial environment. Copenhagen working papers. Accessed at www.dkds.dkGoogle Scholar
van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies 26(2), 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, J., van der Lugt, R., & Overbeeke, C.J. (2009). Let's take this conversation outside: supporting embodied embedded memory. Proc. DPPI'09, Compiegne, France, October 13–16.Google Scholar
van Dijk, J., & Vos, G.W. (2011). Traces in creative spaces. Proc. 8th ACM Conf. Creativity and Cognition (C&C '11), pp. 91–94.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S. (1956). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proc. CHI 2007, San Jose, CA, April 28–May 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar