Interaction design in the university: designing disciplinary interactions
Abstract
Interaction design (ID) as a field emerged in the late 1990s with roots in both the HCI and design communities. We ask whether the 'interdisciplinary' agenda of the 3rd paradigm of HCI can be accommodated in the traditional disciplined university. An alternate model of 'interdisciplinarity' offers one way forward, but calls for clarity on the question of what interaction design aspires to be. We offer the notion of 'disciplined transdisciplinarity' as an exciting and perhaps necessary way of solving the complex problems that ID researchers face, and illustrate this with examples drawn from the area of emotional design and assessment. Our bridge between 3rd paradigm, knowledge production and what we are calling 'disciplined transdisciplinary' yields insights into the path toward institutionalizing and legitimating research on ID and academic careers in this field in the university.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
HCI research has introduced transdisciplinary design as the fourth design paradigm, alongside the technical, cognitive, and ethnographic paradigms, to approach interaction design education, scholarship, and practice.
“Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) research, on the other hand, has introduced transdisciplinary design as the fourth design paradigm, alongside the technical, cognitive, and ethnographic paradigms, to approach interaction design education, scholarship, and practice (Blevis et al., 2015; Moore and Lottridge, 2010; Blevis and Stolterman, 2009).”
From Educational Participatory Design in the Crossroads of Histories and Practices – Aiming for Digital Transformation in Language Pedagogy (2023) · cites this paper as Moore and Lottridge, 2010
Cites
Dilemmas in a general theory of planning
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) · Policy Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf01405730 · Cited by 16,338 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For example, should cars track human emotions? If so, what are the technical limitations? Should the system display feedback so that the user is aware and can correct mistakes? What is the balance between technical and social choices? Is legislation part of the solution? With wicked problems [16] of this nature there…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kinnula, M., Iivari, N., Kuure, L., & Molin-Juustila, T. (2023) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-023-09473-8 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…the other hand, has introduced transdisciplinary design as the fourth design paradigm, alongside the technical, cognitive, and ethnographic paradigms, to approach interaction design education, scholarship, and practice (Blevis et al., 2015; Moore and Lottridge, 2010; Blevis and Stolterman, 2009).”
Background
- Authors
- Moore, G., & Lottridge, D.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- ORCID
- Lottridge, Danielle
- Venue
- CHI '10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2010-04-10
- Pages
- 2735-2744
- OpenAlex
- W1984619442
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.24
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Interdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Keywords
- interaction design, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, university research institutions, institutionalization of research, academic careers, emotional design, assessment, knowledge production
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
