The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 31 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges
Open accessAbstract
Design thinking has become a central issue in contemporary design discourse and rhetoric, and for good reason. With the design thinking practice of world leading design and innovation firm IDEO, and with the application of these principles to successful design education at prestigious d. school, the Institute of Design at Stanford University, and not least with the publication of Change by Design, in which IDEO chief executive Tim Brown elaborates on the firm's ideas about design thinking, ...
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
52 Own interpretation · 30 Sources not found · 29 No basis given · 7 Own result · 1 No full text of the sources
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These methods did not make sense to all participants.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we discuss our ongoing “infrastructuring” engagement in Malmö Living Labs as one in which we design “Things” for social innovation.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Our experiences related to social innovation infrastructuring of design Things have come through the Malmö Living Labs project, which started in 2007 as a small-scale laboratory to explore how subcultures could be enhanced with new media.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Exploring Infrastructuring Design Things in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [32]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RGRA decided to participate on the condition that RGRA's and Veolia's logos would not appear next to each other in any press material.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The relationship between the company Do-Fi and RGRA has, for example, gradually emerged into a self-sustaining collaboration.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(3) that developing a game engine with which the youngsters could easily make their own game paths was needed.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A trial game played by other youngsters showed (1) that they found gaming to be an interesting approach to learning about unknown urban environments”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) that the game created a spontaneous interaction between the players and the locals”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experiments indicated that the buses could become a new space for RGRA to distribute the music of its members and thus become more visible (see Figure 2).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in both of the cases described, we have seen Things go beyond a specific project into more sustainable and long-term learning and working relationships.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 78
- It may state two separate claims as one. 31
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also are planned as open innovation social and technical platforms, integrated with the broader innovation systems in the city and region.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, we have worked on creating ongoing working relationships or new forms of infrastructuring practice(s) so that heterogeneous partners can bring forth the issues or possibilities they want to explore and see if their vision or issue makes sense and matches with other partners' concerns.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The experiment revealed not only the possibility of aligning different matters of concern, but also controversies and conflicting matters of concerns.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus far, two of them have grown into more traditional research projects with more clearly defined project goals.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, although not driven by it, these environments all explore the potential of new media for co-creation and social innovation.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach has meant creating loose agreements and work practices on how to approach the unknown.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They now are planning to form a company together.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Emerging design Things include a multiethnic group of women with a broad range of language skills organizing a collaborative service through which they provide meals for a large group of arriving refugee orphans, urban planning initiatives by citizens using new tools and participative processes, and the implementation of a creative commons business model that supports independent movie makers in fi”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also has meant focusing on how specific issues and possibilities can be handled by creating ongoing infrastructuring processes, without predetermined sets of partners, that require reoccurring Things rather than a final solution.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“RGRA members' experience of being to a large degree invisible in the urban environment parallels their feeling that their neighborhoods are largely unknown by people living in other parts of the city.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“From this position, they invite collaboration between people, companies, public agencies, cultural organizations, and NGOs, thus opening the borders and aligning potentially conflicting matters of concerns between users driving innovation, business incubators, new business models, research and education.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One approach suggested by the group's members to handle this lack of connection or visibility is to construct “tourist” routes in their suburbs and guide people through the areas.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The project may be characterized as providing venues for open-ended, prototypical practices, or arenas for communication and negotiations.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Exploring Infrastructuring Design Things in Practice
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [33]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the past years, we have been able to scale up our Living Labs design Things engagement.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although they differ in orientation and geographic location, these three living labs are all founded on some shared ideas and values.They are all based on user-driven design and innovation activities, growing out of social movements.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At this time, RGRA members do not construct any objects on their own, although the aim is that they will.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To investigate this issue, a new Thing emerged, this time assembling RGRA, Do-Fi and researchers with the company Ozma Game Design, and the city of Malmö.The strategy was to see how the mobile game platform UrbLove, developed by Ozma, could be used to create new experiences of RGRA neighborhoods.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approach means design as “infrastructuring,” addressing the challenge of design as ongoing and as anticipation or envisioning of potential design that takes place in use after design in a specific project.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This openness is principally interesting because it emphasizes the importance of understanding how design in a project is related to user/stakeholder appropriation, be it as adoption or redesign, and how users make it part of their lifeworld and evolving ecologies of devices.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Early Participatory Design projects addressed new production tools, changes in production planning, management control, work organization, and division of labor from users' shop floor perspective.5”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5] 5. Andrew Barry, Political Machines: Governing a Technological Society (London: Athlone, 2001).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, in design Things carried out in a project, (professional) designers have to acknowledge that design Things potentially will go on in use, and they eventually might also have entirely new stakeholders.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, in design Things, the crucial perspective at project time is to open up for new design Things in later use.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“We might also view these “presenters” as boundary objects in participatory design Things.18”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“One is the social and rational idea of democracy as a value that leads to considerations of conditions that enable proper and legitimate user participation-what we refer to here as “staging” and “infrastructuring” design Things.”
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
“The other value might be described as the idea affirming the importance of making participants' tacit knowledge come into play in the design process-not just their formal and explicit competencies, but those practical and diverse skills that are fundamental to the making of things as objects or artifacts.6”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [6]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Introduction · hedged
In the paper
“However, as Klaus Krippendorff has pointed out, projects are only part, or a specific form, of alignments in the life cycle of a device, and every object of design eventually has to become part of already existing ecologies of devices, in people's already ongoing lifeworlds.11”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [11]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So the move is toward design Things (at project time) designing potential boundary-objects (infrastructure) that can be supportive of future design Things (at use time).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A project is the common form for aligning resources (people and technology) in all larger design endeavors.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Traditionally, these representations are thought of as gradually more refined descriptions of the designed object-to-be.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So design Things are in focus when inquiring into the “agency” not only of designers and users, but also of non-human “actants,” such as objects, artifacts, and design devices.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shifting from traditional design for use Things to ongoing design for design Things, we seem confronted not only with design Things that engage multiple stakeholders and presenters, but also a chain of one design Thing after another.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Design thinking has become a central issue in contemporary design discourse and rhetoric, and for good reason.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites foot_0
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We argue that this shift of meaning in the word “thing” is of interest when reflecting on how we as designers work, live, and act in a public space of design-a space that permits a heterogeneity of perspectives among actors who engage in attempts to align their conflicting objects of design.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, Participatory Design, as it emerged in the 1970s, might theoretically and practically be seen as a “modern” example of Things (or rather “thinging,” as Heidegger would call it).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Projects often are designed to go through a number of consecutive stages of gradual refinement.They typically have names like “analysis,” “design,” “construction” and “implementation.””
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A complementary position suggests deferring some design and participation until after the design project, opening up the possibility of use as design, or design-after-design. 9”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They stabilize the design Thing and allow some transference and commonality across the boundaries of language-games, but they also acknowledge that different stakeholders might at the same time hold very different views.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Design was seen as meaningful participation in intertwined language-games of design and use (professional designers and professional users); whereas, performative design artifacts, such as mock-ups, prototypes, and design games, could act as boundary objects binding the different language-games together.13”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [13]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prerequisite for understanding this journey from things as material object and back to Things as sociomaterial assemblies is that if we live in total agreement, we do not need to gather to resolve disputes-because none exist.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Our starting point in this paper is participation in Thingsthese kinds of socio-material assemblies that Bruno Latour so strikingly has characterized as collectives of humans and nonhumans.3”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [3] 3. Donna Haraway, "Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective," Feminist Studies 14, no. 2 (1988): 589. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather than thinking of a project as a design Thing consisting of the four phases of analysis, design, construction, and implementation, a Thing approach would see this as a collective of humans and non-humans and might rather look to the performative “staging” of it.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So there is design during a project, but there is also design in use.There is design (in use) after design (in the design project).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We see this movement as one from “projecting” to one of “infrastructuring” design activities.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With this conceptualization followed the specific design challenge of setting the stage for another specific design languagegame-one that has a family resemblance with (professional) language-games of different stakeholders, especially users (lay-designers) and (professional) designers.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In such a “traditional” approach, Participatory Design is seen as a way to meet the challenges of anticipating or envisioning use before actual use, as it takes place in people's lifeworlds.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The focus thus shifted to socio-material Things as assemblies rather than being on things as objects.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This shift led to recommendations and practices for a design process based on the (work) practices of legitimate but resource-weak stakeholders (i.e., actual or potential “end-users”).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The suggestion here instead is to focus on these devices as material “presenters” of the evolving object of design supporting communication or participation in the design process.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, in the language of this paper, this staging meant literally assembling socio-material design Things, with potentially controversial design objects and matters of concern.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In such an approach, both professional designers and potential users are seen as designers, much as in “traditional,” projectbound Participatory Design; but rather than participating in design Things as synchronous entangled language-games, they are participating in design Things separated in time and space.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This shift in focus moves from design Things that aim at useful products and services, to design Things that support good environments for future design Things at use time.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“In practice, design Things did not stand alone.They were linked to other Things-especially to a formal “negotiation model” for design projects focusing on skills and work organization, intended to strengthen the voice of workers and their local trade unions in negotiations with management and in controversies around the design and introduction of new technologies at the workplace.17”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [17]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Latour has called for a thing philosophy or object-oriented politics.7”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [7]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This evolving object of design is potentially binding different stakeholders together, and it clearly also has a performative dimension.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
boostedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In project work, a strong focus is placed on “representations” of the object of design.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, strategies and tactics of design for use must also be open for appropriation in use, after a specific project is finished, and consider this appropriation as a potential, specific kind of design.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Envisioned use is hardly the same as actual use, no matter how much participation has occurred in the design process.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, we also hold that, given design thinking's many similarities to Participatory Design today, some of the latter's challenges also might be relevant to contemporary design thinking.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that this view on design Things as intertwined language-games, with its focus on the relation between designers and users, was developed in the societal context for, and discourse around, democratization of the workplace in Scandinavia in the 1970s.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The “presenters” of the object of design, of course, have to be elected and enrolled by the other participants, but once engaged, they are active participants in a design Thing as a collective of humans and non-humans.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The project is the socio-material Thing that is the major form of alignment of design activities.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but also the challenges of designing beyond the specific project and toward future stakeholders as designers (i.e., supporting ways to “design after design” in a specific project).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Basically, the design process described is laid out to support such users' interests, and the products or services designed are to be supportive of these interests as well.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the first, Participatory Design is characterized as an approach to involve users in the design and, as suggested by Redström, to encounter in the design process use-before-use.8”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [8]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this paper, we argue that a fundamental challenge for designers and the design community is to move from designing “things” (objects) to designing Things (socio-material assemblies).”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shift came on the heels of a breakdown in communication between designers and users (lay designers) in using more traditional design methods.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Participatory Design Things and Use Before Use
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, the call for user involvement and Participatory Design approaches.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Thinging: From "Projecting" to "Infrastructuring"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The stage-based project approach has well-known shortcomings: a top-down perspective hindering adaptation, a hierarchical structure preventing legitimate participation, and rigidity of specifications.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hence, infrastructure, or rather infrastructuring, means aligning socio-material public Things; it is relational and becomes infrastructure in the relationships between design Things at project time and (multiple, potentially controversial) design Things in use.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These “creative design activities” cannot be performed in any universal sense as “design from nowhere,” but, as Haraway puts it, only as “politics and epistemologies of location, positioning, and situating,” where partiality rather than universality is the condition that allows users to be heard and to be understood in making “rational knowledge claims.””
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Haraway
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The really demanding challenge is to design where no such consensus seems to be within view, where no social community exists.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we agree with the basic tenets of Design Thinking, we argue that, to become a sustainable endeavor, it needs to go beyond projecting and be seen as ongoing infrastructuring for Thinging.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This aspect of our work has been central because we live in a fluid society where access to a rich network of actors and resources is central-particular for providing the connections that those who are resource-weak tend to lack.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: We live in a fluid society where access to a rich network of actors and resources is central.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dominance, hierarchy, and formalisms are certainly ways in which many social, technical, and spatial infrastructures can be characterized.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In this perspective, design becomes a question, not so much about the new or about innovative products, but, according to Barry, more about everyday practice in particular sites and locations.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Barry
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the relations between these design Things, rather than being clear-cut, form a web of interwoven languagegames over time.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Infrastructuring entangles and intertwines activities at project time (e.g., selection, design, development, deployment, and enactment) with everyday professional activities at use time (e.g., mediation, interpretation, and articulation), as well as with further design in use (e.g., adaptation, appropriation, tailoring, re-design, and maintenance).21”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [21]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experiences also show that those of us who take up the challenge of design-for-design need to consider how it can be done beyond making products that can be configured at use-time-in other words, how we as designers can develop practices that are always already ready for ongoing changes.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > A First Network of Working Relations Emerging into a Thing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“The key aspect is their capacity to simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relations.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [29]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Star and Ruhleder have called such mediation infrastructuring, identifying it as more of a “when” than a “what.”20”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Such strategies for opening up controversial Things serve as a kind of “event architecture,” where the focus is on designing “architecture-events” rather than “architecture-objects,” asserted Tschumi.23”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [23]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, in our view the basic design approach and values represent a continuation of that movement, and the progression results in ways to seriously engage in controversial design Things-ways that seem to converge with, but also challenge, contemporary design thinking.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A foundational concept for Manzini and his colleagues is “collaborative services:” The role of the designer is initially to support the development of new concepts and later to make them attainable so they can result in “social” enterprises.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [31]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“From this perspective, design is no longer just a tool for the development of functional, innovative consumer products but is increasingly seen as a process for radical change-for developing services, systems, and environments that support more sustainable lifestyles and consumption habits.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [30]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They are in need of platforms or infrastructures, “agonistic” public spacesnot necessarily to solve conflict, but to constructively deal with disagreements.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These activities are full of passion, imagination, and engagement.As such, they are more like creative design activities than rational decision-making processes.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“An infrastructure (e.g., railroad tracks, cables, or the Internet) reaches beyond the single event (temporal) and the site event (spatial); it does not need to be reinvented every time; and it is embedded into other socio-material structures.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Design thinking that wants to make a difference cannot ignore the challenge of passionate engagement in controversial design Things.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Things That Matter?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Approaches to social innovation are in line with the ideas of Participatory Design and design as infrastructuring, and with the corresponding guiding values put forth in this paper.”
§ Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges > Infrastructuring Things and Design after Design
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The English word thing etymologically derives from ancient Nordic and Germanic governing assemblies and originally meant a social and political assembly rather than an object.
“Originally, “Things” go back to the governing assemblies in ancient Nordic and Germanic societies.”
“The etymology of the English word “thing” reveals a journey from the meaning of a social and political assembly, taking place at a certain time and at a certain place, to a meaning of an object, an entity of matter.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The stage-based project approach has well-known shortcomings: a top-down perspective hindering adaptation, a hierarchical structure preventing legitimate participation, and rigidity of specifications.
“However, the shortcomings of such an approach are well-known and many: the top-down perspective hindering adaptation to changing conditions, the hierarchical structure adverting “legitimate” participation, the rigidity of specifications.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There are stakeholders other than immediate users, and people appropriate designs in unforeseen ways.
“Critics have accurately pointed out that there are stakeholders other than immediate users and that people appropriate designs in unforeseen ways.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Envisioned use is hardly the same as actual use, no matter how much participation has occurred in the design process.
“Envisioned use is hardly the same as actual use, no matter how much participation has occurred in the design process.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participatory Design has its roots in movements toward democratization of workplaces in Scandinavian countries.
“Participatory Design, seen as design of Things, has its roots in the movements toward democratization of work places in the Scandinavian countries.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participatory Design sided with resource-weak stakeholders, typically local trade unions, and developed project strategies for their effective and legitimate participation in design.
“In this situation, Participatory Design sided with resource-weak stakeholders (typically local trade unions) and developed project strategies for their effective and legitimate participation in design.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participatory Design grew out of a concern about how design could support resource-weak groups when information technology was introduced to the workplace.
“As we have mentioned, Participatory Design once grew out of a concern about how design could support resource-weak groups when information technology was introduced to the workplace.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Grassroots organizations and cultural producers are typically more resource-weak than design, media, and IT companies.
“Given that grassroots organizations and cultural producers are typically more resource-weak than the design, media, and IT companies, we pay special attention to foregrounding concerns and issues these partners face and to how they match up with matters the company partners face.”
The paper relies on this without support.
We live in a fluid society where access to a rich network of actors and resources is central.
“This aspect of our work has been central because we live in a fluid society where access to a rich network of actors and resources is central-particular for providing the connections that those who are resource-weak tend to lack.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The city of Malmö is characterized by multi-ethnicity, cultural production, youth culture, and new media industry.
“The city of Malmö is characterized by multi-ethnicity, cultural production, youth culture, and new media industry.”
Citations
Cites
Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective
Haraway, D. (1988) · Feminist Studies · doi:10.2307/3178066 · Cited by 18,364
Political Machines : Governing a Technological Society
(2001) · Bloomsbury Academic eBooks · doi:10.5040/9781474213110 · Cited by 1,248
Power, Technology and the Phenomenology of Conventions: On being Allergic to Onions
Star, S. L. (1990) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.1990.tb03347.x · Cited by 906
Redström, J. (2008) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2008.05.001 · Cited by 157
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Entanglement HCI The Next Wave?
Frauenberger, C. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3364998 · Cited by 658
Co-design: from expert- to user-driven ideas in public service design
Trischler, J., Dietrich, T., & Rundle-Thiele, S. R. (2019) · Public Management Review · doi:10.1080/14719037.2019.1619810 · Cited by 409
Human-centered design for global health equity
Holeman, I., & Kane, D. (2020) · Information Technology for Development · doi:10.1080/02681102.2019.1667289 · Cited by 285
Infrastructuring in participatory design
Karasti, H. (2014) · doi:10.1145/2661435.2661450 · Cited by 327
Trischler, J., Pervan, S., Kelly, S. J., & Scott, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670517714060 · Cited by 348
Computational thinking development through creative programming in higher education
Romero, M., Lepage, A., & Lille, B. (2017) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-017-0080-z · Cited by 250
“Based on a socio-constructivist (Nizet & Laferrière, 2005), constructionist (Kafai & Resnick, 1996) and design thinking approach (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012), we consider learning as a collaborative design and knowledge creation process that occurs in a non-linear way.”
BackgroundWhen design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policy-making
Lewis, J. M., McGann, M. T., & Blomkamp, E. (2019) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/030557319x15579230420081 · Cited by 200
Design for Value Co-Creation: Exploring Synergies Between Design for Service and Service Logic
Wetter‐Edman, K., Sangiorgi, D., Edvardsson, B., Holmlid, S., Grönroos, C., & Mattelmäki, T. (2014) · Service Science · doi:10.1287/serv.2014.0068 · Cited by 233
“Participation is also considered to be connected to “empowerment” and as a means to democratize processes of innovation (Björgvinsson et al. 2012).”
BackgroundBuhl, A., Schmidt-Keilich, M., Muster, V., Blazejewski, S., Schrader, U., Harrach, C., Schäfer, M., & Süßbauer, E. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.259 · Cited by 188
Studying Infrastructuring Ethnographically
Karasti, H., & Blomberg, J. (2017) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-017-9296-7 · Cited by 190
“…object has broadened from mere technical products towards embedded socio-technical constellations where the types of infrastructure interventions have diversified (e.g. Karasti and Syrjänen 2004; Pipek and Wulf 2009; Hillgren et al. 2011; Björgvinsson et al. 2012; Le Dantec and DiSalvo 2013).”
BackgroundRighi, V., Sayago, S., & Blat, J. (2017) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.005 · Cited by 165
What is it that makes participation in design participatory design?
Luck, R. (2018) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.002 · Cited by 140
O'Brien, N., Heaven, B., Teal, G., Evans, E. H., Cleland, C., Moffatt, S., Sniehotta, F. F., White, M., Mathers, J. C., & Moynihan, P. (2016) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.5790 · Cited by 135
Luck, R. (2018) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2018.10.003 · Cited by 131
Leveraging service design as a multidisciplinary approach to service innovation
Joly, M. P., Teixeira, J., Patrício, L., & Sangiorgi, D. (2019) · Journal of service management · doi:10.1108/josm-07-2017-0178 · Cited by 138
Innovative design for agriculture in the move towards sustainability: scientific challenges
Prost, L., Berthet, E. T. A., Cerf, M., Jeuffroy, M., Labatut, J., & Meynard, J.-M. (2016) · Research in Engineering Design · doi:10.1007/s00163-016-0233-4 · Cited by 111
“As Bjögvinsson et al. (2012) put it, ‘‘a fundamental challenge for designers and the design community is to move from designing ‘things’ (objects) to designing Things (socio-material assemblies)’’, and this should appear in design theories.”
BackgroundSustaining participatory design initiatives
Iversen, O. S., & Dindler, C. (2014) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.963124 · Cited by 111
Donia, J., & Shaw, J. (2021) · Big Data & Society · doi:10.1177/20539517211065248 · Cited by 113
“This especially bears relevance in co-design, where designers are conventionally expected to move from a position of expert to ‘ facilitator ’ (Björgvinsson et al., 2012a; Farrington, 2016; Sanders and Stappers, 2008), ‘ stager of negotiations ’ (Pedersen, 2020), ‘ agonistic Prometheus ’ (Storni,…”
BackgroundInfluentialHoolohan, C., & Browne, A. L. (2020) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2019.12.002 · Cited by 97
Unfolding participation over time: temporal lenses in participatory design
Saad-Sulonen, J., Eriksson, E. W., Halskov, K., Karasti, H., & Vines, J. (2018) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2018.1426773 · Cited by 99
Dynamics of participation: System dynamics and participation—An empirical review
Király, G., & Miskolczi, P. (2019) · Systems Research and Behavioral Science · doi:10.1002/sres.2580 · Cited by 96
Landers, R. N., & Marin, S. (2020) · Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-060843 · Cited by 95
Cila, N., Smit, I., Giaccardi, E., & Kröse, B. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025797 · Cited by 95
Digital health now and in the future: Findings from a participatory design stakeholder workshop
Lupton, D. A. (2017) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/2055207617740018 · Cited by 94
“22,23 Living labs are therefore incubators for research, innovation and engagement.”
BackgroundAsatiani, A., Hämäläinen, J., Penttinen, E., & Rossi, M. (2020) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12293 · Cited by 99
“This approach has its roots in participatory design techniques developed in Scandinavia, nurtured by the idea of workplace democracy (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren, 2012).”
Relational expertise in participatory design
Dindler, C., & Iversen, O. S. (2014) · doi:10.1145/2661435.2661452 · Cited by 90
Towards commons design in participatory design
Marttila, S., Botero, A., & Saad-Sulonen, J. (2014) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/2662155.2662187 · Cited by 89
Applying design in public administration: a literature review to explore the state of the art
Hermus, M., van Buuren, A., & Bekkers, V. (2019) · Policy & Politics · doi:10.1332/030557319x15579230420126 · Cited by 95
“The focus is on the (future) appropriation of the design in the implementation phase, in which users make it part of their daily practice (Bjögvinsson et al, 2012).”
BackgroundSocial Robot Co-Design Canvases: A Participatory Design Framework
Axelsson, M., Oliveira, R., Racca, M., & Kyrki, V. (2021) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3472225 · Cited by 85
“, in the case of a robot designed for use in autism therapy, a psychologist specialized in autism would be considered a domain expert) [12, 105].”
BackgroundSecundo, G., Vecchio, P. D., Simeone, L., & Schiuma, G. (2019) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.072 · Cited by 81
Baker, F. W., & Moukhliss, S. (2019) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.3186 · Cited by 104
Pihkala, S., & Karasti, H. (2016) · doi:10.1145/2940299.2940302 · Cited by 79
Simonsen, J., Karasti, H., & Hertzum, M. (2020) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-019-09365-w · Cited by 74
Young, M., Magassa, L., & Friedman, B. (2019) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-019-09497-z · Cited by 71
Low-Contact Co-Design: Considering more flexible spatiotemporal models for the co-design workshop
Davis, A., Gwilt, I., Wallace, N., & Langley, J. (2021) · Strategic Design Research Journal · doi:10.4013/sdrj.2021.141.11 · Cited by 66
“Co-creation Co-creation is embraced by designers as a collaborative creative process in many forms, including co-design, participatory design, contextual inquiry or human/user-centred design (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Ehn, 2011; Karasti, 2014;l Mulder & Stappers, 2009).”
InfluentialParticipatory design: a systematic review and insights for future practice
Wacnik, P., Daly, S. R., & Verma, A. (2025) · Design Science · doi:10.1017/dsj.2025.10009 · Cited by 129
“Originating in Scandinavian countries in the 1970s, PD was initially used to empower unions with action-oriented design methodologies (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012).”
Penuel, W. R. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20062-6_21 · Cited by 64
Lindblom, S., Flink, M., Elf, M., Laska, A. C., von Koch, L., & Ytterberg, C. (2021) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.13233 · Cited by 72
“25,26 Design thinking is both a process/methodology and an approach.”
BackgroundDesign for Social Innovation: Emerging Principles and Approaches
Chick, A. (2012) · Iridescent · doi:10.1080/19235003.2012.11428505 · Cited by 64
Breaking the exclusionary boundary between user experience and access
Oswal, S. K. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC) · doi:10.1145/3328020.3353957 · Cited by 61
“far [60] but the discussions of temporality and women's embodied experiences have challenged some of the scientifically”
BackgroundWeiss, A., & Spiel, K. (2021) · AI & Society · doi:10.1007/s00146-021-01209-w · Cited by 79
Innovating urban governance: A research agenda
Mc̱Guirk, P., Baker, T., Sisson, A., Dowling, R., & Maalsen, S. (2022) · Progress in Human Geography · doi:10.1177/03091325221127298 · Cited by 64
“…of design-thinking.9 Again, these approaches are generally endorsed as fruitful for reframing policy issues, generating and testing novel, creative policy solutions as correctives to problematised conventional bureaucratic approaches (Bason, 2017; Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Lewis et al., 2020).”
BackgroundStorni, C. (2015) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1081242 · Cited by 68
Rose, E., & Björling, E. A. (2017) · ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC) · doi:10.1145/3121113.3121212 · Cited by 61
Infrastructuring Public Service Transformation
Crivellaro, C., Anderson, R., Lambton-Howard, D., Nappey, T., Olivier, P. L., Vlachokyriakos, V., Wilson, A., & Wright, P. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3310284 · Cited by 63
“Often taken for granted [8, 34], information infrastructures and ‘infrastructuring’ as design practice is used to designate the ongoing processes and activities required to support arrangements and attachments between people and material resources; how these bring diverse communities and ‘things’ to connect with one a…”
BackgroundInfrastructuring the Solidarity Economy
Vlachokyriakos, V., Crivellaro, C., Wright, P., & Olivier, P. L. (2018) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3174055 · Cited by 57
Raynor, K. E., Doyon, A., & Beer, T. (2017) · Australian Planner · doi:10.1080/07293682.2018.1477812 · Cited by 55
“Design thinking is often celebrated for eschewing the notion of the ‘omnipresent designer’ in favour of design as a ‘collaborative effort where the design process is spread among diverse participating stakeholders and competencies’ (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012, 101).”
BackgroundTheoretical approaches to social innovation – A critical literature review
Butzin, A., Davis, A., Domanski, D., Dhondt, S., Howaldt, J., Kaletka, C., Kesselring, A., Kopp, R., Millard, J., Oeij, P. R. A., et al. (2014) · TNO Repository · Cited by 54
Lupton, D. A. (2017) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.12546 · Cited by 61
Visualising things. Perspectives on how to make things public through visualisation
Schoffelen, J., Claes, S., Huybrechts, L., Martens, S., Chua, A., & Moere, A. V. (2015) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1081240 · Cited by 53
“Participatory Design (PD) scholars have increasingly been linking Latour’s Actor Network Theory (ANT) to the concept of participation (e.g. Ehn 2008; Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012; Le Dantec and DiSalvo 2013).”
BackgroundCo-creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society
Jarke, J. (2020) · Public administration and information technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-52873-7 · Cited by 69
Mental Health Technologies: Designing With Consumers
Orlowski, S., Matthews, B., Bidargaddi, N. P., Jones, G. M., Lawn, S., Venning, A., & Collin, P. J. (2016) · JMIR Human Factors · doi:10.2196/humanfactors.4336 · Cited by 52
Developing a Design-Led Approach for the Food-Energy-Water Nexus in Cities
Yan, W., & Roggema, R. (2019) · Urban Planning · doi:10.17645/up.v4i1.1739 · Cited by 52
Mäkelä, T., Helfenstein, S., Lerkkanen, M., & Poikkeus, A. (2017) · Learning Environments Research · doi:10.1007/s10984-017-9242-0 · Cited by 57
Corsini, L., & Moultrie, J. (2019) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su11133562 · Cited by 52
“This leads to the process factors which confirm normative arguments that DfSS is participatory [45,66,67] democratic [68,69] and cultivates local ownership [37,70].”
BackgroundHow Do I matter? A Review of the Participatory Design Practice with Less Privileged Participants
Galleguillos, M. L. R., & Coşkun, A. (2020) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3385010.3385018 · Cited by 53
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.001.0001 · Cited by 64
Steup, R., Santhanam, A., Logan, M., Dombrowski, L. S., & Su, N. M. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274434 · Cited by 51
“Instead of solving social problems, designers are tasked with creating sociomaterial assemblages capable of collective action [5, 22].”
BackgroundBrons, A., van der Gaast, K., Awuh, H., Jansma, J., Segreto, C., & Wertheim-Heck, S. (2022) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103552 · Cited by 42
Cruz, M. G., Ersoy, A., Czischke, D., & van Bueren, E. (2022) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2022.2123928 · Cited by 56
Infrastructuring for Cultural Commons
Marttila, S., & Botero, A. (2017) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-017-9273-1 · Cited by 47
“Article 5. Marttila, Sanna. (2016). “From Rules in Use to Culture in Use – Commoning and Infrastructuring Practices in an Open Cultural Movement”.”
BackgroundNelimarkka, M. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359241 · Cited by 48
Arrigoni, G., Schofield, T., & Pisanty, D. T. (2019) · Museum Management and Curatorship · doi:10.1080/09647775.2019.1683880 · Cited by 48
Lustig, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359312 · Cited by 47
“Some strands of participatory design have a focus on “design after design”, which is to say, long-term infrastructuring projects and their future uses, and creating space for innovation borne out of agonistic interactions [11, 63].”
BackgroundInfrastructuring Food Democracy
Prost, S., Vlachokyriakos, V., Midgley, J., Heron, G., Meziant, K., & Crivellaro, C. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359159 · Cited by 46
“Design as infrastructuring needs to be understood as continuing, in which “boundaries between use, design, implementation, modification, maintenance, and redesign are blurred” [47] and “design after design” and “use before use” [9, 31] happen simultaneously.”
BackgroundThe value of designers' creative practice within complex collaborations
Bowen, S. J., Durrant, A. C., Nissen, B., Bowers, J., & Wright, P. (2016) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2016.06.001 · Cited by 59
Exploring household energy transitions in rural Zambia from the user perspective
Muhoza, C., & Johnson, O. (2018) · Energy Policy · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.005 · Cited by 46
Bertran, F. A., Segura, E. M., Duval, J., & Isbister, K. (2019) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3322276.3322325 · Cited by 49
“It can also result in design after design [[13]], i.”
BackgroundBuilding a Maker Community Around an Open Hardware Platform
Morreale, F., Moro, G., Chamberlain, A., Benford, S., & McPherson, A. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3026056 · Cited by 45
Baker, K. S., & Karasti, H. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3210586.3210587 · Cited by 45
Smart Sustainable Cities of the New Millennium: Towards Design for Nature
Catalano, C., Meslec, M., Boileau, J., Guarino, R., Aurich, I., Baumann, N., Chartier, F., Dalix, P., Deramond, S., Laube, P. O., et al. (2021) · Circular Economy and Sustainability · doi:10.1007/s43615-021-00100-6 · Cited by 51
Bennett, E. E., & McWhorter, R. R. (2019) · Advances in Developing Human Resources · doi:10.1177/1523422319827939 · Cited by 44
Making and negotiating value: design and collaboration with community led groups
Agid, S., & Chin, E. J. (2019) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2018.1563191 · Cited by 43
“We seek to extend what Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren (2012b, 107) have articulated as ‘ design (in use) after design (in a design project) ’ as a broader, collaboration-focused means of understanding what is valuable in, and what value and knowledge get made through, collaborative practices.”
BackgroundBehavioral brittleness: the case for strategic behavioral public policy
Schmidt, R., & Stenger, K. (2021) · Behavioural Public Policy · doi:10.1017/bpp.2021.16 · Cited by 48
Participatory Design of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea
van den Burg, S., Stuiver, M., Norrman, J., Garção, R., Söderqvist, T., Röckmann, C., Schouten, J., Petersen, O., García, R. G., Díaz-Simal, P., et al. (2016) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su8020127 · Cited by 47
“Participatory design values the perspective, knowledge, skills, and involvement of different categories of end-users and other stakeholders [26,27].”
BackgroundDesign Research Education and Global Concerns,
Wilde, D. (2020) · She ji · doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2020.05.003 · Cited by 58
Thinyane, M., Bhat, K., Goldkind, L., & Cannanure, V. K. (2018) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3210586.3210601 · Cited by 46
“importance of end-user participation in solutions development, and the recognized goal of empowerment of the end-users, the lack of success in achieving these two goals of effective participation and empowerment is bemoaned by some researchers [3].”
BackgroundTroiano, G. M., Wood, M., & Harteveld, C. (2020) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376598 · Cited by 43
Kyza, E. Α., & Nicolaidou, I. A. (2016) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2016.1209528 · Cited by 46
“Participatory design is strongly rooted in democratic notions of design, taking care to involve those affected by the design and seeking to increase the authenticity of the final outcome and the stakeholders’ ownership of the process and product (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012).”
BackgroundTransdisciplinary forward-looking agenda setting for age-friendly, human centered cities
Gudowsky, N., Sotoudeh, M., Capari, L., & Wilfing, H. (2017) · Futures · doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.05.005 · Cited by 38
Corsini, L., & Moultrie, J. (2021) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su13115963 · Cited by 39
Conceptual Design of a Modular Floating Multi-Purpose Island
Drummen, I., & Olbert, G. (2021) · Frontiers in Marine Science · doi:10.3389/fmars.2021.615222 · Cited by 38
“More background information on stakeholder involvement in a participatory design process can be found in (e.g., Pomeroy and Douvere, 2008; Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Wilkinson and De Angeli, 2014).”
BackgroundUnderstanding behavioural design: barriers and enablers
Khadilkar, P. R., & Cash, P. J. (2020) · Journal of Engineering Design · doi:10.1080/09544828.2020.1836611 · Cited by 39
Participatory Design Going Digital: Challenges and Opportunities for Distributed Place-Making
Slingerland, G., Murray, M., Lukosch, S., McCarthy, J., & Brazier, F. M. T. (2022) · Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1007/s10606-022-09438-3 · Cited by 40
The Designer as Facilitator of Multidisciplinary Innovation Projects
Minder, B., & Lassen, A. H. (2018) · The Design Journal · doi:10.1080/14606925.2018.1527513 · Cited by 42
Ambe, A. H., Soro, A., Johnson, D. M., & Brereton, M. F. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3470973 · Cited by 36
A systematic literature review of participatory design studies involving teachers
Tuhkala, A. (2021) · European Journal of Education · doi:10.1111/ejed.12471 · Cited by 47
The Potential for Citizen Science in Information Systems Research
Levy, M., & Germonprez, M. (2017) · Communications of the Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/1cais.04002 · Cited by 36
“…the democratization of science vis-à-vis citizen intervention into the scientific process to improve on point 1 and 2 (Irwin, 1995; Bonney et al., 2009a; European Citizen Science Association, 2015b; Bjögvinsson et al., 2012b; Bjerknes & Bratteig, 1995; Kyng, 1991; Bjørn-Andersen & Hedberg, 1977).”
BackgroundThe Facets of Sociomateriality: A Systematic Mapping of Emerging Concepts and Definitions
Parmiggiani, E., & Marius Mikalsen, A. (2013) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39832-2_6 · Cited by 39
Design in the Time of Policy Problems
Kimbell, L. (2016) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.498 · Cited by 32
“…increasing interest in design-based approaches in public policy contexts with a particular focus on the design of public services and design for social innovation (eg Manzini and Jegou 2009; Brown and Wyatt 2010; Meroni and Sangiorgi 2011; Bjögvinsson et al 2012; Manzini 2015; DESIS Network 2015).”
BackgroundThe Public Collaboration Lab—Infrastructuring Redundancy with Communities-in-Place
Thorpe, A., & Rhodes, S. (2018) · She ji · doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2018.02.008 · Cited by 36
Participatory design and sustainability
Poderi, G., & Dittrich, Y. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3210604.3210624 · Cited by 32
“Since more than a decade, Participatory Design (PD) enlarged and diversified its main focus of interests to encompass contexts that go beyond, for instance, IT design for work practices, and that cover aspects, such as commons, living labs and publics, only to name a few [2, 27, 28].”
BackgroundDesign multiple: How different configurations of participation matter in design practice
Fischer, B., Östlund, B., & Peine, A. (2021) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/j.destud.2021.101016 · Cited by 31
How Does Citizen Science “Do” Governance? Reflections from the DITOs Project
Göbel, C., Nold, C., Berditchevskaia, A., et al. (2019) · Citizen Science Theory and Practice · doi:10.5334/cstp.204 · Cited by 29
Activity as the Ultimate Particular of Interaction Design
Wærn, A., & Back, J. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025990 · Cited by 34
“Ehn [13] has discussed strategies for bringing participatory design principles forth into the domain of infrastructuring and most of these can be adopted in activity design.”
BackgroundInfluentialFox, S., Silva, R. M. L., & Rosner, D. K. (2018) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3196709.3196710 · Cited by 29
“Methodology To investigate the role of public IoT in menstrual resource accessibility we deploy feminist approaches to situated inquiry [23,31] and modes of interventionist research tied to traditions of participatory [6,30] and speculative design [32,35].”
MethodPast, Present and Future of Collaborative Design: From User Centric to User Driven Design
Sharma, S., & Patil, K. (2017) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3518-0_87 · Cited by 28
Participatory design to create a VR therapy for psychosis
Knight, I., West, J., Matthews, E., Kabir, T., Lambe, S., Waite, F., & Freeman, D. H. (2021) · Design for Health · doi:10.1080/24735132.2021.1885889 · Cited by 25
Politics of mattering in the practices of participatory design
Pihkala, S., & Karasti, H. (2018) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3210604.3210616 · Cited by 28
Rose, E. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.27 · Cited by 25
Metadata
- Authors
- Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P., & Hillgren, P.-A.
- Affiliations
- Malmö University (SE)
- Venue
- Design Issues
- Publisher
- MIT Press - Journals
- Published
- 2012-07
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 101-116
- ISSN
- 0747-9360 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4790
- OpenAlex
- W1968466585
- Semantic Scholar
- dc55fe7959e6677cc2ec20532fefc54010ab2733
- Cited by
- 784
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 85 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 74 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 70 · 2018: 71 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 26.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Design Issues (publishedVersion)
- KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Malmö University Publications (Malmö University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- design thinking, participatory design, IDEO, design education, design rhetoric, design discourse, innovation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
