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
Items 501–600 of 776
Requirements for Achieving the Social Benefits of Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI)
Mahmoud, R. A. (2024) · JES. Journal of Engineering Sciences/JES. Journal of engineering sciences · doi:10.21608/jesaun.2024.289935.1336 · Cited by 1
“Considering the aforementioned, we see that the requirements put forward in this study are the result of a review of the literature and an analysis of related projects, specifically: Fig.29: Requirements for Achieving the Societal Benefits of Urban Green Infrastructure (UGI) [48] [49]”
Design Decisions by Informal Builders in Puerto Rico
Ballesteros, L. M. S., Poleacovschi, C., Weems, C. F., et al. (2025) · Springer proceedings in earth and environmental sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-81072-5_21 · Cited by 1
Design Sociology in Action: Exploring and Visualizing Gendered Experiences
Isaksson, A. (2025) · Sociological Research Online · doi:10.1177/13607804251349726 · Cited by 1
“Co-design Co-design or participatory design are design approaches based on collaboration, often aiming at achieving social change (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012a, 2012b).”
Selamet, J. (2025) · Information Design Journal · doi:10.1075/idj.25007.sel · Cited by 1
A Design-led Complex Intervention for the Stroke Rehabilitation Service
Macdonald, A. S., Loudon, D. W., & Taylor, A. (2014) · ServDes Service Design and Innovation Conference (ServDes) · doi:10.21606/servdes2014.2 · Cited by 1
Zeng, L. (2016) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-0911-0.ch001 · Cited by 1
Gaudio, C. D. (2017) · Editora Blucher eBooks · doi:10.5151/9788580392661-06 · Cited by 1
Sonic Interaction Design for Paper Wearables
Klauer, G., Metus, A., & Polotti, P. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3123514.3123533 · Cited by 1
“Initially seen as an orientation, participatory design developed a range of methods and techniques which become increasingly useful far beyond services and products [5, 6, 11, 21].”
BackgroundExtending System Design Tools to Facilitate Systemic Innovation in Prospective Ergonomics
Liem, A. (2018) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96071-5_71 · Cited by 1
A briefing game for school building design
Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., & Deliberador, M. S. (2019) · Pro-Posições · doi:10.1590/1980-6248-2017-0159 · Cited by 1
Részvétel és tanulás : A részvételi rendszermodellezés mint tanulási környezet
Király, G. (2019) · Prosperitas monográfiák · doi:10.29180/reszvetel-es-tanulas.2019 · Cited by 2
TRADE-OFF GAMES AND METHODS IN PARTICIPATORY DESIGN
Lasiewicz-Sych, A. (2019) · space&FORM · doi:10.21005/pif.2019.39.b-03 · Cited by 1
El diseño como modelo de formación emprendedora en educación universitaria
do Amaral, C. E. X., de Oliveira, A. R., & Vivote, S. M. N. (2019) · Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios de Diseño y Comunicación · doi:10.18682/cdc.vi69.1121 · Cited by 1
Dewey’s Pragmatism as a Philosophy for Practice in Design Research Practice
Dixon, B. S. (2020) · Design research foundations · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_7 · Cited by 1
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.003.0002 · Cited by 1
Tuyckom, C. V. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63765-1_5 · Cited by 1
Pilot Implementation: Testing Human-Work Interaction Designs
Hertzum, M., Clemmensen, T., Barricelli, B. R., et al. (2021) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85607-6_79 · Cited by 1
“It is also at the fore in, for example, design in use [4], living labs [1], technology probes [9], digital twins [12], and breaching experiments [5].”
BackgroundSocial Innovation and Design — Prototyping in the NICE2035 Future Living Labs
Wang, J. (2021) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-90176-9_11 · Cited by 1
Increasing People’s Capabilities by Using Design Thinking in the Decision-Making Process
Frisk, J. E., & Holm, L. S. (2022) · International perspectives on aging · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78063-0_10 · Cited by 1
Catching up in two races: Applying technology design approaches to design technology research
Knoll, M. S. (2022) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2022.43 · Cited by 1
“These prototypes enable focused discussions, reveal implicit theories and beliefs, and stabilize the process (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialA Framework for Infrastructuring Commons Creation
Sacks, J., & Galabo, R. (2022) · [ ] With Design: Reinventing Design Modes · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4472-7_67 · Cited by 1
Warke, B., Gromala, D., Gupta, A., Shaw, C., & LI, L. C. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-17902-0_13 · Cited by 1
Social Innovation in Design Education: The Emergence and Evolution of Design Academic Programs
Wang, Y. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-35946-0_23 · Cited by 1
Söderlund, C. (2023) · Design Science · doi:10.1017/dsj.2023.14 · Cited by 1
“According to Bjögvinsson et al. (2012), the visual output generated in a participatory design process may facilitate participants ’ communication and involvement.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe reality-producing dynamics of the mobile phone in Uganda
Paxling, L. (2015) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1
Righi, V. (2016) · LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · Cited by 1
Spikol, D. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118736494.ch20 · Cited by 1
Teasley, S. (2018) · doi:10.5040/9781474271332.ch-010 · Cited by 1
Grigoriev, M. (2013) · doi:10.22215/etd/2013-10043 · Cited by 1
Vizioli, R. (2019) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.3.2019.tde-29052019-085110 · Cited by 1
Lindblom, S. (2020) · Figshare · Cited by 1
Creative Networks: Toward Mapping Creativity in a Design Classroom
Harkan, L. A. (2019) · doi:10.12794/metadc1609116 · Cited by 1
Instrumentalization in the Public Smart Bikeshare Sector
Bradshaw, R. (2018) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · Cited by 1
Storni, C., Leahy, K., McMahon, M., Lloyd, P. A., & Bohemia, E. (2018) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2018.v2 · Cited by 1
O papel da assessoria técnica na produção coletiva de habitação social
Paulichen, L. (2021) · doi:10.47749/t/unicamp.2021.1170215 · Cited by 1
Vibocracy and the Collapse of Shared Reality
Fendt, J. (2025) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia5040163 · Cited by 2
Hu, B., Chua, S., & Rong, H. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3790527
“Building on traditions in participatory design [8, 24] and game-based co-design [16, 27], our approach invites multiple contributors to co-construct speculative scenarios through workshops, role-play sessions, and open fiction calls.”
Warren, R. B., Mandhre, R. A., Siraj, H., Mejía, G. M., Lee, M. A., Chen, Y., & Pine, K. H. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791677
“Ideal participation would support stakeholders’ agency to continue design enactment and adaptation after the design project ends [10, 62].”
From Distribution to Contribution: Negotiating Justice Policies in Grassroots FOSS Communities
Engelbutzeder, P., Jahn, L. G., Ballmaier, A., Lawo, D., Michel, L. K., Jovanovska, S. G., Randall, D. W., & Wulf, V. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791722
“…articulation, and local reinvention across both technical and organizational layers [58, 73], blurring boundaries between design, use, and maintenance, and stressing the importance of cultivating relationships, supporting publics, and navigating fragilities across the installed base [8, 74, 75].”
The ingenuity of ageing: An experiment to explore the role of designers as a moral subject
Ho, K. L. D. (2013) · Nordic design research conference · doi:10.21606/nordes.2013.030
“If we compare our project with that organised by Bjorgvinsson et al. (2010), we start with our mission to ‘create’ and to ‘conjure up’ the matters of concern for the targeted participants whereas Bjorgvinsson et al.”
ResultBotero, A., Martilla, S., Amstel, F. V., et al. (2015)
Ho, K. L. D., & Lee, Y. K. (2013)
Participatory Branding - Involving startups in the design process of their brand.
Ciranova, L., & Zannotti, F. (2016) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University)
The subject supposed to design
Tie, W. (2016) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1127388
“(Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012a, 143).”
BackgroundReview of Critical Gaming: Interactive History and Virtual Heritage
Johnson, M. R. (2016) · Internet Archaeology · doi:10.11141/ia.40.9
Cassim, F., & Honiball, N. M. (2014) · Smart innovation, systems and technologies · doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2229-3_33
“[7] indicate that there are two types of values that guide the practice of participatory design: the first value is that of democracy which favours “legitimate user participation” and the second value is the importance of the tacit knowledge of participants so that they can practically apply their intuitive thinking s…”
BackgroundDesign At the Intersection Among City Challenges, New Public Services, and Policy-Making
Rizzo, F. (2016) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-33024-2_5
Design for Cross-Sectorial Service Innovation - Provisional Framework
Minder, B. (2014) · doi:10.21606/servdes2014.43
“" (Biörgvinsson et al. 2012, p. 104) and where boundary objects are required to 'bind different languages together'.”
Backgroundde Freitas, M. (2016) · ResearchSpace (University of KwaZulu-Natal)
Nam, Y. T., & Oh, J.-H. (2017) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-58750-9_9
Who is to take over? Renovation and continuity in three models of 1970s Copenhagen housing
Díaz, R. R., & Haugbølle, K. (2016)
“Rio Comprido em Nós”: do espaço público à construção do público por meio do design
Costard, M. B. (2017) · Arcos Design · doi:10.12957/arcosdesign.2017.30946
Halabi, A., Zimmermann, B., & Courant, M. (2017) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v22i12.8043
“Attending to this dynamic, HCI and design literature also recently turned to problematizing the roles of designers (e.g., Vines et al. 2013), and processes of negotiation and alignment in the design process (e.g., Björgvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012a, 2012b).”
BackgroundGeo Referenced Map for Participatory Design
Rodríguez, R. R., & de la Rosa, M. G. (2017) · doi:10.1145/3151470.3151479
Charrier, F., Casabianca, F., Pailhes, N., et al. (2018) · Dialnet (Universidad de la Rioja)
From participatory design to co-creation
Følstad, A. (2017) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781785369483.00026 · Cited by 2
Hasdell, P., Ku, H. B., & Kuo, J. Y. (2018) · Practice, progress, and proficiency in sustainability · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-4183-7.ch001
Ravina, D. V., Ruz, M. C. Y., Shih, R. R. L., et al. (2018) · Pollack Periodica · doi:10.1556/606.2018.13.2.19
“By including the actual users in the design process, there is more user acceptance of the final prototype while reducing actual cost [13], [14].”
BackgroundKosten, N. (2018) · doi:10.1145/3210604.3214356
Data objects for hasselt elections
Gerrard, V., & Sosa, R. (2018) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3210604.3214357
Dizajnerska kultura in nagrada za oblikovalske dosežke
Faganel, A., & Fois, V. (2018) · Založba Univerze na Primorskem / University of Primorska Press eBooks · doi:10.26493/978-961-7055-00-9
Cosmonautas del futuro. Experiencias de transvivienda para tiempos de posbienestar.
Díaz, R. R. (2018) · BAc Boletín Académico Revista de investigación y arquitectura contemporánea · doi:10.17979/bac.2018.8.0.3124
Deliberador, M. S., Kowaltowski, D. C. C. K., & Taralli, C. H. (2018) · Gestão & Tecnologia de Projetos · doi:10.11606/gtp.v13i3.142721
Huybrechts, L., Dreessen, K., & Schepers, S. (2018) · Advances in human and social aspects of technology book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-7027-1.ch010
Costantino, T. A. (2018) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Design thinking - design's prodical son?
Robbins, P. (2019) · doi:10.31880/10344/7521
Schelings, C. (2021) · Presses de l'Université du Québec eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctv224v11j.6
A profile of the eNuk environment and health monitoring program
Kipp, A., Consolo, A., Gillis, D. J., Sawatzky, A., Cook, O., Durish, N., Shiwak, I., Flowers, C., Government, R. I. C., Wood, M., et al. (2019) · Polar Knowledge Aqhaliat Report · doi:10.35298/pkc.2018.14
Power, Influence, Trust and Loyalty
Bratteteig, T., & Wagner, I. (2014) · Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06163-4_6
Kontogeorgakopoulos, A., & Kotsifa, O. (2019) · Cardiff Metropolitan Research Repository (Cardiff Metropolitan University)
Stein, S., Nicholas, D. S., Michael, Y., et al. (2019) · Advances in Classification Research Online · doi:10.7152/acro.v29i1.15465
Trippe, H. P. (2019) · Archive of research processes and output produced by RCA (Royal College of Art)
Awad, L. (2018) · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-12928
“It originated from Scandinavian countries’ movements, to democratize work places (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Robertson & Simonsen, 2012; Vainio, 2016), and it required cooperation between end users and professional system developers (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialProfil du programme de surveillance de l’environnement et de la santé eNuk
Kipp, A., Cunsolo, A., Gillis, D. J., Sawatzky, A., Cook, O., Durish, N., Shiwak, I., Flowers, C., Government, R. I. C., Wood, M. J., et al. (2019) · Polar Knowledge Aqhaliat Report · doi:10.35298/pkc.2018.30
Ethics and Design in the Smart Bikeshare Domain
Bradshaw, R. (2019) · IEEE SmartWorld, Ubiquitous Intelligence & Computing, Advanced & Trusted Computing, Scalable Computing & Communications, Cloud & Big Data Computing, Internet of People and Smart City Innovation (SmartWorld/SCALCOM/UIC/ATC/CBDCom/IOP/SCI) · doi:10.1109/smartworld-uic-atc-scalcom-iop-sci.2019.00099
“The participatory design community uses the concept of ‘agonistic’ engagements between a variety of stakeholders to capture the notion of disparate interests coming together to democratize innovation and produce technologies which incorporate the goals and values of multiple interests [3].”
BackgroundInfluentialPerspektiven auf Informationsinfrastruktur
Reimers, K. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-17291-6_87
Dixon, B. S. (2020) · Design research foundations · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_1
Criatividade e processo de projeto escolar: jogo de tabuleiro como ferramenta de apoio
Deliberador, M. S., Taralli, C. H., & Peres, G. (2020) · Ambiente Construído · doi:10.1590/s1678-86212020000300419
Dixon, B. S. (2020) · Design research foundations · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_5
Dixon, B. S. (2020) · Design research foundations · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-47471-3_6
Embracing Design Thinking to Manage Project Constraints
Stefaniak, J. E. (2020) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780429287510-14
Designing Social Innovation Through Social Enterprise
Melles, G. B., & Drummond, S. (2020) · Design science and innovation · doi:10.1007/978-981-15-5780-4_4
Meeting Afoot – A Step Towards Transforming Work Practice By Design Of Technical Support
Tobiasson, H., Nilbrink, F., Gulliksen, J., et al. (2020) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2020.262
The Thing about gaming experience
Alaa, A. (2013) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Boess, S. U., Cheung, M., & Cain, R. (2020) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2020.1
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.003.0005
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.003.0006
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.003.0001
When design meets power: design thinking, public sector innovation and the politics of policy-making
Lewis, J. M., McGann, M. T., & Blomkamp, E. (2023) · Policy Press eBooks · doi:10.51952/9781447365952.ch006
Reframing the Role of Design Within Private Organisations
Rossi, M. (2021) · SpringerBriefs in applied sciences and technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-87612-8_1
Green, M. (2021) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)
Sarmiento, M. P. (2019) · Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México)
Intelligence Work for the Knowledge Economy
McBreen, B., Silson, J., & Bedford, D. (2022) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80262-177-820211003
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.003.0007
Wang, Y. (2021) · BCP Business & Management · doi:10.54691/bcpbm.v15i.201
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
