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 601–700 of 776
DRS2016: Future-Focused Thinking
Lloyd, P. A., & Bohemia, E. (2016) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.v10
Bratteteig, T., & Wagner, I. (2014) · Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-06163-4_8
DRS2016: Future-Focused Thinking
Lloyd, P. A., & Bohemia, E. (2016) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.v8
DRS2016: Future-Focused Thinking
Lloyd, P. A., & Bohemia, E. (2016) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.v3
DRS2016: Future-Focused Thinking
Lloyd, P. A., & Bohemia, E. (2016) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2016.v4
(2020) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/12248.003.0017
Beattie, H. (2020) · Open Access Victoria University of Wellington | Te Herenga Waka (Figshare) · doi:10.26686/wgtn.17145848.v1
Unveiling the Construct of Design Thinking: An Exploratory Study
de Oliveira, M. S., & Zancul, E. D. S. (2022) · Proceedings of the Design Society · doi:10.1017/pds.2022.5
“Our understanding is that, due to its socio-technological (Liedtka, 2020) and infrastructuring character (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012), even though design thinking may be consolidated in a set of teachable practices, its enactment might take different shapes depending on its environment.”
BackgroundSocial Innovation Process in the Production of Urban Spaces
Ardill, N. (2022) · Cities and nature · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-98475-5_4
Designing User Experience with the Sonic Metaphors
Nikolić, P. K. (2022) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06675-7_8
Place-Based Methodologies for Design ResearchPreprint
Vanni, I., & Crosby, A. L. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4167276
Svabo, C. (2019) · Nordic design research conference · doi:10.21606/nordes.2019.004
CIVIC DISCOURSE AND SPACE ACTIVATION AS A COLLABORATIVE CITY-BUILDING PROCESS
KLOPPENBURG, E., MARTINS, B., NACHAREUN, C., et al. (2022) · WIT transactions on ecology and the environment · doi:10.2495/sdp220061
“The Wishing Walls presented an opportunity for a space of conflict, collaboration, and creation, binding different stakeholders with opposite views at the same time and space by creating a visual representation of democracy and resilience in the communities [2], [15].”
BackgroundSuhonen, J. T., & Sutinen, E. (2022) · Educational Technology Research and Development · doi:10.1007/s11423-022-10133-9 · Cited by 2
Botero, A. (2015) · Nordic design research conference · doi:10.21606/nordes.2015.047
Professionalised designing in between plural makings
Duan, Z. (2022) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003285175-16 · Cited by 1
Moore, K. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.26
Strantz, A. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.22
Labriola, J. T. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.19
West‐Puckett, S., & Moeggenberg, Z. C. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.18
Kulak, A. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.21
Brooks, E. F. (2022) · The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado eBooks · doi:10.37514/tpc-b.2022.1725.2.14
Assessing Commonality and Differences in Terminology Across Design Disciplines
Salih, K. H., Mısırlı, G., & Rugg, G. (2022) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2022.39
Design Thinking Model in Clever Think Application Design
Dafitri, R., & Sukoco, I. (2022) · IJEBD (International Journal Of Entrepreneurship And Business Development) · doi:10.29138/ijebd.v5i5.1976
“Clever think has increased in terms of the types of internet content accessed in education, reaching 124.4 million people, equivalent to 93.8% (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012).”
BackgroundInfluentialChen, T., & Chang, J. (2022) · [ ] With Design: Reinventing Design Modes · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-4472-7_170
La evolución de las metodologías en diseño: el usuario como parte central
Rodríguez, R. M. (2016) · H+D HÁBITAT MÁS DISEÑO · doi:10.58493/habitat.2015.14.02
Finding Space for Shared Futures
Bodden, S., & Elliott, J. A. (2022) · EAR. Edinburgh architecture research · doi:10.2218/ear.2022.6657
Minné, D., Conrad, N., Douglas, T. S., & Mutsvangwa, T. (2021) · South African Journal of Higher Education · doi:10.20853/37-1-5678
Balasuriya, J. K. S. S. (2023) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.239786
En medrivende form for knibeøvelser: Når retoriske homologier driver en designproces
Halstrøm, P. L., & Isager, C. (2022) · Rhetorica Scandinavica · doi:10.52610/rhs.v25i83.4
Online Participatory Events, Myth or Reality? Learnings from the EasyRights Hackathons
del Olmo, M. V., & Morelli, N. (2023) · The urban book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32664-6_16
Technology Design for a Sustainable Circular Economy: Research and Practice Consequences
Melles, G. B., Wölfel, C., & Opeskin, L. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04560-8_141
TAKING THE PULSE OF RESPONSIBLE DESIGN: EXHIBITIONS AS A CRITICAL DISCOURSE VENUE
Simmons, H. L., Bailey, M., & Spencer, N. (2023) · International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education (EPDE) · doi:10.35199/epde.2023.77
Design Thinking: Towards the Construction of Knowledge
Hokanson, B., & Nyboer, J. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17461-7_81
Adrian, Q. J., Hidayat, R. R., Pasha, D., et al. (2023) · International Conference on Computer and Communications Management (ICCCM) · doi:10.1145/3617733.3617744
“However, the drawbacks of such an approach are known and many of them are that the top-down perspective hinders adaptation to changing conditions, hierarchical structures that advertise legal participation, and rigidity of specification [16].”
BackgroundLiterature Review: 3D Print on Design Thinking in The Design Process
Abdullah, R. A. (2022) · Journal of Industrial Product Design Research and Studies · doi:10.17509/jipdrs.v1i1.47469
Design for transformation. Unlock competencies for coping complexity
Ciancia, M., Ronchi, M., & Ballabio, S. (2023) · Academia Press eBooks · doi:10.26530/9789401496476-025
A South African approach towards caring design practices
Barnes, V., & Ruvo, M. D. (2023) · Academia Press eBooks · doi:10.26530/9789401496476-111
Monica, F., & Halim, M. (2023) · Jurnal Sains Teknologi Urban Perancangan Arsitektur (Stupa) · doi:10.24912/stupa.v5i2.24291
“(Robertson dan Simonsen, 2012: 3; Bjögvinsson et al., 2012: 101) Genius Loci , karakter, dan makna dalam arsitektur Kejeniusan arsitektur ( Genius Loci ) secara khusus dapat diartikan sebagai potensi lokal, yang mencakup respons lokal terhadap alam, budaya lokal, dan teknologi modern.”
BackgroundJolic, A. (2023) · Contemporary Mediterranean · doi:10.17818/sm/2023/1.3
Turcatti, A., & Bennett, T. R. (2024) · ASEE Gulf Southwest Section Conference · doi:10.18260/1-2-370.620-35958
“Ask Aloud Protocol”: Toward a Participant-Driven Question-Asking Design Research Method
Tang, L., & Wang, S. (2024) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia231440
Designing Novel Approaches to Personalise Behaviour Change in Intelligent Systems
Scott, D. (2024) · Cronfa (Swansea University) · doi:10.23889/suthesis.65829
Advanced Design Thinking (ADT): A Pathway to Deschooling Design
Sosa, R. (2023) · LearnXDesign Conference · doi:10.21606/drslxd.2023.016
Advanced Design Thinking (ADT): A Pathway to Deschooling Design
Sosa, R., Gibbons, A., & Hunting, A. (2023) · LearnXDesign Conference · doi:10.21606/drslxd.2024.016
Advanced Design Thinking (ADT): A Pathway to Deschooling Design
Sosa, R. (2023) · LearnXDesign Conference · doi:10.21606/drslxd2024.016
Moroni, T. (2024) · Sciences du Design · doi:10.3917/sdd.018.0084
Victorelli, E. Z., & dos Reis, J. C. (2024) · Journal of the Brazilian Computer Society · doi:10.5753/jbcs.2024.2592 · Cited by 1
“, 2013] for the creation of HDI applications coordinated design guidelines with artifacts and methods from Organizational Semiotics [Liu, 2008; Stamper et al ., 2000] and Participatory Design [Bjögvinsson et al ., 2012; Simonsen and Robertson, 2012].”
BackgroundMethodBoothby, H. (2024) · doi:10.24834/isbn.9789178774548
Chen, T. (2024) · International perspectives on social policy, administration, and practice · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-56756-8_6
Unfolding the Innovation of Meanings: A Modified Design Thinking ApproachPreprint
Yang, Y., Jamil, R., Jiang, T., & Deng, B. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4834281
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.002.0003
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.002.0007
Saward, M. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198867227.002.0004
Using space and knowledge to confront power in design
Pol, S., Ely, P., & Geneste, L. A. (2024) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2024.681
Nimkulrat, N., & Groth, C. (2024) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003328018-16
Mecanismos de fijación de precios en la captura de valor del diseño gráfico
Agüero, A. B., & Ramírez, S. V. (2024) · Pensamiento Actual · doi:10.15517/pa.v24i42.60228
Design Thinking como um habilitador de inovação no setor de saúde.
de Oliveira, M. S. (2024) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.3.2024.tde-12072024-082206
Participatory Design in Design Education: contributions of a Project class
Nunes, V. D. G. A., & Freire, R. A. (2024) · doi:10.29183/2596-237x.ensus2024.v12.n1.p1243-1252
Varanasi, U. S. (2024) · Participatory Design Conference · doi:10.1145/3661456.3666079
“This would allow for the longer-term commitments that would afford more flexibility in time and resources for innovation as well as engaging with deeply complex political issues [4, 10, 21].”
Infrastructuring social relations in design and social innovation
Tjahja, C., Petrella, V., Anooja, J., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3661455.3669897
“ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0654-7/24/08 https://doi.org/10.1145/3661455.3669897 after a participatory design process [2, 5].”
InfluentialSchelings, C., Elsen, C., Bianchet, B., et al. (2024) · European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/3673805.3673812
“While the legitimacy of citizens to debate sensitive issues is some-times called into question [15], assemblies of participants drawn by lot and subsequent referenda have resulted in the integration by the government of clear and concrete recommendations on subjects such as marriage equality,…”
Burchert, J., Katterfeldt, E.-S., Schulte, S., et al. (2013) · merz | medien + erziehung · doi:10.21240/merz/2013.6.9
Towards Destination Stewardship with Design Thinking
Post-Lundgaard, M., Thomsen, T. G. H., & Dragin‐Jensen, C. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-73187-7_9
Baeza, R. A. (2024) · Advances in electronic government, digital divide, and regional development book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-5956-3.ch005
Correia, M., Alexis, S., & Dulic, A. (2025) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/14687941241306234 · Cited by 1
“Collaboration in research, including the use of participatory design and related practices, has gained legitimacy and is increasingly employed as a strategy of inquiry in the academic sphere (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012; Cornwall and Jewkes, 1995; Cummings and Kiesler, 2005).”
Anticipatory Practices between Real Utopias and Neoliberal GovernancePreprint
Markussen, T., & Knutz, E. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5143532
Requirements Culture in Industry: Contrasting Perspectives From a Startup and Global Company
Morkos, B. W., Summers, J. D., Wentzky, C., et al. (2025) · Journal of Mechanical Design · doi:10.1115/1.4068099
Creative Pragmatics—Situated Performances of Knowing
Shanks, M., Svabo, C., Zhou, C., & Carleton, T. (2025) · Contributions from science education research · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78720-1_2 · Cited by 1
Co-creating Flemish Forestscapes
Vanautgaerden, L., & Liva, F. G. (2025) · SPOOL · doi:10.47982/spool.2025.1.03
Wang, B., Zhao, D., & Jiang, B. (2025) · CoDesign · doi:10.1080/15710882.2025.2498575
“The ‘Design Things’ approach, by integrating participants, tools, materials, and visions into an open collaboration platform, provides a practical framework for managing complex transitions (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012).”
Représenter la profondeur de la participation : explorations formelles et potentialités
Loiseau, B., Tarasenka, D., & Safin, S. (2025) · ModACT · doi:10.25518/3041-4687.343
Large scale democratic policy design: including populations in policy design processes
Scholtz, H. (2025) · Policy Design and Practice · doi:10.1080/25741292.2025.2502201 · Cited by 1
“This aligns with the broader field of participatory design, which emphasizes that technology should not dictate participation but should be co-designed with citizens to support democratic agency (Bjögvinsson, Ehn, and Hillgren 2012).”
Die Macht graphischer Datenvisualisierungen
Brandau, N., & Hartong, S. (2025) · transcript Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783839475164-017
Complexity Mechanisms for Interaction to Foster Digital Innovation Processes: A Multiple Case Study
Elmistikawy, Y., & Gelter, J. (2025) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems13060460
“This would, in turn, benefit the service provider, as an open DI process that involves its stakeholders as co-designers will have outcomes that better match the stakeholders’ preferences [8] and it will be possible to anticipate use before use through prototyping and testing [9].”
‘PARTICIPATION’ AS A STRATEGIC AND CONSTRUCTIVIST PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH IN DESIGN EDUCATION
Merter, S., & Demirbaş, Ö. O. (2025) · The Turkish Online Journal of Design Art and Communication · doi:10.7456/tojdac.1674063
Filiatreault, S., Cunningham, C., Hastings, S., Cullum, J., Schroeder, D. M., & Davison, S. N. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-6523077/v1
Tellioğlu, H. (2025) · Intelligent systems reference library · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-84158-3_14
Novak, E., Tassell, J. L., & Kuo, C.-L. (2025) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2025.2529191
Kleszcz, J., Wilczek, I., Wilk, K., & Adamska, M. E. (2025) · Civil And Environmental Engineering Reports · doi:10.59440/ceer/207955
Participatory Art and Human-Centered Technology
Romainoor, N. H., & Khalid, N. A. M. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-7610-2.ch010
Faudzi, M. A., Cob, Z. C., Sharudin, S. A., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1145/3704611.3704618
“In this method, concepts are imagined, prototyped, and explored hands-on early in the design phase, characterized by human-centeredness, empathy, and optimism [30].”
Citizen Participation in Design
Schelings, C. (2025) · doi:10.1002/9781394411214.ch5 · Cited by 1
Rethinking Co-Design for the Green Transition: Balancing Stakeholder Input and Designer Agency
McConnell, R., Cullen, S., Keeffe, G., et al. (2025) · Architecture · doi:10.3390/architecture5040092
“Several participants described “analysis paralysis,” where decisions stalled without clear facilitation [11,26].”
Sanz-Segura, R., & Pérez, E. M. (2025) · De Gruyter eBooks · doi:10.1515/9783111585062-004
Throndsen, W., Silvast, A., & Ryghaug, M. (2025) · Science as Culture · doi:10.1080/09505431.2025.2572635
Bots ‘n’ Beings: AI Futures beyond Big Tech’s efficiency driven AgentsPreprint
Mishra, T., Elster, E., Baxi, Z., Moco, K. C., & Sun, S. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5735854
Partizipative Designpraktiken für verkörperte Künstliche Intelligenz
Stadlbauer, J., Frommeld, D., Chow, R., & Weber, K. (2025) · Designforschung - Designwissenschaft - Designtheorie · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-49798-9_8
Specifying designers’ empathy experiences in virtual reality: a literature review
Grech, A., Wodehouse, A., Brisco, R., March, J. J., & Hamilton, D. (2025) · International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation · doi:10.1080/21650349.2025.2592710 · Cited by 1
“…be addressed, mainly during the inspiration phases of a human-centered design process (McDonagh, 2004), empathy also has relevance in other phases (Bjögvinsson et al., 2012) As users take on a more prominent role in the design process, enabling ‘co-creation’ approaches (O’Hare et al., 2018),…”
Design Interventions as Methods for Participation in Welfare Services
Colley, J. (2025) · International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (MUM) · doi:10.1145/3771882.3774338
“For example, Lim et al. (2008) describe prototypes as tools for designers to think and learn through making; Bjögvinsson et al. (2012) use prototypes as “design Things” that bring people together to discuss shared issues; and Halskov and Dalsgaard(2006) show how prototypes can shape and expand the…”
Vaz, H. M. L., & de Oliveira, J. P. M. (2025) · Orfeu · doi:10.5965/2525530410022025e0104
Golestaneh, H., Guerreiro, M., & Pinto, P. S. L. G. D. S. (2025) · Journal of Place Management and Development · doi:10.1108/jpmd-10-2024-0120
Design Approaches for a RCT Complex Intervention: A Stroke Rehabilitation Case Study
Macdonald, A. S., Loudon, D. W., & Taylor, A. (2014) · Proceedings of DRS · doi:10.21606/drs.2014.118
Cid-Cruz, J. A., & Sánchez, C. D. (2025) · MADGU Mundo Arquitectura Diseño Gráfico y Urbanismo · doi:10.36800/madgu.v8i14.135
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
