Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:01:08.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientific design rationale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2008

Steven R. Haynes ,
Paula M. Bach  and
John M. Carroll
Steven R. Haynes
Affiliation:
College of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Paula M. Bach
Affiliation:
College of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
John M. Carroll
Affiliation:
College of Information Sciences and Technology, Penn State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Design rationale should be regarded both as a tool for the practice of design, and as a method to enable the science of design. Design rationale answers questions about why a given design takes the form that it does. Answers to these why questions represent a significant portion of the knowledge generated from design research. This knowledge, along with that from empirical studies of designs in use, contributes to what Simon called the sciences of the artificial. Most research on the nature and use of design rationale has been analytic or theoretical. In this article, we describe an empirical study of the roles that design rationale can play in the conduct of design research. We report results from an interview study with 16 design researchers investigating how they construe and carry out design as research. The results include an integrated framework of the affordances design rationale can contribute to design research. The framework and supporting qualitative data provide insight into how design rationale might be more effectively leveraged as a first-class methodology for research into the creation and use of artifacts.

Keywords

AffordancesDesign RationaleDesign ResearchDesign Research Methodology
Type
Research Article
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 22 , Issue 4: Design Rationale , November 2008 , pp. 359 - 373
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Brown, D.C. (2006). Assumptions in design and design rationale. Proc. Workshop on Design Rationale: Problems and Progress, Conf. Design, Computing, and Cognition 2006, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Buckingham Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 40(4), 603–652.Google Scholar
Burge, J.E. (2006). Anatomy of an experiment. Proc. Workshop on Design Rationale: Problems and Progress, Conf. Design, Computing, and Cognition 2006Eindhoven, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M. (1990). Infinite detail and emulation in an ontologically minimized HCI. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Empowering People, pp. 321–328, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M., & Campbell, R.L. (1989). Artifacts as psychological theories: the case of human–computer interaction. Behaviour & Information Technology 8(4), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. (1992). Getting around the task–artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 10(2), 181–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. (1996). Deliberated evolution: stalking the view matcher in design space. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use (Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 107–145. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carroll, J.M., & Rosson, M.B. (2003). Design rationale as theory. In HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science (Carroll, J.M., Ed.), pp. 431–460. New York: Morgan–Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Conklin, E.J., & Burgess-Yakemovic, K.C. (1996). A process-oriented approach to design rationale. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (Moran, T., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 393–427. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., & Paech, B. (Eds.) (2005). Rationale Management in Software Engineering. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing (Shaw, R., & Bransford, J., Eds.), pp. 67–82. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Goldman, A.I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grudin, J. (1996). Evaluating opportunities for design capture. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use (Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 453–470. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Guindon, R. (1990). Knowledge exploited by experts during software system design. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 33, 279–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J., & Lai, K.-Y. (1996). What's in design rationale? In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use (Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 21–51. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacLean, A., Young, R., & Moran, T.P. (1989). Design rationale: the argument behind the artifact? Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 247–252.Google Scholar
McCrickard, D.S., & Chewar, C.M. (2006). Designing attention-centric notification systems: five HCI challenges. In Cognitive Systems: Human Cognitive Models in Systems Design (Forsythe, J.C., Bernard, M.L., & Goldsmith, T.E., Eds.), pp. 67–89. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Micham, C. (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M. (1996). Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Papamargaritas, G., & Sutcliffe, A. (2004). Applying the domain theory to design for reuse. BT Technology Journal 22(2), 104–115.Google Scholar
Pitt, J.C. (2000). Thinking About Technology: Foundations of the Philosophy of Technology. New York: Seven Bridges.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sokal, A.D., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science (1st ed.). New York: Picador USA.Google Scholar
Star, S.L. (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: heterogeneous problem-solving, boundary objects and distributed artificial intelligence. In Distributed Artificial Intelligence 2 (Huhns, M., & Gasser, L., Eds.), pp. 37–54. Menlo Park, CA: Morgan–Kaufmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, A. (2000a). Domain analysis for software use. The Journal of Systems and Software 20, 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, A. (2000b). On the effective use and reuse of HCI knowledge. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(2), 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutcliffe, A., & Carroll, J.M. (1999). Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 50, 213–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tervonen, I. (1992). Quality-driven validation: a link between four research traditions. Fourth Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Capri, Italy, pp. 370–377.Google Scholar
Thagard, P. (1999). How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, J.C., & Carroll, J.M. (1979). The psychological study of design. Design Studies 1(1), 5–11.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van der Veer, G.C., & van Welie, M. (2004). DUTCH—designing for users and tasks from concepts to handles. In The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human–Computer Interaction (Diaper, D., & Stanton, N., Eds.), pp. 155–175. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Vincenti, W.G. (1990). What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, E.B. (1952). An Introduction to Scientific Research (1st ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar