Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Scientific design rationale

  • Steven R. Haynes (a1), Paula M. Bach (a1) and John M. Carroll (a1)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
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.
Buckingham Shum, S., & Hammond, N. (1994). Argumentation-based design rationale: what use at what cost? International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 40(4), 603652.
Burge, J.E. (2006). Anatomy of an experiment. Proc. Workshop on Design Rationale: Problems and Progress, Conf. Design, Computing, and Cognition 2006Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Carroll, J.M. (1990). Infinite detail and emulation in an ontologically minimized HCI. Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems: Empowering People, pp. 321328, Seattle, WA.
Carroll, J.M., & Campbell, R.L. (1989). Artifacts as psychological theories: the case of human–computer interaction. Behaviour & Information Technology 8(4), 247256.
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), 181212.
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. 107145. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
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. 431460. New York: Morgan–Kaufmann.
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. 393427. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dutoit, A.H., McCall, R., Mistrik, I., & Paech, B. (Eds.) (2005). Rationale Management in Software Engineering. New York: Springer–Verlag.
Gibson, J.J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, Acting, and Knowing (Shaw, R., & Bransford, J., Eds.), pp. 6782. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter.
Goldman, A.I. (1999). Knowledge in a Social World. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grudin, J. (1996). Evaluating opportunities for design capture. In Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use (Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M., Eds.), pp. 453470. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guindon, R. (1990). Knowledge exploited by experts during software system design. International Journal of Man–Machine Studies 33, 279304.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and Human Interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
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. 2151. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
MacLean, A., Young, R., & Moran, T.P. (1989). Design rationale: the argument behind the artifact? Proc. ACM Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 247252.
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. 6789. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Micham, C. (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through Technology: The Path Between Engineering and Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Moran, T.P., & Carroll, J.M. (1996). Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques, and Use. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Papamargaritas, G., & Sutcliffe, A. (2004). Applying the domain theory to design for reuse. BT Technology Journal 22(2), 104115.
Pitt, J.C. (2000). Thinking About Technology: Foundations of the Philosophy of Technology. New York: Seven Bridges.
Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sokal, A.D., & Bricmont, J. (1998). Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science (1st ed.). New York: Picador USA.
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. 3754. Menlo Park, CA: Morgan–Kaufmann.
Sutcliffe, A. (2000a). Domain analysis for software use. The Journal of Systems and Software 20, 175199.
Sutcliffe, A. (2000b). On the effective use and reuse of HCI knowledge. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction 7(2), 197221.
Sutcliffe, A., & Carroll, J.M. (1999). Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies 50, 213241.
Tervonen, I. (1992). Quality-driven validation: a link between four research traditions. Fourth Int. Conf. Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Capri, Italy, pp. 370377.
Thagard, P. (1999). How Scientists Explain Disease. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, J.C., & Carroll, J.M. (1979). The psychological study of design. Design Studies 1(1), 511.
Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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. 155175. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Vincenti, W.G. (1990). What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Wilson, E.B. (1952). An Introduction to Scientific Research (1st ed.). New York: McGraw–Hill.

Keywords

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed