Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-888d5979f-22jsc Total loading time: 0.299 Render date: 2021-10-26T07:06:55.149Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN EMPIRICAL STUDIES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN - A COLLECTION OF REFLECTIONS TO IMPROVE YOUR STUDY QUALITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Selin Üreten*
Affiliation:
TUHH
Olga Sankowski
Affiliation:
TUHH
Dieter Krause
Affiliation:
TUHH
*
Üreten, Selin, TUHH, Germany, selin.uereten@tuhh.de

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Engineering design has a broad variety of approaches, methods and methodologies to conduct, evaluate and validate research. This contribution focuses on empirical studies and divides existing approaches and classifies them according to a scheme with criteria and boundary conditions, such as participants (students, researchers), the length of the study, the incorporation of the study into the curriculum etc. There are certain ideas, challenges and recommended practices associated with each environment and scenario. Knowing them will help design method developers in engineering design who want to conduct empirical studies but have little or no experience with student participants. Therefore, conducted studies from the research institute are mapped onto the classification scheme and synthesized challenges and recommended practices associated with laboratory conditions and student participants will be presented.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Barth, A.; Caillaud, E.; Rose, B. (2011), “How to validate research in engineering design?International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED11, Denmark.Google Scholar
Blessing, L. T. M.; Chakrabarti, A. (2009), DRM, a Design Research Methodology, Springer, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantamessa, M. (2003), “An empirical perspective upon design research”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 115, Taylor& Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954482031000078126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carver, J.; Jaccheri, L.; Morasca, S.; Shull, F. (2006), “Issues in Empirical Studies with Students”, Technical Report MSU-060714.Google Scholar
Carver, J.C.; Jaccheri, L.; Morasca, S.; Shull, F. (2010), “A checklist for integrating student empirical studies with research and teaching goals”, Empirical Software Engineering, Vol. 15, pp. 3559, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-009-9109-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P.; Elias, E.; Dekoninck, E.; Culley, S.J. (2012), Methodological insights from a rigorous small scale design experiment, In: Design Studies, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp. 208235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P.; Stanković, T. and Štorga, M. (Eds.) (2016), Experimental Design Research. Approaches, Perspectives, Applications, Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33781-4_1Google Scholar
Jansson, D. G.; Smith, S. M. (1991): “Design fixation”, Design Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 1, pp. 311, https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(91)90003-F.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, C. M.; Clarkson, P. J.; Stacey, M. K. (2003), “The spiral of applied research: A methodological view on integrated design research”, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED'03), Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Frey, D. D. & Dym, C. L. (2006), “Validation of design methods: lessons from medicine”, Research in Engineering Design 17, 4557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fu, K., Murphy, J., Yang, M., Otto, K.; Jensen, D.; Wood, K. (2015), “Design-by-analogy: experimental evaluation of a functional analogy search methodology for concept generation improvement”, Research in Engineering Design, 26, pp. 7795. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-014-0186-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussy, W.; Schreier, M.; Echterhoff, G. (2013), “Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor”, 2nd edition, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. 10.1007/978-3-642-34362-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ko, A.J., LaToza, T.D. & Burnett, M.M. (2015), “A practical guide to controlled experiments of software engineering tools with human participants”, Empirical Software Engineering 20, pp. 110141, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-013-9279-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Razzaghi, M.; Ramirez, M.; Zehner, R. (2009), “Cultural patterns in product design ideas: comparisons between Australian and Iranian student concepts”, Design Studies, Vol. 30, Issue 4, pp. 438461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2008.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruckpaul, A., Fürstenhöfer, T., Matthiesen, S. (2015), “Combination of Eye Tracking and Think-Aloud Methods in Engineering Design Research”. In: Gero, J., Hanna, S. (eds) Design Computing and Cognition '14. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-14956-1_5Google Scholar
Reich, Y. (2010), “My method is better!”, Research in Engineering Design 21, pp. 137142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Svahnberg, M.; Aurum, A.; Wohlin, C. (2008): “Using Students as Subjects – An Empirical Evaluation”, Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2008, Kaiserslautern, Germany. 10.1145/1414004.1414055Google Scholar
Seepersad, C. C.; Pedersen, K.; Emblemsvåg, J.; Bailey, R.; Allen, J. K.; Mistree, F. (2006), “The validation square: How does one verify and validate a design method?”, Decision Making in Engineering Design (ed. Lewis, K. E.; Chen, W.; Schmidt, L. C.), pp. 303314. ASME, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1115/1.802469.ch25Google Scholar
Üreten, S.; Eisenmann, M.; Nelius, T.; Garrelts, E.; Krause, D.; Matthiesen, S. (2020a), “Current Challenges and Solution Approaches in Empirical Engineering Design Research - A Workshop for Empirical Research”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, 1, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 2020, pp. 6170, https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üreten, S.; Spallek, J.; Üreten, E.; Krause, D. (2020b), “Validation of the Design for Mass Adaptation Method - A Case for Higher Medical Treatment Quality”, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care, vol. 9, 1, pp.88100, https://doi.org/10.1177/2327857920091059CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üreten, S.; Eisenmann, M.; Nelius, T.; Cao, S.; Matthiesen, S.; Krause, D. (2019), “A Concept Map for Design Method Experiments in Product Development - A Guideline for Method Developers”, Proceedings of the 30th Symposium Design for X (DFX 2019), Jesteburg, Germany, pp. 147158, https://doi.org/10.35199/dfx2019.13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Üreten, S.; Krause, D. (2018), “A Deeper Understanding of Students' Method Acceptance through Focus Group Interviews”, Proceedings of the 29th Symposium Design for X (DfX 2018), Tutzing, Germany, pp. 3748Google Scholar
Üreten, S.; Krause, D. (2017), “Discursive vs. intuitive - An experimental study to facilitate the use of design catalogues”, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17), Vol. 9, Design Education, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 99108.Google Scholar
Üreten, S.; Beckmann, G.; Schwenke, E.; Krause, D.; Cao, S. (2017), “Continuing Education and Personalization of Design Methods to Improve their Acceptance in Practice – An Explorative Study”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 60, 27th CIRP Design Conference, pp. 524529, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.01.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vermaas, P. (2016), “A logical critique of the expert position in design research: Beyond expert justification of design methods and towards empirical validation”, Design Science, Vol. 2, No. e7, https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2016.6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN EMPIRICAL STUDIES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN - A COLLECTION OF REFLECTIONS TO IMPROVE YOUR STUDY QUALITY
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN EMPIRICAL STUDIES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN - A COLLECTION OF REFLECTIONS TO IMPROVE YOUR STUDY QUALITY
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

STUDENT PARTICIPANTS IN EMPIRICAL STUDIES IN ENGINEERING DESIGN - A COLLECTION OF REFLECTIONS TO IMPROVE YOUR STUDY QUALITY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *