Not Signed-In
Which clippings match 'Research Contribution' keyword pg.1 of 1
24 MARCH 2013

Interaction design research artefacts intended to produce knowledge

"We differentiate research artifacts from design practice artifacts in two important ways. First, the intent going into the research is to produce knowledge for the research and practice communities, not to make a commercially viable product. To this end, we expect research projects that take this research through design approach will ignore or deemphasize perspectives in framing the problem, such as the detailed economics associated with manufacturability and distribution, the integration of the product into a product line, the effect of the product on a company's identity, etc. In this way design researchers focus on making the right things, while design practitioners focus on making commercially successful things.

Second, research contributions should be artifacts that demonstrate significant invention. The contributions should be novel integrations of theory, technology, user need, and context; not just refinements of products that already exist in the research literature or commercial markets. The contribution must demonstrate a significant advance through the integration. This aspect of a design research contribution makes particular sense in the interaction design space of HCI. Meteoric technological advances in hardware and software drive an aggressive invention of novel products in HCI and interaction design domains that are not as aggressively experienced by other design domains. While product designers might find themselves redesigning office furniture to meet the changing needs of work, interaction designers more often find themselves tasked with inventing whole new product categories.

Our model of design research allows interaction design researchers to do what designers do best: to study the world and then to make things intended to affect change. Our model provides a new channel for the power of design thinking, desired by many disciplines, to be unleashed as in a research context. Design researchers can contribute from a position of strength, instead of aping the methods of other disciplines as a means of justifying their research contribution."

(John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, Shelley Evenson, p.500, 2007)

John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson (2007). "Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI". In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 493–502. DOI=10.1145/1240624.1240704


Simon Perkins
20 DECEMBER 2012

How to design your research project

"What are your beliefs about how valid knowledge can be obtained? This will influence your approach to your research. If you are a positivist, for example, (who believes that valid knowledge can be obtained through a scientific approach), you are likely to choose a quantitative research method that begins with a theory and tests that theory. If you favour the social constructivist view that meaning is subjective, gained through interactions with others, you would be more likely to choose qualitative research methods that explores themes. Qualitative research is about generating theory and finding patterns of meaning."

(Centre for Academic Development and Quality, Nottingham Trent University)



Abbas Tashakkori • Anthony Onwuegbuzie • audiencebeliefs • Centre for Academic Development and Quality • data collection • epistemological approach • epistemological beliefs • epistemologyethical considerationsethical issues • existing theory • experimental designs • generating theory • interactions with others • John Creswell • Journal of Mixed Methods Research • Judith Bell • Mark Weinstein • Martyn Denscombe • Matt Henn • meaning is subjective • mixed methods • mixed methods research • new knowledge • new research methods • new theory • Nick Foard • non-experimental design • patterns of meaningpositivistqualitative research • quantitative research methods • research • research aims • research approachresearch contributionresearch designresearch disseminationresearch methodologyresearch projectresearch questions • research theory • scientific approach • social constructivistsocial sciencetriangulationvalid knowledge


Simon Perkins
22 MAY 2011

Mastery of recognition, realisation and evaluation rules is hallmark of academic life

"Recontextualising rules regulate the work the discipline's teachers – those who constitute its Pedagogic Recontextualising Field (PRF). The pedagogic recontextualising field produces textbooks, curricula, examination criteria and standards. The knowledge produced by researchers and theorists 'passes through ideological screens as it becomes its new form, pedagogic discourse' (Bernstein, 2000, p.115). Recontextualising knowledge for teaching involves selection, translation, and filtering: emerging as a syllabus for 'physics 101' or 'sociology 300' etc. In the late nineteenth century, the establishment of state funded and regulated education systems established Official Pedagogic Recontextualising Fields (ORF) 'created and dominated by the state for the construction and surveillance of state pedagogic discourse' (Bernstein, 2000, p.115). Emanating from the ORF, the PBRF rewards contributions to the knowledge base (laboratory science, field work, theoretical writing), but not the production of its teaching texts, especially those used in schools. The recontextualising activities needed to reproduce and advance a discipline are devalued.

As a pedagogic device, the PBRF recontextualises government policies: they are summarised, translated, operationalised in handbooks, manuals, pro–forma, and seminars. Like any pedagogic practice, these are 'there for one purpose: to transmit criteria' (Bernstein, 2000, p.28). They define the system's evaluative rules and 'provide for acquirers the principles for the production of what counts as the legitimate text. The legitimate text is any realisation on the part of the acquirer which attracts evaluation' (Bernstein, 2000, p.xiv). The production of legitimate texts is a hallmark of academic life – essays, theses, journal articles, curriculum vitae, or promotion applications require mastery of recognition, realisation and evaluation rules. Recognition rules help identify contexts – a sociology class, faculty meeting, psychology journal, Evidence Portfolio, etc. Realisation rules enable textual production – written, spoken, visual etc. It is possible to recognise a context, but lack the realisation rule needed to speak or write its texts.

Bernstein argues that those working in a field of knowledge may feel 'threatened by a change in its classificatory relation, or by an unfavourable change in the economic context' (Bernstein, 2000, p.203). From the mid to late twentieth century, Educationists experienced continual shifts in the classification and framing of their subject/s, and these reconfigured the constraints and possibilities for collective and individual identity formation."

(Sue Middleton, 2006)

1). Middleton, S. (2006). Research Assessment as a pedagogical device: A Bernsteinian exploration of its impact on New Zealand's subject/s of Education. Australian Association for Research in Education Conference Adelaide.


AARE • Aotearoa New ZealandBasil Bernstein • classificatory relation • collective identity • evaluation rules • evaluative rules • evidence portfolio • examination criteria • government policy • ideological screens • individual identityknowledge field • legitimate texts • nineteenth century • official pedagogic recontextualising fields • ORF • PBRF • pedagogic device • pedagogic discoursepedagogic practicepedagogic recontextualising fieldPerformance Based Research FundPRF • production of teaching texts • realisation rulesrecognition rules • recontextualising • recontextualising activities • recontextualising knowledge • recontextualising rules • regulated education systems • research contributionresearcherssyllabus • textual production


Simon Perkins

to Folksonomy

Can't access your account?

New to Folksonomy?

Sign-Up or learn more.