researchers themselves presumably would be the best
” In doing so,
to consult about them. Yet when design researchers
publish research, they (we) tend to clean up and
rationalize their practice for purposes of communica-
tion and legitimation. The nuances of talkback might
come out in the wash.
Even more exciting would be if such an empirical
take on how theory is “actually used” could be more
seriously and systematically compared against the
uses of theory in the arts and sciences to clarify what
is distinctive about the uses of theory in design re-
search. This paper suggests a compelling way forward
and gives us provocative results to work with in the
meantime, but it also foreshadows a research project
that could be even more groundbreaking.
1 Jordan Beck and Erik Stolterman, “Examining Practical, Everyday
Theory Use in Design Research,” She Ji:The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation 2, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 139.
2 Nigel Cross’ conception of design thinking is likewise based in and
articulated through the practices of the elite.
A Squandered
Opportunity: A Response
to “Examining Practical,
Everyday Theory Use in
Design Research”
Deirdre Barron, Swinburne University of Technology,
Australia
dbarron@swin.edu.au
doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2016.12.007
The authors embark on the very ambitious task of
looking at how design researchers use theory in their
publications. This is indeed a discussion that would
benefit the field of design and be extremely useful, if
achieved, in training design researchers. Certainly the
clarity of the writing, the simplicity of the diagrams,
the distinctions drawn between uses of theory within
the framework offered, and the scholarly approach
to the topic make this a paper that has much to offer
the field of design research. There are some issues to
be considered in relation to the paper’s strength or
otherwise.
The paper starts with the assertion that “Theory
Examining Practical, Everyday Theory Use in Design Research
is integral to any academic discipline.
it raises an immediately appropriate basis for a dis-
cussion of theory and its importance in design as an
academic undertaking. The very notion of ‘academic’
suggests that theory is to form the underpinning of
the construction of knowledge in this field—so far
so good. The reader may be forgiven for assuming a
scholarly discussion is to be engaged, for indeed, this
is just what this paper attempts.
By the end of the first paragraph, though, that
suggestion of the academic capital of the paper is
virtually spent, as the writers tell us, “In this ar-
ticle our aim is not to demarcate or define theory.
Instead, our aim is to investigate how researchers
present their use of theory in written texts.”1 They
do direct the reader to a previous publication (Beck
and Stolterman, 2015) to understand what is meant
by “theory,” but that publication is not readily avail-
able—at least not through my university library. The
first paragraph jumps straight into the application of
theory, yet if the reader does not know what is meant
by the term in this discussion, the usefulness of the
paper is squandered. That is not to say that the paper
raises no salient points in relation to design research;
it does imply, though, that not knowing what the
writers mean by theory leaves the reader having
to make assumptions that may or may not be well
founded.
Consider, for example, a discussion about a horse
where no description of the animal itself is given. Any
number of purposes for the animal may be assumed—
for example, that it is a herd animal that crops pas-
ture, a trophy that confers a certain status upon its
owner, a source of labor or protein that is integral to
food production, or even a commodity that may be
traded for profit and loss. It may even be assumed
that it is an animal whose objective fulfillment of its
purpose determines the ability of its owner to get a
good bride for it. In all such discussions, these are
legitimate considerations of what a horse does. Yet, in
such discussions, the reader would not know what a
horse is, for there is no sense of the animal itself. The
assumption is that everyone—including the reading
public—shares the same knowledge of what a horse
is. The reader of this paper is positioned in a similar
way to a participant in the horse discussion. While
the paper’s discussion on the uses of theory may be
considered valuable for consideration by design re-
searchers, it nonetheless needs to take this essential
first step to define theory. The literature is not short
on such discussions, which could have been reviewed
and represented as well.
This means that the paper’s embarkation on an
145
analysis of the literature canvassed to identify six
models for ways in which theory is used in design
research without a discussion of what theory means
to them may be a greater issue for new and emerging
design researchers than for more experienced ones.
This leads to a further concern. I accept that
there are many ways that one can undertake textual
or discourse analysis, and in this paper the authors
tell us that they “adopted an emergent coding ap-
proach.”2 I read this as being an approach based on a
feeling for the content of the papers canvassed, rather
than using established methods of analysis. In this
case, where I do not know what is meant by theory,
I find that I am left not confident in the reliability of
that analysis.
Having said this, it is evident that the reader will
find this an interesting and potentially significant
contribution to the literature. The models presented
have a depth of insight and understanding of the
research design field that are illuminating and infor-
mative. They are presented in such a way as to make
them practical and comprehensive with the use of
diagrams to reinforce this feature of the discussion. A
more detailed discussion of ways in which the writers
came to formulate the models on the basis of the
literature they have consulted would strengthen the
paper, but the models themselves have the potential
to inform and frame scholarly discussions that may
take the issues identified in this paper to more com-
plex and complete analyses by others.
1 Jordan Beck and Erik Stolterman, “Examining Practical, Everyday
Theory Use in Design Research,” She Ji:The Journal of Design,
Economics, and Innovation 2, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 126.
2 Ibid., 129.
Authors’ Response
5HÁHFWLRQVRQDQ
Examination of Theory
Use in Design Research
Jordan Beck, School of Informatics and Computing,
Indiana University, USA
Erik Stolterman, School of Informatics and
Computing, Indiana University, USA
doi:10.1016/j.sheji.2016.12.008
146 she ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation
We want to begin by thanking our colleagues for en-
gaging with our article and taking the time to make
insightful comments. We are energized and excited
by the fact that our work has already stimulated some
thoughts among members of the design research
community. At the same time, we are aware that
certain aspects of our work did not come across as
we intended, and that certain aspects of it apparently
stand out more than others.
Our goal in writing this response is not to engage
with individual comments in much detail. We hope
that readers will engage both with our article and
these three commentaries in ways that are useful to
them. Instead, we will respond to a few themes that
seem to cut across all three commentaries—refer-
encing specific details when appropriate.
It seems clear that what could be called the meth-
odology section of our paper raises the most concerns.
For Henriksen and Barron, methodological issues
seem to call the paper’s validity and results into ques-
tion, thus making other aspects of the paper difficult
to engage with. For Bardzell, these concerns seem to
signal that the project we have started in this article
is in its early stages, and worthy of further pursuit in
the design research community.
There are two methodological concerns in partic-
ular that we wish to address.
When we say that we are looking for how theory
is used in research publications, what exactly does
that mean? What do we mean by “theory”? And if we
do not offer a precise enough definition of it, then how
do we know we have identified an instance of theory
use? We are certainly not the first to say that theory
has different meanings to different people. It is pos-
sible to define theory as (1) a well-substantiated expla-
nation of some aspect of a phenomenon, or (2) a piece
of abstract knowledge that tells us something about
the fundamental entities at the core of a discipline,
or (3) an analysis of facts in relation to one another.
Henriksen provides several other variations in her
commentary, many of which we have encountered in
our work.
It would seem as though all of these definitions
are acceptable by some, and that all could potentially
lead to different interpretations of “theory use” in
design research. And it is understandable that if a
reader were to engage with our work as a “true” con-
tent analysis or discourse analysis, then they could be
left with many questions or concerns about our ap-
proach. This may be because we did not describe our
aims and process with enough precision. Although we
borrowed from the practice of content analysis to a
certain degree in our approach, we did not adhere to
Volume 2, Number 2, Summer 2016