| 1. |
- Von Busch, Otto, 1975, et al.
(författare)
-
Social Means Do Not Justify Corruptible Ends: A Realist Perspective of Social Innovation and Design
- 2016
-
Ingår i: She Ji. - : Elsevier BV. - 2405-8726 .- 2405-8718. ; 2:4, s. 275-287
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This article introduces designers to the dilemma that arises when twin aspects of social innovation—social means and social ends—do not align. Some academics have noted the anti-social, anti-political, and anti-inventive effects emerging from the spread of microfinance practices. We discuss the tendency for social design and innovation literature to focus on design processes rather than outcomes, and introduce ideas from realist political theory to account for the corruptibility of social innovations. We suggest that designers can prevent the corruption of social outcomes by shifting from idealist “what if” scenarios to realist “who whom?” questions instead.
|
|
| 2. |
- Beck, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
Examining Practical, Everyday Theory Use in Design Research
- 2016
-
Ingår i: She Ji. - : Tongji University Press. - 2405-8726. ; 2:2, s. 125-140
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This paper discusses how theories (as objects) are used in articles published in Design Studies. While theory and theory construction have been given time and attention in the literature, less is known about how researchers put theories to work in their written texts about practical, everyday theory use. In the present paper, we examine 32 articles and synthesize six models of theory use based on our examination.
|
|
| 3. |
- Beck, Jordan, et al.
(författare)
-
Examining the Types of Knowledge Claims Made in Design Research
- 2016
-
Ingår i: She Ji. - : Tongji University Press. - 2405-8726. ; 2:3, s. 199-214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While much has been written about designerly knowledge and designerly ways of knowing in the professions, less has been written about the production and presentation of knowledge in the design discipline. In the present paper, we examine the possibility that knowledge claims might be an effective way to distinguish the design discipline from other disciplines. We compare the kinds of knowledge claims made in journal publications from the natural sciences, social sciences, and design. And we find that natural and social science publications tend to make singular knowledge claims of similar kinds whereas design publications often contain multiple knowledge claims of different kinds. We raise possible explanations for this pattern and its implications for design research. Examining the Types of Knowledge Claims Made in Design Research.
|
|
