Provoking Students to Re-story Stakeholders in their Design Process
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
It’s exceptionally challenging for novice designers to fully understand the stakeholders that are intrinsically part of their design process (and ultimately their target design). Research shows that student designers often think of the other people involved in their designs as ‘users’, and those users are generally mirrors of themselves. Expert designers, however, know that there are many relevant, interested and affected individuals, communities and groups involved in their design process, which naturally includes users but also includes other parties (e.g., funders, manufacturers, user/experts, target users, other designers). This paper highlights a project implemented in a design foundation studio course that provoked students to discover, define, acknowledge, and design with/for the breadth of stakeholders in their design process. The aim of the design project was to support the students to engage in human-centred designing); to build a more fulsome picture of a target design (in this case a board game for blind and sighted folks; to work with real stakeholders; to develop a detailed empathy and design research plan; and to story and re-story their design process through designing, making, deep reflection and meaningful conversations. The project involved a multi-staged process that began by facilitating students to make design inquiries with stakeholders from the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), a blind user/expert, and a seasoned industrial designer. In the process of the project, the students developed skills that increased their ability to balance the needs of the various stakeholders involved in a project, to make meaningful decisions towards an interesting target design, and to engage in self-knowing and understanding their own role in the design process. This paper promises to illuminate interesting ways to provoke students to move beyond simply thinking of users, and instead to re-story stakeholders in their design process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle