Designerly Activity Theory: toward a new ontology for design research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is based on empirical data obtained from two case studies whereby collaborative design of teams composed of four recent graduates with different backgrounds were studied. In both cases, the collected data is related to the interactions of team members toward the development of a design solution in response to a brief. Although the study of the collaborative design process is an essential part of this work, the focus of the paper is on the potential of an expanded Activity Theory as a methodological framework that allows detailed analysis of collaboration. A five-step data processing approach contributed to the emergence of a new theoretical model. The model, an expanded version of Activity Theory, takes into account creative and contextual processes of collaborative design, allowing for thorough data analysis and the production of systemic interpretation of design activity in context. Titled Designerly Activity Theory, we present our reasoning and supporting references as the contribution of this paper having potential to offer a situated framework for the ontology of design research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it