NOVICE DESIGNERS TACKLE AND REFLECT ON THEIR PROCESS USING THE DESIGNERLY ACTIVITY THEORY
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
Abstract Schön used the metaphor of the swamp and mountain to express the divide between the problems tackled by practitioners and scientists. This research is concerned about the same persisting dilemma between design practice and design theory. In an attempt to discuss this dilemma, we propose to explore research through design (RtD) as a privileged approach where novice designers gain knowledge as practitioners and as researchers. Being aware that RtD approach has received criticisms regarding validity, bias and reliability, we put forward a set of theoretical tools allowing designers to simultaneously proceed with design activity and data gathering processes. To do so, the designerly activity theory framework was presented and explained to two novice designers. They were asked to use the theory's model during an internship project experience, to record their daily actions and later, to proceed with analysis of gathered data. Doing so, we gained a clearer interpretation of the impacts of using a theoretical model as a complement for research through design. We discuss the depth of the participants' reflections, the awareness to less noticeable components, and the enriched dialog between practice and theory.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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