Provoking Students to Re-story Stakeholders in their Design Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".