MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411754338 · doi:10.54941/ahfe1006426

Provoking Students to Re-story Stakeholders in their Design Process

2025· article· en· W4411754338 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan Strickfaden, Joyce Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueAHFE international · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Computer scienceProcess managementDesign processWork in processEngineeringProgramming languageOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0040.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAHFE internationalSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207