Designer as Ethnographer: A Study of \nDomestic Cooking and Heating Product Design \nfor Irish Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many ways, the design of domestic cooking and heating products reflects the \nzeitgeist of Irish culture throughout the 20th and into the 21st century. From \ndomesticity to materialism, these products have evolved to meet fundamental human \nneeds within the home. Concurrent with this, the methods and processes designers \nuse to create domestic artefacts have evolved and changed. The emergence of Design \nEthnography illustrates an evolution where Design has appropriated an established \nmethod of Anthropology for its own particular objectives. However, the integrity of \nthe ethnography practised by designers has been criticised by many, e.g. Dourish \nquestions whether it creates forms of “discount ethnography” (2006, p.548). The \ndesigner ethnographer has different objectives to the anthropologist and the \nparticular principles, methods, and understanding of design ethnography have not \nbeen fully elucidated for use by professional designers. Bichard and Gheerawo \nobserve “…if anthropologists and ethnographers appear to be becoming designers as \nsuch, then perhaps designers should allow themselves to reflect on their ‘field’ and \n‘work’ more as anthropologists and ethnographers”(2011, p.55). The identification \nand construction of a design ethnography, epistemology, and methodology that is \ndistinct from, while respectful of that of anthropology, is required. \nDesign ethnography has been heralded for its ability to investigate future complex \nissues for humanity, and to produce powerful, democratising, and radical effects \n(Plowman, 2003). Meeting the demands of a growing older population will be one of \nthese future complexities. Ireland is rapidly becoming an ageing society with its \npopulation living longer in ill health (McGill, 2010). 89% of older Irish people \nwould prefer to live at home rather than in institutional care (McGee et al., 2005). \nTherefore developing healthy environments in which they grow old must be a \npriority. Particular attention must be given to the design of domestic products that \nprovide older people with basic daily requirements. Domestic cooking and heating \nproducts offer basic health and wellbeing needs in the form of nutrition and heat. \nPrior to designing these products a deep understanding of older people’s needs must \nbe determined. To achieve this, empathy and sensitivity are essential (Newell et al., \n2010). Comprehensive field studies such as ethnographies are important in gaining \nunderstanding and eliciting true user insights (Seidel, 2009, Newell et al., 2010) \nThis thesis contributes to two domains. Firstly, it identifies and develops an \nunderstanding of the essence of design ethnography, and a process by which \ndesigners can harness ethnographic methods for the purposes of design practice. \nSecondly, it provides an example of a designer ethnographic approach to product \ndesign for older people, producing insights and product design requirements for \ncooking and heating products. The research involved design ethnographic fieldwork \nover twelve months within the homes of forty older adult participants across Ireland \nand from various socio-economic groups. Personas, design requirements, and \nconcepts were produced, which allowed the researcher to reflect on the role of design \nethnographer and inform future practice. Insights into product requirement were \ndeep and far reaching, revealing important and diverse health and wellbeing needs to \nbe addressed for older people in domestic products. A methods and process \nframework is formulated for conducting future design ethnography, from fieldwork \nand data analysis to design practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".