Het doen van co-design en co-research samen met de mensen in het betreffende maatschappelijk domein kan veel beweging in gang zetten. Het is zaak om ook juist deze functie van applied design research als ‘key enabling methodology’ verder te ontwikkelen, evenals een repertoire van cases te verzamelen om uit te kunnen putten.
DOCUMENT
Het lectoraat Co-Design van Hogeschool Utrecht doet met een systemisch-inclusieve ontwerpende aanpak praktijkgericht onderzoek, om complexe maatschappelijke vraagstukken te helpen oplossen. Binnen die onderzoeken stellen we vragen over het ontwerpproces en de mensen die daarbij betrokken zijn. Hoe kun je goed co-designen in de weerbarstige werkelijkheid? Wat kan helpen in die ontwerpende aanpak? Hoe kunnen mensen die niet zijn opgeleid als ontwerpers volwaardig meedoen in het ontwerpproces, en wat hebben zij daarvoor nodig aan ontwerpend vermogen? De kennis over ontwerpend vermogen die we de afgelopen vier jaar hebben opgedaan, delen we in dit boekje. We hebben dat proces getekend en beschreven als een reisverhaal van Co, die ons meeneemt op een boot over een rivier, door stroomversnellingen en langs landschappen. Met bijdragen van: Marry Bassa, Anita Cremers, Tanja Enninga, Anita van Essen, Christa van Gessel, Berit Godfroij, Joep Kuijper, Remko van der Lugt, Caroline Maessen, Lenny van Onselen, Dirk Ploos van Amstel, Karlijn van Ramshorst, Carolijn Schrijver, Fenne Verhoeven, Danielle Vossebeld, Rosa de Vries
DOCUMENT
This research investigates the integration of stakeholders' values into the digital frameworks of Collective Management Organizations (CMOs) within the Dutch music copyright system. Utilizing Q methodology, the study captures diverse perspectives from composers, lyricists, publishers, and CMO representatives on values, value tensions, norms, and system requirements. A pilot study with four experts tested data collection methods and refined the study design for a larger, follow-up study involving 30 participants. Preliminary findings, based on factor analysis of participant rankings of 30 statements, reveal two distinct perspectives: one focused on "Fairness and Accountability," emphasizing trust-building and equitable treatment, and the other on "Technological Efficiency and Transparency," prioritizing clear information, verification mechanisms, and advanced IT systems. Qualitative insights from participant interviews provide nuanced understanding, highlighting the importance of transparency in royalty processes, balanced application of technology, and equitable royalty distribution in the digital age. This research contributes to the modernization of copyright management systems offering a conceptual model adaptable to other creative (Intellectual Property) industries
MULTIFILE
Author supplied from the article: ABSTRACT Increasing global competition in manufacturing technology puts pressure on lead times for product design and production engineering. By the application of effective methods for systems engineering (engineering design), the development risks can be addressed in a structured manner to minimise chances of delay and guarantee timely market introduction. Concurrent design has proven to be effective in markets for high tech systems; the product and its manufacturing means are simultaneously developed starting at the product definition. Unfortunately, not many systems engineering methodologies do support development well in the early stage of the project where proof of concept is still under investigation. The number of practically applicable tools in this stage is even worse. Industry could use a systems engineering method that combines a structured risk approach, concurrent development, and especially enables application in the early stage of product and equipment design. The belief is that Axiomatic Design can provide with a solid foundation for this need. This paper proposes a ‘Constituent Roadmap of Product Design’, based on the axiomatic design methodology. It offers easy access to a broad range of users, experienced and inexperienced. First, it has the ability to evaluate if knowledge application to a design is relevant and complete. Secondly, it offers more detail within the satisfaction interval of the independence axiom. The constituent roadmap is based on recent work that discloses an analysis on information in axiomatic design. The analysis enables better differentiation on project progression in the conceptual stage of design. The constituent roadmap integrates axiomatic design and the methods that harmonise with it. Hence, it does not jeopardise the effectiveness of the methodology. An important feature is the check matrix, a low threshold interface that unlocks the methodology to a larger audience. (Source - PDF presented at ASME IMECE (International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition
DOCUMENT
In order to study education and development, researchers can choose among a plethora of methods. The Merriam-Webster dictionary tells us that “method” means: a procedure or process for attaining an object …such as …a systematic procedure, technique, or mode of inquiry employed by or proper to a particular discipline or art “ or “a way, technique, or process of or for doing something”, or “a body of skills or techniques”. Methods proper to the scientific study of education and development cover a very broad range of procedures, ranging from how to formulate and ask questions, how to design studies for answering such questions, how to perform such studies in real-world contexts, how to extract data and how to process them, how to relate processed data to answers on questions, how to communicate such questions and answers, and how to apply them to real world activities aimed at promoting education and development. This body of methods is customarily termed “methodology”, which is a concept that includes the methods themselves but also our understanding of their relationships and their rational and scientific justification. Let us call this body of methods and the justifications “Integrative methodology”. Researchers often tend to see this integrative methodology as a more or less autonomous set of good practice prescriptions. This view is consistent with practices of academic training in which methodology courses are offered separate from courses on disciplinarian contents, e.g. courses on development or educational science. As a consequence of this autonomy oriented view of methodology, scientific questions regarding development and education tend to be framed in terms of the available or habitual methods. For instance, we readily transform or translate concrete questions about the influence of some particular educational intervention in terms of a statistically significant difference between 2 representative samples that systematically differ in only one variable or feature of interest, which, in this case, is the intervention. Almost every word in this translation carries the heavy burden of methodological principles, concepts and presuppositions: “statistically”, “significant”, “difference”, “representative”, “sample”, “systematically”, “variable”, and “intervention”. And all these principles, concepts and presuppositions are taken from this autonomous body of integrative methodology, which forms our indisputable cookbook of good practices, outside of which no good — scientific — practices exist. The answers to questions that are shaped by this independent body of methodology will then contribute to existing theories of development and education. In this sense, it is the (allegedly) independent methodology that informs theory.In this chapter, we will move against this current practice and make the — apparently deeply obvious — claim that it must be theory that informs the questions and the way we shall answer these questions. That is, it must be theory – that is, your body of justified knowledge about a particular phenomenon – that informs, influences and determines methodology, that is, the whole of methods, procedures and instruments that you use to study that phenomenon. . The sort of theory that should inform integrative methodology must be an integrative theory, that is to say a theory consisting of a consistent set of general principles and concepts shaping the domains of inquiry, which in this particular case are the related domains of development and education
DOCUMENT
This paper deals with the complexity of doing research in design practice. More and more projects and papers appear dealing with this topic and the time has come to draw up the balance sheet. This paper starts with explaining the status of design research until now, in which we indicate the challenges to overcome to become a mature research field. We discuss nine issues which are - according to our experience - important to overcome. Within each issue we indicate the problem that we encounter (or have seen being encountered) while executing design research in practice. For each problem we propose a solution that fit both to the quality standards and methodology of scientific research and to the quality standards required in daily design practice.
DOCUMENT
An important step in the design of an effective educational game is the formulation of the to-be-achieved learning goals. The learning goals help shape the content and the flow of the entire game, i.e. they provide the basis for choosing the game’s core (learning) mechanics. A mistake in the formulation of the learning goals or the resulting choice in game mechanics can have large consequences, as the game may not lead to the intended effects. At the moment, there are many different methods for determining the learning goals; they may be derived by a domain expert, based on large collections of real-life data, or, alternatively, not be based on anything in particular. Methods for determining the right game mechanics range from rigid taxonomies, loose brainstorming sessions, to, again, not any method in particular. We believe that for the field of educational game design to mature, there is a need for a more uniform approach to establishing the learning goals and translating them into relevant and effective game activities. This paper explores two existing, non-game design specific, methods to help determine learning goals and the subsequent core mechanics: the first is through a Cognitive Task Analysis (CTA), which can be used to analyse and formalize the problem and the knowledge, skills, attitudes that it is comprised of, and the second is through the Four Components Instructional Design (4C-ID), which can be used to determine how the task should be integrated into an educational learning environment. Our goal is to see whether these two methods provide the uniform approach we need. This paper gives an overview of our experiences with these methods and provides guidelines for other researchers on how these methods could be used in the educational game design process.
DOCUMENT
Our society faces many challenges, necessitating collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders. Our students learn this in living labs. This paper explores preliminary research on introducing co-design to novices. We introduce a case study exploring how design educators can support students in developing co-design competencies. Central to this study is our Co-Design Canvas, introduced as a pivotal tool for fostering open dialogue among diverse stakeholders. This stimulates collaboration through effective teamwork and empathic formation. The research questions aim to discover effective methods for introducing the Co-Design Canvas to living lab students, and to identify the necessary prior knowledge and expertise for both novices and educators to effectively engage with and teach the Co-Design Canvas. The paper advocates for a pedagogical shift to effectively engage students in multi-stakeholder challenges. Through a series of workshops, the Co-Design Canvas was introduced to novices. We found that this required a significant cognitive stretch for staff and students. The paper concludes by presenting a, for now, final workshop format consisting of assignments that supports introducing the Canvas and thereby co design to societal impact design novices. This program better prepares students and coaches for multi stakeholder challenges within living labs.
MULTIFILE
Following social constructivism, the Metaverse can be seen as a “boundary object,” allowing “interpretative flexibility” across communities while maintaining a “common identity” to facilitate interactions and consensus. Understanding the social construction of the Metaverse requires acknowledging diverse perspectives that shape the discourse surrounding it. This research employed an internet-based Q methodology study to examine such “boundaries” within the Metaverse discourse. The study involved 46 participants from 14 countries and diverse sectors within the global Metaverse industry, who engaged in online card ranking exercises using statements covering five essential aspects of the Metaverse: Terminology, Cultural Values, Societal Impact, Economics, and Regulation. The factor analysis revealed four prominent frames of perspective: 1) Debating Liberal Globalism; 2) Critiques of the Metaverse as a Threat to Humanity; 3) The Metaverse as Neoliberalization; and 4) the New Prometheans: Techno-Optimism in the Digital Revolution. These frames underscore polarized perceptions related to the political-economic aspects of Metaverse development, particularly concerning affordability, infrastructure limitation, and digital literacy, all crucial for preventing global divisions. The findings contribute to policy dialogues focused on the social impact of technology innovation. Additionally, this research provides hands-on experience in designing and implementing a digitalized Q methodology, resulting in more systematic and transparent Q exercise procedures.
LINK
This paper presents an approach to organizational research that aims to produce research results that are both relevant and rigorous. The research approach combines the designing of a management tool with the testing of the tool using an action research methodology. The lack of relevance in organizational research is a much debated issue in literature. A design approach has been proposed to help bridge the gap between research and practice. However, in organizational research, there is little empirical evidence how design-based research works in practice and it is unclear how this type of research is best structured. The purpose of the paper is to illustrate what a comprehensive methodology for design-based research can look like and how an action research methodology can be used to test the design in practice.
DOCUMENT
