Design academics struggle in effectively reaching out to design practice, while design practitioners have difficulties in appropriating academic output. In their turn, design practitioners create new local knowledge that may not be recognised (as such) by design academics. This situation is seen as suboptimal and problematised as the research-practice gap. This paper addresses how knowledge exchange between design research and practice can be understood and improved. We therefore introduce and investigate a social co-design case study which bridged the gap between research and practice and which shows how knowledge development within academia, professional design practice, and non-professional design practice are interwoven. We analyse the case through an alternative template analysis incorporating four perspectives on ‘the gap’: abstraction, communication, alignment of knowledge needs, supporting local knowledge production. We compare and interrelate these four perspectives. This refines our theoretical understanding of the research-practice gap and provides implications and actionable insights about practitioner-centred knowledge production for design academics who want to contribute to design practice.
LINK
Algorithmic affordances—interactive mechanisms that allow users to exercise tangible control over algorithms—play a crucial role in recommender systems. They can facilitate users’ sense of autonomy, transparency, and ultimately ownership over a recommender’s results, all qualities that are central to responsible AI. Designers, among others, are tasked with creating these interactions, yet state that they lack resources to do so effectively. At the same time, academic research into these interactions rarely crosses the research-practice gap. As a solution, designers call for a structured library of algorithmic affordances containing well-tested, well-founded, and up-to-date examples sourced from both real-world and experimental interfaces. Such a library should function as a boundary object, bridging academia and professional design practice. Academics could use it as a supplementary platform to disseminate their findings, while both practitioners and educators could draw upon it for inspiration and as a foundation for innovation. However, developing a library that accommodates multiple stakeholders presents several challenges, including the need to establish a common language for categorizing algorithmic affordances and devising a categorization of algorithmic affordances that is meaningful to all target groups. This research attempts to bring the designer perspective into this categorization.
LINK
The gap between research and design practice has long been a concern for the HCI community. In this article, we explore how different translations of HCI knowledge might bridge this gap. A literature review characterizes the gap as having two key dimensions - one between general theory and particular artefacts and a second between academic HCI research and professional UX design practice. We report on a 5-year engagement between HCI researchers and a major media company to explore how a particular piece of HCI research, the trajectories conceptual framework, might be translated for and with UX practitioners. We present various translations of this framework and fit them into the gap we previously identified. This leads us to refine the idea of translations, suggesting that they may be led by researchers, by practitioners or co-produced by both as boundary objects. We consider the benefits of each approach.
MULTIFILE
