Abstract
In the paper design processes are conceived as social processes ofinterpretation and construction of meaning, and potentially ofcontext generation. A reconstructive approach to design researchis suggested which studies design processes in terms of socialinteraction. Designers' interpretative works are based on theircapabilities acquired through enculturation, like practices,routines, and skilled use of tools. Examples taken from case studies aredescribed and some concepts for description are suggested. Descriptivedesign research might be more apt in stimulating designers' reflectionson their practices and routines and thereby initiating learningprocesses rather than yet another design method.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bateson, G. (1972): Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chandler Publ. Comp.
Becker, H.S. (1996): The Epistemology of Qualitative Research. In R. Jessor et al. (eds.): Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social inquiry. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Berg, M. (1999): Accumulating and Coordinating: Occasions for Information Technologies in Medical Work. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, (CSCW), vol. 8, pp. 373–401.
Bijker, W., T. Hughes and T. Pinch (1987): The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Binder, T. (1996): Learning and Knowing with Artifacts: An Interview with Donald A. Schön. AI and Society.
Bødker, S. (1998): Understanding Representation in Design. Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 107–125.
Booker, P.J. (1963): A History of Engineering Drawing. London: Chatto and Windus.
Bowers, J. and J. Pycock (1994): Talking Through Design: Requirements and Resistance in Cooperative Prototyping. In B. Adelson (ed.): Proceedings of the CHI '94 Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, April 24–28, pp. 299–305.
Bowker, G. and S.L. Star (1999): Sorting Things Out: Classification and Practice. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994): Designing Engineers. Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Button, G. and R. Harper (1996): The Relevance of 'Work-Practice' for Design. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 4, pp. 263–280.
Button, G. and W. Sharrock (1996): Project Work: The Organization of Collaborative Design and Development in Software Engineering. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 369–386.
Button, G. (2000): The Ethnographic Tradition in Design. Design Studies, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 319–332.
Callon, M. (1987): Society in the Making: The Study of Technology as a Tool for Sociological Analysis. In W. Bijker et al. (eds.).
Dreyfus, H.L. (1998): Merleau-Ponty's Critique of Mental Representation: The Relevance of Phenomenology to Scientific Explanation. http://www.rounder-graphics.com
Engeström, Y. and D. Middleton (eds.) (1998): Cognition and Communication at Work. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Ferguson, E.S. (1992): Engineering and the Mind's Eye. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Floyd, C. (1992): Software Development as Reality Construction. In Ch. Floyd et al. (eds.): Software Development as Reality Construction. Berlin: Springer, pp. 86–100.
Forester, J. (1989): Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967): Studies in Ethnomethodology. NY, Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.
Glock, F. (1998): Konstruieren als sozialer Prozeβ. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts Verlag.
Glock, F. (1999): A Sociological Interpretative Approach to Design Research. In U. Lindemann et al. (eds.): ICED 99. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Engineering Design.
Goffman, E. (1974): Frame Analysis. Harper & Row.
Goodwin, C. (1994): Professional Vision. American Anthropologist, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 606–633.
Greenbaum, J. and M. Kyng (eds.): Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Henderson, K. (1998): The Role of Material Objects in the Design Process: A Comparison of Two Design Cultures and How They Contend with Automation. Science, Technology, and Human Values, vol. 23, pp. 139–174.
Hollis, M. (1991): Rationalität und soziales Verstehen. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
Jirotka, M. and J.A. Goguen (eds.) (1994): Requirements Engineering. Social and Technical Issues. London: Academic Press Harcourt Brace & Co. Publishers.
Joas, H. (1992): Die Kreativität des Handelns. Frankfurt/M.: Suhrkamp.
König, W. (1994): Konstruktionslehre zwischen Theorie und Praxis. Methodenentwicklung und Methodenstreit im deutschen Maschinenbau zwischen 1850 und 1914. In G. Pahl (Hrsg.): Psychologische und pädagogische Fragen beim methodischen Konstruieren. Köln: Verl. TÑV Rheinland.
Latour, B. (1990): Drawing Things Together. In M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.): Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Lloyd, P. and P. Deasley (1997): Storytelling and Metaphor in the Engineering Design Process. Paper Presented Darmstadt Symposium: Designers — the Key to Successful Product Development.
Lynch, M., E. Livingston and H. Garfinkel (1983): Temporal Order in LaboratoryWork. In K. Knorr-Cetina and M. Mulkay (eds.): Science Observed. London: Sage Publ.
Lynch, M. and S. Woolgar (eds.) (1990): Representation in Science Practice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Mead, G.H. (1934): Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Mead, G.H. (1938): C.W. Morris et al. (eds.): The Philosophy of the Act. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Pahl, G. and W. Beitz (1984): Engineering Design. London: Design Council.
Pickering, A. (ed.) (1992): Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Polanyi, M. (1964): Personal Knowledge. NY: Harper&Row.
Purcell and Gero (1998): Drawings and the Design Process. Design Studies, vol. 19, pp. 389–430.
Rendall, D., J. Hughes and D. Shapiro (1994): Steps Toward a Partnership: Ethnography and System Design. In M. Jirotka et al. (eds.).
Schön, D.A. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner. Basic Books.
Schön, D.A. (1991): Introduction. In D.A. Schön (ed.): The Reflective Turn. Case Studies in and on Educational Practice. Culumbia Univ.: Teachers College Press.
Suchman, L.A. (1990): Representing Practice in Cognitive Science. In M. Lynch and S. Woolgar (eds.).
Suchman, L.A. and R.H. Trigg (1993): Artificial Intelligence as Craftwork. In S. Chaiklin abd J. Lave (eds.): Understanding Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. pp. 144–178.
Tang, J.C. (1991): Findings from Observational Studies of CollaborativeWork. In S. Greenberg (ed.): Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Groupware. London: Academic Press.
VDI-Richtlinien 2221 (1993): Methodik zum Entwickeln und Konstruieren technischer Systeme und Produkte. Berlin: Beuth Verlag.
Visser, W. (1987): Strategies in Programming Programmable Controllers: A Field Study of a Professional Programmer. In G. M. Olson et al. (eds.): Empirical Studies of Programmers, Second Workshop. New Jersey: Ablex Publ. Co.
Woolgar, S. (1994): Rethinking Requirements analysis: Some implications of Recent Research into Producer-Consumer Relationships in IT Development. In M. Jirotka et al. (eds.).
Wynn, E. (1991): Taking Practice Seriously. In J. Greenbaum and M. Kyng (eds.): Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 45–64.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Glock, F. Design Tools and Framing Practices. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 12, 221–239 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023984313005
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023984313005