Design synthesis and shape generation

If we are to capitalise on the potential that a design approach might bring to innovation in business and society, we need to build a better understanding of the evolving skill-sets that designers will need and the contexts within which design might operate. This demands more discourse between those involved in cutting edge practice, the researchers who help to uncover principles, codify knowledge and create theories and the educators who are nurturing future design talent. This book promotes such a discourse by reporting on the work of twenty research teams who explored different facets of future design activity as part of Phase 2 of the UK's research council supported Designing for the 21st Century Research Initiative. Each of these contributions describes the origins of the project, the research team and their project aims, the research methods used and the new knowledge and understanding generated. Editor and Initiative Director, Professor Tom Inns, provides an introductory chapter that suggests ways the reader might navigate these viewpoints. This chapter concludes with an overview of the key lessons that might be learnt from this collection of design research activity

Visual Research: An Introduction to Research Methodologies in Graphic Design

"Visual Research: An Introduction to Research Methodologies in Graphic Design" is a guide to the practice of researching for graphic design projects. This book explains the key terms and theories that underlie design research; examining the importance of audience, communication theory, semiotics and semantics. It features a range of case studies that demonstrate how the use of rigorous research methods can form the basis of effective visual communication and design problem solving, eschewing end product analysis for a discussion of the way research feeds into the design process. Synopsis of Chapter 1: The Role of Research in Graphic Design. Research methodologies for graphic design is a broad field which encompasses a wide range of practical and theoretical applications. This chapter introduces the field of design research as both an analytical and a practical tool for graphic designers, and establishes the role of critical thinking as a support to the development of an engaged design practice. The primary theoretical models of design analysis are also introduced, including semiotics, communication theory, systematic approaches, semantics and discourse theory, and their relevance to the wider graphic design profession established. The emphasis here is on why we do what we do and how we can be sure it is effective, through testing, feedback and rigorous approaches to design. The second edition includes twelve new international case studies, end of chapter exercises, a new chapter on Visual Grammar and a foreword by Ellen Lupton, an internationally renowned graphic designer, writer, curator and educator

Discursive Designing Theory - Towards a Theory of Designing Design -

Discursive Designing Theory - Towards a Theory of Designing Design- Juergen Faust Motivated by the immature theoretical framework of design, this thesis employs transdisciplinary discourse to provide a contemporary and forward-looking model of design and design theory, as well as the linkages between the two, along with the necessary methodology. The discourse involves research into the current understanding of design, its principles, its practice and conceptual framework. The methodology developed and employed in this thesis can be outlined in five steps: 0. Design briefing 1. Developing a conceptual model based on the writings of Michel Foucault and Helmut Krippendorff. 2. Presenting the model in a written form. 3. Using accounts of conferences as tools for Designing Design and building monuments. 4. Interrogating the theory through an expert system. 5. Summarising and evaluating the findings. Design Briefing The present study delves into design, and into the design of theory. In Chapter A.1.6, a summary of Chapter A.0−A.1.5 is given, highlighting the underlying discourse. As shown, the theory behind this work is based on a hypothesis, which cannot be proved experimentally, or deduced from experimental data, at least at the time of its construction. Therefore, it needs to be understood that the case studies (A.3.2−A.3.5) in this thesis are not intended to serve as experiments that were conducted in order to prove the theory; rather, these case studies are design cases—products and artefacts—and should be viewed as discourse frameworks that can be adopted to design design. As described in Chapter 3.1, these are elements of monuments—in reference to Raichman (1988)—that have resulted from the discursive strategies and were designed within a community of designers, allowing the design understanding to be shaped. Methodologically, the theory is created through an indication of differences. These differences were elaborated on in the literature review, and can be explained using either logic-based or hermeneutical metaphors. As the latter approach is more flexible, it might be more applicable to the design environment. The generated knowledge can be located in three areas—design knowledge, epistemology, methodology (the process to get there), and phenomenology (the composition of the artefacts). While the main focus of this thesis has been on theory design, it was also important to delineate how to get there, as well as analyse the questionable differences between theory and practice, since they are ideal types that mark the extreme ends of a continuum (Jonsen and Toulmin 1988, p.36). The work presented in this thesis was conducted in a circular manner, like a design process, in order to encapsulate the instance. Therefore, essential topics reappear, allowing them to be reframed and newly contextualised. Chapter 0.0 to 0.7 reperesent the introductory part of this work. Thus, the content presented could be referred to as ‘the briefing’—as a parallel to a design case—to provide the background. It shows the motivation, a first hypothesis, some methodological considerations, and the research design and decisions. The aim is to provide insight into the phenomenon of interest and discuss some preconceptions. Thus, these introductory chapters provide orientation through locating some statements of the provided (design) discourse. Developing a conceptual model based on the writings of Michel Foucault and Helmut Krippendorff. As a follow up, Section A consists of several key components, and encompasses the research methodology specificity, its theoretical underpinning, and its connection to design, a reframing and contextualisation. This section also provides the means to overcome the discrepancy between researching and designing. Therefore, in Chapter A1−A1.6, a more substantial discourse of design is provided, along with the theory and the essential knowledge. Here, we can see the method in operation, as a patching of discursive statements—akin to an additive process of designing. Clearly, the attempt made here belongs to the constructivist epistemology, as the idea of design is a mental construct. Nonetheless, the aim is to provide a broad perspective of what can be presently observed in the design field. The employed methodology strategically aims to overcome the divide between designing and researching—between acting and reflecting—in order to provide a conceptual model. Still, it also makes the designing practice a conscious process, whereby theory is designed through discourse. Such discourse is revealed within the discovery of textual statements based on an extensive literature review, as well as through the discovery of textual statements from organised interactive conferences. The theory developed here is, in fact, a theory derived from theory, and is shaped through finding patterns and the simplification of the overall structure they form. In A.2, the concept of discourse and its designing quality is revealed. It shows how discourse, as the guiding method, is ‘excavated’ from the writings of Michel Foucault and Helmut Krippendorff. Methodologically, Michel Foucault’s ‘Archeology of Knowledge’ was analysed against and parallel to Helmut Krippendorff’s ‘Semantic Turn’, as these sources are complementary to each other. The goal of this process is a comparison of statements, yielding reasoning towards discourse and design discourse. In sum, this analysis helped reveal that it is a matter of design how the discourse is provided. The outcome of the aforementioned comparison is very interesting and satisfying. The findings revealed a difference in discourse, because engineering and design discourses are informed by rhetoric of design, rhetoric of deliberation, in opposite to humanistic discourse, which consumes textual objects (Perelman 1999). The discursive designing process within these chapters reveals some important elements, such as the conceptual frame of politics, referred to in Foucault’s discourse explorations. According to the author, power is a generating force in shaping discourse (Faucault 1980, p.119). In contrast, Krippendorff (1995b) sees power as emanating from language, which can be overcome through avoiding the construction of certain language. In the research presented, the designing practice that took place during the conferences, as well as the aforementioned notions, play a role, as was shown in Chapter 3. Power, as it was experienced, is unavoidable. Yet, rather than seeing it as a problem, it should be viewed as a generating force. A second more substantial question arises around the notion of discontinuity (A.2.3), which is essential in Foucault’s concept. According to Krippendorff, knowledge is not partitioned; it rather provides continuity through the various disciplines. As this research shows, this view should not be seen as an opposite to Foucault’s concept of discontinuity, because statements can refer to the same object, but coming from a discontinuous field, from various disciplines. In other words, as design discourse can be viewed as a discourse hosted by various disciplines, it is discontinuous! With respect to Foucault’s concern of grasping of statements, the main goal of this thesis is to provide support for this perspective. As the author noted, the grasping of the statements needs to follow the exact specificity of their occurrence (Foucault 1972). The prudence and success of dissociating statements from their original context to place them in a new context is questionable, since no discontinuity can be ignored (Foucault 1972). Often, rather than paraphrasing the text so that it reflects one’s own understanding of it, the result is a mere citation of the original texts and con-texts. The awareness of discontinuity does not allow for this thesis to be presented according to the positivistic paradigm. Thus, rather than stitching the chapters together, as if they would naturally support each other, there might be some discontinuity ‘logic’. Presenting the model in a written form. In Chapter A.2.5 to A.2.7, further perspectives on the various elements of this thesis are revealed, in reference to the discussions presented in the preceding chapters. Scientific discourse, in Krippendorff’s (2006) view, is misleading, since the design activities are different from those involved in science, which focus on search for patterns, and are thus always driven by the past. However, designers are not motivated by the quest for knowledge (patterns), by the challenges, or conflicts that need to be resolved. Rather, they are motivated by opportunities for creating something better (patterns), or by the potential for introducing variations. In sum, designers generate various versions of the future, as they are always interested in the possibilities (variables) and realistic paths (Krippendorff 2006, p.28). Discursive designing of design theory is seen in this way. It is an overcoming of the divide between the past and the process of generating the future, since statements are driven by the past. The monument that emerges as a result, as well as the resulting theory, is thus the future generated by patterning past statements into something new—something we can call future. Generating future in discourse is common for designers, as shown in A.2.6. Designers live in discourse, as sketching is a kind of dialogue (Cross 2007). If not working on design theories, designers produce discourse in conveyance matter, but do not necessary generate knowledge. Drawings and texts serve as evidence of a discourse held, rather than being the discourse itself. Design discourse can be conveyed in various textual forms. Designers turn documents into monuments (Rajchman 1988) when creating objects based on documents. Such dialogues, such discourse, and specifically the design discourse, follow ‘rules’. These ‘rules’ lie in connections with textual matter, with constructed artefacts, with the community of its practitioners, its recurrent practices, and boundaries that justify its identities to outsiders (Krippendorff 2006). In Chapter A2.7, the difference among discourse, discourse analysis and discourse practice is clarified. Discourse practice is not limited by language, as it relies on textual matter. On the other hand, discursive analysis involves search for discourses, discourse formations and rules. It has transformed into the analysis of media texts and talks, the relation between discourse and pictures, photographs or film and many other fields, including therapeutic discourse (van Dijk 1989). While the aforementioned process yields valid results, research that produces explicit knowledge is more desirable. Communication through images is often not accessible for individuals outside the design community (Robbins 1997). Still, practice-based research is what designers do (Dorst 2008a). The differentiation between reflective practice and research should remain (Hart 2006), since the latter is the methodical search for knowledge, while the same is not always true for the former (Friedman 2003). Even though design knowledge arises from practice, not all (design) practice is systematic and methodological. Accounts of conferences as tools for Designing Design and building monuments. Several examples of a systematic design practice and methodology are provided in Chapter 3. While an overview of the setting and method is provided in Chapter 3.1, the conferences included in this study, and the discourse summaries they generated, are presented in Chapter 3.2−3.4. The process of designing these events and evaluating their respective outcomes was very informative for the search for theory. Moreover, the theory itself has led to the discourse of the presented designing design theory. On the other hand, not all conferences were relevant for this study, as not all design practice has been successful in providing knowledge. In three of the conferences held during the period of this study, the design practice was only partially successful. In one instance, the possible knowledge yielded was not sufficiently clear, since it was not documented in usable form. The conference reflection yielded results similar to those arising from the discursive practice that took place when excavating texts. Discourse based on the previously generated textual matter shows clearer evidence of knowledge and influence of the understanding of design. This is to be expected, since the shaping and reshaping, the summarising and condensing has taken place over time. Conference results and discourses are highly depended on the already available documentation. In this work, all other rules of discourse have been observed as well. Thus, it is evident that discourse design can be influenced through the speaker selection, their backgrounds and topics of presentations, as well as the time allocated to each. In this selection, the politics involved is always latent. In Chapter A.3.5, the discourse of the conferences as discursive as cases is validated. The outcome is very interesting, as it reveals statements that have and might influence not only the concept of design, but also its understanding. For instance, design thinking is the foundation of the discursive practice design. Such a design practice is marked by the shift towards a rhetoric and dialectic. Designers can solve design problems, such as creating a design theory, only through conversations. Designing design aimed at conceptualising the future of design is designing based on rhetoric and dialectic, because the base is text and conversation with the actors in the network—the community of individuals who come together in order to solve some design problems. It is important to note that, designing in a conference setting, as presented in the three cases, is participatory. In such instances, design is a social process, as the design activity extends beyond one designer. When engaged in a participatory design workshop, the attendees are an integral part of the social process of design. Moreover, they play an active role in the issue/problem raising, discussion and decision-making processes that are part of the early design stages of a project. When such an approach is adopted, the boundary between designers and users becomes blurred (Luck 2003, p.523). Reflecting on what was previous stated in Chapter 3.7, various social practices are recognized, namely (1) the way we are doing a job—i.e., using language; (2) discourse serves as representation and re-contextualisation of other practices to incorporate them into their own; and (3) discourse helps in the constitution of identities (Fairclough 2000). When discussing these events, it is possible to apply discourse analysis, adopting discursive methods to design theory. However, discourse should not be seen as the hammer that treats everything as a nail, since ‘…there exists no strictly Foucauldian method of analyzing discourse’ (Hook 2001, p.521). In other words, when the aim of an event is generating a discursive designing process, it should not be governed by strict rules. For instance, we can see the entire process of discursive designing from an action theory perspective, as was shown in Chapter 3.8. All criteria can be applied, since action research is a group activity with an explicit critical value basis and is founded on a partnership between action researchers and participants, all of whom are involved in the change process. The participatory process is educative and empowering, involving a dynamic approach in which problem identification, planning, action and evaluation are interlinked. When such approach is adopted, knowledge may be advanced through reflection and research, and qualitative and quantitative research methods may be employed to collect the data. Different types of knowledge, including practical and prepositional, may be produced by action research. Theory may be generated and refined, and its general application explored through the cycles of the action research processes. Yet, it also highlights presence of differences, since not all participants have been invited to consciously design theory in an action research process. The action research frame also demonstrates the value of the process applied, allowing and framework of the designing design theory to be better understood. The discursive design theory process—designing design—can also be framed as grounded theory (Chapter A.3.9). In social research, generating theory goes hand in hand with verifying it (Glaser and Strauss 1967, p.2). It is a systematic inquiry to construct theory (Bryant 2010). This is succinctly explained by Hannafin (1997), who noted: ‘theory-based approaches provide designers with powerful heuristics that guide design processes and procedures rather than provide explicit prescriptions’ (p.102). Developing a theory that can be applied to elucidate the shaping of the understanding of the notion of design and applying this theory in order to reshape the understanding of design is a grounded theory process, whereby theory merges into practice. ‘It assists designers in synthesizing across, as well as recognizing important distinctions among, various theoretical perspectives’ (Ibid, p.102). As Hannafin (1997) ponted out: Finally, grounded designs and their frameworks are validated iteratively through successive implementation. Methods are proven effective in ways that support the theoretical framework upon which they are based, and the framework itself is refined as implementation clarifies or extends the approach. The design processes and methods continuously inform, test, validate, or contradict the theoretical framework and assumptions upon which they were based, and vice-versa. (p.103) Therefore, it can be said that discursive design theory in action—Designing Design—is a grounded design process. While all the conditions are met, Hannafin (1997) cautioned that we need to be aware that ‘Clearly, not all design practice is grounded’ (p.103). We should also be mindful that the discursive designing practice was not intended to be grounded. Within the circular process of designing the research, discussed in Chapter A.4 to A.9, further defining and contextualising the process of designing design helps with generating and exploring the discourse and stating the theory. In A.4, a history of designing design is presented, highlighting some rudimentary statements of relevance for this study (Jonas 1996) which puts it into the context of Universality. In the view of Giaccardi (2005), designing design as a meta design concept, as it is a design by anticipation. Glanville (1999) described a process of simplification and pattern finding to develop our understandings. Glanville argued that design is a process of continuous modification and unification—the inclusion of an increasing number of elements into a coherent whole. It may also involve an occasional re-start, extension, and revolution, as well as the increase in range and of simplification. When designing design, theory designing can be accomplished in different ways, as was shown in Chapter A.5. While it can be achieved through externalisation within a group process, it can also be an individual process (conferences and text-based individual patterning). However, while the designing of theory has to be based on some clear conditions, it can also be seen as a basic human activity (Chapter A.6.) Everybody designs; design is not a monopoly of designers (Rittel 1988). Each iterative process that changes existing situations can be referred to as design. Based on this premise, design is not an exclusive profession, since many professions include processes based on iterations and changes of existing situations. Still, there is a difference between professional designers and non-designers because a ‘reflective practice approach to design engages in knowing-in-action that serves as a substantial base of design skills’ (Wakkary 2005, p.1). This definition leaves only the explicit knowledge in the realm of the design profession and indicates the need for a design theory designer, a design theory specialist. As shown in Chapter A.7, Designing Design is driven by design thinking which should be viewed as an instance in a discursive practice reaching the goal. It is thus a technique, developed based on the understanding of what is needed for the production, as well as the consequences of such a theory and model. Design thinking is about the dependencies and the acceptance of such a theory within the community of professionals, within the design theory community. Designing of design (theory) is also designing a system, since all systems comprise several components, which are interdependent and interact with each other to form an integrated whole within a specific context. This is exemplified in the design theory developed in this thesis. The interdependent group of statements is thus organised to form the systemic whole. As the observer is the one that decides what belongs to the system, not only the system space, but also the designing design theory space and its boundaries, changes with the research process and statements produced within the discursive system. This is presented in Chapter A.6−A.9, which also define the system boundary, while also ensuring viability of this approach by limiting input to the discourse system. In Chapter A.9 and A 9.1, the discursive theory design is put into an epistemological context. In this process, it is assumed that designing design does not solve finite problems, as it creates new

Contextualising Critical Design: Towards a Taxonomy of Critical Practice in Product Design

This study focuses on critical design practice. The research challenges the colloquial understanding of ‘critical design.’ It problematises, defines and reassesses the concept of ‘critical design’ situating it among other forms of critical design practice. The research reviews the field of activity from a historical perspective. It reviews contemporary activity in contexts of design research and the gallery system to establish domain authorities and theoretical perspectives that inform critical design practice. The research draws from a body of literature relating to design theory and critical design practice to identify several important themes by which to discuss the practice. The research employs a hermeneutic methodology and engages expert ‘critical’ designers through a series of conversational interviews. The interviews are analysed using code to theory methods of inductive qualitative analysis and subjected to hermeneutic analysis that draws on the extensive contextual review. Salient concepts found in the discourse are extracted, theorised and organised to create taxonomy of critical design practice. In the taxonomy, the field of critical design practice is categorised by three types of practice: Associative Design, Speculative Design and Critical Design. These three practices are differentiated by topics addressed in each and further differentiated by the type of Satire, Narrative and Object Rationality used in each practice. The original contribution of this research is a Taxonomy of critical practice in product design, which consists of a written and visual dimension. The taxonomy acts as a discursive tool to chart design activity and it illustrates the diversity in critical design practice beyond the colloquial understanding of ‘critical design’. The taxonomy presents three distinct types of critical design practice; it outlines the design methods used to establish the critical move through design and identifies the contexts where critical design is practiced. It can be used to compare projects, chart designers’ activity over time, illustrate trajectories of practice and identify themes in practice. The taxonomy provides theoretical apparatus to analyse the field. Such analysis contributes towards a discussion on critical design within design studies

Ageism in the discourse and practice of designing digital technology for older persons:A scoping review

Background and Objectives Involving older persons in the design process of digital technology (DT) promotes the development of technologies that are appealing, beneficial, and used. However, negative discourse on aging and ageism are potential underlying factors that could influence which and how DTs are designed and how older persons are involved in the design process. This scoping review investigates the explicit and implicit manifestations of ageism in the design process of DT. Research Design and Methods Seven databases were screened for studies reporting on the design of DT with older persons between January 2015 and January 2020. Data regarding study and DT characteristics, discourse about older persons, and their involvement in the design process were extracted, coded, and analyzed using critical discourse analysis. Results Sixty articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Various forms of exclusion of older persons from the design process were identified, such as no or low involvement, upper-age limits, and sample biases toward relatively “active,” healthy and “tech-savvy” older persons. Critical discourse analysis revealed the use of outdated language, stereotypical categorizations, and/or design decisions based on ageism in 71.7% of the studies. Discussion and Implications A discrepancy was found between an “ideal” discourse regarding the involvement of older persons throughout the design process and actual practice. Manifestations of ageism, errors, and biases of designing DT with older persons are discussed. This article calls for more authentic inclusion of older persons and higher awareness toward the implications of ageism in the design process of DT

Using developmental evaluation methods with communities of practice

Purpose This research explored the use of developmental evaluation methods with community of practice programmes experiencing change or transition to better understand how to target support resources. Design / methodology / approach The practical use of a number of developmental evaluation methods was explored in three organisations over a nine month period using an action research design. The research was a collaborative process involving all the company participants and the academic (the author) with the intention of developing the practices of the participants as well as contributing to scholarship. Findings The developmental evaluation activities achieved the objectives of the knowledge managers concerned: they developed a better understanding of the contribution and performance of their communities of practice, allowing support resources to be better targeted. Three methods (fundamental evaluative thinking, actual-ideal comparative method and focus on strengths and assets) were found to be useful. Cross-case analysis led to the proposition that developmental evaluation methods act as a structural mechanism that develops the discourse of the organisation in ways that enhance the climate for learning, potentially helping develop a learning organization. Practical implications Developmental evaluation methods add to the options available to evaluate community of practice programmes. These supplement the commonly used activity indicators and impact story methods. 2 Originality / value Developmental evaluation methods are often used in social change initiatives, informing public policy and funding decisions. The contribution here is to extend their use to organisational community of practice programmes

Formative Pathways: Changing Systems of Design - From Heuristics to Applications, Pedagogies, and Processes

This special issue of International Journal of Architecture Computing (IJAC)is entitled Formative Pathways and explores the changing face of the profession and the academy as a means to capture the influence of computational methods on architecture and design.The selected papers describe the integration of those approaches into pedagogies and practices and demonstrate their transformative and disruptive effect on the norms and traditions of design, discourse, design education, and practices, and how this knowledge exchange continues to shape today’s theory and practice of architecture.The ideas discussed by the authors are characterized by procedures that expand beyond the techniques of crafting things to include broader design knowledge of heuristics, applications, pedagogies, and their often simultaneous influence on design processes and practices in the academic and professional realms

Parent, student and teacher beliefs about parental involvement in a child's learning : a mixed method study : a thesis presented in partial fulfilment for the degree of Masters of Education (Educational Administration and Leadership), Massey University, New Zealand

Parental involvement in a child’s learning has a positive impact on a child’s academic success and emotional wellbeing, yet there are differing views about what this entails (Lewin & Luckin, 2010; Selwyn, Banaji, Hadjithoma-Garstka, & Clark, 2011; Schnee & Bose, 2010). This study researched how parents, senior primary students and teachers in three New Zealand primary schools perceived ‘parental involvement in learning’ and the factors that influenced involvement. An explanatory sequential mixed methods research design was used so an understanding of the differing definitions could be gathered before they were explored in more depth in the qualitative stage of the study. The findings of the study revealed that each group understood ‘learning’ differently and that these differences influenced their definitions of ‘parental involvement in a child’s learning’. These definitions of learning shaped the actions teachers acknowledged, or valued as parental involvement, helping to create a teacher discourse of under involved parents that was not reflected in the parental data. Possible suggestions for practice and further research are explored in the study

Discourse as a Constituent Basis of Media Pedagogy and Conclusions from a Perspective of Systems Theory

Medienpädagogik lässt sich beschreiben als Wissenschaft und Lehre von medienbezogenen erziehungs- und bildungsrelevanten Aktivitäten und ihren Voraussetzungen und Bedingungen. Vielfältige Entwürfe und Diskussionslinien in der Medienpädagogik haben bisher weder zu einer allgemein anerkannten Theorie mit einem eindeutig umgrenzten Gegenstand noch zu einer spezifischen Forschungsmethodik geführt. Vor diesem Hintergrund wird in dem vorliegenden Beitrag der medienpädagogische Diskurs selbst als konstituierende Grundlage der Medienpädagogik verstanden. Als Themenfelder des Diskurses lassen sich u. a. nennen: begriffliche Klärungen sowie Voraussetzungen, Bedingungen, Zielvorstellungen und Vorgehensweisen für erziehungs- und bildungsrelevante Aktivitäten in Medienzusammenhängen und Forschungsmethoden sowie ihre Begründungen. Mit Blick auf einen so strukturierten medienpädagogischen Diskurs geht es des Weiteren um Überlegungen a) zur Umwandlung von Informationen des Diskurses in ein (personengebundenes) Reflexions- und Gestaltungswissen für erziehungs- und bildungsbezogenes Handeln, b) zum Verhältnis von Theorie und Praxis als reflexives und gestaltungsorientiertes In-Beziehung-Setzen von Diskursthemen und pädagogisch relevanten Situationen und Prozessen, c) zu Möglichkeiten und Problemen einer Begrenzung des medienpädagogischen Diskurses zur Reduzierung von Komplexität bei gleichzeitiger Öffnung für Weiterentwicklungen.Media Pedagogy can be described as the theory of media education and media literacy activities and their preconditions and circumstances. Various drafts and lines of discussion in the discourse on media pedagogy have neither led to a generally accepted theory with a clearly limited object nor to specific research methods. Against this background, the discourse on media pedagogy itself will be understood as a constituent basis of media pedagogy in the following paper. Topics of this discourse include conceptual clarifications as well as preconditions, circumstances, aims and procedures of media education and media literacy activities and research methods. With reference to the discourse structured this way, this article, moreover, deals with considerations a) on converting information of the media pedagogical discourse to (personal) reflexive and design knowledge and competencies for educational actions, b) on the relation between theory and practice as a reflexive and design-oriented relating of topics of the discourse with pedagogically relevant situations and processes, and c) on possibilities and problems of limiting the media pedagogical discourse in order to reduce complexity and of opening it for further developments at the same time

On Speculative Enactments

Speculative Enactments are a novel approach to speculative design research with participants. They invite the empirical analysis of participants acting amidst speculative but consequential circumstances. HCI as a broadly pragmatic, experience-centered, and participant-focused field is well placed to innovate methods that invite first-hand interaction and experience with speculative design projects. We discuss three case studies of this approach in practice, based on our own work: Runner Spotters, Metadating and a Quantified Wedding. In distinguishing Speculative Enactments we offer not just practical guidelines, but a set of conceptual resources for researchers and practitioners to critique the different contributions that speculative approaches can make to HCI discourse