{"title":"制作严谨的设计案例","authors":"K. Smith","doi":"10.14434/IJDL.V1I1.917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Producing a rigorous design case, and producing a case that holds utility for designers, are not always one and the same act. The differences between rigor and utility in design cases are discussed in this article, as well as the position of the design case in the broader realm of naturalistic research. Drawing from naturalistic and action research, possible standards of rigor for cases emerge. These are presented and related to the representation of design knowledge. The article then presents issues observed among authors of traditional research in producing design cases of rigor.","PeriodicalId":91509,"journal":{"name":"International journal of designs for learning","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"48","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Producing the Rigorous Design Case\",\"authors\":\"K. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.14434/IJDL.V1I1.917\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Producing a rigorous design case, and producing a case that holds utility for designers, are not always one and the same act. The differences between rigor and utility in design cases are discussed in this article, as well as the position of the design case in the broader realm of naturalistic research. Drawing from naturalistic and action research, possible standards of rigor for cases emerge. These are presented and related to the representation of design knowledge. The article then presents issues observed among authors of traditional research in producing design cases of rigor.\",\"PeriodicalId\":91509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of designs for learning\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"48\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of designs for learning\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14434/IJDL.V1I1.917\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of designs for learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14434/IJDL.V1I1.917","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Producing a rigorous design case, and producing a case that holds utility for designers, are not always one and the same act. The differences between rigor and utility in design cases are discussed in this article, as well as the position of the design case in the broader realm of naturalistic research. Drawing from naturalistic and action research, possible standards of rigor for cases emerge. These are presented and related to the representation of design knowledge. The article then presents issues observed among authors of traditional research in producing design cases of rigor.