制作严谨的设计案例

K. Smith
{"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}
引用次数: 48

摘要

制作一个严谨的设计案例和制作一个对设计师有用的案例并不总是同一件事。本文讨论了设计案例中的严谨性和实用性之间的差异,以及设计案例在更广泛的自然主义研究领域中的地位。从自然主义和行动研究中,可以得出可能的案件严谨性标准。这些都与设计知识的表示有关。然后,文章提出了传统研究的作者在产生严谨的设计案例中观察到的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Producing the Rigorous Design Case
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
27 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信