and utility. Critical design evaluates the status quo and relies on design experts to make things that provoke our understanding of the current values people hold. Critical design “makes us think”[ 3]. Cultural probes is a methodology in the critical design bubble [ 4]. Probes are ambiguous stimuli that designers send to people who then respond to them, providing insights for the design process. Probes are intended to be a method for providing design inspiration rather than a tool to be used for understanding the experiences of others.

The generative design bubble (in the top right corner) is design-led and fueled by a participatory mind-set. Generative design empowers everyday people to generate and promote alternatives to the current situation. Generative tools is a methodology in the generative design research bubble. The name “generative tools” refers to the creation of a shared design language that designers/researchers and the stakeholders use to communicate visually and directly with each other. The design language is generative in the sense that with it, people can express an infinite number of ideas through a limited set of stimulus items. Thus, the generative tools approach is a way to fill the fuzzy front end with the ideas, dreams, and insights of the people who will be served through design [ 5].

Both critical design and generative design aim to generate and promote alternatives to the current situation. But they operate from opposing mind-sets. Many of the new tools and methods that have emerged in the last five years are design-led and sit along the top of the map, spanning the range from the critical design bubble to the generative design research bubble.

How Have I Used the Map?

The map has already been useful in a number of different ways. In my academic role, the map has been very useful for teaching about the changing state of design practice and design research. At the graduate level in particular, I see a trend toward a broader mix of disciplines wanting to learn how to do design research. The map can help students from different disciplinary backgrounds to understand each others’ mind-sets, approaches, and tools for doing research. The map can help students recognize where their past training and/ or experience positions them as researchers, and it can also show them new directions for exploration and learning. I have used the map to support and

scaffold different modes of exploration and experimentation in the design research process.

For example, graduate students (from design and engineering at Ohio State University) who took a class in design research were asked to show where they stood on the map as a result of their previous research exp eriences [ 6]. The students located themselves primarily on the expert-driven side of the map, spanning research-led (the engineers were here) and design-led (the designers were here) approaches. The students formed teams (made up of people from both disciplines), and each team selected a topic to explore through design research. They were then asked to decide where on the map they would like to explore. All of the teams decided to move away from the expert-driven side of the map in order to explore participatory, design-led approaches to design research. Each team made a successful learning journey on the map. The engineers were surprised to learn that research can be a creative process that can open up ideas and new opportunities. They had previously been more familiar with research for problem solving. The designers learned how to think and work with a participatory mind-set, inviting non-designers to become their partners in the creative process.

On a more strategic side, I am currently using the design research map as a framework for establishing new curricula to ensure the effectiveness of learning experiences for students from diverse disciplines. One question that arises is this: Should we make separate design research maps for the different design domains such as industrial design, interior space design, interaction design, architecture, etc.? That may be useful as an interim step, particularly in academia where the design disciplines have not yet been integrated for the most part. A more useful end goal is to begin to connect the separate maps to help show the relationships between research tools and methods across all the different design domains. After all, people are people, whether they are finding their way around a building, using a product, reading a package, or using a software application. With the increased interest in and application of participatory design thinking, we will see that the professionals who understand people (whether designers or not) will be the ones to lead design in the future.

In my role as a practitioner, I have used the

[ 2] Ehn, P. “ Work-oriented design of computer artifacts.” Falköping, Sweden: Arbetslivscentrum/ Almgvist and Wiksell International, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988.

[ 3] Dunne, A. and F. Raby. Design Noir: The Secret Life of Electronic Objects. Birkhauser, 2001.

[ 4] Gaver, W., A. Dunne, and E. Pacenti. “Cultural Probes.” interactions 6, no. 1 (1999): 21-29.

[ 5] Sleeswijk Visser,
F., P. J. Stappers, R.
van der Lugt, and
E. B. -N. Sanders.
“Contextmapping:
Experiences from prac-
tice.” CoDesign 1, no.
2(2005): 119-149.

[ 6] Sanders, E.B.-N. and P.K. Chan. “Emerging trends in design research: A design graduate course case study exploring emerging spaces in the landscape of design research.” Presentation IASDR07 (International Association of Societies of Design Research) Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China, November 2007.