Dear Claus,

It is indeed possible to sketch out the approaches to design research that are in wide use. Scientometrics and bibliometrics are two of the standard tools for this work.

Kah-Hin Chai and Xin Xiao (2012) of the National University of Singapore recently published a bibliometric analysis covering a decade and a half of articles in Design Studies. Their work suggests a plurality of approaches to design research rather than a “dominant theoretical lens.”

Actor-Network Theory is interesting with respect to design research, but so far, it is a minor stream. Neither Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, nor John Law makes even a single appearance in the most cited literature (Chai and Xiao 2012: 40-43).

While one might argue that this reflects the tendencies of a single journal, its authors and audience, it is possible to do a broader bibliometric analysis of the field.

In the same issue of Design Studies, a broad analysis of the entire field produced a list of the top fourteen journals in design research (Gemser, de Bont, Hekkert, and Friedman, 2012: 14). These fourteen journals are: Design Studies, Design Issues, Human Factors, Journal of Design History, Human-Computer Interaction, Applied Ergonomics, Journal of Engineering Design, International Journal of Design,Computer-Aided Design, Research in Engineering Design, Ergonomics, The Design Journal, A&HCI, Design and Culture, and the Journal of Design Research.

While a full analysis of the top journals in the field would doubtless show some variation in comparison with Chai and Xiao, I’m guessing that any full analysis will reasonably well cluster around the patterns visible in their article.

A comprehensive bibliometric analysis will doubtless reveal citations to Callon, Latour, and Law, but I doubt that ANT will emerge as a dominant theoretical lens.

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Phone +61 3 9214 6102

--

References

Chai, Kah-Hin, and Xin Xiao. 2012. “Understanding design research: A bibliometric analysis of Design Studies (1996-2010). Design Studies (2012), pp. 24-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.004

Gemser, Gerda, Cees de Bont, Paul Hekkert, and Ken Friedman. 2012. “Quality Perceptions of Design Journals: The Design Scholars’ Perspective.” Design Studies (2012), pp. 4-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2011.09.001

--

Claus Noppeny wrote:

—snip—

Actor Network Theory (e.g. Callon 1986, Latour 1987, Law 2000) seems to be a significant source of inspiration for design research. One might sometimes even get the impression that it is currently the dominant theoretical lense among design researchers. In some contexts there seems to be a recent shift of focus towards sociomaterial assemblages (e.g. Orlikowski 2007, 2008, Suchman 2007 etc.). So far however, this discussion of sociomateriality has been hardly received and discussed in design research.

Accordingly, there are at least two issues:

Is ANT the preferred theoretical design research lense?

And if so, why is sociomaterialy less “popular”?

There might not be the one exhaustive answer to this. But perhaps we might be able to scetch an answer.

—snip—