Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:41:23.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A theory landscape of design: mapping the theoretical discourse of the discipline

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2024

Katja Thoring  and
Roland M. Mueller
Katja Thoring*
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich, Germany
Roland M. Mueller
Affiliation:
Berlin School of Economics and Law, Germany
*
katja.thoring@tum.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper presents a mapping of theory use in the design discipline based on the corpus of the published ICED and DESIGN conference papers since 2010. We searched the resulting 4,451 papers for occurrences of theories and compared them with an existing ontology of named theories through natural language processing (NLP). The results yielded a variety of analyses, illustrating, for example, the most-used theories and which disciplines these theories stem from. This paper presents a rich overview of the theories relevant to the design discipline and a novel approach to bibliometric analyses.

Keywords

design theoryontologyliterature reviewnatural language processing (NLP)bibliometric analysis
Type
Design Theory and Research Methods
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 4: DESIGN 2024 , May 2024 , pp. 145 - 154
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2024.

References

Arp, R., Smith, B., & Spear, A. D. (2015). Building ontologies with Basic Formal Ontology. MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, K., Ingram, J., & Annable, L. (2016). Mapping design knowledge: 36 years of Design Studies. DRS Biennial Conference Series.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P. (2020). Where next for design research? Understanding research impact and theory building. Design Studies, 68, 113–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2020.03.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Daalhuizen, J., Valgeirsdottir, D., & Oorschot, R. V. (2019). A Theory-Driven Design Research Agenda: Exploring Dual-Process Theory. ICED, 1(1), 1373–1382. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.143Google Scholar
Cash, P. (2018). Developing theory-driven design research. Design Studies, 56, 84–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, P., Škec, S., & Štorga, M. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of the DESIGN 2012 conference. ICED, 043–052.Google Scholar
Chai, K.-H., & Xiao, X. (2012). Understanding design research: A bibliometric analysis of Design Studies (1996–2010). Design Studies, 33(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubin, R. (1969). Theory Building: A Practical Guide to the Construction and Testing of Theoretical Models. Free Press.Google Scholar
Gemser, G., de Bont, C., Hekkert, P., & Friedman, K. (2012). Quality perceptions of design journals: The design scholars’ perspective. Design Studies, 33(1), 4–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregor, S. (2006). The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 611–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 312–335.Google Scholar
Larsen, K. R., & Eargle, D. (2015). Theories Used in IS Research Wiki. Theories Used in IS Research Wiki. https://is.theorizeit.orgGoogle Scholar
McInnes, L., Healy, J., & Melville, J. (2020). UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reduction (arXiv:1802.03426). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03426Google Scholar
Mueller, R. M. (2015). A Meta-model for Inferring Inter-theory Relationships of Causal Theories. Proceedings of the 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 4908–4917. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2015.582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, R. M., & Huettemann, S. (2018). Extracting Causal Claims from Information Systems Papers with Natural Language Processing for Theory Ontology Learning. Proceedings of the 51st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), 5295–5304. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2018.660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, R. M., Huettemann, S., Larsen, K. R., Yan, S., & Handler, A. (2022). Toward an Information Systems Ontology. 17th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology (DESRIST), 13229, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06516-3_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, G. T., & Pereira, L. S. (2023). Global diversity in design research: A bibliometric investigation of design journals. Design Studies, 88, 101217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2023.101217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimers, N., & Gurevych, I. (2019). Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networks (arXiv:1908.10084). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1908.10084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What Theory is Not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, R. (2012). Evaluating and Developing Theories in the Information Systems Discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00284CrossRefGoogle Scholar