Annotated portfolios

Reference: Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. interactions, 19(4), 40-49.

Abstract: [Note that this paper doesn't have an "abstract", so I'm placing here what I consider one its core paragraphs: "We propose the notion of annotated portfolios as a way to communicate design research. In part, we do this to provide an alternative to accounts that suggest for design to become productive as research, it should engage in some sort of theory formation. While what exactly is meant by theory is not always clear, writers usually have in mind some conceptual machinery that can explain and predict. Experiments test theories. While we do not dispute that sometimes a designed artifact and the experience of its use can have an experimental status, we do not believe this is typically the case in the kind of design research we do in HCI. Accordingly, it is moot whether we want to regard annotated portfolios as a contribution to design theory in HCI, if by theory is meant something with explanatory and predictive power."

My comments: A good addition to the ongoing discussions in design research about what constitutes knowledge, what and how is research conducted, and what are its outcomes. This is the type of valuable contributions to more explicitly distinguish between practice and research in a field like design, beyond merely adopting ideas from artistic research and other traditions. We could also learn from fields such as robotics, where "the thing" (artefact) plays a central role in the contribution to the field. My own thoughts around practice-x research (based, led, oriented, through, etc) have evolved significantly in the last four years and now that I'm teaching research methods, these issues have become one of my main concerns.