THE LACK OF DESIGN PROCEDURES IN THE LITERATURE One of the essential elements of Educational Design Research is thus research through

design experiments. As mentioned in Section 3.2, which presents a review of the relevant literature on Educational Design Research, the term “design” is spoken of in general terms, but no directions or methods are given for how these designs occur.

Nor is there any explanation for how the theoretical perspectives, which in many ways are the basis of what is being investigated, are translated into concrete designs. One of the few examples related to the design process in Educational Design Research is the

book Conducting Educational Design Research by Susan McKenney and Thomas C.

Reeves (McKenney & Reeves, 2018). In the section “Design and construction” they try to give several suggestions on design methods. However, there is still a tendency for the discussion to be reduced to discussing the “necessity of design”, with very little about how to conduct it. Even when McKenney and Reeves (2018) become more specific about what activities a researcher can initiate, it is limited to simple brainstorming techniques and idea generation methods. A criticism to correct here must be that these methods in themselves do not create designs that link to theoretical assumptions. The following quote illustrates how the design problem is being boiled down to concepts such as exploring, idea generation and mapping solutions. It skips central parts like synthesis as an abductive sense-making process that merges and manipulates different elements into a cohesive structure through sketching. Instead, there is a focus on solutions that must be assumed to be the end product of a design process.

The work is guided by theory, as well as local expertise and inspiring examples. During design, potential solutions are explored by generating ideas, considering each, and checking the feasibility of ones that seem the most promising. Once a limited number of options have been identified, potential solutions are gradually mapped from a skeleton design to detailed specification. Once (partially) mapped, the solution is constructed, usually through a process of prototyping. (McKenney &

Reeves, 2018, p. 129)

They talk in the book about building a skeleton design but never explain what it is, or how to create one - besides generation of ideas. According to McKenney and Reeves (2018), a skeleton design consists of both design requirements and design propositions.

Design requirements specify the criteria of the intervention and are closely tied to the long-range goal. Design propositions, on the other hand, guide how to achieve the long-range goal. They write, among other things: “Based on theoretical understanding, empirical findings and local expertise, design propositions may further specify what a design should look like” (McKenney & Reeves, 2018, p. 129). The challenge is the same; there is no methodological insight into how these design requirements are derived or how they are used to inform the design. When idea generation is coupled with a detailed list of requirements and wishes, there is a risk that the design process does not create new insights but rather creates merely a list of what is already known (McKenney & Reeves, 2018).

The underlying problem is that McKenney and Reeves (2018) do not, through their methodological description of EDR, secure the very basic “bricks” for creating a design process, which means their method is going to point to a solution-oriented modus where specific requirements are almost self-explanatory to the solution, rather than playing with “bricks” that create many potential paths.

In their book, McKenney and Reeves (2018) make several references to Nelson

and Stolterman, who are the authors behind the book The design Way (Nelson &

Stolterman, 2014; Stolterman, 2008). What is interesting, however, is that McKenney and Reeves (2018) fail to include Nelson and Stolterman’s theories on design schemes and sketching techniques, which are mentioned in design research as a prerequisite for creating designs (Kolko, 2009; Krogh et al., 2015; Nelson & Stolterman, 2014;

Stolterman, 2008). Also, references to Edward de Bono are seen (Bono, 1990), who is known for his theories on lateral thinking, which are basically about how “impossible connections” can be reconciled through new ideas. However, instead of focusing on lateral thinking, they address the design perspective from Bono’s (2017) theory of the “six thinking hats”, which would count more as an evaluation tool or method for creating status in a given project (De Bono, 1990; De Bono, 2017).

Based on these criticisms, the embedded design process of Educational Design Research in this PhD project will be unfolded through existing theories and models within the research field and domain of Design Thinking. The following section describes Design Thinking as the primary method for developing an educational game design.

3.4.1. DESIGN THINKING

Based on the formulated critique of how design perspectives are described and directed in the literature on Educational Design Research, the following sections aim to contribute to an understanding of how the design challenge is handled in this PhD project. Based on the book The Design Way, formulated by Nelson and Stolterman (2014), which describes the design process through the systematic development of design schemas, the PhD project design approach is unfolded in the following sections (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014). Thus, when the vision is to conduct research through the testing of experimental designs or prototypes through a systematic approach, a fundamental dimension of Educational Design Research must be to understand the concept of “design” (Akkerman & Bronkhorst, 2013; Barab & Squire, 2004; diSessa

& Cobb, 2004; Nieveen et al., 2006). Nelson and Stolterman (2014) discuss how methods that frame Design Thinking pave the way for meeting the requirements for future education:

To be able to successfully deal with change in the twenty-first century it is now critical that we pick up those frayed design threads, and weave them back into new patterns, integrating their wisdom into a more holistic fabric of life. (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p. 21)

What is essential here is initially to describe the challenges a design process poses, where the necessity for the researcher to occupy a “designerly” position in practice can be challenging, and require specific skills and design insights. Next, the project’s understanding of the concept of design, including the “design character”, is the basis for the development process itself. It leads to a presentation of the method used, where

the “design way” defined by Nelson and Stolterman (2014), in particular, has been the primary basis (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014; Stolterman, 2008). This specification is followed by a description of the importance of the design approach used in practice, along with the concrete methods and tools used in the design process.

Finally, the final design is presented, which forms the framework for the study process and the project’s data collection. As previously mentioned, this description will include a discussion of how the individual design principles and design schemes, derived in the previous sections, have been coupled through an abductive synthesis process.

3.4.2. BECOMING "DESIGNERLY" IS THE CHALLENGE

The design concept has, in many ways, become mainstream and is used interchangeably when talking about development and change processes. However, Stolterman (2008) points out that the concept of design is “grounded in and guided by a sufficient understanding and acceptance of the nature of design practice” (Stolterman, 2008, p. 56). He argues that a design practice has its characteristics and related disciplines that point to a particular “designerly” behaviour consisting of being able to (1) frame the situation, (2) listen and pay attention to what to embrace and dismiss, (3) explore, extract and recognise, and (4) chose useful information from potential sources (Stolterman, 2008). Thus, in the following quote, Stolterman (2008) describes the difference between whether or not a designerly behaviour is ingrained in a design process:

It is obvious that good designers can handle design complexity, and they can do it in ways that lead to innovative and surprising results that people appreciate and value as wonderful examples of good design.

Even in the most demanding situation, one with a design complexity that most people would agree is overwhelming, some designers are still able to deliver a design that seems both to “conquer” complexity and to be surprisingly functional and appealing. (Stolterman, 2008, p. 60) This means that every development process cannot merely be described as a design process and that it often requires training and experience to become a competent designer (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014; Stolterman, 2008). This argument is also supported by Krogh et al. (2015) in their description of the design process as drifting, where the designer must understand to navigate and learn through sequences of action (Krogh et al., 2015). Kolko (2009) talks about design as a process of synthesis where the designer must be able to “forge connections between seemingly unrelated issues through a process of selective pruning and visual organisation” (Kolko, 2009, p. 18). Thus, there is a consensus that the design process requires a specific methodological approach and behaviour that can accommodate a large complex of endless opportunities (Kolko, 2009; Krogh et al., 2015; Nelson & Stolterman, 2014; Stolterman, 2008). Therefore, being able to work in a designerly manner is very much about acquiring a significant

degree of discipline and a rigorous process where the use of tools and methods supports intentional and situated design practice (Stolterman, 2008). Based on my education as a civil engineer in architecture and design, this way of working is not unknown. In fact, the designerly approach is in many ways the core of how I work naturally. The challenge is probably in many ways more me being able to create transparency around a complex design process with endless opportunities, as my designerly behaviour is both intuitive and unconscious. It is, therefore, a conscious focus of the PhD thesis, which is further elaborated in phase 2, Chapter 8.

3.4.3. DESIGN CHARACTER

Design is about the creation of meaningful experience by dealing with situations of high complexity and a “messy” reality (Salen & Zimmerman, 2004; Stolterman, 2008).

The concept of design has also been referred to as a “third way” to integrate thinking and actions (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014). Thus, the design tradition is an alternative way to create change, which, according to Nelson and Stolterman (2014), shocks the general understanding that change requires “comprehensive analysis and rational decision-making, leading to a clear choice for action” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p.

21). Krogh et al. (2015) try to create an overview of the extent to which design differs from the more classical scientific disciplines. In this connection, they point out that the crucial difference is the design research nature of “drifting”. It makes “research through design” vulnerable to criticism, as the argumentation is that research must not be done with a touch of randomness, uncontrolled, illogical and inconsistent (Krogh et al., 2015). When a design process, and thus parts of an educational research design process, is characterised by unpredictability or a “drifting nature”, this is undoubtedly a relevant criticism, especially in regard to a desire for transparency. However, they address the criticism by pointing out that a professional design practice contains several procedures, methods and tools aimed at framing and managing the chaotic trajectory of the design process (Krogh et al., 2015). Stolterman (2008), one of the authors of the book The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World, also supports this argument and writes, among other things:

The point is that even though the design process is not structured in the way other rational processes are, it does not mean that we have to see the process as a “black art”. Instead, design has its own internal structure, procedures, activities and components that are well recognised by skilled designers. (Stolterman, 2008, p. 60)

This means that research through design should not only focus on a description of the prototype as an end product but also show an interest in describing the procedural choices and arguments that are important for the development of the specific prototype or design (Krogh et al., 2015; Stolterman, 2008).

According to Stolterman (2008), design practice is characterised by the way the

“designer” handles the complexity of the problem. He talks about becoming

“designerly” as a way of acting and thinking (Stolterman, 2008). Thus, the literature indicates that changes, as a consequence of design, are primarily intentional, and the result of the robust tradition of Design Thinking (Engeström, 2011; Krogh et al., 2015;

Nelson & Stolterman, 2014; Stolterman, 2008). Nelson and Stolterman (2014) point out that this is a unique design culture or design character that conceptually sets the boundaries and framework for the design process based on the context. The design approach acts as a catalyst for the intentional actions of the design process by creating space and freedom to explore and play with the contextual challenges of the context.

It can thus be argued that the nature of design culture, its methods and approach helps us to understand design as pragmatic inquiry (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014). They write, among other things: “Design is comprised of reflective and critical thinking, productive action and responsible follow-through” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p. 5). This means that what might seem like arbitrary design decisions, choices, ideas or thoughts is instead the result of a series of intentional actions aimed at stimulating the recognition of new possible combinations and knowledge pathways. Design Thinking is, therefore, performed through a systematic process, to create the basis for abstract ideas and thoughts to be united and made concrete. Nelson and Stolterman (2014) argue that

“design ‒ as an alternative to this limit on rationality – uses a process of composing and connecting, which pulls a variety of elements into relationships with one another that are then formed into functional assemblies” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p. 21).

In practice, this translates into abstract ideas and turns ideas into a variety of design principles. A design principle can be understood as a theoretical key concept or as a specific key values. The derived design principles can be put together in a myriad of ways in which new theories and models emerge.

Therefore, when referring to a systematic process, it is not a linear process but rather the opposite. Despite this, a design process is often illustrated by incremental linear models. Even models that work with cyclic iterations do not adequately challenge the primary linear picture (Engeström, 2011). However, a literature review by Engeström (2011) shows that in design research there is a tendency to do so: “A linear view ignores what we know of interventions as contested terrains, full of resistance, reinterpretation and surprises from the actors below” (Engeström, 2011, p. 3). Instead, it is about systematically and deliberately using a particular type of method that links inquiry and action, thereby pushing designers closer to a new realisation. Nelson and Stolterman (2014) describe it as follows: “It is a way to approach the reality of the human condition by intentionally embracing the richness of possibilities, the complexity of choices and the overwhelming challenges of getting it right” (Nelson & Stolterman, 2014, p. 2).

3.4.4. DESIGN ACTING

As previously mentioned, the PhD project is based on The Design Way formulated

by Nelsom and Stolterman (2014), where a continuous development of design