A Study on Design Research Methodologies Applied to the Development of Picturebook Illustration -Using Picturebook 『My Wobbly Tooth』 as a Case-

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Hitomi Sakabe
Author(s):  
Michelle F. Wright

The purpose of this chapter is to examine cyberbullying among children and adolescents. This chapter is organized into six sections, including (1) explaining the definitions, technologies used, the role of anonymity, and prevalence rates of cyberbullying, (2) discussing the characteristics and risk factors associated with cyberbullying involvement, (3) reviewing research findings on the psychological and behavioral consequences resulting from cyberbullying involvement, (4) discussing solutions and recommendations, (5) exploring future directions, and (6) providing conclusions. The chapter will draw on qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-design research methodologies from psychology, sociology, social work, and criminology.


Author(s):  
Michelle F. Wright

The purpose of this article is to examine cyberbullying among children and adolescents, referred to as “youths” throughout the article. An extension of traditional bullying, cyberbullying is a form of bullying which takes place by means of electronic technologies, such as email, instant messaging, Facebook, and text messaging through mobile devices. Drawing on research from a variety of disciplines, such as psychology, education, social work, sociology, and computer science, this article is organized into nine sections. The article will draw on multidisciplinary qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-design research methodologies from psychology, sociology, social work, and criminology. Furthermore, this article reviews literature utilizing cross-sectional, longitudinal, qualitative, and quantitative research methodologies to describe cyberbullying.


1995 ◽  
Vol 117 (2A) ◽  
pp. 211-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Reich

Studies on design research methodology are infrequent, although there is a consensus that more effort is needed for improving design research quality. Previous calls for exercising better research methodology have been unsuccessful. As numerous studies reveal, there is no single scientific methodology that is exercised in science or in any other research practice. Rather, research methodologies are socially constructed. Since some constructions are better than others for different purposes, it becomes valuable to study different methodologies and their influence on research practice and results. Proposals for such studies are offered.


2007 ◽  
Vol 129 (7) ◽  
pp. 717-729 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vassilis Agouridas

Research into design theory and methodology is central to postgraduate design education. It has been widely acknowledged in the literature that a key activity in ensuring the quality of research in the area of design theory and methodology is to put particular emphasis on addressing both technical and social aspects that underpin the socio-technical nature of design research. In addition, this is requisite in linking design theory to design practice. However, explicit research methodologies that take into consideration both of these aspects, as well as explicitly address the issue of linking design theory to design practice, are scarce. The overall aim of this paper is to increase the awareness of stakeholders involved in design research education (e.g., master and doctoral students, faculty, and education planners), of the need to safeguard and assure the credibility and validity of design research outputs. The paper reviews issues and challenges associated with the use of research methodologies in the context of design theory and methodology research. It reports findings from the development, application, and evaluation of a research methodology based on hypothesis testing, action research, and case study research methodologies. Application and evaluation of the methodology showed that the introduced concepts of basis-of-action and course-of-action proved key elements in establishing intellectual frameworks for design research. Conclusions are drawn on the effectiveness of the methodology to address issues and challenges associated with the nature of design research, and on pedagogical benefits that can be gained from its application in postgraduate design research education.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Ilana Friedner

Abstract This commentary focuses on three points: the need to consider semiotic ideologies of both researchers and autistic people, questions of commensurability, and problems with “the social” as an analytical concept. It ends with a call for new research methodologies that are not deficit-based and that consider a broad range of linguistic and non-linguistic communicative practices.


Author(s):  
Virginia TASSINARI ◽  
Ezio MANZINI ◽  
Maurizio TELI ◽  
Liesbeth HUYBRECHTS

The issue of design and democracy is an urgent and rather controversial one. Democracy has always been a core theme in design research, but in the past years it has shifted in meaning. The current discourse in design research that has been working in a participatory way on common issues in given local contexts, has developed an enhanced focus on rethinking democracy. This is the topic of some recent design conferences, such PDC2018, Nordes2017 and DRS2018, and of the DESIS Philosophy Talk #6 “Regenerating Democracy?” (www.desis-philosophytalks.org), from which this track originates. To reflect on the role and responsibility of designers in a time where democracy in its various forms is often put at risk seems an urgent matter to us. The concern for the ways in which the democratic discourse is put at risk in many different parts of the word is registered outside the design community (for instance by philosophers such as Noam Chomsky), as well as within (see for instance Manzini’s and Margolin’s call Design Stand Up (http://www.democracy-design.org). Therefore, the need to articulate a discussion on this difficult matter, and to find a common vocabulary we can share to talk about it. One of the difficulties encountered for instance when discussing this issue, is that the word “democracy” is understood in different ways, in relation to the traditions and contexts in which it is framed. Philosophically speaking, there are diverse discourses on democracy that currently inspire design researchers and theorists, such as Arendt, Dewey, Negri and Hardt, Schmitt, Mouffe, Rancière, Agamben, Rawls, Habermas, Latour, Gramsci, whose positions on this topic are very diverse. How can these authors guide us to further articulate this discussion? In which ways can these philosophers support and enrich design’s innovation discourses on design and democracy, and guide our thinking in addressing sensitive and yet timely questions, such as what design can do in what seems to be dark times for democracy, and whether design can possibly contribute to enrich the current democratic ecosystems, making them more strong and resilient?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document