Personal  Draft  Version  of  the  Authors  

Wensveen,  Stephan  and  Matthews,  Ben  (2014).  Prototypes  and  prototyping  in  design  research.  In  Paul  A.  
Rodgers  and  Joyce  Yee  (Ed.),  Routledge  Companion  to  Design  Research  (pp.  262-­‐‑276)  London:  Routledge.  
.  
 

Prototypes  and  Prototyping  in  Design  Research  

Stephan  Wensveen  (Department  of  Industrial  Design,  Eindhoven  University  of  Technology)  
Ben  Matthews  (School  of  Information  Technology  &  Electrical  Engineering,  The  University  of  
Queensland)  
A  hallmark  of  many  forms  of  design  research  is  that  they  entail  the  design  and  deployment  
of  prototypes  in  some  role.  If  there  is  a  unique  character  to  design  research  in  comparison  
to  research  approaches  in  other  fields,  it  is  likely  to  relate  to  the  role  of  and  focus  on  
designed  things  as  components  of  the  research  process.  In  this  chapter,  we  will  discuss  the  
spectrum  of  roles  that  prototypes  and  processes  of  prototyping  play  in  design  research,  
illustrating  these  different  roles  through  published  examples.  The  role  of  prototypes  as  
vehicles  for  design  has  been  well  documented  in  previous  research.  Houde  &  Hill’s  (1997)  
article  on  ‘What  do  Prototypes  Prototype?’  defines  prototype  as  ‘any  representation  of  a  
design  idea,  regardless  of  medium’.  Basing  their  discussion  on  years  of  practice  in  
prototyping  at  Apple,  Houde  &  Hill  distinguish  three  dimensions  of  the  design  space  of  
questions  that  prototypes  explore  in  design  practice:  the  ‘Role’  of  a  product,  its  ‘Look  and  
Feel’,  and  its  ‘Implementation’.  Lim,  Stolterman  &  Tenenberg  (2008)  propose  a  similar  but  
more  extensive  discussion  of  prototypes  in  design,  defining  prototypes  as  ‘filters  that  
traverse  a  design  space’  and  as  ‘manifestations  of  design  ideas  that  concretize  and  
externalize  conceptual  ideas’.  From  these  studies  and  others  (e.g.  Lichter,  Schneider-­‐
Hufschmidt  &  Zullighoven  1994),  the  field  has  developed  a  comprehensive  account  of  the  
usefulness  of  prototyping  to  design  practice.  
In  contrast,  our  focus  will  be  on  the  roles  of  prototypes  as  vehicles  for  research  about,  for  
and  through  design.  We  focus  on  prototyping  within  research  processes  that  necessarily  
involve  design  activities,  which  we  will  refer  to  as  constructive  design  research,  i.e.,  
‘research  that  imagines  and  builds  new  things  and  describes  and  explains  these  
constructions’    (Koskinen,  Zimmerman,  Binder,  Redstrom  &  Wensveen  2011:  6).  Our  aim  
is  to  present  a  rough  typology  of  the  various  ways  that  designed  things  appear  in  design  
research  methods.  We  do  this  in  order  to  identify  and  differentiate  the  range  of  
possibilities  open  to  design  researchers  for  whom  design  practice  is  an  essential  
component  of  their  modes  of  investigation.    

Research  and  practice  

One  of  the  central  intersections  between  design  research  and  design  practice  is  the  role  
that  artefacts  can  play  in  the  research  process.  We  are  quick  to  note,  however,  that  the  
relationship  between  design  research  and  design  practice  is  often  blurry.  Design  research,  
by  which  we  refer  to  the  discipline  that  aims  to  produce  knowledge  concerning  design,  
often  addresses  research  questions  that  cannot  be  answered  without  doing  some  kind  of  
design  activity.  If  we  want  to  know  how  to  design  aesthetic  interactions,  for  instance  (c.f.  
Ross  &  Wensveen  2010),  no  amount  of  desk  research  or  armchair  philosophy  is  likely  to  
present  us  with  a  very  convincing  answer  to  that  question.  In  order  to  know,  we  will  very  
likely  have  to  design  something,  as  Ross  (2008)  in  fact  did.  Clearly  there  are  a  number  of  
forms  of  design  research  that  necessarily  involve  some  form  of  design  practice.  
On  the  other  hand,  design  practice  may  result  in  research.  Design  practice  engages  in  the  
conception,  development  and  realisation  of  new  forms,  functions,  systems  and  
interactions.  These,  if  contextualised  within  a  research  field  and  presented  as  a  
contribution  to  it,  may  justifiably  constitute  research.  For  example,  having  designed,  
constructed  and  evaluated  a  three-­‐wheeled  physically  programmable  robot  (‘Curlybot’),  
Frei,  Su,  Mikhak  &  Ishii  (2000)  present  Curlybot  as  a  ‘new  class  of  computational  toy’.  The  
research  contribution  is  not  the  product  itself,  but  what  it  is  that  the  product  illustrates  or  
exemplifies.  Their  argument  is  not  that  the  product  itself  is  new  (even  though  it  is),  but  
that  it  opens  a  space  of  interactive  design  possibilities  that,  in  Curlybot’s  specific  case,  
shows  how  complex  mathematical  concepts  can  be  experienced  in  the  behaviour  of  a  
product  and  experimented  with  through  its  interactivity.    
For  such  reasons,  design  research  and  design  practice  can  sometimes  be  difficult  to  
distinguish,  especially  when  design  methods  and  research  methods  become  confused  with  
each  other.  Although  cultural  probes  (Gaver,  Dunne  &  Pacenti1999)  were  originally  
deployed  as  a  design  method  (analogous  to  the  way  moodboards  or  brainstorming  are  
design  methods,  used  for  inspiration  and  as  aids  to  the  designers’  imaginations),  in  its  
many  subsequent  incarnations  (some  bastardised),  it  has  more  often  been  deployed  as  
something  much  more  akin  to  a  research-­‐oriented  kit  for  enticing  users  to  volunteer  
ethnographic  material  about  themselves.    
The  research/practice  distinction  is  vital  for  a  discussion  of  prototypes  in  design  research,  
primarily  because  the  existing  discussions  of  prototypes  in  design  focus  on  their  roles  as  
vehicles  for  furthering  design  agendas—helping  generate  and  test  new  forms,  functions,  
systems  etc.  for  design.  When  prototypes  are  used  as  vehicles  for  research,  however,  
where  they  are  aids  to  providing  answers  to  research  questions  and  making  contributions  
to  knowledge,  a  different  set  of  their  properties  comes  into  view.    
In  the  following,  we  outline  some  different  roles  that  prototypes  have  played  in  research.  
The  set  of  distinctions  we  present  is  not  intended  to  be  exhaustive.  We  are  certain  it  is  
incomplete—the  diversity  of  design  research  is  unlikely  to  be  adequately  captured  in  any  
one  typology.  However,  these  distinctions  do  serve  some  important  purposes.  In  laying  
them  out  like  this,  we  hope  to  erode  the  idea  that  ‘research  through  design’  a  (singular)  
research  method  or  approach,  in  favour  of  the  view  that  there  are  a  multitude  of  legitimate  
intersections  between  design  research  and  practice.  There  is  not  a  method,  but  rather  
many  different  ways  that  design  practice  (specifically  the  practice  of  building  prototypes)  
may  feature  centrally  in  the  production  of  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  design.    
In  looking  at  the  roles  that  prototyping  plays  in  research,  there  is  a  distinct  advantage  in  
using  cases  with  which  one  has  some  intimate  familiarity.  The  published  presentation  of  
research  is  (necessarily)  a  somewhat  ‘glossy’  version  of  what  is  often  a  messy  process  
behind  the  scenes.  This  is  somewhat  characteristic  of  the  kind  of  open-­‐ended  practice  
based  research  that  is  common  in  design.  For  this  reason,  the  majority  of  the  examples  we  
consider  in  detail  below  have  been  drawn  from  our  own  (or  our  students’)  research.  The  
consideration  of  our  own  work,  whatever  its  other  failings,  will  allow  us  to  present  some  
of  the  back-­‐story  to  the  involvement  of  prototypes  in  research.  This  enables  us  to  explore  
some  topics  that  we  could  not  address  by  drawing  only  on  others’  published  research  
accounts,  things  like  the  extent  to  which  the  design  researcher’s  initial  intentions  for  
creating  the  prototype  were  consequential  (or  ancillary)  to  the  research  contribution,  or  
how  deliberate  (or  serendipitous)  the  findings  actually  were.    

Prototypes  and  prototyping  processes  in  research  

When  we  look  at  the  ways  that  prototypes  can  function  in  research,  we  will  distinguish  
between  cases  where  the  research  is  driven  by  or  conducted  through  the  prototype,  and  
cases  where  the  process  of  prototyping  is  the  vehicle  for  inquiry.  In  all  we  will  present  four  
different  roles  of  prototypes  in  design  research.  Roles  1,  2  and  3  distinguish  different  
functions  of  the  prototype  in  research;  role  4  treats  the  processes  of  prototyping  in  design  
research  as  vehicles  for  inquiry.    
We  had  difficulty  settling  on  an  order  of  presentation  for  these  roles  because  we  imagine  
that  different  reading  audiences  will  bring  different  priorities  to  this  paper.  Readers  
trained  as  researchers,  versed  in  established  methodological  traditions,  will  likely  expect  a  
discussion  of  how  prototypes  feature  in  an  easily  identifiable  research  method  (e.g.  
hypothesis-­‐testing  lab  experiments  or  action  research,  for  instance).  Readers  who  are  
trained  as  design  practitioners,  versed  in  the  design  process,  may  instead  be  looking  for  
ways  in  which  a  design  process—involving  the  conception  and  prototyping  of  an  artefact  
or  system—can  contribute  to  design  research.  We  do  hope  to  meet  both  of  these  
expectations  in  the  following  sections,  however  our  order  of  presentation  of  the  roles  
begins  with  the  most  clearly  recognizable  research  method:  a  lab  experiment  that  probes  a  
hypothesis.  We  might  suggest  that  designers  who  are  interested  in  doing  design  research  
may  prefer  to  read  the  roles  of  this  chapter  in  reverse  order,  since  in  practice,  a  
prototyping  process  always  precedes  the  creation  of  an  artefact.  In  the  discussion  we  will  
return  to  this  issue.  

Role  1:  The  prototype  as  an  experimental  component  

Cases  where  prototypes  function  as  the  necessary  component  in  an  experiment  are,  
especially  from  a  ‘scientific’  research  perspective,  easily  recognized  as  research  
contributions.  Often  times  in  these  cases,  the  prototype  itself  is  the  object  about  which  
design  knowledge  is  sought  through  the  experimental  setup.  Examples  range  from  formal  
tests  such  as  usability  tests  of  the  prototypes,  experiential  trials  to  assess  the  design  
attributes  such  as  aesthetics,  or  cases  where  the  prototype  is  treated  as  a  physical  
hypothesis.    
Examples  from  our  research,  or  our  close  colleagues’,  are  Stienstra’s  (2003)  interactive  
toys,  the  Alarm  Clock  (Wensveen,  Overbeeke  &  Djajadiningrat  2002),  Frens’  camera  
interface  variations  (2006),  the  Intelligent  Lamp  (Ross  2008),  and  recent  work  from  
Deckers  (2012)  on  perceptual  crossing.  In  all  of  these  examples  the  prototypes  are  
components  of  controlled  experiments  that  are  designed  to  test  specific  hypotheses  that  
are  physically  embedded  in  the  artefact.  The  experimental  methods  used  are  in  support  of  
descriptive,  explanatory  and/or  theoretical  research.    
In  their  paper  on  the  ‘Anatomy  of  Prototypes’  Lim  et  al.  (2008)  talk  about  the  ‘filtering’  
dimensions  of  prototypes.  Filtering  dimensions  include  appearance  (size,  colour,  shape,  
proportion,  etc.),  functionality,  and  interactivity  (the  input  and  output  behaviour  for  the  
product  or  system).  When  prototypes  function  as  an  experimental  component,  such  
‘filtering’  dimensions  can  be  treated  as  independent  variables,  which  are  systematically  
varied  to  better  learn  how  they  influence  the  behaviour  of  the  dependant  variables.  To  
take  the  example  of  Frens’  camera,  his  prototype  interfaces  were  varied  on  interactivity  
(see  Figure  1).  The  different  variations  were  evaluated  by  the  participants  of  the  
experiment  on  the  dependent  variables  of  pragmatic  and  hedonic  qualities.  Frens  left  the  
other  filtering  dimensions  of  the  prototype  unchanged  (size,  shape  etc.),  so  as  not  to  
influence  the  dependent  variables.  Changes  in  one  dimension  of  a  prototype  are  assumed  
not  to  unduly  affect  other  dimensions  (within  reason).    
 

 
Figure  1:  The  four  interface  variations  of  Frens’  camera  prototype  from  left  to  right:  the  ‘Rich  Actions  Cam’,  the  
‘Mixed  actions  Cam’,  the  ‘Light  Controls  Cam’  and  the  ‘Conventional  Buttons  Cam’  (Frens  2006:  146).  
Relatedly,  Stienstra’s  (2003)  experiments  with  prototypes  were  designed  to  test  theories  
in  developmental  psychology  about  gender  differences  in  children’s  play.  One  particular  
theory  she  worked  with  suggests  that  boys  tend  to  prefer  play  that  consists  in  gross  motor  
movements,  whereas  girls  prefer  fine  motor  play.  In  this  case,  Stienstra  constructed  three  
working  prototypes  in  which  she  systematically  varied  the  scale  at  which  the  children  had  
to  interact  with  the  three  interactive  toys  (see  figure  2):  one  required  body-­‐sized  gestures,  
one  hand-­‐sized  manipulation  of  magnetic  figures  and  one  required  room-­‐sized  actions  
(including  climbing  and  running)1.  As  each  of  the  toys  was  functionally  identical  (they  
each  served  as  a  user  interface  for  the  same  maze  game),  she  was  able  to  set  up  an  
experiment  to  test  for  the  differences  in  gender  preferences  for  the  scales  of  play  
demanded  by  the  different  toys.    

Figure  2:  Three  interactive  toy  prototypes  (Stienstra  2003):  One  required  body-­‐sized  gestures  (left),  one  hand-­‐
sized  manipulation  of  magnetic  figures  (middle)  and  one  required  room-­‐sized  actions,  including  climbing  and  
running  (right)  

Ross  (2008:  160)  articulates  similar  considerations  relevant  for  the  experimental  testing  
of  the  prototype,  in  addition  to  those  that  come  out  of  his  own  research  demands.  As  he  
wants  to  focus  on  the  interactive  behaviour  of  the  product,  he  kept  a  single  body  for  the  
prototype  with  three  different  interactive  behaviours.  His  argument  is  that  ‘The  “cleanest”  
comparison  is  made  when  all  other  factors  remain  as  constant  as  possible’.  Likewise  he  
argues  for  the  lamp’s  body  (e.g.,  its  static  shape,  materials  and  colours)  to  be  as  ‘neutral’  as  
possible.    

 
Figure  3:  Snapshots  of  three  different  lamp  behaviours  within  a  single  body  (Ross  2008);  targeting  the  social  
value  Helpfulness  (left),  Social  Power  (middle)  and  the  value  Creativity  (right)  

In  other  cases  the  prototype  is  kept  constant  and  the  context  of  use  of  the  experiment  is  
systematically  varied.    E.g.  Wensveen’s  alarm  clock  (2002)  was  evaluated  in  a  formal  
experiment  to  investigate  the  relation  between  a  person’s  emotional  or  affective  state  and  
their  expressive  behaviour  when  setting  the  alarm  clock.  The  underlying  research  
question,  and  departure  for  the  development  of  the  design,  was  whether  design  principles  
from  tangible  interaction  could  be  used  to  invite  users  to  express  their  emotion  to  
products  in  such  a  way  that  the  product  could  recognize  this  expression.  It  was  
                                                                                                               
1
 In  Stienstra’s  studies,  the  variation  of  the  scale  of  interaction  (an  ‘appearance’  dimension  according  to  
Lim  et  al.’s  framework)  actually  had  profound  consequences  for  functionality  and  interactivity  of  the  toys,  
demonstrating  that  the  various  families  of  prototyping  dimensions  Lim  et  al.  identify  are  (or  can  be)  
interdependent  in  practice.  
hypothesized  that  the  alarm  clock  would  be  able  to  detect  a  person’s  affective  state  and  
level  of  urgency  from  the  way  he  or  she  set  the  alarm  time.  This  was  tested  through  
several  experiments  and  statistically  significant  relations  were  found  between  the  
parameters  describing  the  expressive  behaviour  and  the  affective  state  of  the  persons,  
which  was  induced  by  film  clips  validated  for  emotional  valence  and  arousal.  Although  we  
hoped  to  find  this  relationship,  some  serendipitous  findings  also  emerged  in  the  analysis  
of  the  data.  The  results  showed  an  unexpected  relation  where  people  in  a  positive  state  
seemed  to  create  more  aesthetically  pleasing  patterns  of  balance  and  symmetry.  

 
Figure  4:  Setting  the  sliders  of  the  working  prototype  for  Wensveen’s  (2002)  alarm  clock  (top)  and  different  
final  slider  settings  of  expressive  behaviours  (bottom)  

More  complicated  experiments  need  to  be  set  up  to  investigate  interaction  effects,  where  
both  the  context  of  use  and  the  interactivity  behaviours  of  the  prototype  are  varied  in  the  
experiment  (as  in  Ross’  case).  This  also  requires  more  careful  statistical  analyses  to  test  
for  the  interdependence  of  the  variables.    
In  each  of  these  cases,  the  prototype  was  designed  to  probe  specific,  design-­‐relevant  
relationships  that  could  be  systematically  tested  through  experiments  where  people  used  
and  evaluated  the  artefacts.  As  an  experimental  component,  there  are  slightly  different  
roles  the  prototype  (Wensveen),  prototype  variations  (Frens,  Ross)  or  set  of  prototypes  
(Stienstra)  serve.  In  some  cases,  the  prototype  is  a  physical  hypothesis,  in  which  its  form,  
function,  interactivity,  etc.  embodies  a  theoretical  proposition  that  can  be  subjected  to  test.  
This  role  suits  Stienstra’s  and  Frens’  cases  quite  well.  But  we  can  see  that  in  Wensveen’s  
case,  the  hypothesis  is  not  constituted  in  the  design  of  the  artefact  in  the  same  way.  
Instead  the  hypothesis  consists  in  the  combination  of  the  artefact  plus  the  experimental  
conditions.  It  is  the  fact  that  the  alarm  clock  permits  a  multiplicity  of  interaction  
possibilities  in  the  performance  of  a  single  function  that  is  exploited  by  the  experiment,  in  
order  to  test  a  specific  relation  between  affect  and  interaction.  Nothing  affective  is  
inherent  in  the  clock.  So  while  the  prototype  performs  very  similar  roles  in  each  of  these  
cases,  the  experimental  design  is  equally  crucial  in  the  successful  extraction  of  research  
out  of  these  designed  artefacts.  
Role  2:  The  prototype  as  a  means  of  inquiry  
Prototypes  have  been  developed  and  deployed  as  instruments  of  inquiry,  in  much  the  way  
that  scientists  use  specifically  designed  instruments  to  collect,  record  and  measure  
phenomena.  A  clear  example  of  prototypes  used  in  design  research  in  this  way  is  
‘technology  probes’  (Hutchinson  et  al.  2003).  Technology  probes  were  small,  functional  
prototypes  that  were  sent  out  to  households  as  a  kind  of  research  instrument  (although  it  
is  worth  us  noting  that  Hutchinson  et  al.  specifically  declare  that  technology  probes  are  
not  prototypes,  presumably  to  distance  the  probes  they  created  from  products  that  might  
be  produced  on  the  model  of  their  probes.  We,  however,  are  using  the  term  ‘prototype’  in  a  
much  more  universal  fashion  than  in  a  ‘precursor  to  a  product’  sense).  The  two  probes  
they  deployed  were  MessageProbe  and  VideoProbe,  each  of  which  were  designed  to  be  a  
kind  of  portal  between  relatives’  residences,  and  each  of  which  collected  data  about  how  
they  were  used,  when,  how  long  for,  by  whom  in  the  family,  etc.  Both  probes  were  
developed  within  a  larger  project  on  domestic  and  family  communication.  The  probes  
were  informative  of  the  families’  uses  (and  neglect)  of  these  technologies;  they  were  also  
technological  interventions  into  these  families’  ordinary  communicative  practices.  The  
role  of  the  prototype  in  such  a  case  is  as  a  means  of  creating  design  relevant  data.  It  is  
probably  worth  noting  that  although  the  technology  probes  actually  collected  data  
(logging  details  about  their  own  use  by  families),  Hutchinson  et  al.  do  not  draw  upon  any  
of  this  data  in  outlining  what  was  learned  about  family  practices  through  the  deployment  
of  the  probes.  Instead,  the  themes  they  present  are  distilled  and  exemplified  through  other  
data,  such  as  interviews  that  were  conducted  with  the  families.    
A  similar  role  is  played  by  ‘provotypes’  (Mogensen  1992),  which  are  prototypes  that  are  
used  to  provoke  reactions  and  insights,  designed  to  expose  taken-­‐for-­‐granted  aspects  of  
users’  values  and  practices.  In  a  recent  extension  of  this  work,  Boer  (Boer  &  Donovan  
2012)  developed  provotypes  (see  Figure  5)  to  investigate  ‘people’s  experience  and  
understanding  of  indoor  climate  “comfort”…  in  order  to  open  up  new  development  
directions  for  the  building  industry’.  For  the  design  researcher,  provotypes  were  used  to  
challenge  developers’  assumptions  about  use  contexts  and  users’  experiences  of  comfort.    
Each  provotype  was  developed  to  deliberately  provoke  organizations  to  experience  their  
own  indoor  climate  in  new  or  unanticipated  ways,  and  to  reflect  on  what  this  might  mean  
in  light  of  new  product  or  service  development.  In  the  course  of  the  project,  one  particular  
tension  emerged  between  the  building  industry’s  understanding  of  indoor  climate  and  
how  ordinary  people  experienced  their  environment.  The  building  industry  tended  to  
think  about  indoor  climate  quality  as  an  optimal  aggregate  of  measurable  parameters  such  
as  light,  temperature,  humidity  and  air  quality.  Ordinary  people,  however,  experienced  
comfort  much  more  holistically  and  impressionistically.  Boer’s  provotype,  the  Render-­‐
Lamp  (see  Figure  5,  far  right)  played  on  this  tension.  The  render  lamp  has  sensors  that  
measure  five  different  indoor  climate  parameters,  representing  these  abstractly  in  
dynamic  luminous  behaviour.  The  lamp  was  deployed  in  users’  homes  and  in  building  
industry  workplaces.  This  opened  up  a  space  of  reflection  for  these  stakeholders  from  
industry  and  use  contexts,  as  the  lamp  brought  to  the  fore  the  question  whether  indoor  
climate  is  something  we  can  understand  objectively  or  something  we  relate  to  
individually.  As  a  result  of  bringing  the  lamp  into  homes  and  organizations,  at  least  during  
the  project  period,  the  language  used  by  organizational  stakeholders  shifted  from  
understanding  indoor  climate  towards  supporting  users’  indoor  climate  practices,  
suggesting  that  the  provotypes  were  successful  in  juxtaposing  and  challenging  different  
conceptions  of  comfort.  
  
Figure  5:  Boer’s  Provotypes  (Boer  &  Donovan  2012)  with  the  Render-­‐Lamp  on  the  right.  

Unlike  experiments,  nothing  specific  is  being  tested  when  deploying  technology  probes  or  
provotypes—they  are  sent  out  as  open-­‐ended  explorations  of  a  hybrid  and  unsettled  
design/use  space.  Several  other  kinds  of  research  that  involve  prototypes  would  generally  
fall  into  this  category.  Anything  that  treats  design  as  an  intervention  in  the  world  and  
studies  its  consequences,  or  work  that  deploys  prototypes  in  the  field  and  analyses  their  
use  (e.g.  Matthews,  Stienstra  &  Djajadiningrat  2008)  in  order  to  make  a  contribution  to  
design  discourse  clearly  employs  prototypes  in  a  similar  manner—to  create  a  context  for  
study  that  is  informative  of  design-­‐relevant  issues.  

Role  3:  The  prototype  as  a  research  archetype  

A  visible  mode  in  which  prototypes  participate  in  design  research  is  standing  as  what  we  
will  refer  to  as  a  ‘research  archetype’.  Research  archetypes  are  physical  embodiments  of  
concepts,  understandings  or  design  spaces  that  can  be  argued  to  constitute  contributions  
to  the  discipline.  In  contrast  to  functioning  as  a  means  of  inquiry  (role  2,  where  prototypes  
are  deployed  to  generate  understandings  about  contexts  of  use  or  users  themselves),  the  
role  the  prototype  plays  in  this  contribution  is  usually  exemplary  or  ostensive.  Examples  
of  prototypes  that  serve  as  research  archetypes  are  plentiful  in  the  design  literature;  we  
will  run  through  a  few  clear  examples  here.  Curlybot  (Frei  et  al.  2000),  mentioned  earlier,  
is  one  example  of  a  research  archetype.  Anthony  Dunne’s  (1999)  ‘Faraday  Chair’  is  
another.  Dunne  designed  the  chair  in  the  course  of  a  series  of  conceptual  product  
explorations  that  make  the  ubiquity  of  ambient  electromagnetic  radiation  noticeable,  
remarkable  and  confrontational.  The  Faraday  Chair  (see  
http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O63805/)  is  an  acrylic  rectangular  prism  that  functions  
as  an  electromagnetic  shield,  equipped  with  a  snorkel  mouthpiece  and  air  hose.  The  prism  
is  mounted  on  a  bare  aluminium  frame  about  the  size  of  a  park  bench.  The  space  enclosed  
in  acrylic  is  claustrophobically  small,  only  permitting  an  adult  to  assume  a  foetal  position  
within  it.  Dunne  presents  the  Faraday  chair  as  a  design  archetype  (he  prefers  ‘genotype’)  
that  realises,  and  reifies  in  its  form  and  dystopian  scenario,  a  nuanced  techno-­‐ideological  
agenda.  The  research  contribution  here  is  conceptual  and  methodological:  Dunne  does  not  
just  populate  a  new  ‘hertzian’  design  space  with  exemplars  like  the  Faraday  Chair,  but  in  
theoretically  positioning  his  concepts  he  opens  up  an  approach  to  design  that  carries  novel  
emphases  such  as  criticality,  estrangement,  reflection  and  dysfunction.    
In  work  of  our  own,  we  have  presented  a  series  of  artefacts  as  a  means  of  gradually  
elucidating  a  research  contribution  (e.g.  Djajadiningrat,  Wensveen,  Frens  &  Overbeeke  
2004;  Djajadiningrat,  Matthews  &  Stienstra  2007).  In  Djajadiningrat  et  al.  (2004),  a  
gradual  understanding  of  the  perceptual  and  motor  skill  design  possibilities  provided  
through  tangible  interaction  is  articulated  through  a  series  of  prototypes  that  were  
developed  within  the  authors’  (Djajadiningrat  1998,  Wensveen  2005,  Frens  2006)  PhD  
studies.  In  the  paper,  each  artefact  is  used  to  illustrate  unique  design  lessons  that  
exemplify  different  aspects  of  that  general  agenda.  The  general  perspective  and  the  
specific  instantiations  are  mutually  elaborative—the  general  perspective  is  what  ties  the  
specific  examples  together,  and  what  makes  each  of  them  important,  and  yet  it  is  only  
through  the  examples  that  it  is  possible  to  understand  the  general  perspective  that  is  
being  advanced.  In  this  way  the  prototype  and  perspective  form  a  hermeneutic  circle.  In  
Djajadiningrat  et  al.  (2004),  for  instance,  the  general  ‘perceptual-­‐motor’  perspective  
consists  in  the  meaningful  coupling  of  appearance,  function,  action,  behaviour  and  
inherent  feedback  of  the  product.  This  perspective  is  elaborated  by  specific  products  that  
display  their  functional  state  through  their  appearance,  such  as  a  VCR  whose  physical  
form  displays  that  it  is  currently  playing  a  tape,  or  an  alarm  clock  whose  external  
configuration  displays  that  the  wake  up  time  of  6:03am  was  set  by  the  user  in  an  agitated  
state  of  haste.    
In  each  case  here,  the  prototype  functions  as  a  research  archetype—a  physical  
embodiment  of  research  concepts  or  perspectives  that  have  broad  application,  but  also  
that  require  specific  examples  to  demonstrate  their  potential  and  justify  that  they  
constitute  a  contribution.  Prototypes  that  are  research  archetypes  are  principally  
illustrative,  elaborative  or  ostensive,  even  (and  especially)  when  they  are  illustrating  or  
exposing  confrontational  or  contradictory  agendas.  
In  the  cases  we  have  so  far  considered,  the  actual  process  of  prototyping  has  been  
invisible.  And  if  you  read  most  of  the  papers  that  we  have  cited,  you  will  struggle  to  find  an  
account  of  the  prototyping  process—the  stepwise  evolution  of  a  concept  into  the  form  in  
which  it  makes  its  appearance  in  research.  You  may  find  an  account  of  the  design  rationale  
of  the  artefact,  or  critical  reflections  on  what  was  learned  through  evaluating  the  
prototype.  But  in  our  cases  above,  the  actual  making  of  the  prototype,  or  the  iterative  
construction  of  the  artefact,  is  generally  inessential  to  the  function  of  the  prototype  in  
making  a  research  contribution.  In  the  following  section,  we  focus  on  types  of  research  in  
which  the  process  of  prototyping  (more  than  the  prototype  itself)  is  essential  to  the  
generation  of  a  research  contribution.    

Role  4:  The  process  of  prototyping  as  a  vehicle  for  inquiry  
There  are  a  number  of  ways  that  the  process  of  making  an  artefact  is  instrumental  in  doing  
design  research.  In  these  cases,  the  process  of  prototyping  becomes  a  means  of  inquiry,  
akin  to  a  research  method.  The  process  is  documented,  analysed,  critically  assessed  and  
written  up,  and  the  research  contribution  is  tied  not  to  the  artefact  itself  as  much  as  to  
how  the  artefact  was  crafted.  As  we  consider  a  few  examples,  you  will  see  that  the  types  of  
research  contributions  that  have  been  made  in  this  way  can  vary  dramatically.  However,  
the  role  of  the  prototyping  process  is  much  the  same  in  each.    
Newbury  (1996)  discussed  a  fascinating  (but  uncredited)  example  in  his  lucid  discussion  
of  research  in  art  and  design.  While  this  case  is  perhaps  closer  to  the  traditional  crafts  than  
it  is  to  design,  it  is  highly  relevant  here  for  the  nature  and  attention  it  gives  to  the  process  
of  creating  artefacts.  Newbury  describes  a  Doctoral  glassmaking  project  that  aimed    
to  offer  a  new  theory  for  the  production  of  Hellenistic  and  Roman  mosaic  glass.  The  starting  
point  of  the  proposal  was  the  [candidate’s]  intuitive  feeling  that  theories  put  forward  by  
archaeologists,  concerning  the  production  of  mosaic  glass  from  this  period,  did  not  ring  true  
from  a  glassmaker’s  point  of  view…  The  process  of  research  involves  putting  to  the  test  of  
this  intuition,  and  developing  a  new  theory  of  production  based  on  practical  
experimentation…  [T]he  contribution  to  knowledge  will  clearly  derive  as  much  from  the  
practical  as  from  the  theoretical  work.  (pp.  218-­‐219)  
In  this  case,  a  new  practice  of  making  glass  is  both  the  method  of  the  research  
(experimentation  with  glassmaking  practices  is  necessarily  the  process  of  inquiry)  and  the  
research  outcome  (a  historically  plausible  glassmaking  practice  is  ‘discovered’  through  
experimentation).  One  of  the  respects  in  which  Newbury’s  example  is  so  sharp  is  that  it  is  
a  case  where  it  so  obviously  takes  a  glassmaker  to  conduct  this  kind  of  research,  yet  the  
knowledge  gained  is  not  just  practical—the  contribution  is  more  pervasive  than  just  a  new  
way  of  making  glass.    
In  a  paper  with  similar  aims  to  Newbury’s,  Scrivener  (2000)  clarifies  the  criteria  for  
conducting  research  through  (design)  practice  by  drawing  a  comparison  to  research  
undertaken  in  engineering,  such  as  building  a  robot  arm  that  can,  e.g.,  pick  up  an  egg  
without  breaking  it.  Scrivener’s  discussion  is  valuable  for  the  criteria  he  identifies  that  
distinguish  research  through  practice  from  (just)  practice.  But  the  robot  arm  example  is  
also  one  in  which  the  contribution  to  knowledge  can  only  be  produced  through  an  
iterative  prototyping  process:  we  cannot  discover  the  principles  or  requirements  for  
building  such  a  robot  arm  without  thinking  through  design  possibilities,  proposing,  
building,  testing,  reconfiguring  etc.  an  artefact  that  iteratively  clarifies  our  understanding  
of  this  particular  design  space.  From  such  a  process  codifiable  knowledge  can  be  derived  
about  material  selection,  functional  consequences  of  different  robot  arm  design  
configurations,  material  resistance,  useful  algorithms  for  controlling  the  movement  of  the  
arm  and  so  on.  That  knowledge  is,  in  some  sense,  ‘embodied’  in  the  resultant  robot  arm  
that  successfully  picks  of  up  eggs  without  breaking  them;  yet  it  is  gained  only  in  a  stepwise  
fashion  through  the  construction  and  trial  of  multiple  prototypes.    
 
Other  kinds  of  research  have  been  conducted  through  prototyping  processes.  Horst  
(2011),  conducting  a  PhD  project  while  working  as  a  design  consultant,  constructed  an  
interactive  prototype  of  the  user  interface  for  a  programmable  thermostat  for  indoor  
radiators.  The  company  had  hired  him  to  create  a  prototype  that  they  could  use  to  run  
usability  tests  of  the  interface.  For  the  purposes  of  his  research,  however,  Horst  wanted  to  
experiment  with  the  prototype.  Instead  of  simply  producing  a  simulated  interface  to  the  
specifications  the  company  had  given  him,  he  designed  the  software  in  such  a  way  that  the  
code  (and  hence  the  functionality  and  interactivity  of  the  interface)  could  be  modified  in  
near  real  time.  This  enabled  him  to  play  with  the  prototyping  (and  user  evaluation)  
processes.  For  instance,  he  ran  ‘live  prototyping’  sessions  (see  Figure  6)  internally  in  the  
company,  where  stakeholders  from  different  internal  departments  (marketing,  sales,  
hardware,  production)  participated  in  trying  out  the  interface  as  a  user,  discovering  
potential  usability  problems,  recommending  changes,  seeing  those  changes  implemented  
then  and  there,  and  trying  out  the  ‘new’  version  of  the  interface.    

 
Figure  6:  Horst’s  live  prototype  being  used  in  a  participatory  workshop  (left),  the  virtual  prototype  (middle)  
and  the  final  prototype  (right)  

This  had  some  fairly  profound  (internal)  consequences,  as  it  enabled  a  number  of  
company  people  who  were  not  a  part  of  the  interface  development  team  to  actually  shape  
the  interface.  It  turned  out  that  the  original  interface  specifications  Horst  had  been  given  
never  became  a  version  of  the  interface  that  was  used  in  a  usability  test  because  the  ‘live’  
prototype  he  created  allowed  the  company  to  rapidly  try  out  and  evaluate  several  versions  
of  the  interface  prior  to  sending  it  out  to  be  formally  tested.  These  experiments  enabled  
Horst  to  write  a  thesis  on  the  possibilities  of  deliberately  crafting  prototypes  as  ‘platforms  
for  participation’  in  iterative  design.  While  the  prototype  of  the  programmable  thermostat  
interface  was  interesting,  the  research  contribution  here  is  intimately  tied  to  the  way  in  
which  collaborative  prototyping  sessions  were  run  inside  the  company  (and  later,  with  
potential  users  as  well).  This  is  the  prototyping  process  that  became  both  the  method  of  
and  object  of  research.    
Subdisciplines  of  design  research  that  work  extensively  with  design  methods  also  belong  
in  this  category.  A  healthy  proportion  of  research  in  participatory  design,  for  instance,  is  
concerned  with  the  development  of  codesign  activities;  these  have  often  involved  a  form  
of  prototyping  (e.g.  Greenbaum  &  Kyng  1992)  in  which  the  process  of  making  a  prototype  
is  precisely  the  process  that  is  being  experimented  with  in  the  creation  of  new  formats  for  
design  and  participation  (as  in  Sanders  2000;  Mitchell  &  Buur  2010).    

Discussion  
In  the  above  we  have  outlined  the  different  roles  that  prototypes,  and  the  practice  of  
prototyping  have  played  in  research  illustrated  through  published  case  examples.    All  of  
these  cases  have  made  research  contributions  in  various  ways,  using  diverse  methods  and  
approaches.  Each  case  also,  to  different  extents,  required  the  prototype  or  prototyping  
process  in  order  to  generate  that  research  contribution.  If  we  think  about  ‘research  
through  design’,  where  design  practice  is  understood  as  a  basis  for  research,  we  can  easily  
see  from  the  spectrum  of  examples  and  roles  we  have  discussed  that  ‘research  though  
design’  is  not  a  singular  research  method  or  approach  to  doing  design  research  (c.f.  
Mattelmäki  &  Matthews  2009).    
We  chose  the  distinctions  between  the  roles  and  the  order  of  the  presentation  to  outline  
clarity  and  recognisability  of  prototypes  and  prototyping  as  research  contributions.  
However,  designers  who  are  doing,  or  are  interested  in  doing  design  research  will  realize  
that  the  roles  can  and  often  do  overlap.  In  many  cases  the  same  prototype  can  feature  in  
different  roles  in  the  pursuit  of  different  research  contributions.  Some  of  the  work  we  
have  described  (re-­‐)presents  the  same  prototype  in  the  course  of  different  research  
arguments  at  different  times.  For  example,  Stienstra’s  toys  appear  in  an  experimental  role  
in  her  thesis  (Stienstra  2003),  as  a  means  of  inquiry  in  Matthews,  Stienstra  &  
Djajadiningrat  (2008)  and  as  a  research  archetype  in  Djajadiningrat,  Matthews  &  Stienstra  
(2007).  So  an  important  point  is  that  it  may  only  be  in  retrospect  that  some  of  the  
important  features  of  a  product  or  prototype  surface  after  further  reflection,  analysis  or  
theoretical  development.  So  even  though  the  practice  of  prototyping,  as  a  means  of  inquiry  
often  receives  the  least  attention  as  a  research  contribution,  it  is  often  the  case  that  a  
prototyping  process  has  been  vital  for  the  exploration  and  further  development  of  
research  directions,  or  has  provided  a  conceptual  background  for  the  later  stages  of  
research  where  prototypes  were  developed  to  function  as  research  archetype  or  
experimental  component.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   Prototype  as…   Prototyping  as…  

  Experimental   Means  of  Inquiry   Research  Archetype   Vehicle  for  inquiry  

Component  

  Role  1   Role  2   Role  3   Role  4  

Purpose  &  Role   Test  of  specific   Open-­‐‑ended   Illustration  or   Driver  for  the  
hypotheses   exploration   demonstration   research  direction  

  Systematic   Instrument  to   Physical   Research  contribution  

variations  of   collect,  record  and   embodiment  of   is  tied  to  the  process  
prototype  or   measure   research  concept,   of  crafting  the  
context  of  use   phenomena   understanding  or   artifacts  
design  research  
space  

Special   Design  of  the   Often  combined   Critical  perspective   Process  is  
considerations   experiment  is   with  doing   is  equally  crucial   documented,  
equally  crucial   interviews   analyzed  and  
critically  assessed.    

Data   Primarily   Qualitative  (e.g.   Designed  artifacts   Qualitative  case  

quantitative  data   interviews)  and/or   that  form  the  basis   study  
(e.g.  data   quantitative  (e.g.   of  critical  analysis  
logging,   data  logging)  
questionnaire)    

Method  of   Statistical   Ethnographic   Expository  analysis   Case  analysis  

Analysis   analysis   analysis  

Type  of   Empirical,   Empirical   Conceptual,   Methodological  

research   Theoretical     Methodological  
contribution  

Published   Interactive  Toys   Technology  Probes   Faraday  Chair   Participatory  

Examples   (Stienstra  2003)   (Hutchinson  et  al.   (Dunne  1999)   Prototyping  (Horst  
2003)   2011),  Co-­‐‑design  
Interactive  Lamp   Tangible  Products  
literature  
Behavior  (Ross   Provotypes  (Boer   (Djajadiningrat  et  
2008)   et  al.  2012)   al.  2004)  

Camera  
interfaces  (Frens  
2006)  

Table  1:  Comparative  overview  of  the  characteristics  of  the  different  roles  that  prototypes,  and  the  practice  of  
prototyping  have  played  in  design  research  

As  an  illustration,  before  the  prototyping  of  the  four  interface  variations  as  experimental  
components,  Frens  had  already  used  prototyping  as  a  tool  to  ‘traverse  a  design  [research]  
space’  of  interaction  paradigms  (analogous  to  the  sense  that  Lim  et  al.  (2008)  
conceptualize  prototypes  as  tools  for  traversing  a  design  space  where  possible  design  
alternatives  and  their  rationales  can  be  explored  (Goel  &  Pirolli  1992;  Moran  &  Caroll  
1996)).  Themes  for  these  paradigms  were  defined,  balancing  real-­‐world  design  problems  
and  ongoing  trends  in  HCI  research,  to  cover  a  large  area  of  that  space.  Here,  Frens  made  
many  cardboard  models  of  cameras  and  used  prototyping  as  means  of  inquiry  into  that  
space.  One  specific  prototype  was  identified  and  described  as  a  research  archetype  for  the  
paradigm  of  ‘rich  interaction’.  This  initial  cardboard  version  was  further  developed  from  a  
research  archetype  into  a  fully  working  camera  with  electronics  to  compare  the  use  of  its  
four  interface  variations  (see  Figure  7).  

                                           
Figure  7:  Four  of  Frens’  initial  cardboard  prototypes  as  means  of  inquiry  into  a  design  research  space  (left).  
One  of  the  set  (middle)  was  the  physical  embodiment  of  his  conceptual  argument  and  was  described  as  a  
research  archetype  for  ‘rich  interaction’.  A  fully  working  prototype  (right)  was  developed  for  the  final  
experiment  where  four  systematically  varied  interfaces  were  compared  on  pragmatic  and  hedonic  qualities  
(Frens  2006).  

In  the  case  of  Wensveen’s  Alarm  Clock  the  initial  design  direction  based  on  theoretical  
notions  was  further  developed  after  a  large  set  of  prototypes  generated  from  an  
educational  exercise  were  analysed.  This  set  of  prototypes  served  an  essential  role  as  
means  of  inquiry  to  explore  and  describe  a  conceptual  design  research  space.  A  specific  
corner  of  the  design  research  space  was  then  targeted  for  the  subsequent  prototyping  of  
an  alarm  clock.  The  design  and  the  resulting  prototype  of  the  Alarm  Clock  were  developed  
to  serve  the  dual  role  of  being  both  a  research  archetype  of  the  conceptual  design  
direction  of  a  tangibility  approach  to  affective  interaction  (which  as  a  case  was  reported  in  
Djajadiningrat  et  al.  2004)  and  as  the  essential  component  in  an  experiment  (Wensveen  et  
al.  2002).  As  a  research  archetype  the  prototype  needed  to  have  some  real  world  design  
value,  hence  the  clear  functionality  (including  a  waking  up  sound,  although  this  was  not  
used  in  the  experiment)  and  choice  of  colours.  Other  design  research  decisions  were  made  
for  the  prototype  to  function  as  a  component  in  an  experiment.  The  most  notable  decisions  
were  leaving  out  functionalities  that  would  have  made  the  design  a  ‘better’  alarm  clock  
(excluding  light,  although  this  was  a  highly  liked  feature  coming  out  of  initial  probe  
research),  and  including  technology  that  could  produce  electronic  read-­‐outs  of  the  setting  
of  the  alarm  time  to  be  used  as  quantitative  data  for  the  experiment.  
Deckers  (2012)  separated  these  roles  between  her  prototypes  (see  Figure  8).  Her  PeP  
pillar  was  developed  as  an  experimental  component  purposely  stripped  of  any  
functionality  and  context  of  use  to  focus  the  research  on  the  explaining  of  theoretical  
relation  between  the  interactive  behaviour  of  the  designed  object  and  the  emergence  of  
perceptual  crossing  between  the  pillar  and  the  participant.  In  parallel  she  developed  the  
PeR  carpet  as  a  research  archetype,  to  demonstrate  the  concepts  and  imagine  the  value  
behind  Designing  for  Perceptual  Crossing  in  a  design  with  the  potential  to  be  an  actual  
product.  
  
Figure  8:  Deckers’  PeP  pillar  prototype  (left)  functioned  in  the  role  of  an  experimental  component.  She  also  
developed  the  PeR  carpet  as  a  research  archetype  (right).  

We  raise  these  issues  to  clarify  some  of  the  differences  between  prototypes  for  design  
research  and  prototypes  for  design.  Although  they  can  share  many  properties,  the  value  of  
a  prototype  for  the  purposes  of  research  is  dependent  on  what  it  has  the  potential  to  
contribute  to  an  inquiry;  the  value  of  a  prototype  for  the  purposes  of  design  is  usually  tied  
to  what  aspects  of  product,  system  or  use  it  can  reliably  model  for  the  purposes  of  refining  
the  concept  in  development.    
The  skills  required  to  design—to  conceive,  craft  and  construct  an  artefact  or  system  for  a  
particular  purpose—are  just  as  vital  to  the  creation  of  research  prototypes  as  they  are  to  
design  prototypes.  However,  these  design  skills  are  also  not  sufficient  to  turn  a  prototype  
into  a  vehicle  for  research.  In  order  to  stand  as  research,  the  prototype  (or  prototyping  
process)  must  also  become  an  object  of  analysis,  it  must  figure  in  an  argument,  and  it  must  
help  demonstrate  a  new  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  knowledge  of  a  field.  Our  
principal  point  is  that  there  are  a  number  of  different  ways  that  prototypes  can  so  feature.  

Summary  
We  have  broadly  identified  four  different  roles  of  prototypes  in  design  research.  As  an  
experimental  component,  prototypes  (plus  the  design  of  the  experimental  conditions)  act  
as  a  physical  hypothesis  that  can  be  tested.  When  introduced  and  studied  in  use,  
prototypes  can  become  a  means  of  inquiring  into  a  context  of  use  or  of  creating  a  situation  
or  circumstance  for  the  purposes  of  analysis:  i.e.  a  way  of  generating  new  data  for  research  
reflection.  Prototypes  also  feature  in  conceptual  arguments,  standing  as  a  research  
archetype  that  illustrates  or  elaborates  a  new  perspective  about,  for  and/or  through  
design.  Furthermore,  the  process  of  prototyping  can  equally  serve  as  a  means  of  inquiry  
and  a  basis  for  experimentation  with  design  practice.  There  are  many  intersections  of  
design  practice  and  research  about,  for  and  through  design.  That  diversity  is  something  to  
be  celebrated.    

References  
Boer,  L.  &  Donovan,  J.  (2012)  Provotypes  for  Participatory  Innovation.  Proceedings  of  
Designing  Interactive  Systems  2012.  Newcastle,  June  11  -­‐  15.  
Deckers,  E.,  Wensveen,  S.,  Ahn,  R.,  &  Overbeeke,  K.  (2011).  Designing  for  perceptual  
crossing  to  improve  user  involvement.  In  Proceedings  of  the  2011  Annual  Conference  on  
Human  Factors  in  Computing  Systems  (pp.  1929–1938).    
Djajadiningrat,  J.  P.  (1998).  Cubby:  what  you  see  is  where  you  act.  Interlacing  the  display  and  
manipulation  spaces.  (PhD  dissertation).  Delft  University  of  Technology  
Djajadiningrat,  T.,  Wensveen,  S.,  Frens,  J.,  &  Overbeeke,  K.  (2004).  Tangible  products:  
redressing  the  balance  between  appearance  and  action.  Personal  and  Ubiquitous  
Computing,  8(5),  294–309.  
Djajadiningrat,  T.,  Matthews,  B.,  &  Stienstra,  M.  (2007).  Easy  doesn’t  do  it:  skill  and  
expression  in  tangible  aesthetics.  Personal  and  Ubiquitous  Computing,  11(8),  657–676.  
Dunne,  A.  (1999).  Hertzian  tales:  electronic  products,  aesthetic  experience  and  critical  
design.  London:  RCA:CRD  Research  Publications.  
Frei,  P.,  Su,  V.,  Mikhak,  B.,  &  Ishii,  H.  (2000).  Curlybot:  designing  a  new  class  of  
computational  toys.  In  Proceedings  of  the  SIGCHI  Conference  on  Human  Factors  in  
Computing  Systems  (pp.  129–136).    
Frens,  J.W.  (2006).  Designing  for  Rich  Interaction:  Integrating  Form,  Interaction,  and  
Function.  (PhD  dissertation).  Eindhoven  University  of  Technology,  Eindhoven,  the  
Netherlands.  
Gaver,  W.,  Dunne,  T.,  &  Pacenti,  E.  (1999).  Cultural  probes.  Interactions,  6(1),  21–29.  
Goel,  V.,  &  Pirolli,  P.  (1992).  The  structure  of  design  problem  spaces.  Cognitive  science,  
16(3),  395–429.  
Greenbaum,  J.,  &  Kyng,  M.  (1992).  Design  at  work.  L.  Erlbaum  Associates  Inc.  
Horst,  W.  (2011).  Prototypes  as  platforms  for  participation  (PhD  dissertation).  University  
of  Southern  Denmark,  Sønderborg.  
Houde,  S.,  Hill,  C.  What  do  prototypes  prototype?,  in  Handbook  of  Human-­‐Computer  
Interaction  (2nd  Ed.),  Helander  M.,  Landauer  T.,  Prabhu  P.  (eds.).  Elsevier  Science  B.  V.  
Amsterdam,  1997.    
Hutchinson,  H.,  Mackay,  W.,  Westerlund,  B.,  Bederson,  B.  B.,  Druin,  A.,  Plaisant,  C.,  …  
Hansen,  H.  (2003).  Technology  probes:  inspiring  design  for  and  with  families.  In  
Proceedings  of  the  SIGCHI  Conference  on  Human  Factors  in  Computing  Systems  (pp.  17–
24).    
Koskinen,  I.,  Zimmerman,  J.,  Binder,  T.,  Redstrom,  J.,  &  Wensveen,  S.  (2011).  Design  
Research  through  Practice:  From  the  Lab,  Field,  and  Showroom.  Morgan  Kaufmann.  
Lichter,  H.,  Schneider-­‐Hufschmidt,  M.,  &  Zullighoven,  H.  (1994).  Prototyping  in  industrial  
software  projects-­‐bridging  the  gap  between  theory  and  practice.  Software  Engineering,  
IEEE  Transactions  on,  20(11),  825–832.  
Lim,  Y.  K.,  Stolterman,  E.,  &  Tenenberg,  J.  (2008).  The  anatomy  of  prototypes:  Prototypes  
as  filters,  prototypes  as  manifestations  of  design  ideas.  ACM  Transactions  on  Computer-­‐
Human  Interaction  (TOCHI),  15(2),  1–27.  
Mattelmaki,  T.,  &  Matthews,  B.  (2009).  Peeling  Apples:  prototyping  design  experiments  as  
research.  In  Nordic  Design  Research  Conference:  Engaging  Artefacts.  
Matthews,  B.,  Stienstra,  M.,  &  Djajadiningrat,  J.  P.  (2008).  Emergent  interaction:  creating  
spaces  for  play.  Design  Issues,  24(3),  58-­‐71.  
Mitchell,  R.,  &  Buur,  J.  (2010).  Tangible  business  model  sketches  to  support  participatory  
innovation.  In  Proceedings  of  the  1st  DESIRE  Network  Conference  on  Creativity  and  
Innovation  in  Design  (pp.  29-­‐33).  Desire  Network.  
Mogensen,  P.  (1992).  Towards  a  provotyping  approach  in  systems  development.  
Scandinavian  Journal  of  Information  Systems,  4(1),  5.  
Moran,  T.  P.,  &  Carroll,  J.  M.  (1996).  Design  rationale:  concepts,  techniques,  and  use.  CRC  
Press.    
Newbury,  D.  (1996).  Knowledge  and  research  in  art  and  design.  Design  Studies,  17,  215–
219.  
Ross,  P.  R.  (2008).  Ethics  and  aesthetics  in  intelligent  product  and  system  design.  (PhD  
dissertation).  Eindhoven  University  of  Technology,  Eindhoven,  the  Netherlands.  
Ross,  P.,  &  Wensveen,  S.  (2010).  Designing  aesthetics  of  behavior  in  interaction:  Using  
aesthetic  experience  as  a  mechanism  for  design.  International  Journal  of  Design,  4(2),  3–
13.  
Sanders,  E.  B.  (2000).  Generative  tools  for  co-­‐designing.  Collaborative  design,  1(2),  3-­‐12.  
Scrivener,  S.  A.  R.  (2000).  Reflection  in  and  on  action  and  practice  in  creative-­‐production  
doctoral  projects  in  art  and  design:  the  foundations  of  practice  based  research.  Working  
papers  in  art  and  design  (online  journal),  1,  (unpaged).  
Stienstra,  M.  (2003).  Is  every  kid  having  fun?  A  gender  approach  to  interactive  toy  design.    
(PhD  dissertation).  Twente  University  of  Technology,  Enschede.  
Wensveen,  S.  A.  G.  (2005).  A  tangibility  approach  to  affective  interaction  (PhD  dissertation).  
Delft  University  of  Technology,  Delft.    
Wensveen,  S.,  Overbeeke,  K.,  &  Djajadiningrat,  T.  (2002).  Push  me,  shove  me  and  I  show  
you  how  you  feel:  recognising  mood  from  emotionally  rich  interaction.  In  Proceedings  
of  the  4th  Conference  on  Designing  Interactive  Systems:  Processes,  Practices,  Methods,  
and  Techniques  (pp.  335–340).  New  York,  NY,  USA:  ACM.