Abstract
With the growing complexity of design projects, framing is expanding in scope. We question how to describe and analyse the varied elements contributing to framing and aim at better understanding the complexity of framing design projects through activity awareness. Activity theory was mobilized as a Research through Design framework in a team of students to find answers to the question. First, the team mapped and reflected upon their project’s process over fifteen weeks. They then participated in the analysis of the collected data highlighting the contextual tensions of their experience. Their interpretation unveils the tensions emerging between the project’s central and peripheral activity systems. They presented how the project framing is developed, which activity systems are solicited, and to what extent they are considered. Finally, a tentative approach to organising the framing phases according to central and peripheral systems is presented to produce an orderly translation of a project’s complexity.
Keywords
framing, complexity, activity theory, research through design
DOI
https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.444
Citation
Tessier, V., and Zahedi, M. (2022) Activity theory as a framework for understanding framing complexity of design projects, in Lockton, D., Lenzi, S., Hekkert, P., Oak, A., Sádaba, J., Lloyd, P. (eds.), DRS2022: Bilbao, 25 June - 3 July, Bilbao, Spain. https://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2022.444
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Conference Track
Research Paper
Included in
Activity theory as a framework for understanding framing complexity of design projects
With the growing complexity of design projects, framing is expanding in scope. We question how to describe and analyse the varied elements contributing to framing and aim at better understanding the complexity of framing design projects through activity awareness. Activity theory was mobilized as a Research through Design framework in a team of students to find answers to the question. First, the team mapped and reflected upon their project’s process over fifteen weeks. They then participated in the analysis of the collected data highlighting the contextual tensions of their experience. Their interpretation unveils the tensions emerging between the project’s central and peripheral activity systems. They presented how the project framing is developed, which activity systems are solicited, and to what extent they are considered. Finally, a tentative approach to organising the framing phases according to central and peripheral systems is presented to produce an orderly translation of a project’s complexity.