Culture coding - a method for diversifying artefact associations in design ideation

References

• Bardzell, J., & Bardzell, S. (2013). What is” critical” about critical design? Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 3297–3306. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, J. (2007). Thinking and deciding (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, G., Blythe, M., & Sengers, P. (2005). Making by making strange: Defamiliarization and the design of domestic technologies. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(2), 149–173. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/1067860.1067862
   Google Scholar
• Bella, M., & Hanington, B. (2012). Universal methods of design. Rockport Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Benson, B. (2016, September 1). Better humans. Cognitive Bias Cheat Sheet. https://medium.com/better-humans/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18
   Google Scholar
• Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Allyn and Bacon.
   Google Scholar
• Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000). Experience prototyping (pp. 424–433). DIS’00, Brooklyn, New York. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/347642.347802
   Google Scholar
• Buss, D. M. (2015). The Evolution of Cognitive Bias. In Haselton, Martie G., Nettle, Daniel, Andrews, Paul W., (Eds.). The handbook of evolutionary psychology, volume 2: Integrations (pp. 724–746). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Calvillo-Gámez, E. H., Cairns, P., & Cox, A. L. (2015). Assessing the core elements of the gaming experience. In Bernhaupt, Regina (Eds.), Game user experience evaluation (pp. 37–62). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Carsten Stahl, B. (2014). Participatory design as ethical practice – Concepts, reality and conditions. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 12(1), 10–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/JICES-11-2013-0044
   Google Scholar
• Chan, J., Siangliulue, P., Qori Mcdonald, D., Liu, R., Moradinezhad, R., Aman, S., Solovey, E. T., Gajos, K. Z., & Dow, S. P. (2017). Semantically far inspirations considered harmful? Accounting for cognitive states in collaborative ideation. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity and cognition, Singapore, 93–105. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3059454.3059455
   Google Scholar
• Clotaire, R. (2006). The culture code: An ingenious way to understand why people around the world live and buy as they do. New York.
   Google Scholar
• Cortázar, J. (1962). Historia de Cronopios y Famas. Minotauro.
   Google Scholar
• Coyle, D. (2018). The culture code: The secrets of highly successful groups. Bantam.
   Google Scholar
• Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., & Ahrenberg, L. (1993). Wizard of Oz studies—why and how. Knowledge-Based Systems, 6(4), 258–266. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-7051(93)90017-N
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diethelm, J. (2019). Embodied design thinking. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Dourish, P. (2004). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, A., & Raby, F. (2013). Speculative everything: Design, fiction, and social dreaming. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. (2017a). A critical theory of technology. In U. Felt, R. Fouché, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), The handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 635–663). MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Feenberg, A. (2017b). Technosystem: The social life of reason. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B., & Hendry, D. (2012). The envisioning cards: A toolkit for catalyzing humanistic and technical imaginations. Proceedings of the 2012 ACM annual conference on human factors in computing systems - CHI, Austin, Texas, USA.’12 (pp. 1145). New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208562
   Google Scholar
• Fuchs, T. (2016). Embodied knowledge–embodied memory. In Rinofner-Kreidl, S, Wiltsche, H. A (Eds.), Analytic and continental philosophy. methods and perspectives. Proceedings of the 37th International Wittgenstein Symposium 23 (pp. 215–229). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
   Google Scholar
• Fuglerud, K. S. (2014). Inclusive design of ICT: The challenge of diversity. Department of media and communication, University of Oslo. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270508482_Inclusive_design_of_ICT_The_challenge_of_diversity
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. sage.
   Google Scholar
• Groth, C., Mäkelä, M., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Making sense. what can we learn from experts of tactile knowledge? FormAkademisk-Forskningstidsskrift for Design Og Designdidaktikk, 6(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.656
   Google Scholar
• Hämäläinen, R. P., Jones, R., & Saarinen, E. (2015). Being better better: Living with systems intelligence. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
   Google Scholar
• Hildén, E., Ojala, J., & Väänänen, K. (2017). Development of context cards: A bus-specific ideation tool for co-design workshops. Proceedings of the 21st International Academic Mindtrek Conference (pp. 137–146). New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3131085.3131092
   Google Scholar
• Höök, K., Jonsson, M. P., Staahl, A., & Mercurio, J. (2016). Somaesthetic appreciation design. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors IN Computing Systems, (pp. 3131–3142). San Jose, CA, USA: Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, United States.
   Google Scholar
• Hornecker, E. (2010). Creative idea exploration within the structure of a guiding framework: The card brainstorming game. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (pp. 101–108). New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/1709886.1709905
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klemmer, S. R., Sinha, A. K., Chen, J., Landay, J. A., Aboobaker, N., & Wang, A. (2000). Suede: A wizard of Oz prototyping tool for speech user interfaces. Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (pp. 1–10). New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/354401.354406
   Google Scholar
• Lash, S. (2001). Technological forms of life. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(1), 105–120. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. In B. Turner (Ed.), The new Blackwell companion to social theory (pp. 141–158). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lucero, A., & Arrasvuori, J. (2010). PLEX cards: A source of inspiration when designing for playfulness. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Fun and Games, 28–37. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Mackeprang, M., Khiat, A., & Müller-Birn, C. (2018). Concept validation during collaborative ideation and its effect on ideation outcome. Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montreal, Canada, 1–6. New York; NY; United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188485
   Google Scholar
• Marechal, G. (2010). Autoethnography. In A. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 43–45). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mattelmäki, T. (2005). Applying probes – From inspirational notes to collaborative insights. CoDesign, 1(2), 83–102. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15719880500135821
   Google Scholar
• Maulsby, D., Greenberg, S., & Mander, R. (1993). Prototyping an intelligent agent through wizard of Oz. Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 277–284. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery.
   Google Scholar
• Mazé, R., & Redström, J. (2009). Difficult forms: Critical practices of design and research. Research Design Journal, 1, 28–39.
   Google Scholar
• Merleau-Ponty, M. (1996). Phenomenology of perception. Motilal Banarsidass Publisher.
   Google Scholar
• Mora, A., Riera, D., Gonzalez, C., & Arnedo-Moreno, J. (2015). A literature review of gamification design frameworks. 2015 7th International Conference on Games and Virtual Worlds for Serious Applications (VS-Games), Skövde, Sweden, 1–8. New York, NY, USA: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1109/VS-GAMES.2015.7295760
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2014). The design way. Intentional change in an unpredictable world (Second ed.). MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2006). Logic versus usage: The case for activity-centered design. Interactions, 13(6), 45–ff. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/1167948.1167978
   Google Scholar
• Ono, Y. (1970). Grapefruit: A book of instructions and drawings by Yoko Ono. Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, T. (1991). The social system. Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pejoska-Laajola, J., Reponen, S., Virnes, M., & Leinonen, T. (2017). Mobile augmented communication for remote collaboration in a physical work context. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6), 11–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3622
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salber, D., Dey, A. K., & Abowd, G. D. (1999). The context toolkit: Aiding the development of context-enabled applications. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Pittsburgh Pennsylvania USA, 434–441. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/302979.303126
   Google Scholar
• Salen, K., Tekinbaş, K. S., & Zimmerman, E. (2004). Rules of play: Game design fundamentals. MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Sanders, E. B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068
   Google Scholar
• Sengers, P. (2018). Diversifying design imaginations. Proceedings of the 2018 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference 2018 - DIS ’18, Hong Kong, China, 7. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3196709.3196823
   Google Scholar
• Sengers, P., Boehner, K., David, S., & Kaye, J. ‘Jofish’. (2005). Reflective design. Proceedings of the 4th Decennial Conference on Critical Computing: Between Sense and Sensibility, Aarhus, Denmark, 49–58. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/1094562.1094569
   Google Scholar
• Sevaldson, B. (2010). Discussions & movements in design research. FormAkademisk-Forskningstidsskrift for Design Og Designdidaktikk, 3(1): 8–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7577/formakademisk.137
   Google Scholar
• So, C. (2020). Embodied design: Design inspiration and mood improvement depend on perceived stimulus sources and predict satisfaction with an immersion experience. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 8(2), 70–87. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/21650349.2019.1638835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tschimmel, K. (2012). Design thinking as an effective toolkit for innovation. ISPIM Conference Proceedings, Barcelona, Spain, 1.
   Google Scholar
• Varela, F. J., Rosch, E., & Thompson, E. (2017). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience (2nd ed.). MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Verbeek, -P.-P. (2006). Materializing morality: Design ethics and technological mediation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(3), 361–380. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243905285847
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verbeek, -P.-P. (2008). Morality in design: Design ethics and the morality of technological artifacts. In Kroes, Peter, Vermaas, Pieter E., Light, Andrew, Moore, Steven A. (Eds.),Philosophy and design (pp. 91–103). Springer
   Google Scholar
• Wilde, D., Vallgårda, A., & Tomico, O. (2017). Embodied design ideation methods: Analysing the power of estrangement. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5158–5170. New York, NY, United States: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025873
   Google Scholar
• Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, Modern Technology: Problem or Opportunity?, 109(1), 121–136. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20024652
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2014). Research through design in HCI. In J. S. Olson & W. A. Kellogg (Eds.), Ways of knowing in HCI (pp. 167–189). Springer: New York. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0378-8_8
   Google Scholar