Designing and Learning by Technological Mediation Adoption, Adaptation, Attainment


  • Nenad Pavel Oslo Metropolitan University


Emneord (Nøkkelord):

design conception, design reception, relationalism, postphenomenology, socio-technological configuration


In this article, an instrumental case study of a practical course in assistive technologies in cooperation between Norway and Brazil shows how patients, design students, and therapists participate in designing and learning. The study reveals how conception and reception of design play out through mediation processes between stakeholders and artifacts. The study was framed in light of Alain Findeli’s writings to challenge and inform current developments in design studio educational practices. To explain the solving of complex, ill-structured problems through design, Findeli proposed systems theory as a holistic philosophical perspective of the design process and design education. By asking what design is and how to teach it, I reiterate Findeli’s ideas on design and design education. This article emphasizes the ubiquitous effects of technology through relationalist ontology and postphenomenological perspectives. 


Akrich, M., & Latour, B. (1992). A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman assemblies. In J. L. Wiebe & E. Bikjer (Ed.), Shaping technology/ building society (pp. 92–97). The MIT Press.

Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21.

Buchanan, R. (2019). Systems thinking and design thinking: The search for principles in the world we are making. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 5(2), 85–104.

Ceschin, F., & Gaziulusoy, I. (2016). Evolution of design for sustainability: From product design to design for system innovations and transitions. Design Studies, 47, 118–163.

DeLyser, D. (2001). “Do you really live here?” Thoughts on insider research. Geographical Review, 91(1–2), 441–453.

Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

Dougherty, D. (2012). The maker movement. Innovations, 7(3), 11–14.

Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5–17.

Findeli, A. (2010). Searching for design research questions: Some conceptual clarifications. In R. Chow, W. Jonas, & G. Joost (Eds.), Questions, hypotheses & conjectures: Discussions on projects by early stage and senior design researchers (pp. 278-293). iUniverse.

Findeli, A., & Bousbaci, R. (2005). The eclipse of the object in design project theories. The Design Journal, 8(3), 35.

Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.

Hamill, C., & Sinclair, H. A. (2010). Bracketing–practical considerations in Husserlian phenomenological research. Nurse Researcher, 17(2).

Hammond, D. R. (1999). Toward a science of synthesis: The heritage of general systems theory. UMI Research Press.

Heidegger, M. (2010). Being and time. SUNY Press.

Herrmann, A. W. (1989). The participant observer as "insider": Researching your own classroom [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Seattle, WA.

Holt, N., Bremner, A., Sutherland, E., Vliek, M., Passer, M., & Smith, R. (2015). Psychology: The science of mind and behaviour. McGraw-Hill Education.

Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.

Ihde, D., & Malafouris, L. (2019). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology, 32(2), 195–214.

Jones, P., & Bowes, J. (2017). Rendering systems visible for design: Synthesis maps as constructivist design narratives. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(3), 229–248.

Kimbell, L. (2011). Rethinking design thinking: Part I. Design and Culture, 3(3), 285–306.

Kiran, A. H. (2012). Technological presence: Actuality and potentiality in subject constitution. Human Studies, 35(1), 77–93.

Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Taylor & Francis.

Laszlo, E., & Clark, J. W. (1972). Introduction to systems philosophy. Gordon and Breach New York.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1996). Phenomenology of perception. Motilal Banarsidass Publishers.

Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention. In Systemic intervention (pp. 113–133). Springer.

Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., & Bevan, B. (2013). It looks like fun, but are they learning? In M. Honey (Ed.), Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators (pp. 50–70). Routledge.

Rosenberger, R. (2009). The sudden experience of the computer. AI & Society 24, 173–180.

Rosenberger, R., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2015). Postphenomenological investigations: Essays on human-technology relations. Lexington Books.

Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. The MIT Press.

Rozemond, M., & Rozemond, M. (2009). Descartes's dualism. Harvard University Press.

Sandnes, F. E., Medola, F. O., Berg, A., Rodrigues, O. V., Mirtaheri, P., & Gjøvaag, T. (2017). Solving the Grand Challenges Together: A Brazil-Norway Approach to Teaching Collaborative Design and Prototyping of Assistive Technologies and Products for Independent Living. In A. Berg, E. Bohemia, L. Buck, T. Gulden, A. Kovacevic, & N. Pavel (Eds.), Proceedings of E&PDE 2017 – International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education. Building Community: Design Education for a Sustainable Future (pp. 242-247). The Design Society.

Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. International Specialized Book Service Incorporated.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

Sheridan, K., Halverson, E. R., Litts, B., Brahms, L., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.

Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press.

Simon, H. A. (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In T. J. Kastelein, S. K. Kuipers, W. A. Nijenhuis, & G. R. Wagenaar (Eds.), 25 years of economic theory. Springer.

Verbeek, P-P. (2016). Toward a theory of technological mediation: A program for postphenomenological research. In J. K. B. O. Friis & R. P. Crease (Eds.), Technoscience and postphenomenology: The Manhattan papers (pp. 189 -204). Lexington Books.

Wildman, W. J. (2010). An introduction to relational ontology. In J. Polkinghorne (Ed.), The trinity and an entangled world: Relationality in physical science and theology (pp. 55–73). William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

assembled dynamic orthosis




Hvordan referere

Pavel, N. (2021). Designing and Learning by Technological Mediation : Adoption, Adaptation, Attainment. FormAkademisk - forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk, 14(3).