The article

Article formats

The IMRaD format

The IMRAD format is the classic format of an article, both the most widespread format and the basis of all others. It consists of an Introduction, Method, Results and (and) Discussion.

IMRaD structure

Introduction

Reason for the research
Research context (state of the art)
Research question
Hypothesis

An introduction should be engaging and convincing, clear and directive.

Method

Study material (corpus)
Procedure
Analysis method

Results

Results, precise and concise
DO NOT GO BEYOND the simple description of results (no interpretation)
Exactly what is necessary to conclude
Conclusion taking into account the hypothesis

Discussion

What conclusion based on the results
How this contributes to the research question
Opening towards new horizons (new question, new practice, new designs…)

Abstract

The abstract is not about the article, it is the article.
What are the topic and challenge?
What was done and how?
What are the results?

Writing an article is not linear; it most often resembles ITMRMDIDaAaTK.

The Pictorial

The pictorial-type article places the image at the centre of its knowledge production. The image then serves to articulate and clarify the knowledge exposed in the pictorial. It becomes at least as important as the text.

The image can become a form of knowledge articulation more important in the pictorial than the text.

A first possible pictorial was archived in 2013 in the ACM library (for NordiCHI). The DIS conference proposed a first track for pictorials in 2014.

Blevis proposes a list of types of images relevant for the pictorial (non-exhaustive list):

images as traces of fabrication
images as form of fabrication
images as captures of the process
images as ethnography in/of design
images as commentary on design
images as aesthetic reflection
images as social commentary from the design perspective
images as captures of inspiration
images of reflection to inform a process
images as captures of one or more contexts or environments
images as captures of concepts
images as captures of materiality.

Examples are in the article (Blevis et al., 2015)

Recommendations

Images contribute to the argumentative development of the article. Like all other arguments, they must be significant and concise (in what they express and in their number).
Each of them may however not be sufficient on its own. A combination of images or a backing to a text may be necessary for a significant participation of the image in the argumentation.

DIS2018 Formats:

InDesign Format Word Format Powerpoint Format

Examples

DIS2018 Evaluation (adapted)

For the author

Does the work require a pictorial format or would it be clearer in textual form?
Is the production value of the images and/or diagrams of high quality?
Are images/diagrams privileged over text as the main means of communicating the research contribution?
Are the design implications clear? These can be analytical, generative, oriented towards synthesis and even manifest.
Are the societal benefits of the Pictorial clear and in line with the code of ethics and professional conduct of the research community?
Does each image used in the Pictorial play a significant role and clearly present the idea, alone or with the support of text?
Does the placement of images and text compose a good narrative?

For the reviewer

Does it leverage an image-based format, or would a text-based format be more suitable for the Pictorial?
Does the Pictorial bring a contribution to the research community (and beyond)?
Does it present a clear and logical argument that makes the paper’s claim credible?
Does it represent a sufficiently high visual quality to convey the Pictorial’s message?
Do you think it transforms into a visually appealing presentation? What would that format be?

Annotated portfolio

The annotated portfolio aims to examine specific examples of practices to find directions for work and, by discussing how these examples were relevant to us, to begin developing a reflection through design.

It differs from more traditional approaches whose starting point is a theoretical consideration (among many possibilities) to explain choices, potentially leading to a multitude of solutions. Although theory helps structure practice and reflection on that practice, the “imprecise” relationship between theory and practice (from one theory can emerge several practices and one practice can be explained by several theories) does not allow careful attention to the details of a practice.

Moreover, theory risks proposing a description of what practice is, of what design is, rather than what it should or could be.

This perspective therefore questions design as a form of research. How can it structure solid research? What does it need? Instead of seeking an nth element from a neighbouring discipline, Gaver et alii propose to seize directly on what design practice offers.

This not only legitimises design activity as research, without changing it to correspond more to the activity of other fields, but through a more elaborate approach of their own approaches so that it appears legitimate from the point of view of other disciplines.

The annotated portfolio “offers a way of presenting design deliverables while simultaneously respecting the particularity and multidimensionality of design work, while meeting many requirements of generalisable theory.”

Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated Portfolios. Interactions, 19(4), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1145/2212877.2212889 Bowers, J. (2012). The logic of annotated portfolios. Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/2317956.2317968

Logic of the annotated portfolio

Every design artefact is the result of a multitude of choices, of all kinds and often complex. Their nature can be related to:

function (what it does or what it might deserve to do),
aesthetics (form),
production (materials, skills involved, tools…),
motivation (why it is designed, for what exhibition),
intention (what users will make of it, what is preferable),
a socio-political issue (what it will encourage or be in friction with).

From this point of view, artefacts already form a kind of position statement or declaration from their designers, on the responses to bring or propose to the addressed challenge.

Perspectives other than those corresponding to those borrowed by designers are nevertheless no less important and relevant, since they raise considerations (e.g. cultural) that may have been ignored by designers, or include unconscious considerations.

In design practice, whether entrepreneurial or academic, the explanation and justification of a design is also and significantly done through the problems encountered and the choices made throughout the process. The most important details are therefore accounted for, whether from the final deliverable or the design process, for the argument to be built and the perspective to be justified.

The textual narrative (paper, report, descriptions of all kinds) in design research has an indexical character: it indicates aspects of design that deserve attention beyond the project, attention relevant to research, making these aspects so many subjects of discussion in the community. The textual narratives of artefacts, including theoretical aspects, are considered here as annotations, by their capacity to index the artefact. They obtain their meaning and relevance by virtue of their indexical link with an artefact. It is therefore in their relationship that meaning is produced.

This implies that design must be clearly annotated to contribute properly to research. These annotations do not merely describe the major points of the artefact. They create the link between the research question and the artefact. From this point of view, the annotated artefact can serve in the same way as a philosophical statement, identifying the activities and qualities judged important for research and suggesting ways to approach them.

The annotated portfolio can then serve even more pertinently as an alternative to a more formalised theory to discuss design both conceptually and practically. While an annotated artefact would represent a point in the design space, a collection of the same design or theme gathered as an annotated portfolio would form a space, an area of reflection and would allow its dimensions and therefore the designer’s perspective to emerge.

Creating an annotated portfolio

An annotated portfolio is therefore a way of explaining design thinking that maintains an intimate indexical link with the artefacts themselves while responding to broader concerns in the research community.

The creation of an annotated portfolio is done incrementally, adding one annotated artefact after another.

Each addition requires describing the addition in a form that allows it to be placed in the space of the annotated portfolio as it is when the addition enters.
Each addition can also evolve the understanding of this space, and therefore return to the already introduced annotated artefacts to describe them in light of the new form of the annotated portfolio space. It is important to remember that the artefact and its annotation inform each other.
The importance of annotations depends on the traceability of links with the conception, just as conceptions are illuminated by annotations. Proximities (e.g. similarities or familiarities) and distanciations (e.g. specificity of one compared to others) are thus noted.

Functionalities of an annotated portfolio

Annotations transform a collection of designs into a portfolio, gathering individual objects into a systematic set of works.

Annotations capture the resemblances between designs in a mesh of similarities and differences.
In general, a portfolio can be annotated in several different ways, reflecting different objectives and interests and with different audiences in mind.
Annotations and the designs they annotate inform each other. Artefacts are illuminated by annotations. Annotations are illustrated by artefacts.

We believe that assembling a set of works in an annotated portfolio can offer a number of advantages:

accounting for the design style of a particular project, studio or institution.
discovering their underlying aesthetic and sociopolitical values in the design of a device.
bringing out characteristics that may not have been covered in analyses of single artefacts. This can facilitate the evaluation of the value of the scientific and aesthetic contribution of a set of works.

Finally, the characteristic traits of annotated portfolios are that:

Annotations communicate the nature of the portfolio and allow its comparison with others.
Annotations can shape the way artefacts are appreciated and understood, and the scientific and aesthetic value they can have, as well as suggest future research and design possibilities.