At least 15 credits in the main field of Interaction Design.

The course can normally be included as part of a general degree at undergraduate level.

The course features practical research work and analysis, workshops and methodological and theoretical lectures building on earlier encounters from the first semester. We introduce and engage with several different methods commonly encountered in professional practice. Our approach is a broadly ethnographic one, but is tailored to the particular demands that arise when ethnographic work is used to inform and inspire design work. Students will research a specific use practice and through analysis identify relevant problems and opportunities for design. We purposefully hold back from ideating and creating new concepts.

After completing the course students will be able to:

1. Plan a design research project at a basic level
2. Use appropriate methods like fieldwork, interviews, probes, for a situation being designed for
3. Analyse user research findings and identify problems and opportunities
4. Present and argue research findings and design opportunities
5. Reflect and critique methods in relation to their application in the research process.

When the above learning objectives are met in a satisfactory manner, a Pass (G) is given.

Instruction consists of lectures, seminars, tutorials and practical research work.

The student will be examined individually in relation to collaborative team work.

1. Oral examination where students will account for select parts of the research they have done in the course and the course literature (LO 1-3+5; 6.5 credits)
2. Presentation of research findings and analysis activities in a manner designed to engage stakeholders (LO 4; 1 credit)

The following texts are the primary literature of the course.

• Akrich, M. (1992). The De-scription of Technical Objects. In W. Bijker & J. Law (Eds.), Shaping Technology/Building Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change (pp. 205–224). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
• Blomberg, J., Burrell, M., & Guest, G. (2003). An ethnographic approach to design. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The Human-computer Interaction Handbook (pp. 964–986). L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
• Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Design: Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.
• Holloway, I., & Wheeler, S. (2002). Qualitative research in nursing. , 1–25.
• Latour, B. (1992). Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, 1, 225–258.
• IDEO.org. (2015). The Field Guide to Human Centered Design. Ideo Org.
• Randall, D., Harper, R., & Rouncefield, M. (2007). Fieldwork for Design: Theory and Practice. Springer. Select chapters will be provided.
• Rosala, M. (2021). Using “How Might We” Questions to Ideate on the Right Problems. Nielsen Norman Group. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/how-might-we-questions/

The University provides students who participate in or who have completed a course with the opportunity to make known their experiences and viewpoints with regards to the course by completing a course evaluation administered by the University. The University will compile and summarize the results of course evaluations as well as informing participants of the results and any decisions relating to measures initiated in response to the course evaluations. The results will be made available to the students (HF 1:14).

If a course is no longer offered or has undergone major changes, students will be offered two re-take sessions based on the syllabus in force at registration during a period of one year from the date of the implementation of the changes.

If a course is no longer offered or has undergone major changes, students will be offered two re-take sessions based on the syllabus in force at registration during a period of one year from the date of the implementation of the changes.

The syllabus is a translation of a Swedish source text.