Adaptation of Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation for Establishing Rigour and Relevance in Design Research | SpringerLink
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Adaptation of Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation for Establishing Rigour and Relevance in Design Research

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Research into Design for a Connected World

Part of the book series: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ((SIST,volume 134))

Abstract

Due to the diversity of topics and methodologies, there is a lack of consensus about criteria for validity and value of Design Research outcomes. However, reasoning and good arguments, apart from “experimental” proofs can demonstrate the validity of design knowledge. Leveraging Toulmin’s model of argumentation which is suitable for framing practical arguments offers excellent potential in this regard. We propose a scheme suitable for Design Research based on an adaptation of Toulmin’s model to guide the research, aid researchers in self-reflection and to ensure rigour and relevance of the research. The adaptation includes addition of a construct “Reasoning Mode”, factors the need to account for micro- and macro-claims space (and argument structure), and the inevitable iterations in a significant research project.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
JPY 3498
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
JPY 34319
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
JPY 42899
Price includes VAT (Japan)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Terms equivalent to claim such as standpoint, conclusion, thesis, and debate proposition are also used [22]. Similarly, the terms ground, data and evidence are used as equivalent.

References

  1. Archer, B.: Design as a discipline. Des. Stud. 1(1), 17–20 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cross, N.: Designerly Ways of Knowing. Springer-Verlag London Limited, London (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Blessing, L., Chakrabarti, A.: DRM, a Design Research Methodology. Springer, Berlin (2009)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Cross, N.: Design research: a disciplined conversation. Des. Issues 15(2), 5–10 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chakrabarti, A., Blessing, L.: A review of theories and models of design. J. Indian Inst. Sci. 95(4) (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Buchanan, R.: Design research and the new learnings. Des. Issues 17(4), 3–23 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fallman, D., Stolterman, E.: Establishing criteria of rigour and relevance in interaction design research. Digital Creativity 21(4), 265–272 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Vermaas, P.: Design theories, models and their testing: on the scientific status of design research. In: Chakrabarti, A., Blessing, L. (eds.) An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design, pp. 47–66. Springer, London (2014)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Höök, K., Löwgren, J.: Strong concepts: intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Trans. Comput. Human Interact. (TOCHI) 19(3), 23 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Höök, K., Dalsgaard, P., Reeves, S., Bardzell, J., Löwgren, J., Stolterman, E., Rogers, Y.: Knowledge production in interaction design. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference CHI 2015 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2429–2432 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dalsgaard, P., Dindler, C.: Between theory and practice: bridging concepts in HCI research. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1635–1644 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Sanders, L.: An evolving map of design practice and design research. Interactions (15), 6 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Forlizzi, J., Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E.: From design research to theory: evidence of a maturing field. In: International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Margolin, V.: Design research: what is it? what is it for? In: DRS2016: Design Research Society’s 50th Anniversary Conference, Brighton, UK (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Höök, K., Bardzell, J., Bowen, S., Dalsgaard, P., Reeves, S., Waern, A.: Framing IxD knowledge. Interactions 22(6), 32–36 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Creswell, J.: Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Sage Publishers, Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cronbach, L.: Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. Am. Psychol. 30(2), 116 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rittel, H.: The reasoning of designers. In: International Congress on Planning and Design Theory, Boston (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Nilsson, F.: Design, rhetoric, knowledge—some notes on grasping, influencing and construction the world. In: Design Inquiries. The Second Nordic Design Conference (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  20. McLaughlin, S.: Dialogical encounter: argument as a source of rigour in the practice based PhD. In: Proceedings of DRS2008, Design Research Society Biennial Conference. Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Shum, B., Simon, A., Bellotti, V., Hammond, N.: Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Comput. Interact. 12(3), 267–300 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. van Eemeren, F., Garsse, B., Krabbe, E., Snoeck Henkemans, A., Verheij, B., Wagemans, J.: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. Springer, Berlin (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Besnard, P., Hunter, A.: Elements of Argumentation. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2008)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. Pollock, J.: Defeasible Reasoning. In: Adler, J., Rips, L. (eds.) Reasoning: Studies of Human Inference and Its Foundations. Cambridge University Press, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Toulmin, S.: The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Voss, J.: Toulmin’s model and the solving of ill-structured problems. In: Hitchcock, D., Verheij, B. (eds.) Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, pp. 303–311. Springer, Berlin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kock, C.: Multiple warrants in practical reasnoning. In: Hitchcock, D., Verheij, B. (eds.) Arguing on the Toulmin Model: New Essays in Argument Analysis and Evaluation, pp. 247–259 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pedemonte, B., Reid, D.: The role of abduction in proving processes. Educ. Stud. Math. 76(3), 281–303 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Karbach, J.: Using Toulmin’s model of argumentation. J. Teach. Writ. 6(1), 81–92 (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  30. King, G., Keohane, R., Verba, S.: Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kolko, J.: Abductive thinking and sensemaking: the drivers of design synthesis. Des. Issues 1(Winter), 15–28 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bayazit, N.: Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research. Des. Issues 20(1), 16–29 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Krogh, P., Markussen, T., Bang, A.: Ways of drifting—five methods of experimentation in research through design. In: Chakrabarti, A. (ed.) ICoRD’15 Research into Design Across Boundaries, vol. 1, pp. 39–50. Springer, Delhi (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sevaldson, B.: Discussions & movements in design research. Akademisk-forskningstidsskrift for design og designdidaktikk 3(1), 8–35 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Faste, T., Faste, H.: Demystifying “design research”: design is not research, research is design. In: IDSA Education Symposium, p. 15 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Horvath, I.: A method for systematic elaboration of research phenomena in design research. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED 17) Design Theory and Research Methodology, vol. 7, pp. 1–10. Vancouver, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dorst, K.: Design research: a revolution-waiting-to-happen. Des. Stud. 29(1), 4–11 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IDC School of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India

    Pramod Khambete

Authors
  1. Pramod Khambete
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pramod Khambete .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Product Design and Manufacturing, Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, Bangalore, India

    Amaresh Chakrabarti

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Khambete, P. (2019). Adaptation of Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation for Establishing Rigour and Relevance in Design Research. In: Chakrabarti, A. (eds) Research into Design for a Connected World. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol 134. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5974-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-5974-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-5973-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-5974-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation