• Ågade 10

    6000 Kolding



Research activity per year

If you made any changes in Pure these will be visible here soon.

Personal profile

Curriculum vitae

Brief account of my research profile

The numbers in brackets refer to publications. Names in brackets refer to titles of research projects.

 The predominant strand of my research is practiced based on the sense that new knowledge is gained through projects carried out in collaboration with various companies and/or public institutions, and perhaps (design) consultancies. For the partners, their objectives of participating have often been twofold: To obtain a number of design concepts (or issues on detailed design (9, 16)) that could inspire new forms of innovation; and to try out and learn new ways of working. On purpose, I’ve chosen not to focus on one specific “application area/use context,” “user group” or, for instance, media or technology as the anchor point of the research. In relation to “application area,” some projects have explored issues in relation to work practices (including work space) (WORM (9), Smart Window (9), TEMP (9), KLIV (24), Experimental Office (22, 47)) other projects on issues relating to everyday life (leisure) (Dynabook (20), Mowing Stories (21), Senior Interaction (43, 46, 54-59), Alzheimers (45, 60)), and some projects explores both work practices and leisure (COMIT (23, 47), DAIM (35, 48)).

 The (potential) “users” who have been involved actively during projects range from seven years old children (e.g. Dynabook) to around ninety year old people (Senior Interaction). In relation to work related research projects, the customers’ and users’ experiences and expertise some have included very technical professional knowledge (e.g. 9, 16, 41). Collaboration across (professional) boundaries, various everyday contexts, interests etc. is not commonplace. The point is that in each project it is necessary to adjust and apply design approaches, methods and tools in order to give everyone a chance to collaborate on an equal footing. Thus, the argument for conducting research within very different domains, and involving people at various stages in life having different needs and aspirations is a productive way to explore how various methods, techniques and tools can be adopted and used. In other words, it has been a strategy for continually refining and adjusting codesign practices; approaches, methods and tools in order to gain new knowledge about collaborative design processes and how to succeed.

For years I’ve argued for the power of event driven design processes guided by a series of collaborative events. Focus has been on both how each event should be staged and performed, and how to create continuity among events (9). In recent years we have come to describe the overall design approach as design laboratories (14, 26, 34, 36, 41, 46). This has an emphasis on inquiry and knowledge production. Design laboratories are platforms for open collaborations among many stakeholders in the sense that the outcome is not predefined in the outset. We have argued for the importance of staging, evoking and enacting in relation to participation (26, 46). On a more overall level we argue for organizing projects around three main strategies: exploratory inquiry, sustained participation, and generative prototyping (41).

 My main contributions within codesign/participatory design are:

  • Development of customer/user workshop formats focusing on collaborative inquiry and participatory design in industrial product development (1, 3, 9).
  • To use drama, enactments and props with inspiration from theatre as generative prototyping (6, 11, 17, 41, 54, 57, 59).
  • To create ethnographic inspired design materials (e.g. video) and develop scenarios in collaboration with potential users (7, 11, 41, 47, 55, 56, 58, 59). Using video-recordings for continual learning (12, 13, 15).
  • To develop different formats for exploratory design games based on ethnographic inspired design materials to support the development of empathy and collaboration with both users and industrial partners (18, 45, 47, 53), and public institutions (11, 18, 28, 32, 36, 49, 53)
  • To work with an exploration and understanding of space as “co-players” in forming design objects (3).
  • To use artistic methods in the inquiry into everyday experiences (10, 14, 25).
  • To explore formats for co-design materials to be used during research and that can be open for new interpretations (42, 48, 54, 60) and deliverables for collaborative partners, which can both document the research project carried out, and be open for new explorations (COMIT, DAIM, 41, 42, 47).

Another strand of research includes what could be named meta-reflections on design research and design education. I’ve written about action research in product development (9, 16), how tangible mock ups support design collaboration (19, 29), and the relation among research programs, experiments and knowledge production in experimental design research (31, 50). As part of the project Senior Interaction, we have suggested communities of everyday practice and situated elderliness as an approach to co-design for senior interaction (43, 59). Other work is on creating new frameworks for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design (44, 51).

Publication collaborations within the past 5 years.

Recent external collaboration on country/territory level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots or