Theme 5: Design Research

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers? 

The paper ”Differentiated Driving Range” aims at creating a better way to illustrate how much further an electrical car can drive by improving how the data is presented and showing how different factors (such as climate control and speed) affects the remaining driving range. A pre-study was conducted in order to get insights on the issue. The pre-study included:

•  A state-of-the-art analysis which investigated the current user interface in different electric cars
• An analysis of discourse and attitudes in online forums
• A series of interviews

When information regarding the problem had been collected an explorative design process was carried out. An early hi-fi prototype was developed. In my opinion empirical data was created when the prototype was tested during the first ride. The data was then processed and incorporated into a different interface design. This prototype was then tested during five days, were additional empirical data were gathered.

The paper ”Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space” looks at the use of experimental design to create a deeper understanding for the properties of new programming materials focusing on children. The empirical data in the paper have been generated using qualitative analysis of design prototypes and of footage showing children interacting with these prototypes partaking in staged activities. The empirical data showed how the children were interacting with the system, and the video footage was later analysed in order to improve the design of the artefact and its interface, as well as the researchers getting a better understanding of the subject.

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'? 
Leif Dahlgren mentioned during a lecture that practical knowledge traditionally has been considered less important compared to theoretical knowledge. In contemporary knowledge construction, we have to overcome and undo this distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge. I am certain that practical design research should be considered a knowledge contribution, however not “in itself”. As the researcher undergoes the process of creating a prototype, testing it and improving it, knowledge about the problem is not only brought to the surface, but a possible solution (or contributing factors) to the problem is also often proposed. The big question is whether the knowledge that derives from the research can be applied to different subjects or research areas, or if it is only applicable to the specific system or interface that is being examined, which raises the question of applied or basic (fundamental) research. Where basic research aims at advancing fundamental knowledge about the world, applied research aims at solving concrete problems, with a direct and practical application.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general? 
If the research conducted by Lundström would have focused only on developing the “guess-o-meter” of a Nissan Leaf and he was paid by Nissan Motor Company to do it, the research would have been applied. If the purpose was only to develop the system, rather than studying the subject in a wider perspective or creating knowledge that others can build upon, my interpretation is that it would be a pure design project rather than a research project. In the paper, Lundström is creating new general knowledge that could be used or furthered processed by other researchers. Even though a research project with design intentions is process oriented, the main objective is to get a wider understanding of a particular subject matter using design as a method of attaining that knowledge. Design in that sense is only to be seen as a means to an end, rather than the mean itself, as is the case with design in general.

Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc? 
Technology is a field that is currently developing in a very fast pace, therefore, the results deriving from design research within the field could quickly feel outdated. As the subject is undergoing these quick changes, problems could arise when trying to replicate the results using the same tools, as they might no longer be available. Both research papers from this week’s theme were using images to illustrate how the tangible objects were constructed. They did not, however, go much into depth describing how these systems/objects were actually developed. Hence, it could be hard for a researcher to reproduce the study, as the iteration is not described in great detail. The aim must therefore be to have a strongly rooted internal validity, rather than external validity, as the results from the papers could not be generalized to the population at large. It would be possible however, to use the result from the research and continue to build upon that knowledge in further studies.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?
The similarities between the two papers that struck me were the focus on iteration, the importance of the process, the use of prototypes and the operational, physical and practical manner that impregnated how the research was conducted. The research derives from empiric observation, which means that the data is grounded on experience, or to use terms from the theme 2: a posteriori. Inductive reasoning is used in the research papers assigned for this theme, as conclusions is drawn deriving from the experience. Data is gathered, analysed and the lesson learnt from conducting the research is formulated.