During this week’s lecture we were given an overview of the design research method, and during the seminar we furthered discussed the questions answered in the pre-post. I contributed by asking questions that included: what is the most important outcome of the research? Would it be possible to reproduce the Ferneaus and Tholander study? How does design research fits in with the theoretical framework given by Gregor for the theme Research and Theory?
During the seminar we discussed if the data that derived from testing the prototypes would be considered as empirical data, but Anders Lundström stressed that it was mainly the data from the pre-study that were to be considered as the empirical data, which differentiates from what I wrote in the first blog post. We also talked about what the focus for the study "Differentiated Driving Range" was; conducting a reality analysis hence creating and showing a richer picture. During the seminar my group discussed whether the result was supposed to generate insights on the process or the system generated? For the paper "Differentiated Driving Range" the ultimate aim was to create a better situation for the driver of the electrical cars – hence a more practical approach compared to the process-oriented. For the paper "Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space", the empirical data constituted of video footage. In that case, the study can be reproduced to a greater extent, since other scholars can analyse the material.
During the seminar we discussed if the data that derived from testing the prototypes would be considered as empirical data, but Anders Lundström stressed that it was mainly the data from the pre-study that were to be considered as the empirical data, which differentiates from what I wrote in the first blog post. We also talked about what the focus for the study "Differentiated Driving Range" was; conducting a reality analysis hence creating and showing a richer picture. During the seminar my group discussed whether the result was supposed to generate insights on the process or the system generated? For the paper "Differentiated Driving Range" the ultimate aim was to create a better situation for the driver of the electrical cars – hence a more practical approach compared to the process-oriented. For the paper "Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space", the empirical data constituted of video footage. In that case, the study can be reproduced to a greater extent, since other scholars can analyse the material.
As concerning the replicability of design studies, we discussed in our groups that as attitudes towards technology change and as the technological development progresses it could actually be hard to reproduce a design study. To illustrate, we talked about the programming study. When Fernaeus and Tholander conducted the research, children were not as used to technology as they are today having been brought up with iPads in their hands. This changes the conditions for the research in a major way. The question also arises whether it is necessary to replicate design research. What is the ultimate purpose? Are we interested in determining an answer to a universal question where the answer will always be true? If we instead shift the focus to trying the depict a cultural phenomena, and instead look at research as a snapshot of a historical context and the researchers prior experience – we have a more realistic picture.
During the seminar, Anders addressed the question of design research
having a somewhat unfair reputation of being less scientific compared to the
hard sciences. He shifted the perspective by saying that one also has to look at the data in the hard sciences, as
it is ultimately created in an artificial setting. The data is not "true" in
itself, but has been exposed to human interference in the process of gathering and analysing it. What happens when all hard science is based on data
that is created by people? It obscures the truth. When you calculate on a math problem, the solution always has to be the same. If the answer is wrong, its not up for discussion, it is simply wrong. In social studies on the other hand, the product of reproducibility is not to have the same outcome. The ONE human answer does not exist. What surprised me during the seminar was the new research mention, that recently had emerged and showed the difficulties of reproducing hard sciences. Anders mentioned that the researchers had gotten a similar result in only one third of the projects and how this had shaken the research community.
Knowledge today is different, from ten years ago. It is a evolving and growing process, were new things and aspects are constantly added. My interpretation is that design research simply tries to answer the question of what our understanding is today. Bengt Molander described the idea of knowledge production as follows: "Knowledge is when our attention is directed towards something that we never thought about before." Anders mentioned how this imposed a simple rule of thumb for him. When I am conducting research, am I bringing attention to something that is unknown to the research community? One concept that I grasped during the week was the relation between grounded theory and empirical data. With grounded theory, you investigate a research question with an open mind, collect data and then go back again and build around it. The empirical data is the method used. Empirical data does not ultimately equal research. As Anders thoroughly stated: "Collecting data is not research". He highlighted SCB as an examples of an institute that collects data but are not conducting research.
During the lecture, Ylva Fernaeus stressed that design research is not interdisciplinary, which I found a bit confusing. Since the artefacts’ position in history, its geographical location, as well as the social and cultural context has such a big impact on the research at large – does that not make the method at least somewhat interdisciplinary?
Knowledge today is different, from ten years ago. It is a evolving and growing process, were new things and aspects are constantly added. My interpretation is that design research simply tries to answer the question of what our understanding is today. Bengt Molander described the idea of knowledge production as follows: "Knowledge is when our attention is directed towards something that we never thought about before." Anders mentioned how this imposed a simple rule of thumb for him. When I am conducting research, am I bringing attention to something that is unknown to the research community? One concept that I grasped during the week was the relation between grounded theory and empirical data. With grounded theory, you investigate a research question with an open mind, collect data and then go back again and build around it. The empirical data is the method used. Empirical data does not ultimately equal research. As Anders thoroughly stated: "Collecting data is not research". He highlighted SCB as an examples of an institute that collects data but are not conducting research.
During the lecture, Ylva Fernaeus stressed that design research is not interdisciplinary, which I found a bit confusing. Since the artefacts’ position in history, its geographical location, as well as the social and cultural context has such a big impact on the research at large – does that not make the method at least somewhat interdisciplinary?
Kudos for your connection of theory to practical context. I've struggled to follow what some other classmates wrote about how "hard sciences" would be regarded differently than social sciences. What you explain about math vs the complexity of the human elements clarified a lot. However, a human element is always involved in interpreting research which also goes for "hard sciences" imo. But that's a topic we could discuss further some other time.
SvaraRaderaAlthough the example in itself explains technological changes, I'd like to criticise that you mention iPad specifically. Some kids probably grew up with other tablets and Apple promotion took down the impression of your text a notch. But overall, it's nevertheless a very well written text.
On topic on interdisciplinary, I think we got some clarification after you wrote this post. It's rather concerning the researchers than the research itself in defining this - if I understood correctly. I've also mixed up these various concepts, but to think of the researchers as a happy group of people with different colored hats helped somewhat. In a multidisciplinary research, they all have colored dots and in interdisciplinary each researcher have their expertise and stick to it; one color (field) per hat. My five cents, hope it helps!
I enjoyed reading your post: it helped me to specify the meaning of "empirical data" and made me think about the "ultimate aim" of the research.
SvaraRaderaWhen it comes to the topic of inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary research, I remember, we discussed it during one of the following lectures. In a nutshell, multidisciplinary research is done by different researchers that are doing their parts according to the specialization; interdisciplinary one deals with "switching hats" (when it the scientist tries different roles - I think that was about Ylva Fernaeus' study), and transdisciplinary one regards the "erased boundaries between the disciplines).
Hopefully, that will be useful to clarify your question.
Hi! Thanks for your interesting reflection!
SvaraRaderaI agree on your interpretation of how the results of design research are only valid today and might not be valid in a later stadium. As the Environment keeps changing we can’t expect the results to be valid for a longer time and I don’t think that that is the aim of design research. But the results can inspire other researchers to come with new designs and this is also a contribution.
Great reflection! I discussed a lot of similar things in my seminar, and I think the question of replication is especially interesting, does it actually have to be replicable? And is it possible to ever truly be? We concluded that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to truly reproduce a design study. As technology changes and develops so quickly, if you produce the same experiments 10 years from now, the technology, usage, habits, and conditions will be very different, making it difficult to replicate the same experiment.
SvaraRaderaI think your quote "Knowledge is when our attention is directed towards something that we never thought about before." was very interesting! A great quote indeed.
What you wrote about method being or not being interdisciplinary is definitely something worth thinking about, and something I didn't reflect that much on before reading your post. Just lite you write, in other research the artefacts’ position in history, its geographical location, and the social and cultural context is so important, is the method in design research not at all interdisciplinary?
I think you make an important point when writing "collecting data is not research", which also relates to your discussion on how all sorts of data is somehow affected by human interaction with it. I agree that data that can't be classified as "hard data" seem to be considered not as valid. However, it is necessary to be critical in all forms of research, and therefore also notice how hard data is affected by perception depending on who was chosen to participate, questions in surveys, how the data was used etc.
SvaraRaderaI think you highlight a very important topic in your reflection.
Yop,
SvaraRaderaI always enjoy reading your reflection, you have a very nice approach on the matter.
I totally agree on the fact that we, humans, have a different approach of technology and will definitely have a total different approach in the next 50 years or so. Therefore, reproducing a research involving this enormous change in the technology would result in a different outcome. A TVShow reflects on that, called Black Mirror, seeing how the technology will affect our lives in the near/long future. So the example of the children using iPhone to recreate an original study would alter their behaviour. But I don't think recreating a research is just to find that answer that will always come out, no matter the timespace. Redoing a research add some credibility to the background of this research. We can never be sure to have the truth, the universal truth as you say, but the more we experience it from different ways, different perspective, the more we can base the next researchs that will come up on that and by extension add it to the Humanity's knowledge. if we don't have solid bases we won't move on.
As you mention a bit later in your reflection is that social study doesn't aim for one final answer that will suit everything. But to understand why and how we arrived to this result and understanding it. Im surprised that hard science can have this effect as well, I was in the logic you mentioned, if this is wrong, this is just wrong. It does shake the logic behind hard science, would love to read more about this !
Thank you for your reflection anyhow, Enjoyed reading it !
Hello, you made some very valuable points and also strengthened the connection between not only your 1st and 2n blog post, but around the other themes as well.
SvaraRaderaI enjoyed the part where you stated "The data is not "true" in itself, but has been exposed to human interference in the process of gathering and analyzing it" when discussing about the validity of the data in hard sciences. That is indeed an interesting topic, that the continuous development of scientific methods and approaches as well as technologies actually questions an alarmingly large amount of studies done in the past, even though at the time they were supposed to be somewhat absolute. This brings us to the following point, that maybe today's scientific community would indeed benefit more from the rather gracious approach and except the weaknesses and limitations, since probably the studies of today are to be proven wrong in 50 years.
I also enjoyed that you explained the differences between grounded theory and empirical data, although 'empirical data' in itself isn't the method used, rather the product of empirical approach. But I believe that is just a matter of concepts used, the point remains the same.
Thank you for excellent posts!! :)