Theme 5 - Design research

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

To me, it was quite hard to distinguish the empirical data which was used in these studies. The reason for it to be hard is the fact that design research is not in itself a way of using quantitative measurements to help defining a phenomenon – instead, design research is a process which in no way has a “correct approach”. Rather, design research is a long process with an infinite number of different solutions for a problem, and it is an extensively iterative process in which you contantly strive towards finding a “better” answer, rather than the “correct” answer. There are several variables (which some are known, and others are not) – so it is impossible to put all of these variables into perspective. Rather, design research is about being creative and constantly being able to adapt to the situation depending on the results of your research.

With that said, I would argue that the empirical data which was used in these articles are these iterations and variables which have been used when conducting the concepts. The physical actions of the kids which lead up to the result. Also, interviews which were conducted might be seen as empirical data.

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

I would definitely say that design work can be consired to be a knowledge contribution – however, not in the same sense as quantitative and qualitative research. Design work has to be put into a context in order to understand it as knowledge contribution. If researching how to optimize or use a specific gadget or artifact, it is important to understand the technological limits which are in the context, and what alternatives are out there. What I mean by this is the fact that design research of a specific area will change over time, and the answer which one article might find can be completely changed if a new artifact is developed and put onto the market.

An example would be how the concept of designing a map has changed over time. 30 years ago, designing a map for a specific target audience will use the artifacts of that time (paper most likely). However, if asking the same question today – one might find that using a product with a GPS, such as a Garmin GPS device or a smartphone would be the ideal creation. Both of these research designs are “knowledge contributions” of that time.

This means that it is not general knowledge contributions which are not bound by time.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

I would say that designing for research purposes is more centered about gaining a type of knowledge about an issue, it is in a sense a visualization of a problem in order to understand it and “fix” it. Design research is rather a way to look at a design process and how it can be altered to optimize a design process.

Design in general is a quite loose term which can be interpreted in many different ways. Design can be everything from designing a product to fulfil a need on the market – for example making a product more appealing to the eye, to making a product useable under a specific condition etc.

It is a way of optimizing a product and not a process. I would say that in general, design in general does not contribute to knowledge – whereas design research does.

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?

See my answer of how it can be considered a knowledge contribution. I would say that there is no real way to account for it rather than acknowledging it and putting it into context.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

I would say that design driven research is about finding solutions in how to optimize solutions for a given problem. There is no correct answer on how to solve a specific problem, but it can always be optimized a little bit further – and one could say that “solving” a problem is about finding a “better” solution than the current one. The solution will be for a specific problem which cannot be generalized and used for other problems (unless they are very similar, and using the same logic).