Post theme 5.
This week’s seminar was regarding Design Research, which to me was a quite new subject – something I found to be very interesting. The assigned articles for the week were of experiments where design research was used as the way to achieve a result. One of the primary questions of the week – “What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?” was to me quite hard to answer, simply because I had no previous experience, I thought of all of the data being taken into consideration when designing these processes to be the empirical data. I still hold true to that opinion, but I would like to expand it to also include all of the data that is documented when doing these experiments, as well as the prototypes, cases and so on which are all essential to design research. Another aspect which I now understand better is one of the key differences between design research and design in general. When designing a new product, whatever it is, the key focus is always to try to optimize the product in some sense (usability, looks, performance) and so on – which in most cases is done entirely to get a better product, which results in a greater chance of it being bought (increasing revenue). Design research on the other hand, I would argue, is more focused on discovering behaviors, attitudes, trends etc. when it comes to different topics – which can then be used to actually optimize the process itself.
One of the key similarities between the above mentioned topics, I would argue, is that context is essential – and that it might be impossible to replicate a design research. What I mean with this is the fact that the artifacts which are being looked at are bound by a specific substructure and superstructure which is always subject to change. And if either the substructure or superstructure changes, the results of an identical (method-wise) design research are subject to change – and therefor might not be replicable.
The above is also a reason that I am eager to change my mind regarding if design research can be looked at as knowledge contribution. I hold true to my statement that design research CAN be seen as design research, but it has to be clear that the knowledge contributed is bound by time and the artifacts. The knowledge gathered today is something that can change in the future, and the knowledge gathered years ago has a good chance to be outdated today – however, the results of design research do in fact answer where our knowledge is at today, at this given time. However, a key aspect is that you can always try to replicate the outcome of a study by changing the means, and the process. However, I think that one of the difficulties of design research is that there are an endless amount of ways to approach a design research, and it is impossible to objectively answer which one is better. You can always strive to optimize a process, but you can never objectively answer if you are “correct” or not.
To me, this week was very interesting as it brought up a new subject for me – which I say can contribute to my future research where it is applicable.
Your final passage about the problematics of the perhaps unreachable "goal" of design research (i.e. finding the correct process) were really interesting. Just like you, I see the difficulties regarding objectivity in this type of research, and I have also reflected on whether this particular approach to research perhaps opens up for more subjectivity than other forms. It might be the constant researcher-data-interactions that brings me to that idea, or perhaps it is the fact that processes in general are subject to individual interpretations.
SvaraRaderaPS! I liked your way of including the concept of super- and substructures; it shows a great understanding for both past and present themes, and something tells me that it is a dream come true for our professors ;)
I think you explain the difference between design and design research very well. It was also very interesting to read your thoughts on replicability and how it is influenced by substructure and superstructure - good point. However, regardless of whether a study is current or outdated, I think it still counts as knowledge contribution. It might not be as relevant to the "here and now", but it's still valuable as a record of something that existed and is part of the puzzle of how that thing has changed since the time of the study.
SvaraRaderaI agree with you that it was hard answering the question on what constitutes the empirical data in the papers. I think empirical data is a good example, of something I perceived as pretty clear when reading about the concept, but when applying it to a real life situation I understood that the concept was more complex than I previously thought. I like how you bring in the economic perspective concerning design in general – but I would argue that researchers also are dependent on financing their studies, hence making them part of the economic system as well. The way you connect this theme to Marx’s thoughts on the sub- and superstructure shows that you have grasped the concept not only for this week but for theme two as well. I like to look at knowledge as a process as well – it evolves and changes! And as Aleksandra writes, can be seen as a snap shot of a particular time and place in history.
SvaraRaderaI had not considered product optimization in my initial thoughts on design in general and how it differs from design research. I tend to think of design in a more artistic sense, but perhaps that is because I studied graphic design for my bachelor’s. You mention that product design is intended to get a better product, but I think design research can also focus on that. While it does focus on behaviors, attitudes, and trends I think these are used as evidence on how to create a better design. In the differentiated driving range research, the intent was to create a more useful product and in the tangible programming article, the intent was to create a better product that would encourage children to become more interested in programming.
SvaraRadera