Dear David and Chris,

David wrote, "Worse still are the research reports that do not
include reproductions of the actual designs."

Chris wrote, "This is a real problem. It is depressingly normal to
see presentations at conferences where it becomes clear from the
images displayed that the researcher has a very poor understanding of
the design context that they are working in. Their written paper
makes perfect sense but then you see the experimental work, or the
case study material....

"Even experienced researchers doing good work can fail to show enough
for you to understand the methods or value of the work properly, they
follow reporting techniques that they have learned from scientists
without wondering (a) whether they have an opportunity to make
themselves more clear and (b) whether scientists themselves are
guilty of concealing the qualities of process that might help us to
judge the value of their work properly. I have seen investigations in
the physical sciences which fall apart completely when you inspect
the design of the laboratory test rig - reading the publications
gives no sense of that."

This important issue is precisely one of the reasons for careful
attention to methodological rigor in reporting research.

A good research report should always describe the subject or object
of inquiry, the research methods, and the research process so clearly
that the reader understands the project and process fully. In some
fields, this enables replication. The basic premises hold true in all
fields, including research fields where replication is impossible.

This issue forms the core of an interesting article by chemist and
Nobel Laureate Roald Hoffman (2002) titled "Writing (and Drawing)
Chemistry."
Hoffman explains how people report the research involved in designing
chemicals.

Hoffman's (2002: 30) discussion of how to report chemistry research
notes "that it is impossible to write chemistry without drawing
molecules." Hoffman's elegant discussion shows how words, equations,
and images come together to describe original scientific
contributions to his field.

In describing his writing own style, Hoffman (2002: 49) describes two
aspects of scientific communication. The first involves issues
touching on "the chemical, cognitive side . . .

(a) An in-depth examination of many compounds, attention to the literature;
(b) Lots of carefully designed drawings of molecules and orbital;
( c ) A suppression of results produced by the computer in favor of
qualitative explanation; and
(d) A mixture of rationalization and prediction."

He then describes the literary devices he uses to achieve effective
communication:

"(a) A generally discursive style, with occasional repetitions and
rehearsals, and lot of those drawings, too; and
(b) Colloquial language where I can, trying to have the paper read
the way a seminar sounds. This is a device whose purpose is to make
the reader fell comfortable with inherently complex material."

For the purpose of this note, I'll leave aside the distinction
between a research report that no one writes to walks the reader
through the actual, stumbling, step-by-step process of inquiry. If
all research reports did this, we would never get to the end of any
research report. Instead, most research reports present a smooth
narrative that represents the essential issues, facts, methods,
problems, challenges, and findings. This requires a balance between
honestly describing necessary features of the research process and
factors that are relatively unimportant.

Since scientific research requires transparency, rather than a black
box, many forms of design research require diagrams, illustrations,
drawings, or images of designed artifacts. The same holds true in
science.

I agree with David's description of the problem and I feel that Chris
is right to describe this as an important problem.

In place of a simple complaint, however, I would add new paragraph to
Chris's excellent description. This new paragraph would describe how
good science reporting ought to be done. Chris has already written
most of it.

Anyone, in any field, who reports research without considering the
issues that Chris describes has not learned how to report research
from experts in natural science. They have learned to write using the
example of poor researchers or the examples of good researchers who
are poor reporters on their own research.

With a little revision, Chris's note becomes a description of
excellent reporting practice in research:

"Experienced researchers show enough for the reader to understand the
methods and value of the work. They follow reporting techniques that
always (a) make themselves clear and (b) demonstrate the qualities of
process that help each reader to judge the work properly."

This often requires images and illustrations along with narrative descriptions.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman


References

Hoffman, Roald. 2002. "Writing (and Drawing) Chemistry." Writing and
revising the disciplines. Jonathan Monroe, editor. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 29-53.


--

After the greetings from Stoke, Canberra, Sheffield, and Barcelona, I
am inspired to greet you from Torna Haellestad, a thriving village of
300 people in the heart of the Skaane countryside. The winter snow is
now melting, the bell is chiming in our 800-year-old church, and our
dog Jacob is out patrolling the forest with my wife.


--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University