Dear Rob and Terry
Regarding the notion of "Quick and Dirty Research". Rob raises a good
point when stating that there is a need for "fast research techniques
which could validate and direct a concurrent design process". To me the
major difference between such design oriented research methods and
traditional scientific methods is the purpose. In design the purpose is
to guide the design process, that is to reach an intended goal within
allocated time and resources, while in science the purpose is, of
course, to find the truth. This makes it possible for designers to both
develop and use other forms of inquiry, manifested in other forms of
methods, sometimes more "quick and dirty". But, maybe we should not see
that as bringing science into the design process, instead we might see
it as developing methods suitable for design inquiry. I do belive that
designers use a lot of methods like that, but they are seldom
recognized as such since they don't have the status or "rigidness" of
accepted research methods. Research on design inquiry could be a way to
both make these approaches visible and also to make the recognized, not
as badly performed sceintific methods, but as effecient and effective
design methods.
Erik Stolterman
--------------------
Erik Stolterman
Informatics
Umeå University
S-901 87 Umeå
Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)90-7865531
Email: [log in to unmask]
Homepage: http://www.informatik.umu.se/~erik
Advanced Design Institute: http://www.advanceddesign.org
|