Dear all,
Thank you to everyone who has sent me posts on- and
off-list.
A detailed reply seems difficult (unless I write
another thesis), but I will try to summarise some of
the more significant aspects and apparent
(dis)agreements
from the messages received.
First however, I shall give a brief reply to Kerry’s
message. If I have understood this rightly, he is
asking what the point of the debate is and whether not
it has been settled decades ago?
Surely there have been debates about this before, and
I am grateful for the many valuable sources that have
been suggested to me, some I have already known, some
were new to me. However, especially in phd-education
in art and design in Britain (but also in academic
research in art and design, in general) the matter of
research methods has by no means been settled. Too
many students (and supervisors) are still at a loss,
trying to invent their own creative research methods
without knowledge of established ones etc etc.
Therefore I have asked the three questions with the
aim to stir as wide as possible a debate about this
issue.
Perhaps we will come to some kind of consensus about
this.
More likely everyone who follows the strand will have
a little more knowledge on the subject, useful for
students and supervisors.
Certainly, it will be possible to collect a wide range
of sources from this exercise. Sources specifically on
design research methods, in my experience, tend to be
more often papers than books, and equally often
sources that are not published and therefore difficult
to find and to access.
Getting back to the heart of the debate, i.e. the
questions:
1) what specific design research methods there are in
design, and
2) how are they different to design methods,
3) or whether they are only different in the mode of
application.
The debate so far has shown that there is a fourth
element to it, i.e. that there are methods from other
domains, quantitative and qualitative methods (Cindy’s
point) that are used e.g. for analysis or evaluation.
So we could add question 4:
1) what specific design research methods there are in
design,
2) how are they different to design methods, and
4) how are they different to research methods from
other disciplines
3) or whether they are only different in the mode of
application.
Boiled down to one single question, the question is
whether there are design research methods that are
unique to design, i.e. that are not design methods and
that are not methods from other disciplines.
Some matters that help address the question(s) have
come up in the discussion/contributions such as the
similarities between the research and the design
process (e.g. problem, hypothesis, gathering and
evaluating data, etc); paradigm, logic, and
differences in nature: theory/practice, or outcome:
knowledge/artefact.
Although expressed in different ways, the majority of
responses seem to say that design research (in an
academic context; I have been reminded that it is
important to be precise about the context of a
question, so I state this here again) makes use of a
combination of established research methods from other
disciplines, and of design methods which may be
embedded in the former.
Only one person, David Sless, has argued that there
are specific design research methods. He says:
- quote -
Your third question is, for me, quite intriguing. I
can answer it specifically with a particular example
from our 'toolkit' of investigative methods. One of
the methods we use is what we call diagnostic testing.
Superficially, it looks like usability testing, and,
like usability testing it's origins are partly in
applied ergonomics, but we have grown to think about
it, conduct it, and analyse the data from it in very
different ways to those that are routinely taught in
research methods courses. This post is already too
long, so I won't go into detail here. There are lots
of discussions of it in our publications which shed
detailed light on it. However, when you ask > whether
they are only different in the mode of application. I
would say no. They may have started life that way, but
are now something quite different. I suspect other
designers have similar experiences.
- unquote -
The suggestion that design research methods can evolve
out of design methods seems an interesting one, and
quite plausible, although at first sight it looks as
if a design method has been subjected to immersion
into analytical and evaluative methods from other
disciplines. Without further detail, this is
impossible to determine. Perhaps David might like to
fill in on this? (not everyone might have the time to
read several papers to find the exact reference. In
fact, I cannot read any larger files at the moment,
because – being out of college – I am sitting at the
end of a bit of copper wire, which has its limits…).
Going back to what the majority of contributions seems
to suggest, i.e. that design research, and especially,
practice-based design research utilises design methods
embedded in the matrix of analytical/evaluative/etc
research methods from other disciplines. On the one
hand this seems quite acceptable and sensible, on the
other hand there is the repeatedly-voiced aim to build
design’s own research tradition. How do these fit
together?
The unease seems to come from what is generally
characterised as the synthetic nature of design versus
the analytic nature of research, in particular
research that follows a natural sciences path in a
positivist, or post-positivist paradigm that uses
deductive reasoning.
In a personal email, Ken reminded me of Nigel Cross’
argument (1982) for designerly ways of knowing, i.e.
the particular knowledge that is gained from
experience and practice of the design process. Herbert
Simon (1969: 55) characterises the nature of design
that underlies this ‘designerly way of knowing’ most
strikingly when he defines that
- quote -
Everyone designs who devises a course of action aimed
at changing existing situations into preferred ones.
- un quote -
Design is not only concerned with what is, but more so
with what could or should be. This seems to be the
reason why research in the creative disciplines does
not fit well with the scientific/positivist paradigm.
Not even inductive reasoning might be sufficient to
deal with this sort of knowledge-generation, but a
combination of one or two of the former with what
C.S.Peirce has called abductive reasoning (also:
productive reasoning, March in Cross 1984).
I quote from my own thesis (Niedderer 2004):
To introduce the two concepts, March (1984: 265-276)
draws on the philosopher Peirce (Hartshorne and Weiss
1998, vol. 5: §171) who explains that
`Deduction proves that something must be; induction
shows that something actually is operative; abduction
merely suggests that something may be.`
Peirce defines abductive reasoning further as
`the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis. It
is the only logical operation which introduces any new
idea;…`
Presenting the concept of abductive reasoning in the
context of design methodology, March (1984: 269)
argues that this mode of reasoning is most appropriate
as framework for design knowledge, because of the
nature of design as a creative and conjectural
process.
- unquote -
To frame this thought on the mode of reasoning, I
would like to add that of course the choice is
dependent on he question or problem to be
investigated. If the problem is concerned with the
generation of something new (usually in form of
descriptive research that generates theory), e.g with
concept development, abductive reasoning might be
appropriate. If we are looking at explicatory
research, inductive reasoning might be appropriate, if
we are looking at (experimental) testing (of a
theory), deductive reasoning might be appropriate.
One, two or all three modes of reasoning might be used
in any one research project. (See Fawcett (1999) for
details on descriptive, explanatory, and predictive
theory/research). The choice of problem and approach
(reasoning) will also determine the choice of
paradigm. (I use the definition of the term ‘paradigm’
here in the sense of Guba (1990) who distinguishes
between positivist, post-positivist, critical theory,
and constructivist paradigm.
Having considered how the nature of design might
influence the nature of design research, I want also
briefly dwell on how this might shape the process of
the research.
In his email, Ken also points out that the difference
between the research process and the design process is
that the research process
- quote -
is a mental process that requires an explicit method
and a narrative.
- unquote -
Other people have expressed the same distinction as
the difference between action and reflection whereby
practice is bound to action, and research to
reflection. Yammiyavar (2000) expresses this
difference in form of purpose/ outcome, i.e. that
design always aims for and is measured by its concrete
(and commercially attractive) outcome, usually in form
of artifacts, although increasingly also in form of
services. Both, I would say with the aim to create
(new) experiences, while academic research aims to
create new knowledge.
Within design (and indeed a number of other
disciplines) the experience is part of the knowledge
created. In terms of methods, it seems therefore
appropriate to embed the use of design methods into
the research in order to draw on existing tacit
knowledge, extend it, and make it explicit as far as
that is possible. The same seems appropriate where the
experience of a particular outcome is fundamental to
the knowledge created. Michael Biggs’s conference
Research into Practice has offered much concern with
these topics.
While at the current stage design activity/methods are
embedded in analytical/evaluative methods, usually
from other disciplines (reflective disciplines,
semiology, philosophy, statistics, etc). The question
remains whether only the mode of application can be
changed to suit design research, or whether methods
can be/will develop that allow to better
approach/integrate the dichotomy of practice/action –
research/reflection.
To conclude this email, I would suggest that firstly
where speculative nature /abductive reasoning is at
the centre of the research, it is this that makes
design research sit uneasy with established research
methods from other fields, or perhaps more with the
outcomes that are traditionally expected from those
methods. Secondly, the negotiation between the
material/visual/tactile elements that we find in
design and the mental process of research requires
probably some creative thinking to stir both aspects
closer together or even merge them.
Best wishes to all,
Kristina
Dr Kristina Niedderer
Email: [log in to unmask]
Mobile: 0044 (0)7966 892 879
References
Cross, N.1982. Designerly ways of knowing. In Design
Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4, 221-227.
Cross, N. (ed.) 1984. Developments in Design
Methodology. Chichester, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Fawcett, J. 1999. The Relationship of Theory and
Research. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis Company.
Guba, E. G. 1990. The Paradigm Dialog. London: Sage.
Hartshorne, C. and Weiss, P. (eds). [1931–58] 1998.
Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (vol. 5).
Bristol:Thoemmes Press.
March, L.1984. The Logic of Design. In Developments in
Design Methodology, ed. N. Cross, 265-276. Chichester,
NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Niedderer, K. 2004. Designing the Performative Object:
a study in designing mindful interaction through
artefacts (PhD thesis). Falmouth, UK: Falmouth College
of Arts.
Simon, H. 1969. The Sciences of the Artificial.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Yammiyavar, P. 2000. Is industrial design research
really different from other research? In: S.
Pizzocaro, A. Arruda, and D. De Moraes, eds. Design
Plus Research, Milano, Italy, pp. 251-257.
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
|
