Dear Kristina
Thank you for your nice post! I enjoyed it. I am sorry I did not have
time to answer your questions earlier.
I like the discussion in your post. I think this is a very complex
question, as you state, and cannot fully be solved once and for all ;-)
Here is a late comment. To me, one of the most important issues when it
comes to research and methods is the question of "measure of
performance", that is, the way the result that comes out of using a
method is measured or evaluated. As far as I understand, there is a
distinct difference between the measurement in research and in design
work.
In research the ideal is that the use of a method should (help) lead to
"truth" or at least to the best possible explanation or understanding
at the moment. This is also the basis for the development of research
methods, with its diversity in natural science, social science and in
humanities. Researchers have found that the way to measure and
establish "truth" might vary depending on the object of study. It is
also in the detailed definitions of a research method that is supposed
to ensure that the result is trustworthy. In the ideal case you have to
believe in the result if the method is accepted by the scientific
community and if the researcher has followed the method in a correct
way.
In design, however, "truth" has no special position or even meaning. A
design cannot be "true" or "false", it can only be good/bad or work/not
work or beautiful/ugly or useful/or not. This creates a completely
different foundation for how to measure the outcome and it also opens
up for possible choices of methods in design. In a simple, anything
that helps a designer to improve the design in all its aspects are
valid methods.
But then design research is a different thing. It is not one thing, but
at least two. First design research can reside within the realm of
truth, with the purpose to create true knowledge about design, its
process and outcomes. In this case , only methods that are "approved"
within the research community can be used (or you will end up with
problems and a lot to explain).
Secondly, design research can itself be a design process, with, for
instance, the purpose to improve designers skill or competence or to
add new designs to the world. I would not label this as "real" research
in the more "pure" way since it does not have truth as a necessary
(although maybe possible) component.
So, what does this mean. I guess methods can only be judged in relation
to intention. They can only be valued as "fair" or "acceptable" in
relation to an aim. If a method works well in helping designers find
information and knowledge needed in a design process, then it is a good
method in that context and with that intention. If that method also is
a good research method can only be "measured" in relation to how well
it has proven its value in the context of creating "true" and generally
acceptable knowledge, and accepted by the research community.
To me, this means that we design researchers have to be very careful
with how we use the words "method" and "research", and also "design".
(In a professional practice context this is, to me, not a problem.
Within this context we can "research" in whatever way we may find
useful, with whatever methods that works. Doing research however is a
different matter.)
We can add to this complexity by stating that it might be possible to
"invent" a different way to do research that is design specific, i.e.
that is suitable only for design disciplines, with different intentions
and "measures of performance". (This is of course related to the whole
issue whether a Ph.D. in design should mean something different that in
science.) The only way to make this into a succesfull and accepted
position within academia is to make the case that such knowledge is
different and an outcome of different methods, and should be measured
differently, based on a different intention, i.e. to produce a good
design instead of a "true" knowledge.
Erik
----------------------------------------------------------
Professor Erik Stolterman, Ph.D., Chair of Department
Department of Informatics
Umea University
90187 Umea
Sweden
Email: [log in to unmask]
Webpage: www.informatik.umu.se/~erik
New books:
"Thoughtful Interaction Design" by MITpress, more info at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?sid=64841A44-E907
-4864-9A89-4F52CDAAB7FE&ttype=2&tid=10334
"The Design Way", information at
http://BooksToRead.com/etp/nelsonad.pdf
** Awarded: "Outstanding Book of the Year" by the Association for
Educational Communications and Technology
|
