On 09/08/2007, at 12:49 AM, mschmidt wrote:
> Going one step now beyond the justification for an evidence-based  
> approach
> is what type of approach to take. If one is working in healthcare,
> quantitative studies are preferred. However, much of the user-centered
> design process is qualitative.

Michael,
This is an important point, but it takes us onto a whole new thread.  
As I've written about this in some detail, and a lot of it is already  
in the public domain, it might be appropriate to deal with this off- 
list. For the insomniacs amongst you, we have a growing number of  
publications on our web site dealing with this, and, as those of you  
who read my blog will know, EVIDENCE is one of my obsessions.

For the list, I think it is important to realise that as researchers  
and professionals we have gone far more than one step beyond  
justification for an evidence based approach. The first step beyond  
is in terms of the types of evidence that is scientifically  
acceptable. The quantitative/qualitative issue is very much a  
traditional social science distinction. The most effective testing  
methods in this area--diagnostic testing--results in a combination of  
quantitative and qualitative data, and there are well developed  
rationales for the scientific basis of such data. In a medical  
context the closest analogy—and one that we frequently use  
successfully—is to compare diagnostic testing in information design  
with diagnostic testing in evidence based clinical practice in  
medicine. The second step beyond is that the best of current  
professional practice in information design—most notably in the area  
of health information—actually sets specific performance requirements  
in advance of prototype development commencing. The third step is to  
institutionalise good design practice so that minimum high  
performance standards are the norm. We spend a lot of our time these  
days working with industry and governments on developing industry  
codes of practice, guidelines, regulations and standardisation..

As Terry points out, this type of approach is well established in  
many areas of engineering design. Why graphic design should be so far  
behind other areas is a topic that could keep me going for hours, but  
life is short.

Bringing this back to Karel's starting point and to the critical  
evaluation of the social impact of design. No evidence, no critical  
evaluation.

The problem in our field is that many of the failures are silent.  
When engineering design fails—as is dramatically illustrated when  
bridges collapse or shuttles explode—public concern and critical  
comment is widespread. When people die, become are disabled, or  
disadvantaged because they fail to find some important information,  
nobody notices and the world is silent. All around us millions of  
information bridges fail every day. Making them visible requires  
making the silent speak, the invisible visible, and the ephemeral  
concrete evidence.

Without the evidence, there is no critique.

David
-- 

blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au