Dear Tim,
Thanks for your message. How are you going? Best wishes for the season!
My apologies if my previous post appeared confusing. I was trying to tackle
several issues:
1. Which bits of it are the 'new method'?
2. Whether the 'new method' is primarily a 'design/prototyping exercise', a
'new research method', or an as yet unclarified and unjustified mix of the
two.
3. Whether it is new
4. Whether the newness is in the data collection method, the analysis
method, or outside research in the design method
These are general issues, rather than issues of 'science' method.
This exploration of newness in research methods reminds me of similar issues
in studying newness in the topology of knots.
Clifford Ashley in his Book of Knots reported spotting a totally new unknown
knot on a hawser of a boat. He followed the boat until he could get a good
look at this 'new' knot that he had seen. It turned out to be a simple very
conventional overhand knot done in a very messy half unraveled piece of
rope. I.e the apparent appearance of 'newness' of the knot was simply an
artefact of the messiness of the situation to which the knot was applied. My
feeling is that much the same applies in this case.
The question is: whether the 'new method' is really a 'new knot in ordinary
context' or simply a hard to see 'ordinary knot in a messy context'.
For understanding any 'new' knot, one of the best approaches is to do things
like: see where the ends go, count the loops, pull and push it a little to
understand its topology, follow its path, test its logic against already
well understood knot structures.
The equivalent for a new research method is to ask questions like:
1. Who is purchasing the research?
2. What are they purchasing?
3. Who decides what information will be collected and why?
4. Who designs the research process?
5. Who takes responsibility if the research process fails and has to pay
compensation?
6. How does one know if the research process fails and who decides it?
7. How does one know if the research outcomes are faulty or flawed?
8. How does one know if the research methods are flawed or unreliable?
9. How and who can guarantee reproducibility across different but, in
research terms, similar contexts?
10. What is the theoretical foundation of the research approach and the
details of the method?
11. How well does the method and the theoretical findings cohere with other
methods, theories and findings?
12. If it doesn't cohere with existing methods and knowledge, who explains
why or why not and how?
These are the sort of questions that begin to show how the 'new research
method' functions as a system that would open it up to analysis as a
research method. (An alternative approach would be to use say the CATWOE
analysis of soft systems.)
You say, 'they [the actors] act (literally) as proxies for real people in a
research activity of a participative design method.'
It is not obvious to me that this is fundamentally different from any data
gathering method that uses proxies/surrogates (i.e all the research methods
that I can think of). Common surrogates in research include 'words in
conversation' (as in an interview), representatives of others, records of
such words, measurements and instrumentation of physical processes,
photographs, questionnaires, state maps, frequency counts, AND (relevant to
this situation) representational models that can be reviewed and modified.
The accuracy (or not) of the 'proxiness' of actors as compared to other
representatives does not seem to be grounds to argue that it is a different
or new method. Nor does the input of the actors into the process.
The actors act to represent the situation in ways that can be modified and
can be modified by feedback during analysis. This is essentially identical
to the use of physical and mathematical prototypes and analytical models
used in engineering design research.
From this point of view much of the process Chris described seems to me to
be very conventional - the actors are part of the data collection.
If you see it as significantly different, I'd like to know.
Thoughts? Comments?
All the best from Xmas Eve in Lancaster in the UK,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tim
Smithers
Sent: Monday, 22 December 2008 1:50 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Inventing Research Methods
Dear Terry,
May be I'm missing something in this "Inventing Research Methods"
discussion, but for me, your recent reply [Inventing Research Methods:
2008.12.16] to Chris is confusing.
When Chris says about engaging actors in a kind of indirect
participative design method
" ... It's very much a design/prototyping exercise underpinned by
the actors' ability to work rigorously in interviewing/observing
stakeholders and reproducing their experiences in an accurate and
affective way. ..."
you agree with him, and so do I! Indeed, to me this is quite a novel way
of doing a kind of participative designing, and one that can overcome
certain, often rather difficult to deal with, ethical issues that arise
when working with ill, disabled, or otherwise distressed people.
To me, Chris is here talking about a kind of research method for use in
designing, where "research" means what Ken recently (re-)explained
[Dancing Footnote: 2008.12.13]. So, as I understand him (or perhaps
misunderstand him) Chris is NOT talking about a research method used to
do some sciencing.
But you say of all this that ...
"... they [the actors] are solely a component of the data gathering
experimental process. ..."
From what Chris describes the actors are not data gathering, and they
are not part of a scientific experiment: they act (literally) as proxies
for real people in a research activity of a participative design method.
And you go on to say ...
"... This looks like one of those projects that is primarily a
design exercise trying to fly the flag of research by adding the term
'research' in as many ways as possible to reshape perceptions. ..."
This makes it look like you think research = doing science, which it
certainly does not. And that any use of the term research in talking
about designing is dressing the designing up as some kind of sciencing,
which it does not. Nor, I would add, is Chris describing a mere "design
exercise", as if it's some kind of student teaching exercise. He
describes an interesting and novel research method for doing a kind of
designing, and one used in some professional designing.
Designing and Sciencing are two different ways of getting to know and
understand the world: how it can be made to work; and how it does work.
In doing designing we often use a lot of scientific knowledge and
understanding, and in doing science we often do a lot of designing, and
engineering--of experimental apparatus, for example. However, this close
interaction does not make them the same, nor mean that the research
methods used or develop are the same in both kinds of activity.
Designing is not Sciencing, though a scientific investigation of
designing is possible, I would claim. So is it research methods for a
scientific investigation of designing you want to discuss, or research
methods as part of effective designing?
Best regards,
Tim
|