Hi all,


I am kind of making a tangent but I hope it is OK.  I heartily agree that
“borrowed methods” should be transformed when one is applying them to design
research, but herein lies another problem. Most (I am not saying all) of the
research that uses and tries to transform “external” methods, ends up
creating a highly watered down version of those methods, lacking rigor and
depth. Unfortunately, what some design researchers understand from adapting
external methods is only cutting back on the sample sizes (e.g. using a very
small amount of respondents when doing interviews or trying apply
statistical techniques to very small samples) and reducing the amount of
time spent in the field, so it is “quick and dirty”.


Another issue that I am having a hard time with (and it might be just me),
is trying to put “design thinking” in the middle of everything. As a former
designer who is getting a PhD in sociology, I am having a hard time nailing
down what it really means. I was reading Andrew Abbott’s “Methods of
Discovery: Heuristics for the Social Sciences” and the advices he gives to
social science students to create “innovative” research questions is no
different than design thinking. If design thinking is a central aspect of
human thinking (and I believe that it is), I do not think it is a good tool
to use for “boundary maintenance” or disciplinary differentiation (so
tweaking research methods to leave room for design thinking is not a good
idea since every research design involves design thinking). What will happen
is that other disciplines will also claim ownership of this concept (as we
see in the case of Management schools, in fact in one if the recent IDSA’s
one designer told the audience that “design thinking” is one of the most
dangerous concepts for the future the profession, because of the reasons I
have given before). I am not saying that we should debunk it. But we should
be a little more careful when putting so much emphasis on such a vague
concept.


Sorry for my tangent!


ali o. ilhan

PhD Candidate in Sociology,

Washington State University.

On 21 November 2010 03:27, Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hello Ken
> I agree with most of what you say but disagree on two points:
> 1) Research by Design or through Design ( RxD) is a version of
> practice-based design that is proprietary for design. Practice-based
> research is gaining increasing importance in many fields.
> It would not work satisfactory to apply methods and research practices from
> other areas where practice-based research is an established research area
> like e.g. in nursing studies.
> Design practices contain elements of knowledge accumulation and innovation
> in most normal project. That is not the case with many other practices like
> e.g. nursing. On the other hand some other practices also have a similar
> mode of operation e.g. engineering, but engineering differs in mindset quit
> a lot from design, though there are overlaps.
> There should now be no doubt that design practice is a knowledge generating
> activity and that research by or through design, when it is properly
> scrutinized and discussed is able to generate reflective and communicable
> knowledge that others can pick up on. Also the integration of systematic
> reflection and practice results in a mode of knowledge production that goes
> beyond the normal design practice with simply an added reflective layer.
> Design practice and reflection might influence each other in a synergetic
> manner. RxD in itself is a wide area where many different approaches and
> methods might be used. I tried to start mapping out these in a paper found
> here: http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/62
> 2) There are numerous examples where external methods have been applied in
> design research with no critical approach nor transformation of the external
> method. This results in research designs that might be too ”technical” or
> too “ethnographical”,  leaving little space for design thinking.
> I would suggest that, yes we are using many types of  "imported" research
> methods but it makes sense to transform them to fit design research.
> So:
> 1) There is a design-genuine way of knowledge production found in design,
> especially in Research by Design. Many different approaches and research
> designs might be applied in Research by Design.
> 2) General research methods and perspectives from other fields of knowledge
> production often need to be transformed to fit the scope, culture, mindset,
> and resourcing found in design research.
> Finally: to my mind it is a sign of an immature field of knowledge
> production when, on one side being in a desperate need to claim its
> uniqueness to all other thinking, on the other side to claim that there is
> nothing unique found within the field. We are similar and can learn a lot
> from others but we also are unique and should not hesitate for a moment to
> design proper new research designs, approaches or methods when needed and
> appropriate. The specific case will tell what to do.
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [[log in to unmask]] p&#229; vegne av Ken
> Friedman [[log in to unmask]]
> Sendt: 21. november 2010 11:36
> Til: [log in to unmask]
> Emne: A comprehensive diagram of research methods
>
> Dear Terry,
>
> Just after posting my last note, I found John Z Langrish's post. I concur
> heartily. As short and elegant as it is, I will quote John:
>
> "How would such a diagram differ from one classifying ALL research methods?
>
> "Whatever you are interested in, whether design or pendulums, different
> research methods are available. Such a diagram would start with a division
> into two - methods that try to keep things simple and methods that look for
> complexity (What I call P and B) Even pendulums have their complexities.
> Real ones do NOT swing like text books say they should. Some recent research
> into Galileo's data shows how the method of suspension and how long you let
> it swing can have important effects.
>
> "There aren't any specific methods for design research. It's the research
> questions that define an area - any appropriate method may be used."
>
> Since the research question defines the methods we need, one might well
> seek a diagram classifying all research methods with respect to the kinds of
> questions we might ask. That is, in essence, what Pirkko Anttila did.
>
> We design for many purposes, and we have many questions about design,
> design processes, the purposes for which we design, the artifacts we design
> across a wide range of products and services, the systems in which these
> products and services are embedded, the ways we receive and use them, and a
> thousand more questions. The scale and scope of the diagram is defined by
> the huge range of research questions we might ask.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
>
> Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
> Dean, Faculty of Design
> Swinburne University of Technology
> Melbourne, Australia
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
> URL: www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>
> Phone Dean's Office +61 3 9214 6078
> Phone Faculty Switchboard +61 3 9214 6755
>