Dear Tiu, Derek, Ken, John and all,
Seems to be a mistake to get too obsessed with the idea of 'a research
question' when trying to make theories about design research methods.
It gets in the way of clear thinking (as do a couple of other issues).
There are (at least) four very different foundations for undertaking design
research. The differences between them are reflected in different research
methods for data collection and analysis, and theory construction. The
differences are also reflected in four different ways of writing up such
research in reports, theses, journal articles, conference papers and books.
The four foundations are:
• Researching a ‘design problem' and addressing multiple interlinked
research questions.
This is classic applied research in any of the 800 disciplines in which
design is undertaken. Design is a professional practice with intended real
world outcomes and as such the ‘design problem’ itself is pragmatically the
unit of inquiry rather than a single question. Design problems are messy
things that typically involve multiple factors from different fields that
interrelate in complex ways. After considering Langrish’s OBEs, the
researcher is usually left with the need to answer multiple research
questions to resolve the problem. This kind of research naturally requires
multiple research methodics; each appropriate to the many individual
research issues that need to be addressed.
• Research based on ‘proving or disproving a hypothesis’.
This is classic research in theoretically well developed fields such as
Psychology. The focus of this kind of research is the validation of a
carefully formulated statement that can only be true or false. Nebulously,
sometimes this ‘hypothesis’ statement can sometimes be reformulated into a
question for convenience of readers. In essence, however, the focus is the
truth or falsity of the hypothesis statement. The research methods are such
that they typically either definitively prove or disprove the hypothesis
statement, or they provide quantitative measures of confidence in evidence
about the truth of the hypothesis statement.
• Research based on ‘Exploration’.
This is classic ‘basic’, ‘blue sky’ ‘exploratory research’ is found in all
disciplines. Its essence is exploratory, i.e. as much as possible without a
research question that would tie it down and limit the potential outcomes.
The focus and starting points of exploratory research are multiple. It could
be a topic, direction, aim, current theory, idea, real world situation. By
its nature, the choice of data collection and analysis and theory
construction methods are ad-hoc. Exploratory research can be done in many
different contexts: laboratories, libraries, secondary document analyses,
secondary data analyses, real world situations etc.
• Research based on a single research question.
This is a classic research approach common within the Humanities and has
been over-reified. The idea has spread relatively uncritically from
Humanities for several historical reasons. Examples of such research based
on a single research question are ‘What were the implications for Russian
development in the 1950s of changes in the countries around the Black Sea?
‘What are the implications for Science education of changes in women’s
rights?’. Much of this research based on a single research question has
also, regardless of its complexity, been naively associated with the idea
that it should be undertaken from a single perspective using a single
research method. Where this is so, it typically offers an easy target for
critical review.
Each of these four foundations for research are central and widely used to
Design Research. Each is associated with different patterns of use of
research methods of data collection and analysis and theory construction.
The 'single research question' approach is probably the least relevant.
The existence of these four approaches gives a lie to the common assumption
that ‘research is defined by being based on a (single) research question'.
It requires a bigger understanding and less attention to traditions and rote
learning in research methodology classes!
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Centre
Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________
Best,
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 Tiiu
Poldma
Sent: Monday, 22 November 2010 3:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 19 Nov 2010 to 20 Nov 2010 (#2010-249)
I concur wholeheartedly with John Langrish.
Research begins with a relevant and appropriately framed research
question/hypothesis first and foremost.Paradigms and constructs define the
approach and methods fit/support the proposal as a 'research design'.
Regards
Tiiu
Tiiu Poldma, Ph.D.Faculté de l'aménagement/Faculty of Environmental
DesignUniversité de Montréal
> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 04:28:25 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: PHD-DESIGN Digest - 19 Nov 2010 to 20 Nov 2010 (#2010-249)
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> In a message dated 21/11/10 00:02:16, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
> > Terry Love wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > Please has anyone got a pointer to a reasonably comprehensive design
> > research methods diagram?
> >
> 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.
> John Z L
|
