Friends,

Birger Sevaldsen and I have been exchanging thoughts off-list, and Birger asked a very powerful question: what is “evidence” is design and design research?

Just as I was about to write to Birger that this is a powerful question, I began to wonder how the conversation had been evolving on the list.

M P Ranjan asked much the same question in a useful post: “So what is design evidence?”
 
Earlier, Don Norman raised a profound and challenging issue about the field, and perhaps it applies to any field of professional practice — or to any of what Herbert Simon would have included in the design sciences. Don offered three points: 

1. Design theory is probably the best way to proceed: theory supported by evidence.

2. Most areas of design today do not have theories supported by evidence. More difficult still, it may be impossible to develop appropriate theories. In cases where we cannot develop appropriate theories, evidence-based design offers a good way to proceed.

3. Few areas of design today have a base in evidence. It may be impossible to develop appropriate evidence in many areas of design. Where this is the case, we must rely on the skills and insights of skilled professional practitioners. 

Don linked this to the develop of other fields in which a scientific discipline grew around a field of professional practice to make it more effective. Don wrote, "In the history of science, this [the three points] is a common path. First comes observations. Then comes classification. Then simple measurements of some components. With time, a theoretical basis develops. The scientific method is a procedure for probing, testing, disputing, and eventually converging upon useful, tested theory. Not all science or engineering practice today is theory based. Some is still evidence-based. Medicine is a good example of a field with a mixture of deep theory, a non-theoretical component based upon evidence, and numerous components not well supported by either evidence nor theory.”

This reminded me of the schema for theory construction that Talcott Parsons and Edwards Shils (1951: 50) proposed. They suggest four different levels of systematization for theories, moving from the most primitive to the most advanced. These are 1) ad hoc classification systems, 2) systems of categories, 3) theoretical systems, and 4) empirical-theoretical systems.  This implies a schema of increasingly useful kinds of theories based on the relations among the parts of a theoretical system. 

This kind of schema demonstrates a theoretical development that moves from evidence to a full theoretical system. Jane Webster and Richard Watson  (2002: xiii) conceive this as a “hierarchy from ad hoc classification systems (in which categories are used to summarize empirical observations), to taxonomies (in which the relationships between the categories can be described), to conceptual frameworks (in which propositions summarize explanations and predictions), to theoretical systems (in which laws are contained within axiomatic or formal theories).” 

A field that exists in the fluid state of the design field obviously needs many kinds of evidence — we have a way to go to develop a range of full theoretical systems. It is a long way, and it may even be a long way on what may be an impossible journey. The point of research is to see what it is that we can learn, to shift the boundaries between the possible and impossible as we find out that we can learn, discover, or invent what we once thought of as impossible. And occasionally, it is useful to find out what we can’t manage yet simply because it helps to be humble.

There have been some terrific posts in this thread, and several people have argued convincingly for the value of evidence while remaining open and flexible as to the nature of what evidence might be. Mike Zender, M P Ranjan, and Lubomir Popov have offered some hints, and David Sless got started on a post that he will continue later. 

This seems so productive that I’d like to open a question here to echo Birger, Ranjan, and Don. When I read Birger’s private note, I began to think that I can’t answer the question as well as I’d like to do, so I am asking the question here. 

What is the nature of evidence in design and design research? What kinds of evidence do we need? How can we gather this evidence? How should we deploy it and put it to work in professional practice? Can you suggest some useful published examples worth reading to shed light on these questions?

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015

Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia

Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn 

—

References

Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils, editors. 1951. Toward a General Theory of Action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Webster, Jane, and Richard T. Watson. 2002. “Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.” Management Information Science Quarterly Vol. 26 No. 2, (June), xiii-xxiii.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------