Dear Ken and all,
In contrast to your position, I'm suggesting you cannot look at evidence as if it were independent of theory.
I suggest this observation is valid at macro, meso and micro levels of creation and use of evidence.
At the macro level we make decisions based on which data collect and how we convert it to evidence. We do this wholly theoretical grounds.
Ie. The answer to the question 'What is evidence?' is 'Whatever theory says it is'. Evidence is defined by theory.
At the other end of the scale, at the micro -level, we are concerned with the microscopic almost instantaneous thoughts, conceptualisations and judgments in each individuals' moments of partial ideation and thinking in the moments of conceptualisation and decision making about what data to collect, whether and how it might become or is justified as evidence, its purposes as evidence, values as evidence, whether it is complete, validate and extendible and its otherwise roles, along with practical issues in its collection, processing and use. All of these internal considerations about evidence are of course all issues relating to the use of abstractions and concepts in thoughts, i.e they are all in the theory realm, and the question of 'What is evidence?' at the micro-level is thus wholly dependent on considering theory realm concerns, but in this case, relating to cognition .
In the meso-level practical space of evidence collation and use, those collating and using evidence can make assumptions that allow them to avoid putting effort into considering the macro and micro-level considerations of how evidence is shaped by and dependent on theory.
This is the world of the practical researcher and designer who use evidence and data in their professional practices (of research and design). Here in this meso-level of evidence use it is apparently possible to ignore the dependence of evidence on theory, and derive a discourse that is exclusively focused on evidence.
Or is it?
I suggest not.
David has asked for concrete examples of the use of evidence in design. One rather grand meso-level example is the work by the UK government Foresight group to create an evidence base on which to design national and local interventions to reduce obesity in the UK population.
The report (76 pages) is available on the Australian and New Zealand Systems Society (ANZSYS) website* at:
http://www.anzsys.org/docs/07-1179-obesity-building-system-map.pdf
The report describes how the team used focus groups, experts, literature reviews, systems analysts and other sources to develop comprehensive diagrams of the factors influencing the development of obesity in the UK population along with identifying the pathways to intervention and the likely best leverage points that will have the maximum effect on reducing levels of obesity. The purpose is to provide the basis for the designers of social interventions to more successfully design social interventions to reduce obesity. It is a tremendous piece of work.
The whole seems like an obvious and successful example of evidence collection for an Evidence-based Design process.
But is it?
I suggest that this whole report is not about evidence at all.
Rather it is about developing the theoretical basis to guide the later collection of evidence that can be used to validate or not the causal loop models and later, if validated, to calibrate any system dynamic models that created to enable the social intervention designers to identify the likely outcomes of social interventions they devise.
Again, even in this meso-level of evidence use, it is not possible to consider evidence without first considering its dependency on concepts, abstractions and theory representations, AND, perhaps more importantly, considering dependency on the reasoning linking them.
Best wishes,
Terry
*(Declaration of interest. I manage some of the content on www.anzsys.com )
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Friday, 7 November 2014 10:01 PM
To: PhD-Design
Subject: Re: What is evidence in design and design research?
Dear Terry,
Theory in important. I argue for the importance and value of design theory in several dozen articles, papers, keynotes, and book chapters over the past two decades. Rather than discuss the issue of theory here, I point to my Academia.edu page. You’ll find some of the articles there:
https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
I do not argue against the value of theory. I arguing for the value of evidence. This thread opened with a question on evidence in design and design research. It is sometimes useful to ask new questions.
This is not a debate on the relative merits of theory and evidence. We need both. There is nothing “one-eyed” about asking how people see the issue of evidence. If you’d rather talk about theory, start a new thread. If you want to state your views on the relationship between evidence and theory, state your views — please don’t misstate my views. But I am not planning to debate theory today. Again, I argue for the value and necessity of theory in design research. Just read what I have written.
For now, I want to ask a few questions about evidence. I’d like to know how different list subscribers answer these questions. If you don’t think the questions are useful or important, my suggestion is to start a new thread while you let folks speak to the nature of evidence in this thread.
Here are my questions to the list. I’d like to hear what people have to say:
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
