Thank you David,



This is a good example! I appreciate your achievements and the work of your centre. It also demonstrates the differences among the disciplines/professions, the implications of their background and traditions with using science, and the effect of the time when the discipline/profession is conceived and emerges, and so on. This is a nice corroboration of many of the considerations put forward in this thread. My sense is that the situation in HCI is quite similar. HCI emerged in a very scientific environment and at that time there were considerable accumulation of knowledge in human factors/ergonomic, semiotics, and other disciplines. 



Best,



Lubomir



-----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 David Sless

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 8:45 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: What is evidence in design and design research?



Dear Ken, Lubomir, Terry and all,



I agree with many of the subtle points you raise. But some qualifications are in-order. When I write about design, whether I say so or not, I am almost always writing about my own field of information design. I do not comment on engineering or architecture unless I explicitly say so (which is rare).



In information design (ID) we already have a number of theories. Some are explicitly articulated, others are implicit and need to be excavated or invented by observing what particular practitioners do and say. We have a large body of articulated, well-documented rules of good practice. In many cases, we have good research-based evidence to support these practices. But inevitably there are grey areas, some disagreements, and some areas where we have to provide evidence on a case by case basis. 



So, for example, in Writing About Medicines for People (WAMFP) there are a lot of guidelines about writing and organising text which draw on well-documented rules of good practice, some of which have emerged from such sources as the Style Manual for Authors, Editors and Printers, some have emerged from the excellent research work of people such as Pat Wright, Ole Lund, and others, and there are still others which emerged from the EVIDENCE we collected by trying out different alternative designs before writing the design rules that govern this particular type of document.  This represents a corpus of evidence-based practice that can be applied, with some experience, judgement and training out-of-the-tin. However, there are some areas that we have discovered through research (eg. my own work SLESS D. 1979. Image design and modification: an experimental project in transforming. Information Design Journal 1: 74-80.) that we have no way of anticipating how our work will be read. Some of my colleagues take the view that if we did the right kind of research we will eventually be able to anticipate how it will be read. I take the view that this day is either a long way off or a chimera, and probably the latter. Either way, with what we know today, we have no option but to test our documents on a case by case basis with potential readers. So you will also find in WAMFP a description of how to undertake the testing necessary to find out whether or not the document is usable in the way we want it to be used. It is at this point that we use EVIDENCE from the testing to guide our decision making as designers.



All of the above is contestable within Information Design as it would be in many other fields of practice, and some of the theory we use is quite flimsy. For example, to justify our testing we are minimally claiming that what people do today in our tests is a guide to what they might do tomorrow in their own homes. Pretty flimsy stuff, as I said.



It is also the case that the specific theory of rule making and rule usage which I apply throughout this work is outside the usual linguistic way of thinking about rules. This too might be contentious [see: Sless D. (2007) Designing Philosophy Visible Language 41.2 pp 101-126.]



But it is a well developed and articulated description of the role of different types of EVIDENCE in design practice. Finally, the whole process has to be acceptable to the community of people who trust in the validity of what we have done and believe that the EVIDENCE we provide satisfies their critical judgement.



I suspect, though do not know whether or not there are other areas of design with similar levels of theory, knowledge, evidence and process exist. We do not start from a blank slate. Nor is it the case that we need a specialised language to describe most of what we do.



David

-- 









blog: http://communication.org.au/blog/ <http://communication.org.au/blog/>

web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>



Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA

CEO • Communication Research Institute • • helping people communicate with people •



Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795

Phone: +61 (0)3 9005 5903

Skype: davidsless



60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068



-----------------------------------------------------------------

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

-----------------------------------------------------------------