Dear Ken and colleagues,

My original post contained the statement that:

-snip-
Evidence based design is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about solving design problems for their stakeholders.
-end snip-

While acknowledging the difficulty surrounding my use of the phrase “solving design problems”, I think that this statement usefully highlights that a primary concern in this discussion is the use of evidence in making decisions in design practice. This leads to considering (at least) two of Ken’s four questions. The first is an ontological question and the second is an epistemological question.

1. The ontological question: “What is the nature of evidence in design and design research?”
2. The epistemological question: “How should we deploy it and put it to work in professional practice?”

A point of departure from which to address the ontological question could be to ask a further question: What is the difference between data and evidence? My view is that there is probably no ultimate test to distinguish between data and evidence. And I think Birger addressed this well with his statement that data can become evidence when an argument is attached to it. I agree with this view that information is data that can become evidence once it is brought together as results or insights to address a question or resolve an issue. By “brought together” I mean integrating data at a higher conceptual level using appropriate quantitative, qualitative, or other speculative methods (e.g. Weick’s disciplined imagination). I think this view is useful because it provides a local distinction between data and evidence that responds to the need for pluralism in design fields.

The epistemological question concerns how we should justify using evidence in making decisions. I think that the three levels that Don identified are useful in addressing the epistemological question. Don wrote:

-snip-
1. I strongly prefer design theory as a way to proceed: theory supported by evidence.    
2. Most areas of design today do not have such theories -- indeed, it maybe impossible to develop appropriate theories -- and in these cases I strongly argue for evidence-based design as the way to proceed.    
3. Many areas of design today do not have a base in evidence -- indeed, it maybe impossible to develop appropriate evidence -- and in these cases we rely on the skills and insights of skilled, trained designers as the way to proceed.
-end snip-

My concern here is not to address justification the first and second levels that Don identified. Instead I wish to speculate that the philosophy of rhetoric may provide a conceptual lens through which to better understand the third level, namely, how trained designers use reasons together with their skills and insights to justify their professional practice in situations where appropriate theories and evidence are not available. At this third level I speculate that designers make arguments for designs that are reasonable and cogent even through they are neither deductively valid nor inductively strong. According to Blair (2012) such an argument

“… is a good one if its grounds or premises are singly or in combination relevant as support for the claim in question, individually acceptable, and together (if relevant and acceptable) sufficient to support the claim on behalf of which they were offered.” (p. 87)

Sometimes when an argument contains reasons that are relevant, acceptable, and sufficient, then it is reasonable to seriously consider undertaking the course of action proposed. Through this philosophical lens, design activities sometimes work towards generating courses of action that are relevant, acceptable, and sufficient, rather than deductively valid or inductively strong. For example:

1. When design team uses ethnographic and participatory techniques to share direct experiences of the situation with users it can support understanding of people's worlds, test assumptions, and give meaning to insights. This design activity may help to increase the relevance of proposed designs to particular contexts and audiences.
2. When the design team and users build agreement on the issues they face by constructing local accounts of how things work through empathy and cooperation, it reduces possible misunderstandings and conflicts, and so may support the acceptability of proposed designs to that local audience.
3. By bringing together different perspectives through iteratively testing and reworking simple models and visuals with different group members they can make the best use of people’s know-how and a wide range perspectives to find more weak points and opportunities for innovation. This design activity may help to increase the sufficiency of a proposal through supporting the group to judge when the design is good enough to commit to.

The ontological and epistemological questions that Ken has proposed are significant and require careful and critical thought. In my view, the answers both these questions should be ones that can respond to the need for pluralism both in terms of the nature of evidence and how it should be deployed.
 
Best regards
Luke

Blair, J. A. (2012). Groundwork in the theory of argumentation: Selected papers of J. Anthony Blair. Dordrecht: Springer.

Ken wrote:
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? 

Luke Feast | Lecturer | Early Career Development Fellow | Faculty of Health, Arts and Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] |


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