Hello,

This thread and especially the recent posts of Ken, Mike and Eduardo suggests two other elements in the 'images.vs words in research '.

The first is the role of technical languages in research. Such languages are developed in every discipline to a greater or lesser degree  and they comprise specific interpretations of words intended to provide the basis of unambiguous presentation and analysis of ideas. 

All disciplines work towards having and using a discipline-specific unambiguous technical language.  In their better developed forms these not only include agreed definitions of terms, they also include unambiguous ways of describing ideas and analyses and a means of establishing whether reasoning is unambiguously correct. The two primary features of such discipline-specific technical languages is they are as much as possible unambiguously comprehensive symbolic representations of aspects of the  world of interest to the discipline; and the operations that can be undertaken in those technical  languages are as much as possible unambiguously  comprehensive in representing causal relationships and behaviours in the focal interest of the discipline.  

Mathematics  can be seen as a particular highly abstract form of  technical language that is discipline agnostic  (and before someone jumps in that mathematics doesn't exactly describe the world, that is not the issue - the primary focus is whether the technical language is unambiguous). As Ken wrote, mathematics is a symbolic language like any other written language. What distinguishes it is its focus on unambiguity.

In research discourse it is helpful to distinguish between four different types of language in research analyses and theory proposals :

	Analyses and theory proposals described wholly in technical language; 

	analyses and theory proposals  in situations in which the aim is to as much as possible use technical language but the technical language has not yet been fully  developed in that realm; 

	discussions in the language of professional practice (which has no claim to be an unambiguous  technical language as described above, and in design practise is often intended to be NOT unambiguous); and,

	discussions in  everyday language.

Discussions  about the use of images in research often occur in the second two forms of  discourse, i.e. outside the arena of technical language.  Such discussions can also exist in two parallel streams in which one party assumes technical language  and focuses on the validity of images in unambiguous technical language; and the other party focuses on the role of images in the language of professional practice.  


Second is the idea of competency-based assessment of research  and the roles of visual media as evidence of correct research reasoning as seen through the lens of competency-based assessment.

For any research or theory-making project, the purpose of the documentation (research report, journal article etc describing the research) is to provide the basis for others to assess whether the analyses of the researchers are correct. That is, whether the evidence in the documentation adequately demonstrates that the researchers were competent at undertaking that research project or analysis. This is not about their competence in general - only their competence specific to that project and the analyses described in its research documentation.

One of the benefits of seeing research documentation  as evidence in competency-based assessment of the research findings is there is considerable amount of work in the area of competency-based assessment on the use of different forms of evidence, including written elements,  certified observations,  photos, videos, sound files  or sketches all providing evidence  demonstrating an individual's performance.

The challenge is whether the evidence 100% demonstrates that an individual has guaranteed competence in a specific task. An example is whether an electrician can wire up a plug correctly. There are no part marks in competence. Either the competence is demonstrated  or not. This echoes research analyses that are either demonstrated to be correctly undertaken  or not. 

In competency-based assessment it is generally assumed that videos, pictures, or sound files by themselves are not sufficient to demonstrate competence. At best, they can only  provide a partial view. At worst, they can be accidentally or deliberately misleading (by example by judicious editing).  By themselves, photos,  video  or sound recordings are assumed to be insufficient of themselves to indicate their own relevance or reliability. Typically, such evidence also requires signing off by an observer (whose own competence is certified) that the subject of the visual/sound evidence was observed and that the visual/sound record is guaranteed as an accurate,  unambiguous and complete representation of the events being used as evidence.

When visual elements are used in a research report or journal paper describing research findings, they typically neither satisfy the unambiguity considerations of evidence, nor are they signed off by a certified observer of the researcher's competence of undertaking that research project or that they accurately, unambiguously and completely represent a particular explicit reasoning (It’s a nice idea for a new job role - professional research certifier!).  This adds another dimension to the discussion on the use of visual elements in research reports

There is a concise and accessible discussion of these issues  of the roles and validity of visual evidence in portfolio-based assessment  in Cooper, T (1997)  Portfolio Assessment: A Guide for Students. Perth: Praxis Education (Available - http://www.amazon.com/Portfolio-Assessment-A-Guide-Students-ebook/dp/B00OAAUMH2    and disclosure, I was copy editor for the book).

Best wishes,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, PMACM, MISI
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: Tuesday, 13 October 2015 10:09 PM
To: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: [SPAM] Re: Unflattening by Nick Sousanis

Dear Eduardo,

Thanks for your note. This requires a clarification. 

Mathematics dissertations may not use natural language, but mathematics itself is an explicit and clearly defined symbolic language. Mathematics is much less ambiguous than words. This makes it possible to write a much shorter and more economical thesis than one can usually write using natural language. For time to time, people can earn a PhD in mathematics with a thesis of only a few pages.

Not being a mathematician, I do not know the traditions with regard to stating the problem and discussing research methods. Nevertheless, there must be clear and explicit traditions for people who work in an axiomatic, symbolic language in which everyone understands and agrees to common rules without regard to the culture from which they come.

This is quite different to a book or thesis in pictorial images. Pictorial images are ambiguous, culture-dependent, and open to entirely different interpretations that depend on the inner world of the viewer. 

The hermeneutical horizon makes the world of pictorial images entirely different to the explicit and carefully defined language of mathematical symbols. While all human symbolic languages involve some form of hermeneutics, but the nature of these languages differs, as does the way we communicate, read, and interpret them.

In this sense, the numerical portions of a thesis in mathematics constitute an explicit and unambiguous written discourse, while the pictorial portions of Unflattening do not.

Warm wishes,

Ken   

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/

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

--

Eduardo Corte-Real wrote:

—snip—

I went to take a look at some PhDs in Mathematics, found one on Physics and it ends to be very similar to what I expect a PhD in Maths looks like.

Most of the arguments are developed through formulas, and of course, if not demonstrated through formulas, not valid. Written discourse seems to introduce and connect formulas but the formulas are conducting the document to its final conclusions. 

Of course, only peers are able to follow the reasonings and arguments expressed in such manner. 

In the limit we may admit that through very eloquent formulas, we could accept a Maths dissertation almost without written discourse, especially dealing with calculus. An “Unflattening" Maths Thesis would probably be possible with little discussion.

—snip—


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