Dear Danielle,
The least we could do to support your efforts, is perhaps to supply you with good examples of analysis methods that we use in design research. Over the years I’ve come to favor three methods for collaborative sense making that I happily use both in teaching and my own research:
Dimensional Analysis – This is a scaled-down version of Grounded Theory. It basically challenges you to find ‘dimensions’ in empirical observations by lining them up along axes of opposite statements, and to repeat this procedure with new opposites until you identify an ‘overarching dimension’ which helps express a theory. I like it, because it involves physical action (you actually line up things and discuss why), and because it teaches students that there are many perspectives one might apply on the same set of data. Only by trying do you get deeper in your understanding. For instance, we’ve recently used it with pictures of design studios around the world ('What makes a creative design studio?’). Works fine up till some 60 observations in 2-4 hours, more than that gets cumbersome. Groups of 3-15 participants has worked for me.
>> Kools, S., McCarthy, M., Durham, R., and Robrecht, L.,(1996). Dimensional analysis: Broadening the conception of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research , 6 (3), 312–330.
KJ Method – Also known as card sorting, affinity diagrams etc. Likely the most common analysis method in design, I just like to go back to the Japanese origin that I learned from Jiro Kawakita 1988 (Oops, long time ago). Were most people will tend to go for grand categories when sorting data, Kawakita combined his Ethnography training with buddhism virtues to urge a true bottom-up approach to the analysis of observations. For instance, he challenged analysts to stay very close to the wording of the original observations (no general categories), and his method includes mixing up the data several times to get a fresh view. And this was in the age before posits… I routinely use it in student reflection sessions to show how much we can get out of their collective efforts, and in field research where we video and photos are not allowed. Recently, for instance, to understand how pupils and teachers in schools relate to indoor climate. I’ve worked with up to 800-1000 snippets of text/observations (that takes a week :) I happily engage up to 20 participants, but in the end, it seems only 3-4 have the patience to help see it through :)
Kawakita did not publish much in English, there was an internal report:
>> Kawakita, J: The original KJ-method. Kawakita Research Institute, Tokyo 1982.
Video Card Game – A collaborative method for sorting large numbers of video clips. In all modesty one I developed in the early years working in industry to engage video/analysis novices (engineers and designers) in making sense of field recordings. It builds on the KJ Method, but uses video clips of 1/2 - 2 min duration as data. We use the ‘Happy Families’ card game as a metaphor to explain the procedure. The field researchers select (many) clips that seem ‘interesting’, but without arguing precisely why. Then they invite colleagues (researchers, clients, users…) to help structure. For instance, we had great success sorting through field recordings of forklift truck operation in warehouses (‘What is the practice of forklift truck driving?’). It effortlessly works with 30 - 150 video clips in 2-4 hours. Groups of 3-20 participants.
>> Buur, J and Søndergaard, A (2000). Video Card Game: An augmented environment for User Centred Design discussions. Designing Augmented Reality Environments, Helsingør, Denmark.
>> Ylirisku, S and Buur, J (2007) Designing with Video. Focusing the user-centred design process. Springer
Through all of them, I find that the difficulty for students is to learn that
- analysis takes patience, you can’t go with your first hunch, you’ve got to DO rather than speculate
- the craft of ‘making headlines’ (i.e. hypotheses, design trajectories) only builds with experience.
Hope this is helpful. We look forward to your map!
Kind regards
Jacob
Jacob Buur
Professor of User-Centred Design
Research Director, SDU Design
University of Southern Denmark
Universitetsparken 1, 6000 Kolding
+45 6550 1661
Den 31. okt. 2018 kl. 04.51 skrev Danielle Wilde <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
Dear all,
again, thank you for messages on and off list. Following some rousing cheers I’ve decided to go ahead and build on what’s out there, which means I will come back to individuals and the list to solicit further input. In the meantime, if anyone else would like to send through suggestions, please keep them coming.
best regards,
Danielle
Dear Cesar,
fantastically useful, thank you:
From: Cesar Torres <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
—snip—
Celeste Roschuni has been doing work in this area:
https://www.thedesignexchange.org/design_methods
For the analytical methods, there is a categorization scheme they propose
[1].
[1] Roschuni, Celeste, et al. "Design talking: an ontology of design
methods to support a common language of design." *Int. Conf. Eng. Des*.
2015.
—snip—
Dear Gjoko,
Your book is a fantastic resource. I am grateful I have it to hand. I looked at it several times over the last days and its organisation—in terms of my current focus on analysis—is part of what lead me to reach out for a map. I’d be grateful for your feedback as I wrangle the different resources into a visually organised taxonomy.
From: Gjoko Muratovski <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
—snip—
I have tried to develop a more structured approach to these things in my book "Research for Designers: A Guide to Methods and Practice" (London: Sage Publications, 2016).
https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/book/research-designers#description
While I have not quite developed a map, I have introduced a very detailed step-by-step approach for each of the methods that I am reflecting on in the book. The book is written with the purpose to be used for a course on Design Research Methods, so it might be helpful for you to have a look at it in any case.
—snip—
Dear Heidi,
another great resource. I’d be grateful to receive the pdf.
please write me to: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
thanks one and all,
best regards
Danielle
From: Heidi Overhill <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
—snip—
... an ontology of outcomes, not of technique.
I'd be happy to send a .pdf to anyone interested, but here is a verbal description. Here, the four boxes of the grid represent the intersections of these two axes:• north-south differentiates between research "in theory," and "in practice."
• east-west distinguishes whether the research is relevant "in general," or "for one case."
These intersections yield four general categories:
1. In practice, for one case: This is the type of routine research found in everyday design practice, including benchmark reviews, literature searches and user studies. All design projects include this type of research, if only in rudimentary form.
2. In practice, for general application: This is the type of research aimed at developing general tools that all designers can use when approaching problems, such as ergonomic databases, codes and standardization, or new technologies.
3. In theory, for general application: This is the development of design philosophy; exploring the meanings of design and designed artifacts using intellectual frameworks perhaps taken from philosophy, psychology or cognitive science. Its relationship with clinical design practice may not be obvious, but it is foundational in terms of tacit assumptions.
4. In theory, for one case: This is work that seeks to establish a context for specific projects; perhaps turning to sociology, management or anthropology for guidance. For example, is the kitchen really a location for "work" or is it a social setting? Theoretical analysis of a problem area may be a preliminary step towards identifying the problem to be solved. This step seems sometimes neglected, or is provided by the client in the form of the design brief or contract.
These categories are, of course, blurry (see Lakoff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, 1987), but seem useful for student orientation. Category 1 research is the obvious starting point for beginners, offering manageable opportunities to explore methods that are qualitative or quantitative ; primary or secondary.
Under this analysis, most of the things mentioned by Celeste Roschuni seem to be useful general tools that can find a variety of applications in design practice. I would describe development of such tools as Category 2 research. Roschini's collecting of them is also Category 2 research, as she develops an over-arching tool-of-tools to use in locating methods. Application of the specific tools to a project would fall into Category 1.
Note that I was inspired here by the admirable and useful illustration in: Lois Frankel and Martin Racine, “The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design and about Design.” Paper presented at Design and Complexity, the Design Research Society International Conference 7-9 July 2010, Université de Montréal. http://www.drs2010.umontreal.ca/data/PDF/043.pdf
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|