 |
 |
Kristina wrote: > The suggestion that design research methods can evolve > out of design methods seems an interesting one, and > quite plausible, although at first sight it looks as > if a design method has been subjected to immersion > into analytical and evaluative methods from other > disciplines. Without further detail, this is > impossible to determine. Perhaps David might like to > fill in on this? (not everyone might have the time to > read several papers to find the exact reference. In > fact, I cannot read any larger files at the moment, > because – being out of college – I am sitting at the > end of a bit of copper wire, which has its limits…). I think we might be a little at cross purposes here. To reiterate what I said about 'diagnostic' testing. Whatever it's origins, it is no longer in my view a *research* method anymore than blood testing by a physician is *research*. It is a method of *investigation*, applying known techniques and looking for the presence or absence of particular symptoms. Is it a design research method? IMHO, only with a very generous interpretation of what constitutes research. What I think does count as research is the work we did to select it above other potential candidates, like usability testing, focus groups, surveys etc. and then refine it so that we could use it reliably, economically. and with some degree of confidence that the results were telling us something useful on which to base design decisions. I would also count as research our investigation into the most appropriate points in the design process in which we use this investigative method. But its routine application in design projects is, in my view, not research. Kristina also asked: > Perhaps David might like to > fill in on this? (not everyone might have the time to > read several papers to find the exact reference… To do so fully, would require a long post, much longer than I have time to prepare. Indeed, I have taught a number of course on this subject at postgraduate level, and it takes a few weeks for students to learn the basics of this particular method and its appropriate application. Understanding the subtle nuances of why it might be different to other types of 'testing' would take a little longer. It would also require a knowledge of these other methods. Sometimes, if something is important, then we make the time to read several papers, and then some more. But, short of that I can give you some general pointers. We devote an entire chapter (chapter 6) to diagnostic testing in: Sless D and Wiseman R (1997) Writing about medicine for people Canberra: Commonwealth Government Printer (you can buy the book from our web site) If you use the search facility on our web site and enter 'diagnostic testing' it will take you to all the places we mention it in specific papers. Hope this helps, David David -- Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA Director, Communication Research Institute of Australia ** helping people communicate with people ** Also Visiting Professor in Information Design, Coventry University Adjunct Professor in Science Communication, Australian National University Co-Chair, Information Design Association (UK) PO Box 1008 Hawksburn, Melbourne VIC 3142, Australia Mobile: +61 (0) 412 356 795 Phone: +61 (0) 262 510 848 web: http://www.communication.org.au