 |
 |
Hi all It think it is legitimate that research/design seek to solve a particular, even once-off problem/question/quest. And yet, it would also be of much extra benefit is what was learn in one setting could somehow be re-applied, transferred, generalised or re-used in other settings (this transferability is one of the reasons government's around the world directly fund research -- because of its 'spill-over' benefits). The question for me is: what is transferred. No doubt there's a spectrum of possibilities, but at one end of the spectrum there are FORMULAS to repeat, and at the other end there are EXAMPLES which can't be repeated but only certain principles of practice can be re-formulated to suit other circumstances. The work of Donald Schon of reflective practice I think suggests this spectrum, even though he doesn't quite name it this way. In controlled, laboratory, factory and other set contexts, we can learn a particular solution that can become a formula to re-use. The problem is, however, that much of the world is not this cut-and-dry and is instead more like 'swampy lowlands' as Schon described it, in which each context/problem has its own contigencies and unique issues. In this case, previous solution from other contexts can be examples that inhabit our repertoire of experiences/habits/techniques/tricks/knowledge. But this is a repertoire we creatively drawn from in each occasion - re-mixing our techniques to suite the new, unique issue. Direct repetition is not possible. However, it is still the case that the more examples we have in our 'stock of human knowledge' the better it is for anyone working of future, un-predicted problems. (So it's still worth publicly funding and disseminating the research). I'd suggest that wicked problems fall into the swampy lowlands -in fact they could well be the stickiest, sludgiest, dispersed problems of them all. If so, anyone wanting to solve a wicked problem can't look to prior solutions to generalise/repeat but must use their nouse to re-mix things from past examples that can function at best as 'rules of thubs' but never as die-hard 'generalisable rules'. Luke --- Dr Luke Jaaniste | 0411 016 096 | [log in to unmask] | Brisbane, Australia Research Fellow, Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation (CCI), QUT :: www.cci.edu.au academic site :: www.creatively.jaaniste.com artistic site :: www.lukejaaniste.com ________________________________________ From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of G. Mauricio Mejia [[log in to unmask]] Sent: Wednesday, 2 February 2011 12:14 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: generalizability of research through/by design Dear list members, I was reading Buchanan’s wicked problems in design thinking article and I had a conflict in my mind. He cites Rittel’s 10 properties of wicked problems and one is “Every wicked problem is unique”. Making a connection to design by or through research. Some have suggested that design through research is the systematic inquiry while also solving wicked design problems (e.g. Forlizzi et al. 2009). I was wondering what the value of research by design is if the “generalizable knowledge” of a research by design might not be applicable to any other wicked design problems (since they are different). In other words, what would be the goal of a research through/by design if the indeterminacy reduces possibilities to apply resulting knowledge to other problems? If there is a goal, how to systematize and publish results? I guess this is what he calls neoretic – new learning. But I’d like to know your thoughts about this. Best, G. Mauricio Mejía http://mejia.disenovisual.com References -Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked Problems in Design Thinking. Design Issues , 8 (2), 5-21. -Forlizzi, J., Stolterman, E., & Zimmerman, J. (2009). From design research to theory: Evidence of a maturing field. International IASDR Conference: International Associations of Societies of Design Research. (p. 205). Seoul, Koreal: IASDR.