Birger Sevaldson (PhD, MNIL) Professor at Institute of Design Oslo School of Architecture and Design Norway www.birger-sevaldson.no www.systemsorienteddesign.net www.ocean-designresearch.net ________________________________________ Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] på vegne av Luke Feast [[log in to unmask]] Sendt: 20. mars 2013 15:55 Til: [log in to unmask] Emne: Re: Verification, Falsification, validation, design and wicked problems Dear Birger, Thank you for your useful dialogue and conversation. Your posts have challenged some of my assumptions and given me inspiration to consider some further aspects of design research and design research programmes. To me, these exchanges show the value of the PhD Design list. I wish to offer some thoughts on understanding and explanation in design research. Both your (Sevaldson, 2010, p. 13) description of research by design “[producing] knowledge by engaging in the generative, in the act of designing", and Horvath’s (2001, p.1) description of design research "generating knowledge about design and for design", point to generating knowledge as integral to research. Here we agree. Furthermore, both descriptions, I think, point to the purpose of generating knowledge as a means to understand design. In some faculties of architecture and design in Australia that privilege Research by Design (often called Practice Research or Practice based/led Research), it is common for the PhD candidate to undertake a series of design projects accompanied by reflection, to understand their own design practice. Moreover, I can imagine that a researcher who is a not a “design native” may engage in the act of designing to gain some understanding of what it means to do design work – an approach similar to participant observation in anthropology. A similar situation would be where someone seeks to understand the practice of sky diving: you could stay on the ground and observe a skydiver jump out of a plane through a small telescope or you could jump out of the plane yourself, and then you might, arguably, gain a more contextualised understanding of the practice of skydiving. I can accepts that generating knowledge in the act of designing - research by design - can produce understanding, in the first case in terms of self-reflexivity and in the second case in terms of empathy. These two forms of understanding are useful. However in contrast, the sort of understanding that "generating knowledge about design and for design" concerns, is focused on explanation. Here I believe our two definitions of design research diverge. While self-reflexivity and empathy can produce useful forms of understanding, they do not explain. [In the following section I draw on Gaspar (1990, pp. 285-295)] A common sense view holds that to explain something is to say how it is caused. For example a designer might reason that the handle of a coffee mug is designed to be easy to grasp because otherwise the user’s hand could slip and spill hot coffee on them. This simple teleological form of causal explanation is not particularly satisfactory and has worried philosophers going back at least as far as Hume. A better account of causation would be: an event of a certain kind is explained by citing a general law that relates events of that kind to events or conditions of some other kind. This is the classic-covering law model of explanation. It has been extremely influential in the natural sciences and is one of the motivations behind structuralism in anthropology. The value of the covering-law model is that its explanatory power is evidential. If we have adequate explanation of something then we could have predicted it before it took place. Accurate prediction is important evidence in favour of a theory. However, as nice as the covering-law model of explanation is, there are several problems. One such problem is where deriving an explanation fails to provide adequate depth. For example, suppose given suitable laws and background knowledge, we predicted when World War One would break out based on the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo. Such a prediction would still not constitute a satisfactory explanation because the Archduke’s assassination is at best an immediate trigger and not an underlying cause. It is likely that, had the war not broken out in this way, underlying factors would have ensured that war would have broken out in some other way instead. A satisfactory explanation should surely appeal to those underlying factors. In my view, a realist account of explanation is preferable. A realist view holds that a theory should do more than tell us about observable regularities, rather it should tell us about what sorts of mechanisms, processes, etc. exist, and also something about the relations between them. The realist search for explanations is the search for systematic factors operating in the world. Theory illustrates the relationship between factors and predicts what happens when they interact. Causal relations are irreducible features of the universe that we can learn about through empirical research. The choice between competing theories can be based on explanatory power. If a theory initially introduced to explain one sort of phenomena is found to explain other unconnected phenomena, then that is evidence that it is an accurate description of the world. The best explanation of a theory’s success, i.e. the predicted interaction between factors, is that the mechanisms and events that it postulates actually exist (or closely resemble what actually exists). If we accept that the aim of design research is to arrive at accurate descriptions of design, that design research should uncover causal powers, and that explanatory power is a useful guide to the accuracy of our theories, then I believe that a realist account of explanation is significant. Design research that produces understanding in terms of self-reflexivity or empathy has less explanatory power than design research that produces understanding in terms of a theory that explains and predicts. I argue that theory rich design research is more likely to produce an accurate (or at least approximately accurate) description of how design works and why. best, Luke Gaspar, P. (1990). 'Explanation and Scientific Realism' in Dudley Knowles (ed.) *Explanation and its Limits, *Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horvath, I. (2001, August 21-23). *A contemporary survey of scientific research into engineering design.* Paper presented at the International Conference On Engineering Design ICED 01, Glasgow. Sevaldson, B., (2010). Discussions & Movements in Design Research: A systems approach to practice research in design. FORM*akademisk, *3 (1), 8-35 -- Luke Feast | Early Career Development Fellow | PhD Candidate | Faculty of Design, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6165 | http://www.swinburne.edu.au/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 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------