 |
 |
Ken, Your comment that do NOT "look at evidence as if it were independent of theory,” is contradicted by the questions you asked and the position you have presented. Your position presented in your posts, whether you can see it or not, asks for comments about evidence independent of theory. This is stating the obvious. It contradicts your claim that you do NOT "look at evidence as if it were independent of theory” If two or more factors are interdependent in an ecosystem then you cannot sensibly ask for details about only one and expect a useful answer. This is like trying to identify the beauty in a flower by pulling it into pieces. Your lack of attention to the plain logic that it is unsuccessful to ask for detailed information only about the behaviour of one part of an interacting whole partly explains your misunderstanding about systems, emergent behaviours and about solving wicked problems, and also your resistance to me commenting that reasoning supported by evidence is more important than evidence alone. In contrast to your complaint, if you read carefully, you'll see that I'm trying to resolve a contradiction and set of problems in your thread rather than trying to start a new thread. Your position on evidence appears to me to be simplistic and flawed and needs to be more complex. That requires addressing four quite subtle but extensive issues: 1. Explicating the processes by which data becomes evidence, and implicitly the definition of evidence as a concept. There are many significant differences between data and that same data being collated and converted into evidence. Mike Zender's earlier post illustrated that difference in his comment about a problem with protocol. 2. Details of the exact processes by which evidence is used in practice (research and design). It is insufficient to say 'designers use evidence in design'. That’s about as useful as saying designers sit on their backsides while they design. More detail is needed and that details is what unravels the idea that evidence can be considered independently of theory considerations. 3. The reflexive and referential nature of evidence and its dependence of what is seen as the nature of data collected, collated and converted into evidence on abstractions, biases, cultural norms, concepts, theories and fallacious interpretations and intuitions. 4. Professional and ethical responsibilities of designers and their exposure to legal and financial liabilities for their work. These are so interlinked with the theory realm (and cultural realms, which as always are described in theory terms) that it is hard for me at least to see how you can even start to discuss anything about evidence without it being discussed within a theory framing. Of course, it IS possible to try to conjure a broad-brush, superficiall, naïve picture of evidence in design that could be used in political and funding negotiations in academia. But that is not what you are doing. Is it? Best wishes, Terry --- Dr Terence Love PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, 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] -- Terry -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman Sent: Saturday, 8 November 2014 12:48 PM To: PhD-Design Subject: Re: What is evidence in design and design research? Yikes, Terry, You write, “In contrast to your position, I'm suggesting you cannot look at evidence as if it were independent of theory.” This is not my position. My views on the relationship of evidence to theory are more nuanced than this. It is my view that questions come from theory. Questions and theory guide inquiry. They affect what counts as evidence. In some circumstances, they affect what we can see and even what we can measure. But evidence also affects the development of theory, and only evidence allows us to choose between and among competing theories. Of course evidence and theory are related and must be considered together. That’s what I said in my post. In this particular thread, however, I wanted to inquire into the nature of evidence. Because I am in the middle of a large project, I don’t have the time to engage in a serious debate on the relations between theory and evidence. I mean a serious debate, rather than a disputatious wrangle. Yesterday, I wrote you an off-list note stating explicitly that questions, theory, and concepts guide inquiry, and they affect what counts as evidence. Since my position on this should be clear, your misrepresentation of my views seems to me disputatious. The relationships between theory and evidence are profound. I do not posit a broad brush, one-eyed appeal to an uncritical notion of evidence. I simply want to hear the views of some of the serious list contributors on their views of evidence. My position is that it is possible to bracket out and reflect on the topic of evidence WITHOUT making the claim that evidence is “independent of theory.” Another time, I’ll be happy to think about theory. Right now, I am interested in an issue that is easily framed. Seriously, Terry, if you wish to debate positions on theory, why not start a thread about theory? I’m still hoping that a few more people will offer their views on the questions I posed earlier. What is the nature of evidence in design and design research? What kinds of evidence do we need? How can we gather this evidence? How should we deploy it and put it to work in professional practice? Can list members suggest useful published examples that shed light on these questions? Ken ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------