 |
 |
Hello Birger, I second the comments you make here about EBD.This is a big issue in the interior design discipline in North America in particular.EBD has a very narrow definition as I noted in my previous post under a different heading.EBD derives rom causal explanations that are set in problems that are apriori...this is the foundation of EBD. "Evidence" in other forms of design research is based on multiple characteristics that conform to paradigms etc., and is a broader notion of research to advance knowledge....eg. Interpretive inquiry - there is no formal "evidence" in interpretive inquiry but this does not make is less empirical.Interpretive inquiry uses trustworthiness to support claims made in the research process. Reasoning methods, approaches to the isses and researcher positions are all completely different. This is at the basis of many high level PhDs and the work must stand up to the same "rigour" but under the paradigm where it is. The two , interpretive inquiry, and "scientific method" should not be mixed up nor compared - so the notion of "beyond reasonable doubt" does not apply in an interpretive situation as there are multiple interpretations that are possible. the "proof" of rigour lies in the interpretive approach and research methods used in the entire research project. Perhaps the question might also be - what is "evidence" versus what constitutes knowledge - new knowledge and advancing a discipline is achievable using multiple paradigmic forms. Regards Tiiu <snip> > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 13:37:20 +0000 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: SV: Re: Discussions and critique of evidence-based practice <snip>.... > EBD is proposed as something other and better than what normal designers do. It is portraied by people on this list that designers who do not submit to the EBD paradigm are irresponsible, sloppy, and lesser designers. I was seriously attact and yelled at by a person on these grounds. I simply do not recognise this abyss between what all serious designers i can think of do and EBD, except there is a difference in weighting types of information. Most designers i can think of are doing investigations that include information from various sources, some being evidence beyond reasonable doupt but most being other types of information, spanning from cultural interpretation, cases that are too few to remove doupt but are judged to be valid, patterns and experiences as also Don listed. Now it seems to me that the EBD movement tells us to shift attention from more or less valid sources to evidence beyond reasonable doubt. > > If i am wrong about this and EBD has a much wider definition of evidence as some people in this thread propose i think most of us are practicing EBD and have done it for years, so whats the fuzz? > > Others have said in this discussion that designers do not evidence their design outcome. If we accept the notion of evidence i use this is a ridicoulous claim since there is normally no way to generate evidence beyond reasonable doubt from one design case. This also indicates that people have a very fluffy conception of the notion of evidence. Also this discussion thread has shown this. There are many such indicators so i really think my confusion and following question is justified. > > So my big problem is not evidence as such but that i am totally bewildered about how people on this list and especially EBD proponents use the term. As far as i know the volume of EBD is from a very narrow application area where the production of evidence is easier then normally in design. > > It would be very good if we could agree on the "beyond reasonable doubt definition". I think that would clarify a lot. And it would stop the idea that evidence can play a dominating role in the information poole because a great deal of the information would be judged not as evidence but to different degrees of validity and handled with care accordingly. > > I asked before what constitutes evidence in EBD. I didnt get much clarity then. Does this clear and sharp definition help? Ken asked me a long while ago what i think constitutes evidence. I never got back to an answer because i entangled in the most complex considerations. Here is my simple stupid answer: beyond reasonable doupt. Now it is fair to ask the EBD proponents what are you guys actually talking about when talking about evidence? > > My last point: being critical to the EBD paradigm is not the same as being pro slopyness and against evidence. Im not. I simply want to discuss its role in the pluralistic common ground of design <snip> ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------