 |
 |
Hi Birger, thank you for raising the issue about defining evidence. What you ask is a very important, epistemological question for design and other research landscapes that does not get addressed by explaining how metrics are used to support an opinion. Cameron makes very good points about the authority of science-y vs arts-y ‘evidences’ that suggest this question really needs to be bravely teased out with openness and curiosity by a whole range of people working in different ways in design and research, not shouted from the science vs arts barricades. I too do research in health, in primary health reform and child and family health, and I do not rely on metrics to support the claims I make. I primarily use what I observe and hear people say, sometimes in relation to statistics, but usually not. In other words, I use different kinds of evidence for different purposes. This is acceptable in health research, design, delivery and evaluation, that you will notice reported comprehensively in the journal Qualitative Health Research, for example. The question should not be whether EVD is right or not for design (or other domains), I think it is more about how can we broaden how we understand evidence in design to encompass the multiplicity of ‘truths’ that arise from multiple perspectives, so we can design more mindfully? So rather than a definition that stands solid and stable, what about a provisional, slippery definition that does some work to move us beyond metrics and formulas as the basis for truth claims in designing. I look forward to hearing others’ views on this. cheers, teena ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------