There is a growing amount of research in design that is adopting methods
from other disciplines to the study of phenomena for which those methods
were not originally designed. While this is not a problem per se, it
raises for me a number of questions. (I am a newer member of the list,
so if this has been discussed at length in previous posts, please ignore
me, but please point me to the information).

In good research, doesn't there need to be an important distinction
between epistemology and method?

Does the adoption of a method presuppose the adoption of the
epistemology underpinning that method? For example, Ken recently posted
an informative background to philosophical hermeneutics. My research
could certainly benefit from giving a voice to the subjects of my
studies (philosophical hermeneutics being a means through which to do
that), but my understanding (albeit limited) of philosophical
hermeneutics is that it is founded on an ontological view that I am not
yet comfortable with, namely that reality is multiple and shifting.

If the appropriation of a method can be separated from the adoption of
its epistemology, do we then require some genuine (and perhaps original)
philosophical effort to ground the adopted method as a means of
contributing to a "different kind" of knowledge?

On the other hand, if there is no separation between a method and its
view of knowledge, what of multi-methodologies? Where multiple methods
are used, and this is particularly true of the social sciences, is it
important that they stem from the same or similar philosophical
traditions? Or is a kind of epistemological relativism acceptable as
long as the author makes clear he/she is aware of the situation?

I ask because it seems to me to be increasingly important to make clear
exactly how we are contributing to knowledge in the midst of a growing
number of epistemic perspectives and methods being applied to research
in design.

Having said this, some of the most interesting, most informative and
most applicable to practice (in my opinion) research in design appears
to be (blissfully) epistemologically unaware, or silent at the least.
However, even if the goal of inquiry in design is to develop effective
actions in real world situations (Lee 1999), rather than pursuing truth
about the world in formal statements (as it is in the physical
sciences), surely there is still place for a Deweyan, pragmatic
epistemology (or something similar) that privileges action and
"knowing-how", rather than "knowing-that".

I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Nigel Cross or Terry Love,
and since Terry's on this list, hopefully he'll tell me if it wasn't
him) that design was in a "pre-theoretical stage", which I believe was
said in order to account for the multiplicity of directions design
research was taking at the time (if anyone knows the citation, please
send it to me). Perhaps there is still a place for the use of multiple
methods, irrespective of epistemology, in studies that are primarily
concerned with exploring a question, rather than finding an answer to
one.

I would greatly appreciate any comments in reply.

Cheers,
Ben

Lee, A.S. 1999. Rigor and relevance in MIS research, MIS Quarterly Vol
23:1
_________________________________
Ben Matthews
Information Environments Program
University of Queensland
Brisbane Australia 4072
Ph +61 7 3365 8308
Fx +61 7 3365 4999