Dear All,

The issue of scientific method with respect to design is both complex
and simple.

Don is right. The scientific method rests on our ability to make a
responsible statement about a state of affairs so that others can
understand and build on that statement. 

There are several kinds of responsible statement. Statements based on
reproducibility and replication, with confirmation or disconfirmation
have a stronger status than statements involving reasoned argument
alone. Statements based on reasoned argument are stronger than
statements based on intuition, belief, or preference. I appreciated
Kari’s post, since he’s talking about responsible descriptions and
reasoned argument from evidence, science in the sense of an organized,
responsible body of knowledge.

We may reasonably understand and build on the statements we develop
using action research, and we may reasonably understand and build on
different methods used for inquiry in such professional practices as
design or management. 

We do so in different ways than we do in understanding and building on
the kinds of scientific statements that Don describes. 

Many research claims are responsible and reasonable without being
scientific in the sense of reproducibility and replication, with
confirmation or disconfirmation.

Understanding and building fruitfully on statements requires that these
statements represent responsible research or knowledge production.

With such methods as action research or case studies, everything rests
on the observational skills and analytical skills of the researcher. The
researcher is the observational instrument. In some cases, as in action
research, the researcher is personally engaged in the process that
constitutes the research. In other cases, the researcher participates
without personal engagement. This is the case in many kinds of
fieldwork. In other cases, the researcher stands at a slight remove, as
in many kinds of social inquiry. In all these cases, the researcher must
be able to observe and describe complex processes. This requires
observational skill, conceptual clarity, and descriptive ability. A
researcher must be careful, responsible, and reasonably accurate in
observation, thinking, and description for a paper to have any value.

I agree with Rosan’s statement that we ought to embrace more
scientific approaches in design research. That’s what I suggest with
methodological triangulation. 

I also agree with the notion that we ought to be testing and probing
the boundaries of pre-scientific methods to see what can be rendered
accessible to scientific inquiry. I think Don suggested this in one of
his notes.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary at Britannica Online defines scientific
method as, “principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of
knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the
collection of data through observation and experiment, and the
formulation and testing of hypotheses.”

The Oxford English Dictionary defines scientific method as, “a method
of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th
century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and
experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of
hypotheses.”

With respect to these high-level descriptions, Don is right. There is
one scientific method. This doesn’t mean that the only method we ought
to use in design research is scientific. It seems that we all agree on
this. 

Some responsible methods of inquiry and knowledge production are
pre-scientific. Some responsible methods of inquiry and knowledge
production may never be scientific because they do not allow for
experiment or replication. 

The one viewpoint with which I disagree comprehensively is Paul
Feyerabend’s argument that “anything goes.” Feyerabend made the
argument that voodoo can be just as valid a science, and he said that we
don’t know what’s best until we’ve tried all approaches. To me,
this sounds very much like George Bush the Younger explaining why his
economic theories would create more wealth and greater prosperity for
everyone. The new load of post-Bush cronies now claim that Bushonomics
actually worked but the reforms didn’t go deep enough. As a result,
they want to go even further. This is what happens when we argue that
any argument is as good as any other. In a 2004 interview in the New
York Times, a senior member of the Bush administration argued that the
“reality-based community” was mistaken in attempting to make
decisions based on “discernible reality.” This is the claim that
“anything goes.” While Feyerabend’s ethical position was quite
different to that of the Bushies, Feyerabend’s epistemology suited
them well.

It is unethical to argue that “anything goes” when research and to
research outcomes involve human lives. I understand the Feyerabend
debate, and I enjoy reading Feyerabend as well as Lakatos and others who
debated with him. I think that debate is irrelevant here, and it will be
until enough of us have read enough of the debate to debate with respect
to the crucial underlying issue.

This issue is that most design research ultimately has practical
implications in the lives of human beings. Not all design research is
practical, applied, or clinical. We have pure research, blue-sky
research, and curiosity-driven research in design. Nevertheless, most
design research ultimately has practical implications in the lives of
human beings as research does in medicine or engineering. When issues
affect human beings, anything goes doesn’t work.

There is no single answer. I’d like to see design research move
further in the direction of science, even while I recognize that much of
it can’t get there. For this reason, design research requires depth,
rigor, and methodological triangulation along with reasoned argument
from evidence.

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design