Theme 5: Design Research

1. The empirical data of Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space is the evidence that was gained by observing the kids while they were trying out the ‘creator block’. And the empirical data of Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars was the results that was gained by doing a state-of the art analysis, testing their prototype ‘Guess-0-Meter’ and earlier interviews.

Examples of data of Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars

-The two arrows that they added in their concept ‘Differentiated Driving Range’ needs more work concerning, colour, size, shape and location to make it easier for the drivers to see and understand it.

-That depending on the climate control the speed that gives the longest driving range can differ

-They also came to the realization that the battery probably needs to become more transparent, so that drivers can easily understand the correlations.

-That the maximum driving range changes with the seasons.

-The car display should be more naturally integrated with the speedometer on the dashboard. So that there will be more space for details.

Examples of data of Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space

-Mapping between the physical and the virtual actions is only required at certain points in the interaction.

-The creator blocks can be made to work as interactive resources, not only to build a system, but also for interaction with the system that has been created.

-The creator blocks can be used for tangible representation of actions beyond adding pictures and behaviors to specific positions on the screen.

-Offline activities play as much part in the user interaction as do actions that affect the system displayed on the screen.

2. It can be considered a knowledge contribution as the data that is gathered during this research  is meant to benefit design processes. Design work explores a certain area of interest in a creative way. The results can be information that was not known before the research.

An example is when the ‘Differentiated Driving Range’ was tested, they came to the realization that depending on climate control the speed that gives the longest driving range can differ. If they wouldn’t have tested their prototype, this information might not have become public.

3. I don’t think that there is a difference between these two concepts. I rather think that design intentions is one step before design in general. 

So, I see design intentions as a way to gain information by exploring a certain area and this information helps for an object, idea or a model.

In short, design intentions is a supplement of design in general.

4. I do think that it is replicable, for an example; a prototype can be duplicated in different experiments. But I don’t think that the same results will be gained.

As in this kind of research, time, historical setting, skills of the designers etc. are very important. And except from the available tools and the skills of the designers, none of the other aspects can be replicated such as time and historical setting.

5. 
-In design research it is important that there is made use of new ideas. And other research practices don’t necessary need to use new ideas.

-The whole research process is different from that of other researches, as adjustment can be made during the process.

Sources

-http://reboot.org/2012/02/19/design-research-what-is-it-and-why-do-it/

- Faste, T. Faste, H. (2012) DEMYSTIFYING “DESIGN RESEARCH”: DESIGN IS NOT RESEARCH, RESEARCH IS DESIGN, Education Symposium 2012, Boston.

Theme 3:Reflection research and theory

This week’s theme was research and theory, we read the articles, What Theory Is Not and The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. Both articles offered a perspective on theory and how it should be used. During the seminar we discussed the different theory methods and what a good theory actually is. As a group we needed to come up with a definition. We defined theory as; a system of ideas that provide explanation, design, exploration of something that you don't already have knowledge about. It should give you a new understanding. In this process we came to the conclusion that it is hard to define what a good theory is, as theory needs to meet up to quite some requirements and depending on the field of research the meaning of theory can differ.

When I got home I searched for the different definition of theory, depending on the field of research, as I wanted to know what the differences are and why it is hard to define ‘theory’. For instance the definition of the commonly use of ‘theory’ is: ‘An idea or a hunch that someone has’, but in science theory means: ‘The way we interpret things’, while in social sciences theory refers to ‘logically interrelated set of propositions about empirical reality’.

With this in mind I also researched how a theory developed. According to lifescience.com the start of a theory is as a hypothesis (step 1)- an idea that hasn’t been proven yet. So for an example; it’s bright outside when I look out the window, the sun is probably up (hypothesis), when this hypothesis is tested (I go outside to see if the sun is shining, I have an explanation for why it is (probably) bright outside, but this this is nothing more than an explanation. When this hypothesis gets tested several times and there is enough evidence to support this- then the hypothesis moves to the next step- which Is theory (step 2).

And until somebody proves that this theory is wrong, it is seen as the truth. Or how our teacher Ilias Bergstrom quoted it; ‘Science advances one funeral at a time’. With this been said we also argued that even if a theory is proven to not be true, it doesn't stop existing. For an example; the Flat Earth theory is proven to be wrong, but it still exists as a theory.

With this being said I Even for researchers it is a matter of good judgment to determine if theory is relevant or not.

During the seminar we discussed the different papers that we read, and the theory method that we taught were used.  The method of the paper that I read was an ‘analysis’. We discussed what the limitations and the benefits are of this method and what that means for the article, so for an example the researcher concluded that online community has a positive impact on our social capital (in this research it was defined as trust and generalized norms) - but ‘why’ this influence occurs is not clear.

During the seminar I contributed by explaining what my paper was about and by participating with the group discussions.

Sources

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/357/theory.white.pdf

http://www.livescience.com/21491