This week’s theme was Design Research we read two
articles Finding Design Qualities in a
Tangible Programming Space and Differentiated
Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in
Electric Cars and we also had a lecture and a seminar on them. Here
you'll find my reflections
After the lecture and the seminar I realized that
there were some points that I didn't understand before these events and I would
like to correct them in this post.
I didn't manage to completely answer the question
regarding the differences between design research and other researches, but by
discussing the questions during the seminar I have a better understanding now.
The most important difference is that during the
process of design research there are constant adjustments made after the
results, while with other researches the results are analyzed and no further
adjustment are made. This makes the process of design research also part of the
empirical data, so the early observations-the middle and the end observations
are analyzed. This is actually one of the most important parts of the research,
but it is often very long and messy and that is the reason why it isn't
entirely described. Another difference is the structure of the research. The
format of the paper is different in comparison to other researches, it often
contains more pictures, even in the discussions. Other researches often use the
method part to answer the questions how was the data collected or generated and
how was it analyzed. In the case of design research this part often includes
overviews, sketches and diagrams. And except from these two parts the
introduction and the results are also different than that from other
researches.
I also taught that design studies are replicable till
a certain extant for instant the tools and the designers expertise, but that
the rest as time and setting are not replicable. After the lecture I came to
the understanding that these are not the only factors influencing the
replicability, but that it also depends on the aim of the study. Ylva Fernaeus
showed us how a student of her replicated her study of 10 years ago. Because
the Technology has changed in the past years, this researcher had the opportunity
to use other tools. For an example the most recent research, made use of mobile
phones instead of cards. This influenced the behavior of the respondents. They
didn't need to communicate with each other as much, as they all had their own
phones that they could move around while the older study made use of cards that
they needed to share. That what was unthinkable in the older study was realized
in the most recent one.
There are often questions regarding the replicability
in Design Technology research, as they try to modify or imitate interactions
often don't give the same results. One of the reasons is the constant change in
this field as technology keeps evolving.
These made think about how this influences the
theories that are produced. Are they more likely to come and go, as the field
keeps evolving? Or are they less reliable because of the lack of replicability?
All in all this week’s theme was interesting as I have
read papers with this structure before, but I didn’t realize that it was a
different field from the other research practices. It made me open-minded
towards this field and think about what I would like to do for my thesis.
Thanks for the detailed explanation of the outcome of the Ylva Fernaeus's replicated experiment that clearly demonstrated how tech inventions have facilitated the conduction of the reproducible study and led to the changes in the children's behaviour.
ReplyDeleteThe issue of the reproducibility is relevant not only for the design research but also for other methods, and depends mostly on the field of science it has been conducted in. For instance, it's easier to replicate some research in math but a way more difficult in biology or medicine.
Yop,
ReplyDeleteYou're making a valid point saying that those children and the replicate study didn't interact with each other that much as before because of the new way on how the research was presented. And I think it does alternate a bit the result because if this is not the same background or way to do things, a certain change can make us think different and therefore act different. And pointing that out makes us reflect on why we have to think about every aspect of the research. Like Anders said that in his study the GPS would have blurred the result because the attention would be focused on that !
This is cool it made you think about your thesis already !
Thanks
I think many of us, including you and me, have opened up our eyes for this field of research. Design research is a very interesting and special way of conducting research and it differs in many way from other researches. For example, in the way the researchers continuously can interact with the material that they work with and also the main focus on the process rather than the actual result. And of course, as you mention, how they include pictures in their papers as a way of describing the data. Thanks for an interesting blogpost!
ReplyDeleteI feel like same as you I did not grasped the idea about replicability. After the seminar I realized that scientist who reproduces specific research will receive different results as human behavior might differ, moreover, you as a researcher change that particular interpretation accordingly to your knowledge, perception and assumptions. The main idea of reproduction is not replicate for the sake of replication but for your own reasons and aims, depending on what you want to find or examine again. Furthermore, I think questions you ask about replicability are very important as it is important to keep track of how theories change and talk about why they change. Thanks for your great thoughts!
ReplyDeleteInteresting to read about how your understanding of design research was improved by the lecture and seminar! The fact that you came to understand that the researcher's interaction (and hence creation) with the material is great; to me, that's the core of design oriented research. But perhaps it is also the reason why some (...myself included) find the concept slightly ambiguous. When there's no black and white definition of what is data and what is method, one has to be careful not to jump to conclusions when trying to grasp a study!
ReplyDeleteThe way you compare design research to other fields of research shows you insights on the topic. I also find it interesting how you you describe the process of conducting design research and how it relates to the result. It would have been good to read some extended literature describing this further. The fact that you went into depth describing the replication of the Fernaeus study differentiated your post from other students’. Thank you for your reflection!
ReplyDelete