Another week has past! I am yet to understand the world, but feel enlightened in terms of grasping another method that might help me to do so.
After taking part in a very interesting seminar on the theme of design research, I have come to understand that I would most probably want to engage in this type of process oriented research should I ever continue my studies on a post graduate level. The way in which design researchers constantly change and interact with the material they work with (in contrast to working with "traditional" data sets e.g.) has gotten me intrigued. The method feels organic; the analysis of design processes is what makes it research, because it is there that the motivation of what and why questions are asked and conclusions drawn. The study grows together with the researcher.
In the seminar, I brought my thoughts on the commercial and artistic concepts of design up to discussion. For me, the term 'design' is very linked to aesthetics, and the optimizing of things for both visual and practical purposes. Articulating this and having a short discussion about why I sometime mix up the terminology, made it easier for me to accept that one must separate these notions (design research and aesthetic design). Design research is not about aesthetics; its about shining light on specific processes.
When reading the assigned papers of this theme, Finding design qualities in a tangible programming space by Fernaeus & Tholander, and Differentiated Driving Range by Lundström, I came to wonder whether the work they conducted would be accepted by natural science scholars who are more used to proof only being brought by hard data. I asked Anders Lundström, our seminar teacher, whether design research is considered a legitimate research form among the great academic masses, but the answer I got was quite ambiguous ("It is, but then again it isn't"). As the notion of design research and process orientation is rather new, Lundström stressed the fact that it isn't very strange that the method isn't recognized by all. Plus, he planted a seed in my mind concerning whether or not all hard science research really should be considered the legitimate. Because, where does the proof actually come from? What did the process leading up to it look like, and can anything ever be said to be objective?
In the book "Vetenskapsfilosofi - En bok om vetenskapen och den vetenskapande människan", scholar Bengt Molander discusses the concept of knowledge. He claims that in its most basic form, knowledge is drawing attention to something that was previously unknown. On a personal level, this would mean that we gain new knowledge for example by reading a new book, or meeting a new person. Regarding design research, the knowledge contribution lies in the attention the research brings to the process, and I think that Molander's definition of knowledge is strikingly accurate regarding this research form!
Even with its slightly diffuse concepts, I have enjoyed this past week's theme. I have gained more understanding of the field of design research, and I have started to think of my own life and my quest to understanding the processes that constitute it. Perhaps all of our lives are big personal design research projects; we build prototypes on how to act and who to be, and when these are tested we evaluate whether we can come up with a better way of understanding the process of living a human life.
It seems that you had a good idea of this theme's concept already in the first blog post. I agree with you on pretty much everything you say. I especially appreciated that you included Bengt Molander's take on knowledge. He has a very interesting way of defining it and as you said it really fits well when it comes to explaining knowledge creation in design research. Simple, but sufficient. Good job!
ReplyDeleteIt's great to see the spark of enthusiasm in your post! I also had a "aha moment" as I didn't hear about this type of research method before - totally opened my eyes. I also think some benefits with this way of working is that, although you tie the outcome to a certain point in time, you can keep the focus current by modifying the research as you go, according to needs that may not have been known at the beginning of the project. In this way, I think it's less vulnerable to technological or societal changes that may affect the study.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the value of design research, I think you'll get a different answer from the academic world vs the commerical world. I also think here it's important to consider which target group you want to capture with your work.
That was interesting to know about your "passion" towards the design research method if you have chosen an academic career even though it's not that "reliable" comparing with the quantitative one.
ReplyDeleteI would like to add a few words about the validity and recognition of the design research by the academic circles. I think this method could be strengthened by so called "hard data". In which way? In case with the Anders Lundström's paper, I suppose, the further experiments with different designs, tested among the group of drivers, supplemented with the follow-up questionnaires could more clearly reveal the interdependence of some features with the users' responses. I am sure that would eliminate someone's serious reservations about the outcome.
Hi! Really impressive text! Thank you! I think you highly perceived all the concepts. I really enjoyed your thoughts on philosophy book. "Regarding design research, the knowledge contribution lies in the attention the research brings to the process" - I think this line explains a lot about the basic idea of design research. In the lecture and during the seminars we discussed a lot that design research is more about what it brings to the researched area or like Anders said "sometimes you make one or another decision just because you, as a scientist, want to know more about specific subject, even if it was not the best way to get there". Thanks for your ideas!
ReplyDeleteThanks for an interesting reflection! I also found it fascinating how design research in many ways stretch the boundaries of more “traditional” ones, for example how the researchers continuously can, and are encouraged to, change and interact with the material that they work with. As well as the main focus on the process rather than the actual result. I think you bring up an interesting point in your reflection, that of whether design research is considered a legitimate research form among the great academic masses. The answer Anders Lundström gave to your question proofs that this way of conducting research is rather new and perhaps not yet as confirmed as “traditional”. Good job!
ReplyDeleteA great post as usual, I very much enjoy reading your post as you always write understandable and with a humanistic tone, it's easy to follow and enjoyable to read, thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou write about some interesting points, and I agree with you that design research seems interesting, and something I as well would like to explore more in the future. I found it interesting what you wrote about design research being legitimate and recognised, and it was something I was thinking about as well. It's interesting what you wrote about whether or not all hard science research should be considered legitimate, and you bring up some interesting questions, very much worth asking!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteInteresting post, you definitely bring up some ideas worth discussing! As you say, design research is still not entirely accepted as a scientific study according to natural science scholars, but I think we have to take into consideration that design research have not been as relevant ever as it is today. The more design research is going to be used and refined, the more acceptance it is going to get, and looking at how technology is developing these days, design research is going to be a necessary field in order to continue the progress. But yes, I agree that is necessary to admit that all sciences, even natural ones produce hard data that are somehow affected by peoples interaction with it. As long as people produce the data and meaning of it, data cannot be considered proof as much as "empirical support".
A very interesting review. I too have my issues with the term "design research" because I have a design background as well. I think however, there is not necessarily a need to distinct between commercial design and design research if one stays true to the process of design. These days in advertising etc. we speak of "a design" when really we want to talk about the finished product. If however you look at the design process, how one comes up with the finished product, design research and designing an advertisement for example, both are a lot closer than one might think. In both cases I need to analyse the background. What audience am I targeting and what do I want to achieve with my "design". Also the iteration process that is common within design research happens in advertising too. A lot of initial concepts get thrown away because they are not aesthetic enough, the colors may not work if printed in black and white and so on. Only in commercial designing we usually do not write down why a certain "design" did not work. And that is where the big difference in my opinion is. But generally speaking it is true, that design research is about sharing knowledge about processes, whereas commercial design usually aims to be aesthetic. But the process of "designing" is very similar.
ReplyDeleteI also liked your reading about what knowledge is. On a personal level I think Molanders definition is quite true. Applied to science I think it is true, whenever you give attention to something that was previously unknown not to oneself, but to everyone.
Hej! Thank you for these blog posts – I had very similar thoughts about many subjects which you discussed. What I personally can not really understand is why isn't design research considered as valuable or legitimate as other sciences? This is just a question that I wonder probably as much as you did, because if anything, we have very much been taught that the process in itself is even more relevant than the result. The reason may lie in the rather recent historical timeline, but still, I strongly question even the concept of "hard sciences" of today. I believe we have discussed this subject on some of the seminars as well, that the scientific community has questioned the position of traditional scientific researches based on purely hard data. So yes, I agree with you on these questions and believe that design driven research has increasingly significant role in the future.
ReplyDeleteBent Molander's definition of knowledge felt first almost annoyingly simple, but then again that is indeed the very basic idea of knowledge. I don't see why it should be any more complicated than that! So thanks for bringing it up, too. :)