Theme 5: Design Research

Empirical data is data collected through direct observation and experimentation. In Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars, the empirical data was collected through multiple stages in the research. First, it was collected in the iterative research into current driving range methods and how they fail in accurately representing driving range. Then, the study conducted mathematical equations to construct empirical evidence that determines the relationship driving distance has with speed and climate control. After the design exploration of the “guess-o-meter”, an important part of empirical data that was collected was how there were “large variations of the driving range at lower speeds that are due to factors that the driver can actually influence (Lundström).” This shifted their understanding and gave important insight into the downfalls of the “guess-o-meter.” Other empirical evidence determined the optimal speed at different climate control settings. Then further software models were used to present empirical evidence of driving range as the “Differentiated Driving Range” model was actually in use to calculate and visualize driving range at varying speeds.

In Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space, empirical data was collected through observation of children using tangible tools to build screen based systems. First, Fernaeus and Tholander observed children using various materials and also the current programming environment, ToonTalk. Empirical data was collected to understand how systems can best be represented in tangible form. Then during staged activities throughout the design process, they constructed observation of their own tangible programming spaces in use. The empirical data was used to observe the relationship between tangible manipulation and digital representation and how those can be most efficiently combined.

After reading about these design research methods in use, I believe that design research can be considered a knowledge contribution. Lundström contributed to the understanding of driving range and how it is affected in electrical cars. This is something that had previously been estimated on inferior practices. This could potentially contribute to the real application of a differentiation driving range model in future electric cars. Fernaus and Tholander contributed to knowledge of by which tangible method children best interact with screen-based systems and how to provoke interest of children in programming. Both design research articles contributed to the possibility of further research as well., which Lundström states in his conclusion.   

When design is used in a research context, it is continuously adapted based on data collection with the intention of eliciting the desired results. This design is guided by empirical evidence in terms of how it is manipulated. Design in general is guided by personal preference, the desire to appeal to others’ design tastes, or to design something functional. This can either be to make a profit or to create something for oneself or others to enjoy. The goal of research based design differs in that its intention is to contribute to generating new theory, product development, or iterative research and resulting improvement of current practices. It also, as demonstrated in the Differentiated Driving Range,  does not necessarily have to be completed in a way that it could be used in a real-world context. This differs from design in general in the end goal is to have something complete and functional.

Research in tech domains cannot be replicated the same as it can in alternative fields, using different research methods. As these examples show, they relied on current technologies and available tools, which may vary between the attempted replicated research. Additonally, when data is collected through the observation of individuals such as in Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space, the behavior of different individuals will never be strictly the same. This is especially true if the attempted replicated research is adapted in other cultures or historical settings. Differing designers may also never be able to exactly replicate the design research methods as it might not have been entirely recorded. Design research is very fluid in how it continuously adapts and this would be difficult to replicate.

In design research practices, research methods are continuously being refined and evolved f through practical realization of the initial idea. In other research, it seems as if a hypothesis is either proven or disproven. Various research methods can be adapted in other fields, but not the same extent as in design research. Instead of proving or disapproving a hypothesis, design research is more exploratory.

Sources:

 Differentiated Driving Range: Exploring a Solution to the Problems with the “Guess-O-Meter” in Electric Cars, Anders Lundström

Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space, Ylva Fernaeus & Jakob Tholander, 

Theme 3: Reflection

Something that stood out to me during the seminar is that theory is not fact. I think it is easy to mistake theory as an absolute truth, when in fact the only thing that is absolute is a priori knowledge. Because theory is based on research and data, it was initially difficult to understand it as something other than fact. I would have considered research and empirical evidence to have proven theory. Yet, because theory is an explanation of observed phenomena, we cannot be sure that our research and observations are not inaccurate. This can be tied into our discussion on Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and how all theories have to be grounded in sense perception, but we ascribe our feelings and subjectivity to our observations. Pure sense perception does not exist. When postulating theory, we cannot be absolutely certain that our own observations do not deceive us or that they are not skewed by preconceived notions. In that way, theory can never be proven. But also in that sense, when new observations and causations are observed, a theory does not cease to be a theory. Theories can conflict or relate and still stand. I find this concept to be interesting as that means that theories that are widely considered to be false in today’s society, would still be considered theory.  

Another misconception I had is exactly the opposite; that theory is something that is unproven. Before reading this week’s articles, I had likened theory to a hypothesis. I think when people use theory in contexts other than research, when they say they have a “theory about something”, this is what they mean. I found it interesting that people assume polarizing definitions of theory, that it is either absolute fact or something unproven. It actually falls somewhat in the middle; theory is instead a tested assumption.