Theme 5:2

Considering today’s technological environment and the culture of constant development, I am surprised how unclear design research is for the general public. 

I believe design research to be a crucial part of the progress of the modern world’s IT-dependent society, but it was not until we studied the theme this week that it became obvious to me that design research is not only aimed for the professional sphere – but also for the development of systems for daily use by ordinary people.

Ylva Fernaeus described during her lecture how an important part of the practices in design research is constructed in consideration of “real people”, in order to be able to understand the usability of new technology. The aim is to understand the practices of novel technology in “real settings” where experience and emotions can be evaluated. As Fernaeus put it: a system is not happening in isolation, there a social contexts, integration with other systems, various levels of skills among users, and personal ways of making use of a system. Looking at technology in a lab wont cause the same dynamic as in regular context. In order to understand technology and design in a social context design research usually contains a lot of different disciplines within one study, such as humanity, cultural- and social sciences.

I think this might be one of the reasons why design research has been overlooked as a separate discipline. 

During the seminar discussion the “issue” of mixed approaches within the field was raised in order to identify what distinguishes design research per se. Initially someone put design research in contrast to qualitative and quantitative methods, trying to highlight advantages and disadvantages, but as the discussion progressed it seemed to me that design research is not as much of a method as it is a process. In other words; design research do not have a particular structure in approaching a study object (which is related to Fernaeus and Ander Lundström who both adjusted their research gradually during the process of their studies), therefore instead of putting it in contrast to qualitative and quantitative method I described circumstances where these methods are applied during the process. Qualitative and quantitative studies can therefore be a part of the design research. In accordance to this, a fellow student suggested that it is the structure of design research which if the defining feature. I do agree with this statement, but considered how broad of a definition it is I would like to narrow it down by adding that it is the adjustable nature of the structure/process in design research, which distinguishes it from other disciplines.

This in turn brought into question another issue: is design research controlled or not? Especially considering how a lot of the data collected in the example studies of the week was based on observation and experiences.

I understand that it can be considered somewhat uncontrolled, but I think it is important to keep in mind that the circumstances/context surrounding these observations are structured in an specific/intended way. In addition to this, at different stages during the process, the conditions are adjusted in in order to continue the project forward in the desirable direction.

Finally, I think it is necessary to bring up the issue of replicability, as this has been a much-discussed topic during the week. Fernaeus initiated the issue with questioning whether it is not only possible – but is it meaningful?

In my last post I was quite sceptic to the replication on design research. Not only considering that technology is developing in a rapid pace, but also because people’s use, skills and circumstances are adapting at the same speed. I still stand by the same opinion. I believe there are techniques to replicate a study in some means, but this will cause a change in either system and context, or result.

By adjusting features in order to better suit modern systems, there is a possibility to generate somewhat similar conclusions – the system will however not have the same outline anymore. In contrast, the system/process can be kept, but this in turn causes a different result. Consequently, even if the study is indeed replicated in some terms, I think a lot of the newly generated research will lose it’s value and meaning.