The theme for this week was design research and was a bit related to the first themes on knowledge, as we discussed whether or not practical design work in itself can be considered a "knowledge contribution". If I recall correctly, the first question we discussed on the seminar was regarding the empirical data in the two papers we read. I found it quite interesting that the author of one of the papers actually held the seminar so it was really interesting to hear his opinions as well as everyone else's regarding the tasks for this week, mostly for the reason that I suppose his opinions on his own paper was a bit more educated than our own.
Regarding how practical design work can be considered "knowledge contribution", we had some difficulties reaching some kind of consensus, however we all agreed that the contribution is extremely specific both regarding the time, what tools were used, in what kind of area the research had been conducted, et cetera. In my initial post, I wrote that practical design work of course can be considered knowledge contribution. However, I had not given much though to exactly how specific the knowledge contribution actually is. After the seminar, I do stand by my statement that it can be knowledge contribution, although very specific and it may not mean much in a couple of years. Although, if the research do not reach any conclusions about the concept itself by doing it practically, at least the contribution to knowledge is the way you carried out your design work and that by itself could be of great help for other researchers and/or designers when they want to try out similar concepts.
During the seminar, we discussed something called grounded theory and how tightly connected it is to practical design research. This was very obvious as Anders Lundström described the concept of grounded theories and how it is very much based on empirical data retrieved by case studies, prototype testing and other forms of empirical data collection. These methods are often used design research, something that I learned during the seminar.
Building on the previous paragraph, we also came back a bit to another earlier theme that was about what a theory is and what it is not. What I am thinking of was a discussion we had with Anders where we talked about how the empirical data retrieved during practical design research always is analyzed to form a theory, which also makes the research actually research and not just presentation of data, which is something that I had not reflected upon before the seminar.
Regarding how practical design work can be considered "knowledge contribution", we had some difficulties reaching some kind of consensus, however we all agreed that the contribution is extremely specific both regarding the time, what tools were used, in what kind of area the research had been conducted, et cetera. In my initial post, I wrote that practical design work of course can be considered knowledge contribution. However, I had not given much though to exactly how specific the knowledge contribution actually is. After the seminar, I do stand by my statement that it can be knowledge contribution, although very specific and it may not mean much in a couple of years. Although, if the research do not reach any conclusions about the concept itself by doing it practically, at least the contribution to knowledge is the way you carried out your design work and that by itself could be of great help for other researchers and/or designers when they want to try out similar concepts.
During the seminar, we discussed something called grounded theory and how tightly connected it is to practical design research. This was very obvious as Anders Lundström described the concept of grounded theories and how it is very much based on empirical data retrieved by case studies, prototype testing and other forms of empirical data collection. These methods are often used design research, something that I learned during the seminar.
Building on the previous paragraph, we also came back a bit to another earlier theme that was about what a theory is and what it is not. What I am thinking of was a discussion we had with Anders where we talked about how the empirical data retrieved during practical design research always is analyzed to form a theory, which also makes the research actually research and not just presentation of data, which is something that I had not reflected upon before the seminar.
That design research can produce knowledge contribution we agree on. But what you write about it not being relevant after a couple of years. You made it seem as if the knowledge contribution produced from design keeps its relevance for a shorter time than others as a rule. Even though design research is bound to a certain point in time in one sense, the process and analysis don't have to be. So I disagree on that one.
SvaraRaderaHi! Thanks for an interesting reflection.
SvaraRaderaI agree with you on that design research is a contribution to knowledge, but I don’t think that this contribution won’t mean much in a couple of years. I think it’s like what we discussed in theme 3 as a theory is valid until somebody else proves it to be wrong. I think that in the case of design research it is the same process, the knowledge contribution is valid until it is proven to be wrong. But it doesn’t necessary makes the contribution useless.
Thanks for interesting thoughts about design-oriented research. Design-oriented researcher especially in HCI tries to grasp the complex interaction of human beings, society and technology. The gained knowledge is usually from studying human user behavior in the process rather the artifacts itself. The knowledge that is generated through this process contributes to building new artifacts or products. The process is the important in design-oriented research. Therefor compared to researcher-oriented research where the result is the most important I believe it’s different knowledge contribution. Design-oriented researcher may create knowledge contribution that is more abstract than more traditional disciplines.
SvaraRaderaYour reflection was very interesting to read, and it seems like you had some interesting discussions during your seminar. I agree with you that it can be a considered knowledgable contribution, however, I hadn't really thought about what you wrote about how specific that knowledge is. I'm not sure about it not mean much in a couple of years, i would rather argue like some of the comments above, that it's valid until proven wrong.
SvaraRaderaYes, design research is a contribution to knowledge. And I do see your point when you refer to papers that doesn't come up with a conclusion if I comprehend you right. But their contribution will only be their method design. And not the actual result they present in the discussion. I think it can be quite disappointing with a paper that doesn't come up with an answer or solution, but this seems to be not so unusual. But they contribute with something even if it is not an answer to a question etc. And if I understand you right, you mean that in a couple of years we have more advanced tools and other settings that will out-date the current method design, and therefore it won’t be as useful?
SvaraRaderaI like your elaboration about knowledge contribution and what kind of knowledge design researches are contributing. I think it can be both, the design process as well as the outcome of research. I think with your statement “it may not mean much in couple of years” you underestimate to value of design researches. Although the theories constructed might not be applicable due to technical or behavioral changes, it is still an important piece of knowledge that helps us understand the time and space it was found in.
SvaraRaderaHi,
SvaraRaderaIf found your discussion about knowledge contribution quite interesting. As you mention, I believe the process of design research can be considered knowledge in itself. As design research is required to constantly change according to new technological development and societal change I think the most valuable knowledge you can extract is that of the process. This can in turn be useful in further research.
Hi, thanks for the interesting reflection. To elaborate on your viewpoints regarding the "ground theory", I think it's the concept related to an inductive methodology. Although many people call "grounded theory" a qualitative method, it is not. It is a general method and also the systematic generation of theory from systematic research. It is a set of rigorous research procedures leading to the emergence of conceptual categories.
SvaraRaderaHello, I really enjoyed your reflection as the thought flow is very clear. I do agree to you in many points that you write here. I had the same thoughts about design work as knowledge contribution. Especially if we go back to previous theme and remember how theories are created, we can make a conclusion that sometimes theories are the outcome of practical design work thus, that designing is also a contribution. Thanks for your thoughts!
SvaraRaderaHey :)
SvaraRaderaI think you made some pretty good points in your reflection.
When it comes to the knowledge contribution of the practical design work, my peers and i also didn't reach to an excessive attitude towards whether there is or there isn't such, but when I tried to analyse it further I concluded the following:
Design work in general is oriented into the successful or unsuccessful axis, and in the cases that it does not reach a proper function, I feel that it still can provide certain level of knowledge to the extent that at least we are aware of "what should not be done" or "does not work out".
So I consider the above can be an addition to what you have said you feel as a contribution in this particular case.
I think that even if the contribution to knowledge “may not mean much in a couple of years”, the important thing is that the contribution still stands, regardless of how much time has passed. It is a framework for which future knowledge is built and in history I think we have valued and studied how different knowledge contribution came about. Our studies on Kant is a good example. In the case of the articles we read, they contributed to understanding of how different technologies can be improved upon to elicit more effective results. They can also be built upon in further design research. For example, in the driving range article, it left a framework for a driving range model that can be actually be used in future electric car models.
SvaraRadera