Theme 5: Reflection

Theme 5 focused on design research and we had both a great lecture and a seminar in addition to the reading. This is my reflection on this theme.

To be honest, this theme was the one I was most unfamiliar with at the beginning. Since my background is in communication, psychology and economics (and little bit of digital media as well), I had very little knowledge of especially the tech domains in design driven research. However, that is also the reason why this theme felt even more relevant and important to dive in to. 

In the beginning of the lecture we got a nice introduction to methods and empirical data in RtD. We are surrounded by design every day in all of its senses, whether it is the inner technological micro systems or surface design. In the center of RtD is the interactive system itself, but the focus is even more in the human aspects around it: interaction between humans and devices. Cognitive abilities, culture, emotions, physical bodies, social behavior and senses all provide a broad ground for research in several fields, all of which are equally needed when trying to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

One particularly memorable detail was the rule of 4 D's in RtD: Discover (insight into the problem), Define (the area to focus upon), Develop (potential solutions) and finally Deliver (solutions that work). Another important message from the lecture was the thought that designing systems happens in the context of other systems, such as technical platforms and social systems. So 'design' as a term is so much more than the interface. The concept of design is so wide that each of the dimensions is an extensive area of study in itself. In addition to what I wrote above about the focus on interaction in RtD: then again, with a focus on technology, constructive activities are the core method of investigation.

During the seminar we discussed our discoveries about the subject in relation to our perceptions before the theme. Starting from designing the concept of 'empirical data' we discussed about Lundström's paper "Differentiated Driving Range" and what is the empirical data in that. In that case we reached a consensus of it being the driving range (quantitative data) and further on with the help of Lundström we concluded that empirical data doesn't necessarily have to be experiments, it could have just as easily been interviews or observations. Lundström encouraged us to think all the options it can be instead of settling with one definition. A good reminder was also to remember that collecting empirical data is not yet research, although people often may be confused about it. For example, governmental institutions often gather data and publish statistics, but they are not to be mixed up with scientific research.

As we moved on discussing about the replicability of design research, we had a few interesting thoughts about the effects of historical setting, tools, skills of the researchers etc. on the studies. I had previously maybe a little too black and white perception about research needing to be so objective, that anyone could reproduce it with the knowledge gained from the paper and end up with similar results. At some extent this does indeed apply, when we think one particular study or for example coding of data: the point of several researchers coding same data is to increase the objectivity. However, while we did agree that design driven research is replicable, we also stated that the results are dependent on the current context. By this I mean both the technical development and cultural and social aspects, which always have an impact on the context. Of course one could argue that the same tools can be used and the study can be conducted exactly the same way as the original study guides, but we also discussed the little things that are always left outside of the paper – no matter how carefully one tries to describe the process.