Second blog post - Theme 5: Qualitative and case study research
The lecture discussed how to define a method and research through design, what empirical data is, and analysis process. The process was divided into three parts studying interaction, design/judgement and implementing/testing.
Design research includes interaction criticism, research through design and studies of design practices.
There can be different focuses in a research. The interaction, people and the human aspects with implications of design focuses on how we feel, see, hear and senses things.
The usability and experience focuses on the methods and measurements such as observations, interviews, questionnaires, diaries and sensors.
When the data is collected we must interpret and analyze it with humanities and cultural studies as a foundation. The next step is to turn it into practice. The interest should be in how people do things. In some situation the laboratory studies are not enough and can not predict real use. What people tells us is not always the truth and we must study the reality. Thinking and doing can not be separated from social and physical reality. In real use practices the social and physical context plays an important role and sensory experience is more than just data. The data can be interpreted in many ways.
Human computer interaction reflects up on what people can do and focuses on context, mobility and physical environment. We discussed the appropriation, how people choose to use technology. It is more than the interface. It involves the databases the architecture, rules and manual support and the informational content.
A design approach as research comes with constructive activities as core methods of investigation. The materialization focuses on material and the technological approach and how it affects interaction. The design work and research connects the contexts.
We also got an insight of the structure in a design research paper. And research through design is not the same as design work. The intentions of research is to gain new knowledge. The artifact in itself is not explanatory. It is the process that is needed to shape ideas. And the text document will only conclude and bring the insights out in the open.
During the seminar we discussed the concrete idea that you want to investigate, how to think when to choose a method and the intentions with the design and how people will comprehend it. The actual process can bring you new insights and you can reshape the prototype during the process. It is a flexible and iterative process that can improve design and usability awareness.
The lecturer discussed his paper and the design process. Ilias gave more insights in research. In modern research the results often make a significant impact and it will indicate towards a pattern. Researchers avoid the word proof. We discussed how experiments was replicable and that it is an important tool for the validation of previous work and results. With replication we can also see how habits and social structure has changed over time. The replication of a method can therefore satisfy many purposes.
Yop,
SvaraRaderaseems like you grasped the idea pretty well !
I agree that the investigation leads to new redesign and redefinition of the actual and first Idea. That makes the journey the actual knowledge. Because by learning through experiencing your view on the matter evolves at the same time. Therefore you end up with an actual research on the research, and can finally come up with a qualitative study.
And this is what makes the data analysed interesting, because once you've done that path to where you are at the end, you can definitely give a meaning to the data you gathered along the way. And without that path, analysing the data without that experience wouldn't make much sense.
Thank you for your reflection.
Hello, and thanks for enlightening reflections on theme 5! In my opinion, some sentences are left without a deeper explanation, but on the other hand you manage to summarize a large amount of topics in your posts. I enjoyed especially the way you divided design research into three different dimensions. Another interesting topic was human and computer interaction and the fact that the research of technologies is quite inadequate without the context where and how people adapt the technology. It's interesting to play with the thought of just how far are we willing to go with technologies, when one thinks for example technical systems that could be integrated inside us in the future? Or are there still lines that we are not willing to cross when it comes to technological systems and interaction with them.
SvaraRaderaAnyways, thank you for your thoughts! :)
Hi! I really like your clear explanation of what design research is and how to do it. I see design research as a plan how an where data is going to be collected and how it will be analysed. Moreover, I agree with you when you say that real use practices "play an important role and sensory experience is more than just data". Empirical data is just data, it can be anything. Thus, data mostly depends on the method, in this case we have to think not of design itself, but more like a foundation of research.
SvaraRaderaThanks for great text!
I found the discussion during the seminar to be the most rewarding part of the theme. Because just like you, my group (together with Lundström) came to talk about the process of choosing and developing a method that really suits you and your chosen study. We discussed how one might have an initial idea of what or how they want to go about investigating an issue, but that an important part of the design research process is to truly reflect on what approach would be beneficial to the study. And just like you write, that process in itself can contribute with new knowledge!
SvaraRaderaThank you for the clear summary of the theme. I particularly liked your point about how laboratory studies are sometimes not enough to predict real use of technology and that thinking and doing can not be separated from social and physical reality. I also agree with you that the design artifact per se is not explanatory, because the final product might not carry evidence of the changes it has undergone during the research process. Therefore, text must always accompany the design artifact - to show what theoretical framework informed the study and the initial design proposal, what changes that proposal went through and why, what mistakes and corrections were made, etc.
SvaraRaderaThe different focuses that you bring up in your post related to design research gives a nice overview of the subject. I like how it makes you shift the perspective depending on what is studied and what the aim of the research is. I also like how you describe the process of conducting research – but would like to add that its not always as linear as you depict it in the beginning of the text. You describe that what people tell you is not always the truth. I agree that answers can be biased by the artificial situation. But sensory experiences make data that is more complex to analysis, which I think increases the risk of jumping to conclusions to find something that agrees with your view. It is clear that you have a ICT-background when discussion human computer interaction – and the importance of adding the human perspective to information systems. It would have been nice if you had expanded on the topic of why researchers avoid the word proof. Good job!
SvaraRadera