(2/2) Post-Theme 5: Design Research

I think that the second lecture gave an interesting discussion on design and how it can have different meanings in different contexts. For example it was mentioned that design in a more business type setting might be more focused on seeming “appealing” to a customer. While design in a design research type setting do not necessarily need to focus on that.

Furthermore there was a discussion on what the empirical data in different design researches can be. It was said that the empirical data in the paper by Fernaeus et al. was the process itself. This was the case because it was the process itself that gave data and experience that later on could be developed in order to continue the research.

To end this blog post:

Furthermore there was a definition mentioned on the term analysis that I found interesting. The definition was that an analysis is the comparison between what has been done in the own research project, the process, and the theories that exist from earlier made research. The analysis part was discussed to be of importance for a design research paper. To clarify, it was stated that without a chapter in the paper by Fernaeus et al. in the form of “lessons learned” the paper would have less to give in terms of knowledge or new theories. It was also said that a design in itself is not self-explanatory.

(1/2) Post-Theme 5: Design research

For this theme I read the papers and attended the lecture. After the lecture I felt that I had been given a deeper understanding of the different aspects to work with during a design research project.

I think that what was emphasized during the lecture was the importance of defining a problem. It can help when trying to form the methods used in the design research and lead to having a “good theory”. I thought the example of having 90% of the design research to focus on defining the problem was an interesting rule of thumb.

What I understood from the lecture that I had not thought of before was the benefits of using maths in order to filter ideas. It was mentioned that maths can help in order to get an idea of if a theory can work or if it should be discarded. Also I learnt the aspect of the “Curse of Dimensionality”, which meant that though maths can help there will be dimensions that it will not have taken in to consideration when trying to discuss the theory from a mathematical perspective. Instead there will be dimensions that can affect the study that will be hard to implement in to the mathematical perspectives.

When it comes to validating an idea, proof-of-concept was said to be a beneficial method. This was a way to show the idea and not solely present it by text or speech. Another method that was explained was 1-way ANOVA (ANalysis Of VAriance). This meant to focus on examining one independent variable. 2-way ANOVA meant examine two independent variables.

To end this blog post:

Also I had not heard of the term elevator pitch, which I interpreted to mean that in order to communicate an idea there is a need for a balance between presenting facts/data and presenting the relevance of the research. 

Theme 6: Qualitative and case study research

1.      Which qualitative method or methods are used in the paper? Which are the benefits and limitations of using these methods?

2.      What did you learn about qualitative methods from reading the paper?

3.      Which are the main methodological problems of the study? How could the use of the qualitative method or methods have been improved?

I read a paper called Teenage Room Culture: Where Media and Identities Intersect by Brown et al. that were published in the journal Communication Research that has an impact factor of 2.439.

In this paper the authors wanted to find out why teenagers, or adolescents, design their room a certain way and how it could relate to mass media. The study was held during 5 years. Their participants were both male and female adolescents. At first they held structured interviews with each participants. These were based on a specific set of questions that were asked to each participant. A majority of the interviews were held in the participants’ rooms.

In this study their interviews aimed to give insight of for what reasons the adolescents had different items in their room. Apart from the interviews they gave the participants a tape recorder and asked them to give them a room tour and describe their room and the items in it. This was a method that was called “autodriving”, meaning that the participants was not answering questions from the interviewee yet instead analysed their own surrounding aloud. They also had a method where the participants were asked to interview each other.

An example of a limitation for the method of structured interviews is that it leaves less room to continue a discussion with follow-up questions which would be the case of a semi-structured interview. A benefit would be that it keeps the data focused in terms of having a structure that leads to discussions concerning for example the research question.

I think that one of the things that I have learnt from the paper are, too me, new methods to collect qualitative data. I had heard of structured and semi-structured interviews before. However the method of autodriving was new to me.

An example of an implication during the study was participants’ confusion on different questions. Two examples were the question on the participants own role in different relationships and the question on what identity they considered themselves to have as a physical being. These I think are examples of different perceptions of the words being stated. The interviewee’s who together had designed the questions had experience of the information and questions that were underlying to these interview questions. The participants on the other hand did not share the same experiences and therefore did not know what to answer. I think that one potential solution would have been to have tested the questions beforehand. It is stated in the paper that they tried to phrase the question differently without any progress being made. However this seems to have occurred during the study and not beforehand.

1.      Briefly explain to a first year university student what a case study is.

2.      Use the "Process of Building Theory from Case Study Research" (Eisenhardt, summarized in Table 1) to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of your selected paper.

A case study is when a study is made with more specific settings, or cases, in mind. Case study can mean to study for example a specific company which would mean that it focuses on one case. Or a case study can involve several settings, it can for example include several companies to continue earlier example. That would mean that it focuses on several cases. In order to collect data for a case study they can rely on both quantitative methods and qualitative methods. Meaning that they can use both numerical data that they collect with the help of for example questionnaires and data in the form of answers from participants from interviews. Case studies can also rely on one of the two methods alone.

I read a paper called Cross-cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration that was published in the journal of Computer-Mediated Communication with an impact factor of 3.117. This was a case study about if different cultures would impact how the people interact in an online collaborative setting. I found it difficult to find weaknesses when I tried to analyse it with the different steps from the table in mind. The beginning and selecting of cases were discussed early in the paper and was explained by using earlier studies as examples as to why these were relevant. I think that they followed the steps of Crafting Instruments and Protocols, Entering the Field and Analyzing Data. They used three different methods and used both qualitative and quantitative  research methods. One aspect that I think can be argued as a weakness is that one of the methods meant to code transcriptions into different categories of intentions without having the participants explain what the intention of their own statement was. As for the last three steps I think that a potential weakness would be that the study mostly presents literature that do not conflict the study. However this might be due to no earlier conflicting study.

References:

Brown, J. et al. (1994). Teenage Room Culture : Where Media and Identities Intersect

http://crx.sagepub.com/content/21/6/813.full.pdf+html

Kyong-Jee, K. et al. (2002).  Cross-cultural Comparisons of Online Collaboration

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.focus.lib.kth.se/enhanced/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2002.tb00163.x/

Theme 3: Research and theory - Comments

1.
Hi,I like your discussion on truth and that you connect it with what we have learnt earlier in the course. I think that you have given an interesting perspective on how we develop theories by comparing this to the earlier discussions on how we develop knowledge.To add to your discussion on having old theories and making new once, there is also the situations where the new theories replaces the old ones, which the term “paradigm shift” refers to.

2.
Hi,I think that your reflection was very interesting to read. We also discussed if there are any “absolute truths” during the seminar I attended. I feel like my thoughts on it are similar to what you have written. We will never be absolutely sure that we have found a theory that is true. In other words even if we were to develop a theory that is true we will not have a way of being absolutely certain of it being so. Furthermore I was intrigued by your discussion on that there are no theories that are not built upon other theories. It made me think: “what theory was the first theory that humans developed?”Interesting discussions and interesting read!

3.
Hi,I found your post interesting in terms of understanding difference in the term theory itself. I think that your discussion on which concept of theory, philosophical theory or scientific theory, is the more objective one is really interesting. I think that it all depends on what one means by “objective”. If objective would mean that the theory should not be able to be further developed or questioned I do not think that either concept of theory could live up to that.Interesting discussion with interesting perspectives!

4.
Hi,I like that you have taken what was said during the lecture and compared it to what you found during your discussions at the seminar. The discussion you had during the seminar on snow on trees reminded me of a discussion of perception knowledge that was held during another seminar that I attended. There it was said that “a table is considered being a table because enough people are willing to except the concept of the object being a table”. We were discussing why perception in some cases were considered knowledge. I think that both theories and knowledge have in common that they require for people to accept them in order to be considered more or less true.Interesting summary and reflection of what you discussed!

5.
Hi,I think that your reflection is well structured and you also present your thoughts well. Interesting discussion on the contradiction between the two authors. At first I interpreted Suttan and Staw to mean that one has to explain or motivate why the diagrams or figures are relevant for the theory and not only present them, which would mean that their statement not necessarily contradicts Gregor’s statement.During my seminar we discussed the reason behind the question “What is man?” and we also asked Ilias. His thought was that it was a way of giving us the experience of how a theory is formed, in this case a theory about what man is.

Theme 4: Quantitative research - part 2

 For this theme I both chose a paper to read and read the paper that was linked to us. I attended the lecture and the seminar. I found this theme’s topic of quantitative methods to be easier to grasp because it did not seem as abstract as earlier themes, like for example theory. However I found that this did not mean that there were less of a discussion during the seminar.

During the seminar we discussed in smaller groups different aspects of quantitative research methods. Among other aspects a discussion on the different ways of collecting data was held. At first we talked about the methods used in the research papers that we had read. The majority of the researches had used Likert-type scales. One of the research papers had discussed bodily changes and had used them as quantitative data. To try to summarize that paper; it was about how the size of pupils change due to being relaxed or stressed. 

I feel that the discussion at seminar, the literature and lecture have given me a broader perspective on how quantitative research methods can be used. Before this course my own experience with quantitative research methods was in the form of questionnaires, so I found the methods that had other approaches fascinating to hear about.

We also discussed iterative design process. To summarize that discussion it was said that this method was beneficial because it could make it easier to tell which changes in design was desirable for the users.

When we held a discussion as a whole group we talked about the different backgrounds to quantitative versus qualitative research methods. Qualitative research methods were said to have a background in humanities while quantitative research methods were said to have a background in science.

Furthermore we talked about how qualitative data in some cases can give more information than quantitative data. An example that was mentioned was a study that had been made about how it was to live without a house. It was mentioned that quantitative research methods could have been used in this study. However it was argued that a quantitative research method would not give as much information as a qualitative one. To share the same experience and also live without a house during the study and to talk to people who was living without a house were said to provide a more elaborate type of data on the subject.

To end this blog post:

Another point that was mentioned that I found interesting was the importance of working on the design of the methods used in the research. By for example testing questionnaires it is possible to discover potential misunderstandings or flaws in the design that then can be changed before having the study being made.

(2/2) Pre-Theme 5: Design research

- What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

- Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

- Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?
- Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?
- Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

In the paper by Lundström the empirical data used to develop the design was taken from earlier versions of electric cars. One of these were Nissan Leaf (Lundström).

I think that practical design work can in itself lead to knowledge. Or at least I think that it can lead to concepts about design that were unknown earlier, and therefore present a new form of understanding design. If these concepts are tested later on in the design work and appear to be true then that would mean that the design work would lead to new knowledge about how design can be implemented for different situations and intentions (Fernaeus & Tholander, 2006).

I think that in terms of design intentions within a research project compared to design in general there is a difference. The purpose of design intentions in a research project is to examine how the design is being perceived by users. I think that design in general intend to appeal a certain group of people and do not necessarily focus on other perspectives of perception.

I think that to do the exact same research over again may not always lead to the same conclusions. Time and available tools can affect what the result of the research will be.

To end this blog post:

I would say that the biggest difference of design driven research practices compared to other research practices would be that they in general include studies that concern how a design is perceived. In other words they require a design or design concept in order to be able to take place. In other research practices were quantitative or qualitative methods are being used, the hypothesis or research question at hand are not solely based on the need of a design concept to be discussed throughout the studies. For example a research practice that integrates a quantitative method in form of a questionnaire can ask other questions than those that relate to the design of the questionnaire being used. The other research practices can in other words try to develop knowledge without solely discussing a design concept.

References:

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

Fernaeus, Y., Tholander J. (2006). Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space

(1/2) Pre-Theme 5: Design research

1.      How can media technologies be evaluated?

2.      What role will prototypes play in research?

3.      Why could it be necessary to develop a proof of concept prototype?

4.      What are characteristics and limitations of prototypes?

5.      How can design research be communicated/presented?

One way to evaluate technologies is by their usability. Usability can be divided into the three variables efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction. Each of these are examined by letting a defined group of users try to fulfil specific goals in a specific environment (Réhman et al, 2008).

One reason for using prototypes in design research is that they can help in terms of examining how users experience and perceive a certain design. The next step could be to interpret feedback from the users in order to develop the aspects of the design that was perceived as intended or aspects that was perceived as an advantage by the users. For example it can help researches with developing a design, or a visualisation, of driving range in electric cars so that it is perceived as easy to understand according to users (Lundström).

I interpret design research as a method to do research on how a certain design is perceived by users. In other words I think that in order to for example develop a concept of a design that is aimed to be perceived as helpful by users, a proof-of-concept prototype can act as a representation to how the finished design concept would be perceived.

I would consider the characteristics of a prototype to be a design concept exemplified by using a basic level of design in order to be able to have users give feedback on the concept. The limitations could be that once a prototype is formed the feedback given will be based on that prototype alone. In that way a prototype might prevent feedback in the form of totally different perspectives on the design concepts that might be useful since it already presents a certain form of the design concept.

To end this blog post:

To present design research there are different methods. If the research is concerning a form of iterative design process in order to discuss a hypothesis or research question one method is to discuss the findings made in the design process in comparison to the hypothesis and/or research question (Fernaeus & Tholander, 2006).

References:

Réhman, S., Sun, J., Liu, L., & Li, H. (2008). Turn Your Mobile Into the Ball: Rendering Live Football Game Using Vibration. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia

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

Fernaeus, Y., Tholander J. (2006). Finding Design Qualities in a Tangible Programming Space