Before starting week 41, I did not have any knowledge about designing research. I have never implied this research type. Therefore, this week required additional efforts to understand what a designing research is. I would summarize the main points what I have learnt about designing research.
Lesson 1: Define the problem
To understand the designing research, we started from ideas and problems. Ideas are tightly connected with problems. In order to conduct a solid research, the definitions of the problems have to be made accurately. Clarification of problem brings possible solutions i.e. ideas. I learnt that ideas are validated under the building of a prototype. In general, prototype could be described as a proof of concepts. Also, the prototypes itself have to be evaluated. It involves the questions what possible impact would be made, if there is any commercial, business, consumers interests. These questions are used like filters to concretize the research field.
Lesson 2: Prototype will not solve the problem
Going deeper I found some difficulties to understand what the prototype is. Prototype is a proof of concepts used to test and evaluate the idea. The main purpose of prototype is to gain knowledge. As it was said during the seminar, only using of prototype will not lead to knowledge directly. Prototype only provokes the research but will not give the answer. Problem and answers depend on the context. Therefore, it is important to articulate the context in which the problem is occurred. For instance, Anders Lundström started Differentiated Driving Range research conducting discourse analysis in order to understand the attitude and obstacles of current situation and formulate the intentions of research. The context is important to shape the prototype, to narrow down the research field and reach research goals, find the answers. As it was said during the seminar designing starts from the arising of problem until the realization.
Lesson 3: Designing is an artificial scenario
Many years ago the researches were based on empirical observations but more and more difficult questions were risen and scholars began to create artificial conditions to collect data and get the answers. Designing is also not an exception. Designing research is a biased scenario to create alternative reality to collect data. I wrote down: “Designing reconfigures unpreferred reality to preferred one.” Designing is a systematically framing what you want to do. Designing creates the condition to collect data but itself will not bring the answer. The method will not make a research, method is a way to look at data, but knowledge are gained through analysis, asking yourself what is under empirical data. As it was said during the lecture, research through design contains more than designing research.
Lesson 4: Designing research and experiment
Before the Friday’s lecture, I thought that designing research is based on experiment. That is the reason why the prototype is created and implied. But this my presumption was denied. For example, Anders Lundström (Differentiated Driving Range) did not run experiment (according to scientific common definition of experiment) because the scholar did not formulate hypothesis, did not define variables and measures. Nevertheless, A. Lundström did practical designing test which can be called as designing research trying but it is not the same as an experiment despite the fact that it brought outcomes.
I found interesting the way that you structured your post!
AtsakytiPanaikintiNonetheless, I don’t agree with your when you said that ”prototype is a proof of concept”. Indeed, a proof of concept is used to only demonstrate the feasibility and functionality of an idea, whereas a prototype has all the functionalities of a final product. So they have different purposes and they can’t lump together.
Haibo and Anders talked about prototypes from different perspectives, which I think caused some confusion after the lectures. Haibo talked from a commercial point of view where prototypes indeed often work as proof of concept to aquire funding.
AtsakytiPanaikintiAnders however talked from a pure theoretical research point of view, and he himself said something along the lines of "I don't have to care at all about if what I find can generate any money" (I can't remember the exact quote). His interest is all about gaining new knowledge, which is the reason to why he look at prototypes differently. To him it's about provoking a discussion to help him gain said knowledge, and he did this by knowingly leaving out functionality that might be vital to a commercial product.
Haibo and Anders talked about prototypes from different perspectives, which I think caused some confusion after the lectures. Haibo talked from a commercial point of view where prototypes indeed often work as proof of concept to aquire funding.
AtsakytiPanaikintiAnders however talked from a pure theoretical research point of view, and he himself said something along the lines of "I don't have to care at all about if what I find can generate any money" (I can't remember the exact quote). His interest is all about gaining new knowledge, which is the reason to why he look at prototypes differently. To him it's about provoking a discussion to help him gain said knowledge, and he did this by knowingly leaving out functionality that might be vital to a commercial product.