5:3 Design research comments

1. Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 12:05

Like you, I didn't know about RtD prior to this theme, so there was much to learn. Reading your post, you've summarized the contrast to other research methods well. Additionally, the menstruation simulator was a creative example that highlighted how RtD can work in practice. The video at the end was also hilarious, had a good laugh. Thanks for sharing!

2. Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 04:06

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.

3.
Kristina Nyberg16. Oktober 2016 um 04:14

Although I think that you highlighted some relevant complications with regards to the human element within research, I wish you would've gone more into the topic of design research.

4.
Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 05:06

It was hard to read this because your text lacked a sense of structure. I also think you can better practice caution with using superlatives as it can give you a (in this case mostly unjustified) impression of exaggeration and not being honest. 

Nevertheless, content wise, you brought up some important aspects. I like that you mention technology in context with research, as well as your comparison between design research and others. Conclusions made about design research, such as being tied to a historical point, shows that you've grasped the concept. With interaction design, why did you choose that as example? It would have been interesting to see a practical example applying the theory and that you would continue a little further on why interaction design was mentioned.

5.
Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 14:13

When you say that replication isn't possible within social sciences, do you mean specifically design research within social sciences? In that case, why would it be more replicable with "hard sciences" if you are only referring to design research? It seems like you could've clarified this in your text, as well as what exactly is contained within "hard sciences".

6.
Kristina NybergOctober 16, 2016 at 5:21 AM

You have a lot of sloppy typos in this text such as "knowledge will be use" where it should be "used". So I think you can work on reviewing your text before submitting it.

However, I do think you captured the core of what design research is about. Especially liked "the journey is more important than the destination" recap and how you describe ways to manipulate the research, why one would do so and how it's relevant in design research. So you get a minus for delivery but a plus for content.

7.
Kristina Nyberg16 October 2016 at 05:30

The fact that you're honest about your own judgement and that you correct yourself is a nice addition to this reflection of your learning process.

I also had an idea about knowledge contribution from design research that changed after seminar and lecture.

Your text is well structured and nice to read. If there's something to pinpoint, I think you did a particularly good job in highlighting how important planning as well as goals with (design) research are.

8.
Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 05:48

Kudos for your connection of theory to practical context. I've struggled to follow what some other classmates wrote about how "hard sciences" would be regarded differently than social sciences. What you explain about math vs the complexity of the human elements clarified a lot. However, a human element is always involved in interpreting research which also goes for "hard sciences" imo. But that's a topic we could discuss further some other time.

Although the example in itself explains technological changes, I'd like to criticise that you mention iPad specifically. Some kids probably grew up with other tablets and Apple promotion took down the impression of your text a notch. But overall, it's nevertheless a very well written text.

On topic on interdisciplinary, I think we got some clarification after you wrote this post. It's rather concerning the researchers than the research itself in defining this - if I understood correctly. I've also mixed up these various concepts, but to think of the researchers as a happy group of people with different colored hats helped somewhat. In a multidisciplinary research, they all have colored dots and in interdisciplinary each researcher have their expertise and stick to it; one color (field) per hat. My five cents, hope it helps!

9.
Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 05:59

Totally agree on the "journey" metaphor. Disagree on design research as not possible to combine with commercial intent. I think design research revolves more around planning and formulating the research question than other research (I think we're on the same page there). But the question for a researcher which also always is relevant is "who will fund this study?". In some cases, a university will, in others a business. And design research remains design research, its only difference here is the sponsor (and probably its goals, as a result of sponsors having various input). I hope you followed my line of thought. 

Other than that, nice contribution. I also liked that you identified the importance of how research can create important foundation for future research - especially important when the world is changing faster. I think we could be looking at a future with smaller pieces of research done at the time to shorten peer review process - especially within design research where the historic snapshot is as most relevant. Then this way of thinking becomes even more important; setting ground for continued work.

10.
Kristina Nyberg16 oktober 2016 06:08

I don't think you can say there is an opposite to empirical data. Maybe a simple way of thinking about it is as the core of research. In design research, as you highlight very neatly, the process is much less structured than in other types of research which means sometimes you insert the empirical data in the results section and sometimes in other parts of the paper (as Ylva mentioned, in their paper it was different).

When you mention social vs hard sciences, I question whether or not you mean this specifically within design research? Because it you'd compare for example math in a quantitative research study with the study Ylva did with the children, then I get your point. But if you would take math into a design research perspective, I don't see why this would be more or less replicable as a rule.

11.
Kristina NybergOctober 16, 2016 at 6:16 AM

It's great to see the spark of enthusiasm in your post! I also had a "aha moment" as I didn't hear about this type of research method before - totally opened my eyes. I also think some benefits with this way of working is that, although you tie the outcome to a certain point in time, you can keep the focus current by modifying the research as you go, according to needs that may not have been known at the beginning of the project. In this way, I think it's less vulnerable to technological or societal changes that may affect the study. 

With regards to the value of design research, I think you'll get a different answer from the academic world vs the commerical world. I also think here it's important to consider which target group you want to capture with your work.

12. Kristina Nyberg16. lokakuuta 2016 klo 2.23

As yourself, I was unfamiliar to this research method prior to the theme but became enthusiastic whilst learning more.

Great reminder about the 4D:S; "Discover (insight into the problem), Define (the area to focus upon), Develop (potential solutions), Deliver (solutions that work)"

This description even more makes me think that design research many times can be a useful tool to use in business context, also due to the adaptability of design research studies. 

Another valuable mention was differentiation of collecting data and performing research.

13.

1:3 Comments: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

1. Kristina NybergSeptember 13, 2016 at 4:02 AM
   The text reads fairly easily. The feeling is that the author is engaged and somewhat enthousiast about the topic. The illustrative examples of tinted glasses for Kant and photo for Socrates were used in an effective way to help the reader in visualizing the theory.
   
   It was strange that the first text mentions Kant, the author, but Socrates which is a fictive character in the second text. Better would have been to name Plato, the author.
   
   It would also have been desirable to see the author go further in examining the topics outside of the texts at hand, linking to other sources to contrast.
   
   Stylistically I find the text at a good level; good vocabulary and aimed at the target group. One remark is that the author did an attempt in remaining gender neutral at one point where referring to "him or her". I would recommend to instead use "them" in a similar context.
   ReplyDelete
2. Kristina Nyberg13. syyskuuta 2016 klo 13.21
   Some improvement suggestions. Mainly, I had the feeling a lot of text could have easily been removed especially true for the part about Kant. The first paragraph could be removed. Additions such as "– weight being on the syllable re" do not add value. The language is sometimes as if spoken rather than written, this is something I recommend the author to think about. An example is "The dialogue actually reminds me of" where the word "actually" could better be removed in writing.
   
   Content wise there were some good points, especially about Plato, e.g. the allegory about the cave and how central subjectivism and filtering processes are in this text.
   VastaaPoista
3. Kristina NybergSeptember 13, 2016 at 4:41 AM
   The text is overall well written; compact and relevant. The author clearly knows how to formulate a text with a proper introduction, body and conclusion. Content is where it could be argued that the author could have done some more work, especially in the part about Kant. The synthetic and analytic judgement distinction is mentioned but not explained in the same way as a priori / posteriori knowledge is, for one. Adding reflection on having read other sources, if so only definitions of concepts, would have added value to the text as well.
   ReplyDelete
4. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 04:53
   Language could be improved, such as "standing points" which should be "stand points". The text was hard to read and it did not intrigue me. It feels like a bit of rambling and losing the "red thread" when one bit too many the author goes into mathematics. It was also not in balance to write that much about Plato and so little of Kant, in my opinion. It could also have enhanced the text to include sources (original texts and others). The introduction, however, was good.
   SvaraRadera
5. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:02
   Grammar check would improve the text, e.g. "experiment" seem like an evident typo. On other occasions I think vocabulary and/or grammar should be improved such as repetition in the sentence "Another explanation is that seeing and hearing is also an experience an experience that you get ‘through’ your senses and not ‘with’ them."
   
   Further, some terms in the text makes the author come off as insecure and not knowing their topic. For example "As far as I understand" I would recommend to think about this in future texts - show more confidence in your writing. My main recommendation for improvement is the writing style; although vocabulary could be expanded, content wise the author captures some of the topics in a simple way. I am however missing sources, both to the main text and to other definitions that would be relevant and enrich the text.
   BeantwoordenVerwijderen
6. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:09
   Additional note: "experiment" was no typo, it was just my senses that perceived a typo that did not exist.
   Verwijderen
7. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:16
   I think the author captured some of the main thoughts from the texts, which was the purpose with this post. Although I want to give a plus to the author for including sources, they can better be linked directly in the text rather than inserted below as non-clickable links - this is a blog post and there are tools for referencing within the text (s.k. hyperlinking).
   SvaraRadera
8. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:23
   Some improvements could be made as the text looks sloppy in some places, such as "Now Kants main field of interest is that of metaphysics, for which the methodology of study might seems less clear than for that of the natural sciences." where it should be "Kant's" and "seem".
   
   However, the author reached some valid conclusions. A favorite part of this was the sentence "Our perceptions are limited by the tools with which we perceive the world." which correlates with the discussion about faculties of knowledge and the loss of certain tools leads to insanity.
   SvaraRadera
9. Kristina Nyberg13 September 2016 at 05:31
   Some improvement suggestions for the text. For exampe, in the sentence "After reading "Theaetetus" we see that according to Socrates instead of trying to find out what knowledge is, it is much more easier to define what it is not." the expression "much more" could better be removed.
   
   Plus points for including sources, but in a blog post it is better to hyperlink them than stating them below the text as you would do in a report.
   
   Content-wise this felt a bit farfetched. It was in some parts difficult to grasp what the author wanted to say. I think it would be useful for the author to create some practical examples and shorten down some sentences to improve this.
   ReplyDelete
10. Kristina Nyberg13 септември 2016 г., 5:40
    First of all, the blog should better be structured so that it is easy to, in English, navigate to the correct blog post. At present there is no way except scrolling through all posts which will become tedious later on.
    
    Second, I think the questions were answered and sources hyperlinked within the text (which is enough, no need to list a bibliograpy after a post). Perhaps the post would have been improved with a short introduction.
    ОтговорИзтриване
11. Kristina Nyberg13 september 2016 05:44
    This blog reads easily and it is fairly easy to follow the line of thought. The Copernican evolution reference was an excellent way of explaining Kant. To give ideas for improvement, hyperlink the source within the text instead of adding it within brackets.
    SvaraRadera