5:2 Reflection Design research

In my previous post on the theme of Design research, I specify empirical data vaguely and in a generic way. In the workshop about Design research by Ylva Fernaeus I learned that the empirical data in the particular paper we studied before the theme consists of human interaction; observation of the kids. The process is also a great part of the empirical data in Design research. Further, we also learned that the results section is where you put the empirical data. It was useful with a practical example that further clarified the concept of empirical data; what it is and where to find it.

Putting theory into practice was also an important part of this specific paper where kids were programming by using physical devices (smart phones and/or puzzle pieces). It was not very surprising that the analysis is crucial in Design research, because "data is just data". Seems logical that an interpretation needs to be done to explain why the data matter.

A question I found hard to understand prior to the lecture and workshop was the concept of design intentions. I now understand that Design intentions are used in the planning process, whereas design in general is used throughout a Design research project.

An interesting takeaway from the workshop we had with Anders Lundström was that a researcher needs to keep data for 10 years and be able to show it on request. Although some is easier to store (digital) this could be problematic in some cases where big equipment is used as part of the research. 

Something specific for Design research compared to other research methods that we learned, was that you change and adjust in process to a much greater extent in Design research, whereas in other research you plan a hypothesis, test to get the result and analyse it. 

Anders also brought up what in my opinion was a decent attempt to define knowledge; "When attention is brought to something previously unknown". It raises important questions to a researcher but is also applicable in other contexts in life. If you think about it within the framework of a practical example, it becomes clear that it can be extended to "When attention is brought by a messenger to something previously unknown by the recipient". In context of media, communication becomes central in the concept of knowledge, because without communication there is no knowledge.

If an infedility could be seen as knowledge, it only becomes knowledge when the partner that was cheated on finds out (and have not previously agreed to it). And perhaps the knowledge is by one person only seen as knowledge if they have had tangible interaction. Meaning that they would not believe a chat message explaining the infidelity, but they would believe it if they would witness it in real life. This became a bit of a spinoff, but hopefully I managed to illustrate the point I wanted to make with communication as central in the concept of knowledge.

To get back to Design research, it has been useful to learn more about this way of researching a topic by using different tools than you may be used to. I will finish this post with an inspirational out of the box example of research done by Christien Meindertsma.

3:2 Reflection: Research and theory

What is theory? As described in my first post about research and theory, some conclusions could be drawn about what theory is not. It is harder to define what theory is as there is no absolute answer to this. In the lecture, this understanding was confirmed, but we also learned some more.

New information to me was that "theory" is different from "a theory" in that theory is, according to my understanding, a system of ideas that provides, explore, explain, or prescribes something you do not have prior knowledge about. New understanding. Theory is supported by institutions and offers argumentation about certain phenomenon. "A theory" is referring to a more narrow and existing understanding about a topic and can sometimes also be similar to the concept of “hypothesis”; in the sentence “I have  theory...” one is more inclined to mean “I have a hypothesis” than “I have a system of ideas”. We also discussed facts. "Facts can only be referred to a priori knowledge and nothing else.", the teacher said. This was interesting as hearing “it is a fact” could be questioned more often. We were recommended to read further literature on the topic; "Structure of scientific revolutions" and "An anarchist theory of knowledge".

In discussion groups, we were to describe the major theories used in our papers and potential pros and cons. The group found it tricky to pinpoint some papers; whether they purely analysed or also described or forecasted theory. It was an interesting dilemma, but in the end we concluded that some of our papers were of analysis type and others of design.

Benefits and limitations of papers were discussed where analysis cons were many questions to still explore, no causal relationships and impractical. Analysis pros were good basis for another researcher to continue, on a new topic it is valid information and ability to focus in depth on a particular subject; eliminate unnecessary information.

Design con was potentially scattered information. Design pros were practical application, prediction and relevant to businesses.

It was interesting to learn about how research methods were used in different ways in our papers, but also how there was some overlap in problems found with for example balancing resources and applying research in a professional setting. One paper was about how screens are scanned differently by human eyes depending on screen size. This was particularly interesting in the era of user experience that is becoming more relevant. The book “Information architecture for the world wide web” came to mind, warmly recommended for anyone interested to learn more about User experience design (UX).

This lesson made me connect back to the concept “knowledge” and how it is natural for human beings to organize information and knowledge to make sense of the world. Research papers organize data, hypotheses and theory. Information architecture organizes information. Carl von Linné (you know, the guy on Swedish 100 SEK bills) organized plants and when it went further, also human beings, introducing race biology way before Hitler. In this sense, theory becomes a tool for us to make sense of the world, but it is also merely one of many and not a necessary evil.

2:2 Reflection: Critical media studies

The Critical media studies texts were put into historical context where it was described how capitalism, communism, futurism and fascism influenced the writers in different ways. Some key concepts were clarified.

Myth was described as strategy to erase the unknown; through mimesis process (imitation) get into nature to change it. Enlightenment observes regularity (where human intervention is impossible) to de-mystify the world. Realism argues that the truth is found in abstract ideas, Nominalism a particular object. Empiricism means that our world is the creation of our mind, whilst Rationalism argues thinking as reproducing existing results therefore deems it unnecessary - correlating it with the mimesis process. Most of these overlap with my previous impression, but the chronological order and correlation of mimesis was new to me.

Benjamin, as a Marxist Jew before and during the second world war, balanced dialectical concepts to find the golden middle ground of questioning art reproduction, as well as its revolutionary potential in what was not said, similar to “Lost in translation”. The fact that Benjamin promoted thinking between the lines would argue he was more of an empiricist than a rationalist. More importantly, Fascism was also criticized before the second world war took off.

Friends of Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer, emigrated to the U.S. Overwhelmed by its commercialism despite enlightenment, they questioned capitalism but also enlightenment itself and its role in society. Art was central in this discussion about potential societal change. In the same way Youtube predicts what you want to watch based on regularity, which caps your mind into a limited framework, Adorno and Horkheimer meant that observing regularity creates conformity and passivity. Enlightenment lacked the gap between the existing and the possible, promoting Realism before Nominalism.

Moving onto Futurism, reconnecting what Adorno and Horkheimer said about technology being the essence of enlightenment, one could argue there was an overlap with their line of thought and Marinetti, whom also mentions technology as central in his manifesto. In contrast to Marinetti, who foremost argued for technological advances, knowledge and the mind of people, Mussolini and Hitler understood (partly thanks to Freud) that convincing also needs to speak to people’s hearts. Rhetoric got an upswing.

Referring back to my initial thoughts on Critical media studies, I presented Dadaism as an example to explain the concept “Aura” in context of Benjamin, but since then we have also learned about how Cubism had an important role in deconstructing and reproducing objects (and people). This was also connected to Futurism, where tradition was removed and the new was established.

An interesting discussion point to expand on would be the potential connection between the economy, immigration and increased fascism.

1:2 Reflection: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

This post will reflect on the theme “Theory of knowledge and theory of science”.

I spent most time preparing by reading definitions of all theoretical concepts stuffed into the aged texts we were required to read. Initially, the theme seemed overly theoretical and texts outdated, but I soon realized that they could be helpful to think at a higher level which will be useful not only at university but also in life.

The group seemed to struggle. We had a Facebook group chat where I I spent some time to give views on what I thought was expected from the theme. Hopefully it helped some of the others to get started.

To question our individual perceptions of the world was central in what we did in the seminar. Our group was good as all participated with interest in the discussion. We discussed how technical revolutionary advances such as social media may have affected the faculties of knowledge. Although they stayed fairly intact, we questioned why the framework of 12 rules should apply and how future-proof the theory really will be, moving forward.

You can also spot certain overlap with other sciences as for example psychology where the faculties of knowledge overlap with functionality of a schema, and to some extent the Maslow stairs. We furthermore agreed on that there is no objective knowledge as all information is filtered through human perception - also by scientists and journalists. You could argue that space and time are objective, but these are also seen differently depending on e.g. cultural background.

We did also discuss how the first thought is filtered and prejudiced based on past experience, but that an adult human being can control the second thought. Is there a world independent of the mind? Not really; everything is a point of reference. To organize in this way is how we make sense of the world.

On a personal contribution level, I questioned how the faculties of knowledge would be applied by a blind/deaf/mute person and whether mental illness has a connection to particular losses of the same (e.g. schizophrenia - reality). This later created an interesting discussion with the rest of the class and the teacher, whom had a psychoanalyst background. Speaking as an expert in this subject, he did believe there was a correlation with losing faculties of knowledge and mental illness.

To reflect on the theme overall, I found the theme useful but, nevertheless, some things bothered me. Plato emphasized gender in what I found an irrelevant and sexist way. He discussed barren women in contrast to fertile women in correlation to teaching, I found this a primitive and outdated way of thinking. Furthermore, gender was in this context irrelevant. Kant’s use of language seemed overly difficult, as if he was making longer sentences and using more complex words for the sake of it - not necessarily ideal for the sake of improving a learning process.

All in all, this was a deep-diving, occasionally frustrating but still somewhat enlightening theme.