What should we expect from RtD ?

I chose this paper first because the title got my attention and made me start to think of an answer to that ambiguous question. Then after reading the abstract I found that the author aims to dive deep in several aspects of RtD which seems an informative way for newcomers in this field. Thus I thought this paper would be a good starting point to shape a solid understanding for the concept of “RtD”.

 

In this paper, the author aims to explore different aspects of research through design (RtD) in order to present how this approach should be developed.

Firstly, he discussed two contrasting accounts of scientific theories to reflect on design theory and to discuss what makes theories scientific. The first account is Popper’s theory which states that for a theory to be scientific we should judge its falsifiability, refutability and testability; thus, the emphasis here is “falsifiability”. According to Popper’s falsifiability theory RtD is not scientific. The second theory is Lakatos’ theory which emphasis the ability for a contradictory evidence to be turned into novel discovery in order to generate new knowledge, new understanding and new discoveries. The focus here is “scientific research programmes” rather than individual theories. A research program is a common set of methods, practices and understanding about how to describe relevant issues and outputs. Both theories indicate how RtD is likely to produce provisional, contingent and aspirational theories which limit two important features: extensibility and verifiability, whereas RtD should produce theories with these two features. The author argues that we should moderate expectations of creating extensible and verifiable theories.

Secondly, the author discussed convergence in RtD and listed three possible interpretations for the diversity of approaches to RtD and lack of convergence in RtD where he argues that diversity should not be seen as a downside of RtD but rather a positive point. The first interpretation is “design as pre-paradigmatic research” which assumes that convergence is a perquisite for a cumulative growth of RtD and claims that RtD lacks shared paradigm (we need shared paradigm).

The second interpretation is “the invisibility of consensus” which claims that there’s more shared sense than it appears to be and the calls for overarching theory and seeking to reduce diversity might just inhibit progress (we already have a shared paradigm and need to recognize controversy as a sign of progress). The third one is “the many worlds of design” which means that the development in this field does not only take the form of accumulation but also reconsidering and reaction with fresh beginnings; thus, this field create multiple worlds rather than describing a single one.

Thirdly, the author argues that the role of theory should annotate design examples rather than replacing them. He states that theories are important but their role is limited to inspiration and annotation whereas designs are the definite facts for RtD.

 

However, the claim that establishing agreed-upon frameworks could produce self-policing standards and limit disciplinary legitimacy might lead us to think how to construct flexible and generalizable frameworks rather than ignoring them. The other claim I would like to highlight is that the current designs demonstrate designers’ own judgments on whether a given approach to address an issue is valid or not. This claim does not explain what constitute a “designer’s judgement” which might include users (as in user cantered designs), communities and other designers’ works.

Additionally, taking in consideration that RtD might be applicable to a wide range of disciplines not only “technical” ones , makes it hard to include those researchers who are more interested in theories rather than design. Finally, the real challenge with this claim might be related to the “newcomers” in this field (such as students) who often need these “guidelines” and frameworks as a starting points to learn new ways of doing research.

 

what should we expect from research through design.

William Gaver

http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2208538