This week differed from the previous in that it had two lectures, instead of one lecture and one seminar. Design research turned out to be a bit more complicated than I expected, or at least my relationship to it did. I thought I had a fairly clear view of the topic, but that might have changed.
The first lecture was by Haibo Li. He talked about how to go from idea to prototype, with a focus on how to develop ideas from start to finish. It had a focus on the practical, and did not touch on when design research was appropriate, or in my opinion even on what design research actually is. He talked a lot about how we need to work on defining the problem that we are trying to solve way more than we’re probably doing. In fact, he said that most of the time should be spent on a proper problem definition, since a different definition can lead to you seeing a different solution. His lecture also seemed focused on development in a business environment more than a research one, since he talked about how you should focus on business potential when filtering ideas.
The second lecture was done by Andres Lundström. He had an unprepared and unstructured set up, since he was a last minute replacement. This did unfortunately make his lecture a bit hard to follow for me, but what I grasped was this:
Research is done to test theory and to gain knowledge, which we already knew. Prototyping can be used to that effect with the help of a design process that gives answers to questions. The process is important since in some cases, like in papers we read this week, the process in itself is the empirical data of that study. The different prototypes developed during the design process and the changes done to them can also be data, since that is what is tested. This analysis of the changes can be thing that separates design research from regular design, since the end goal is not a perfect product but rather to, as I said, gain knowledge. The focus of this lecture seemed more research based than Haibo’s, which I actually preferred.
I found myself missing the seminar. The chance to talk about the things we have learned was more important for my understanding than I thought, and therefore I feel like my reflections are shallower this week. I don’t feel like I contributed, since all I did was read the papers and answer the questions. It feels like there was less room for consideration and reflection.
Hej,
SvaraRaderaYou seem to have had a same important learning this week as I did. Before the lecture you wrote that the empirical data in the studies was the data generated by experimenting and in your reflection you highlight that the process itself is the empirical data and that it provides answers. This is something that I also understood only after the second lecture. I, therefore, also agree with you that the more research-focused approach of the second lecture was better than the first lecture!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaI very much agree with you that a seminar would’ve been needed on this theme as well, especially when being faced with such a highly theoretical theme as design research. I also had the same type of relationship to design research as it seemed as you had before this week, a very unproblematic one. However, as you state in your post, things became a tac bit more complicated after realizing that designing research and researching design was far more theoretical and required far more effort than I had presumed. Something I found especially interesting, which you also mentioned, was the idea Haibo described as “Haibo’s theory”. This was the notion that the time spent on defining the research problem should be 90% whereas the time spent on coming up with a solution to said problem should be 10%. This might seem contra productive, but it certainly highlights the fact that the problem definition is extremely important for the research outcome. Great job with this week’s posts!
Hej,
SvaraRaderaThanks for sharing your thoughts. As the discussions in the seminar groups of the previous themes from theme three were already quite though I welcomed the absence of the seminar group during this theme as it gave you more insight from a professional point. However, I agree that it was obvious that Anders Lundström was a last minute replacement and hence his lecture missed a bit a common theme.
Hej,
SvaraRaderaThanks for sharing your thoughts. As the discussions in the seminar groups of the previous themes from theme three were already quite though I welcomed the absence of the seminar group during this theme as it gave you more insight from a professional point. However, I agree that it was obvious that Anders Lundström was a last minute replacement and hence his lecture missed a bit a common theme.
Good reflection. I did not attend the second lecture but it seems like it was not as useful as the seminars usually are. I also missed the seminar that week because I feel like the discussion, and actually a lot thanks to Ilias, open up your mind to the subject more.
SvaraRaderaI also captured what Haibo talked about regarding spending most of the time defining a problem in contrast to solving it. He mentioned his own formula, the 90 + 10, and I think a seminar could expand on that theory so too bad we did not have time for that.
Keep it up!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaAfter reading your pre and post it feels that you have developed your knowledge after this theme. However I do agree that maybe our understanding and reflection on this weeks theme could have been enhanced by having seminars since there were some concepts that were harder to grasp than others.
It's interesting that you feel that the second lecture was more focusing on research and therefor was a better lecture. Because I felt that the lecture being a bit improvised ruined it a little bit, but you make a good point and I do agree with you if it only was better structured!
I also picked up that it is the analysis that turns something into research. A method only defines how data is collected and it's not until the data is analyzed that research is being conducted.
Keep it up!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaI enjoyed reading your reflection. First of all I totally agree with you that a seminar would have made me atleast more secure in writing about this theme and probably even made me learn more on this topic.I think the different views presented on the lectures on design research was intresting and it would ahve been really intresting to discuss them on a seminar. However I think both perspectives is important because we often need to aplly for money to be able to conduct research and then we need atleast some of the entrepreneur spirit from Haibos lecture at the same time as we need the research perspective presented by Anders.