This week we worked with design research, something I hadn’t worked with before, and hadn’t even really heard of before. I did find this was one of the most interesting themes, and we had a very interesting seminar, with some very interesting discussions.
During the seminar we spoke about the empirical data, and I got the understanding that the empirical data was the data, the information they got from the research. Empirical data can be almost anything, empirical doesn’t mean it’s research, data can just be data. Data is collected all the time, and it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s research, the data can then be used as research, but data is not research in itself.
The thing we spoke most of during the discussions in the small group, was whether or not design research in tech and media areas was replicable, and whether or not it was necessary. The main opinion was that no, it’s not replicable, which is the opposite from what I wrote in the first post. As the media climate changes all the time, new technology is rapidly developed, and in just a couple of years, media and the society as a whole, has changed quite a lot, making it close to impossible to replicate an experiment in the tech area. The question is, does it matter? Does it really need to be replicable? When it comes to hard sciences it’s important that the research is replicable, but is it necessary when it comes to social or behavioral science?
You can’t get the exact same outcome when doing experiments in social or behavioral science, as all people react differently, and no two people are alike. I would say replicability in that area is more about understanding what the researcher has done, and being able to follow the process, not necessary having to re-do it. Dealing with people is a lot different than dealing with numbers, hard sciences are resting on the assumption of nature, but when dealing with people, one of the foundations are diversity, difference, and individuality. Making replicability a big problem.
I think design research was really interesting, and a method I’d love to try in the future. I didn’t know much about it when this week began, but I feel like I’ve learned a lot. I didn’t really know the difference between design driven research and research in general, but I feel like I have a better grasp of it now. I would say that research in general is more structured and organized, while design driven research is more trial and error, it’s more repetition, and has to be tested more.
Your answers in the first blog post were a bit vague and I don't agree with all of them, but as you said here in the reflection, design research is new to you which makes it understandable.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think our impression of empirical data differs a bit. As I see it, empirical data comes from observations of differents sorts and research does not have to be observational. For instance, literary research does not give empirical data. And as I comprehended it, empirical data is connected to research, but "ordinary" data does not have to be.
However, I do agree with what you say here about replicability, that it's about being able to follow the process and not do the exact same study and so on. Good job on that part!
Hi! It's very interesting what you talked about in your small group about repricability. However, I would slightly disagree that in tech field it's almost impossible to replicate a research. If we are talking about the outcome, yes, of course, but if we talking about the methods - then no. I think the main purpose of replicability is to get different outcome, thus different view, maybe evaluate how one or another theory change during some specific period of time. Anyway, I like that your reflection brings up themes that can be argued about. Great job!
ReplyDeleteIt’s clear that you have done a good job reflecting on this theme, giving some example of what you thought before the week and what you have learned from the week. I think you bring up some good points regarding the replicability part of design research. Replicability is important in natural sciences in order to make the theories and result more valid, but within social sciences I don’t think it’s that important, just like you mention. Not least it’s very difficult to do because you are dealing with people and different personalities. I agree with you that replicability in this area is more about understanding what the researcher has done and being able to follow the process. Thanks for your reflection!
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteInteresting reflection!
I believe the question of replicability is one of the most crucial ones when it comes to design research. I agree with you that design research can't be replicated, and I think it's interesting that you question whether there actually is any meaning to it. I believe that design research can be replicated to some extent; you either aim to replicate the process/design or the results. As technology and contexts changes, it is impossible to replicate both. I think the meaning of replication if do verify results, but design research clearly makes it difficult. Therefore, as you say, I am not sure whether there is a need for replications, as long as the study's aim is to analyse new outcomes from old technology etc.
I agree with you on your views on replicability. I think in hard sciences it is important that research is replicable so another researcher can test your research and prove that you were right. Otherwise One could come up with something and no-one could ever prove him wrong or right.
ReplyDeleteIn social sciences the replicability is still very important for the same reasons. That being said, it is important to note the social and historical environment of the research in question as it is highly influential on the outcome of the research. Especially when, for example, analyzing social media. If research analysed the use of Facebook in the beginning of it's existence, people will have used it in a different way then they are using it now due to changes in the technical system as well as changes in society.
Hello and thank you for your reflections on design research! I actually found a funny little contradiction in your text, which I can relate to since I was struggling with the same questions myself. You wonder why social or behavioral sciences would even need to be replicable, but the actual question is: what do you mean by replicable? Is the definition of replicability that one should end up with similar results? I myself came to the conclusion that no, the results don't have to be similar but it doesn't decrease the value of replicability, either. The concept in itself doesn't require a study to be exactly the same regarding the results. It actually helps to gain more knowledge on the phenomena when reproducing a study and ending up with different results and then comparing them to the earlier ones: what has changed since then? What is the reason behind differences? Just like you self said, by replicating a design driven study we can learn a lot of diversity, difference and individuality. So I would say that the design driven research is replicable but the results, however, are not – and it's okay!
ReplyDeleteSo thank you for a great discussion! :)
Your progress from a slightly diffuse initial post, to this more concrete summary, is exactly what these blogs are for. You think, learn, and test your ideas. Good job!
ReplyDeleteWhen you discuss the questionable need for replicability regarding design research, I think you reach an interesting topic. Because - does the same standards and wishes apply to design research as for "traditional" hard data research? I think not! But just as previous commenters have noted, I believe you to have to take a second look at what replicability is in terms of method replicability (rather than result). I think Loviisa put in perfectly - the fact that the results differ could even be profitable in terms of knowledge contributions.
ReplyDeleteHi,
I think you slightly contradict yourself in the text. First you write that it is important that the hard sciences are replicable, but question whether that is the case for social and behavioural science. Later in your text you write that all people react differently and no two people are alike. Does that apply to the “hard” sciences as well? If I would apply your reasoning to medicine for examples, this means that individuals react differently to medicines, therefor making replicability unnecessary. It would have been interesting to add the concept of historical materialism to you text and connect it to the topic of replicability. Your text evoked thoughts for sure!