Efectos psico - sociales y políticos

The concern with distinguishing design research through practice from design practice has been addressed by many authors, coming from a variety of angles, all of whom attempt to segregate two ways of advancing design knowledge, as outlined by Sato (2009):

1. Design research as the practice and developments of a particular design project; 2. Design research that indicates a wider practice, resulting in more generalisable

and structured knowledge which identifies with general academic standards, including the generation of theory, methods, principles and tools for extended use and further study.

Design research needs to be organised, systematic, historical, dialogic, and it should help advance knowledge related to both design in general, and design activity

specifically (Bayazit, 2004). In agreement with this and following the division proposed by Sato29_{, this discussion is focussed mainly on the second view of design research as} something that extends beyond a single, particular design project.

The fundamental importance of making this differentiation evident is to enable better dialogue between design and other research disciplines. This direction is supported by Poggenpohl (2009) when she exposes the recurring problem of presenting design as a field dominated by a form of ad hoc, tacit knowledge that is somewhat inherently inaccessible. If design practice is a form of tacit knowledge too complex to be

articulated or extrapolated, then it becomes virtually impossible to study and discuss it, and, therefore, to advance design knowledge. This perspective is opposed to the

principles of academic research and has, according to Poggenpohl, contributed to weakening design as a scientific discipline, since ‘disciplines reveal themselves through their discourse’ (Poggenpohl, 2009).

Poggenpohl’s criticism further expands on a list of positions traditionally taken by designers – originally rendered by Klaus Krippendorff in 1975 (in Poggenpohl, 2009). These professional positions hinder or impede the designers’ ability to ‘develop a

29 _{Sato further proposes a typology of design research accounting for five distinct types of research inquiry:} theoretical, methodological, experimental, field, and case study (Sato, 2009). But his typology is problematic because it does not propose self-excluding categories and it mixes epistemological approaches and research design with purposes and methods. In that respect, a typology proposed by Cross (2007) seems more universal. Cross defines that design research falls into three main categories: design epistemology (the study of how design and designers discover and produce knowledge); design praxeology (the study of design practices and processes); and design phenomenology (the study of artefacts made through design).

86 meaningful discourse’ about research. Two of these positions are here outlined: i) designers do not tend to be broadly analytical, they are limited in criticising research due to an education based largely on craft; and ii) designers focus on practice with high interest in the doing of design, often ignoring how or why they do what they do. Poggenpohl, then, emphasises the need for a more systematic approach to design research that:

[…] seeks to answer timely questions that will contribute new knowledge to design performance; it generates empirical evidence, substantiates theory, and proposes reasoned processes and definitions; it is self-critical and open to debate […] research refers to investigations undertaken to develop formal knowledge through quantitative, qualitative, or comparative studies – project, theory, method, or tool creation that goes through cycles of development and revision based on some form of assessment.

The perspective that design is still a weak research discipline has been recently reinforced by Cash (2018), who questions the extent that results and claims from design research are taken into serious consideration by scholars from other fields. Cash even considers the possibility that design research – if unable to provide clear, original contributions – could end up being regarded as a sub-process of management, losing its authority and autonomy as an independent field (Cash, 2018)30_.

Frascara (2002) has also noted the need for design to gain more traction with other disciplines and higher accountability by generating evidence for ‘measurable benefits’. The production of such evidence is unlikely to be achieved through disconnected design experiments, without much concern for systematic processes of data collection and data analysis – i.e. design research cannot be the simple accumulation of isolate experiences with little attention to research design, nor strategies for gathering and making sense of reliable data sources. He therefore calls for designers to proactively identify important research problems and to develop methods to address these problems that do not rely solely on briefs or the external demands of commissioning third-parties (Frascara, 2002).

Dittrich et al. (2014), similarly, outline the need for design research with a greater emphasis on practice and intervention and clearly ‘based on research questions, related work and hypotheses’, so as to improve its relevance beyond isolate situations.

30 _{Although this author’s criticism may point to a real and potentially severe issue, it is mostly related to} the development of theoretical design knowledge, which is less relevant to the present research work. The principal focus of this thesis research is on the advancement of knowledge about design practice and methodology, as it will become clearer throughout this and the subsequent chapters.

87 Design researchers must frequently navigate practice and research – related yet

distinct realms – which can be difficult because ‘the roles of designer and researcher are becoming mutually interdependent and blurring (Sanders, 2002). Inasmuch as practice is undoubtedly part of design knowledge, it is often conjectural and isolated; whereas academic research should seek to establish connections and make inferences about reality and behaviours that extend beyond the limits of immediate circumstance alone.

A number of well-recognized views on the nature of design research and its place in relation to other traditions, such as research in the sciences, have been investigated by key authors including Herbert Simon, Bruce Archer, Buckminster Fuller, and

Christopher Alexander (as summarised in Bayazit, 2004). Some of these perspectives have found ample acceptance within certain circles, despite warnings that ‘relating design activities to the sciences should not be misinterpreted as a claim of a scientific design, or as an attempt to transform design into a science’ (Bonsiepe, 2006). Other proposals follow a similar assumption that design should be as logical as engineering (as in Blessing & Chakrabarti, 2009), or as precise and organised as architecture (as in Lawson, 2005).

These attempts to compare design with science or engineering while positive in helping designers to adopt a more rigorous, systematic perspective to their own work, have largely fell short because of their rigid comparison of the design process to the scientific process. One of the main reasons being that design can hardly be simplified to a form of rational problem-solving (Cross, 2007; Poggenpohl, 2009; Bannon & Ehn, 2013). Design research can certainly benefit from a more structured, systematic approach, but it also needs to emphasise creative activity, as a means to facilitate a more fruitful exchange between design research and the design process (Hanington, 2003). Design inquiry ‘is not formulaic or preconceived’ (Poggenpohl, 2002); it requires a creative instance that is, at once, both responsive to contextual change and reflective with regards to the impacts of designing in practice.

Amidst this very important debate, perhaps a more accommodating and conciliatory effort to categorise different approaches to design research arises with Koskinen, Binder & Redström (2008). These authors’ views account for three predominant orientations within design research while acknowledging the existence of nuances and the fuzzy nature of their boundaries. According to Koskinen et al. (2008), depending on the kind of program adopted by the research, the overall approach can be comparable to those of the natural sciences, the social sciences, or the arts, resulting in different

88 research designs. These are referred by the authors as Lab, Gallery or Field approaches. The Lab approach – better aligned with the natural sciences – is based around

controlled experiments that seek to answer more straightforward questions, often quantitative in essence. The Gallery approach focuses on the creative processes of individuals and looks into their search for language and originality, both largely associated with artistic investigation. Finally, the Field approach to design research is structured around experiments that seek to understand the problems (and further propose interventions) taking place in naturalistic settings, within which design becomes a social product that is used, interpreted and analysed with and by participants (Koskinen et al. 2008).

Rather than segregating design as a ‘third area’ or being a dogmatic perspective heavily focused on methodological differences, the Lab, Field, and Gallery model allows for a more encompassing view on how design research can be enacted. Moreover, the Field approach intrinsically recognises the importance of the contextual actions of lay people (i.e. non-designers) within both design practice and design research – an aspect

commonly ignored by more science-based perspectives. Both context and the involvement of non-designers in the design research process are fundamental to the three core areas of this thesis investigation: participatory design, healthcare practice, and behaviour change. Contexts are specific; they are defined by the interplay of people, technologies, and practices – all of which require the situated approach to design research, largely sought by participatory design (Kujala, 2003; Lee, 2008; Roberston & Simonsen, 2012; Dittrich et al., 2014; Bratteteig & Wagner, 2014).

Design research can therefore be understood through its relationship to other research disciplines. The approach of this research emphasises what can be known through design investigation, as well as how methodological traditions have influenced and been modified by design research. A social science inspired ‘field’ approach has been adopted including study of the actions and behaviours of people in naturalistic

environments. Within this research, who constitutes the people in these environments, what they do together and how they do it are equally important issues. These can be better understood by analysing the close ties between participatory action research and participatory design.

89