Theme 5: Design Research (second post)

In the first paper, the observation of the children, looking at their behavior. In the second paper, the outcome of the research, the researchers collect the data in the beginning. 

Design intentions shows a clear intention to solve the specific problem and is more precise. From scientific design, we have to write down everything we gain from the result, do documents and trace back to every record to make sure no errors happened from the experiments. However, we don't have the solutions and visions at first to get the research.

Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?

Depends on the situation, every setting varies as the experiment target gets adapted to the environment. 

Not replicable at all, the number and data will be difficult to make if we want to do the same experiment from different perspective. The researchers need to modified if they need to replicate the experiment from different way.

Social media technology has changed so incredibly quickly. 

Is it possible, the replicability is extremely important in the hard science. In social science, the point of replicability is not the same outcome compared to the hard science. Not everyone sharing the same experiences when making the same experiment. Cultural and social difference can vary from different targets. We need to think through the issue, an unquestioned topic of replicability ground-shaking theory of replicability in psychological research. When it comes to the ground fact, it is important to know the definition of replicability. As the cultural phenomenon, the result is not replicable. Every research is influenced in this regard.

Design driven research is “try and error” which has to be tested more while the normal research is much more structured and well-organized. 

There are three processes of doing the design research: studying interaction, implementing/ testing and design/judgment. In the methods from behavior science, we need to conduct the questionnaires, observations, interviews, video analysis and lab/field studies. In the engineering methods, developing and testing technical solutions are essential for interactive settings. At last, regarding the design/ judgment, interaction criticism, research through design and studying design practice are extremely crucial core concepts during the research. 

In the interactive system. we have to focus on human aspects, design practices, design methods, usability and experience and real use practices. However, we cannot neglect the importance of human aspects with implications for design such as cognitive abilities, culture, emotions, physical bodies, and social behavior. Also, investigations into different ways that usability and user experience can understood and evaluated. Methods focusing on two ways: Measuring, e.g. controlled experiments, observations, interviews, questionnaires, diaries, and sensors. The other is interpreting, e.g. Interaction criticism, grounding in humanities and cultural studies such as expert reviews of interactive products.

There are some ways regarding the design as approach to research: constructive actives as core method of investigation, and materialization with a focus on materiality and the technological circumstances regarding how it affects gestalt, interaction and user activity. Design work and research is tied to historical, local, and specific contexts. The last one is disciplinary which grounds and feeds back to, extending the theory specific to the field of interaction design.