Theme 5, Blog Post 2: Design Research

Prior to the lecture I had no idea neither what Research through Design (RtD) was, nor even that such a thing exists. Moreover, technology and I are not the best of friends, so it was very difficult for me to understand the questions we had to answer in our first blog post. But here’s what I learned last week:

RtD is a research approach in which the design process per se is a method for acquiring knowledge. RtD is different from other research methods in that its end product is a design artifact, which embodies a researcher’s thinking and the knowledge acquired in the design process. Moreover, Christopher Frayling, who coined the term in 1993, explains that the goal of RtD is not to acquire or create knowledge that can be verbally communicated, but rather experienced (hence, the design proposal or product is empirical data at its purest), which, I think, renders design work a very superior form of knowledge contribution, because our experience of the design artifact adds greatly to our perception and imagination. Especially given Bengt Molander’s (whom Lundström mentioned during the seminar) idea of knowledge as something that draws attention to something previously unknown.

RtD can be used to explore the interaction between people and an artifact; to propose a better design for an existing piece of technology; or to explore and improve a design process itself. Like in quantitative research methods, the design product of RtD is tightly linked to theory. The way every element of the design product is, as well as how the researcher changes the product throughout the design process, is grounded in theory – the theory is also embodied in the design proposal or product. Nonetheless, I think that the textual discussion and explanation of the theoretical framework behind a design product is extremely important and should always accompany that product. Like in art, where you have to be familiar with the times the artist lived in and the thoughts and emotions that inspired him/her, in order to understand his/her work, in RtD it is also very important to be familiar with the designer’s thinking and the theories behind the product, in order to understand the product itself.  

Unlike design in general, RtD is not about aesthetics, but about acquiring and producing knowledge. However, I think it is also somewhat occupied with functionality. Going back to Lundström’s proposal of a differentiated driving range application (Figure 1 from the article), we can see how the knowledge acquired during the research process (what affects the life of an electric car battery) is visualized and distributed in a way that gives ordinary drivers a basic understanding of the factors that influence the battery life, thus, providing them with tools and tips to find their own way of getting from point A to point B – by choosing a specific speed or by turning the heating on/off. Having said that, I find Lundström’s proposal very functional, because it erases previous confusion, it is easy to understand and gives drivers a choice of how to go about their journey.

One of the implications of RtD that I found most interesting is designing a product that challenges existing ways of thinking about the world and opens our minds to relationships we had not previously considered. A good example of this is British/Japanese artist and designer Hiromi Ozaki’s Menstruation machine. The machine is equipped with a “blood” dispensing mechanism and electrodes which trigger contractions in the lower abdomen to simulate the pain and bleeding of a menstruation process. This piece of technology makes menstruation “accessible” to men – they can get some idea of what happens to a woman’s body during menstruation, although the machine cannot imitate the hormonal changes women undergo. The experience of the Menstruation machine can make individual people and society as a whole re/consider questions and norms about gender, technology, culture, etc.

The replicability of a design research was a topic of great confusion in the lecture and seminar group discussions. In our little seminar discussion group we came to the agreement that the methodology of a design research may be replicated, but that does not guarantee the exact same results as before, especially when studying the way people interact with technology. In a study, which does not involve people as research subjects, replicability depends on the researchers’ level of knowledge and skill, the time at which the study is conducted and, thus, the technologies at their disposal. 

Perhaps the researchers were unable to find the same devices used in a study that was conducted 20 years ago and the use of more advanced technology gives the different results? Or, when people are involved and the researchers get access to the technology used in the original study, but get different results, because people’s thinking has changed greatly since? In short, to successfully replicate a study from A to Z, the researchers’ skills, methodology, technology used, and sample population’s thinking, habits and way of life have to be exactly the same as in the original study, which is practically impossible. 

To finish off with a useful laugh, here is knowledge distribution - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b81Cr97ANrk