To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Design research

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Design research was originally constituted as primarily research into the process of design, developing from work in design methods, but the concept has been expanded to include research embedded within the process of design, including work concerned with the context of designing and research-based design practice. The concept retains a sense of generality, aimed at understanding and improving design processes and practices quite broadly, rather than developing domain-specific knowledge within any professional field of design.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    89 860
    4 683
    1 010
    10 238
    10 653
  • ✪ Research Design
  • ✪ Research Design, Research Method, Research Methodology and Research Proposal - Key Differences
  • ✪ Research Design, Research Method: What's the Difference? November, 2017
  • ✪ What is a UX Researcher? (i.e. UX Research) #UIUX #Design
  • ✪ UX User Research 101

Transcription

OK SO FIRSTLY BEFORE WE START TO COVER CHAPTER 6 7 & 8 LIKE I AM SUPPOSED TO IN THIS VIDEO, I DO WANT TO QUICKLY TALK ABOUT RESEARCH TYPOLOGY FROM CHAPTER 1 BECAUSE IT IS VERY RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TODAY. ACCORDING TO BROTHERTON, HE SAYS RESEARCH COMES IN THREE FLAVORS: EXPLORATORY, DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY. NOW EXPLORATORY RESEARCH OBVIOUSLY AIMS TO EXPLORE. TYPICALLY WE WANT TO EXPLORE A CERTAIN SUBJECT MATTER ABOUT WHICH WE KNOW NOTHING OR VERY LITTLE. THAT IS WHY PEOPLE EXPLORE. WE WANT TO SURFACE THE KEY ISSUES FROM THE SUBJECT AND FORM A BASIC UNDERSTANDING AS A STARTING POINT FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. AS A RESULT, EXPLORATORY RESEARCH IS USUALLY QUITE QUALITATIVE BECAUSE IN AN EXPLORATORY PHASE THERE IS NO NEED TO BE PRECISE OR ACCURATE AND THAT IS WHY QUANTITATIVE METHODS ARE USUALLY NOT YET APPLICABLE AT THIS POINT. SECOND TYPE OF RESEARCH IS DESCRIPTIVE -- MEANING TO DESCRIBE. WE PERFORM DESCRIPTIVE RESEARCH ON THE SUBJECT MATTERS ABOUT WHICH WE ALREADY KNOW SOMETHING, ABOUT WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING BUT WE WANT TO KNOW MORE. WE WANT TO BE MORE ACCURATE AND PRECISE IN OUR KNOWLEDGE OF IT. WE WANT TO DESCRIBE IT BETTER AND WITH MORE ACCURACY OR MORE DEPTH. THAT IS WHY WE WANT TO PERFORM DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES. AND BECAUSE THE GOAL HERE IS TO DEVELOP BETTER AND MORE ACCURATE UNDERSTANDING OF SOMETHING, DESCRIPTIVE STUDIES ARE GENERALLY SPEAKING QUANTITATIVE. IT CAN BE QUALITATIVE THOUGH IN SOME CASES. THE THIRD AND FINAL RESEARCH TYPE ACCORDING TO BROTHERTON IS EXPLANATORY RESEARCH DEPENDING ON WHAT LITERATURE YOU READ, THIS RESEARCH TYPE IS ALSO SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS CAUSAL RESEARCH OR PREDICTIVE RESEARCH. THERE ARE SOME SLIGHT DIFFERENCES AMONG THEM BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAIR SPLIT HERE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS LITTLE PRESENTATION, THE GENERAL IDEA OF THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH IS TO LOOK AT CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS. IN OTHER WORDS HOW AND WHY WOULD ONE THING CAUSE SOMETHING ELSE TO OCCUR OR CHANGE. THIS TYPE OF RESEARCH IS DIFFICULT TO PERFORM BECAUSE CAUSALITY IS DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH AND CAN USUALLY ONLY BE INFERRED. AND DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF POTENTIAL PREDICTOR VARIABLES THAT ARE ALSO SOMEHOW RELATED TO THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH CAUSALITY WITH ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CERTAINTY. BUT NEVERMIND THAT, LETS SAY FOR NOW THAT EXPLANATORY RESEARCH IS THE KIND OF RESEARCH THAT AIMS TO EXPLAIN CAUSAL RELATIONSHIPS AMONGST VARIABLES. SO LET'S KEEP IN MIND THESE THREE RESEARCH TYPES AS WE NOW START TO TALK ABOUT THE SEVEN RESEARCH DESIGNS THAT BROTHERTON DISCUSSES IN HIS CHAPTER 6. THE SEVEN RESEARCH DESIGNS ARE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN SURVEY DESIGN COMPARATIVE DESIGN CASE STUDY DESIGN OBSERVATIONAL DESIGN ACTION RESEARCH DESIGN AND MIXED METHOD DESIGN. EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ARE PERFORMED TO EXAMINE CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS. THE IDEA BEHIND THIS RESEARCH DESIGN IS TO HAVE A CONTROL CONDITION VERSUS AN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION OR A FEW EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS SO THAT THE DIFFERENCES AMOUNT OF VARIOUS CONDITIONS CAN BE IDENTIFIED WHICH WILL ENABLE RESEARCHERS TO INFER CAUSALITY. FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WANT TO KNOW IF A TEACHER'S ATTITUDE HAS ANY EFFECT ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE, WE WILL NEED TO SET UP AT LEAST TWO CONDITIONS: A CONTROL CONDITION IN WHICH A TEACHER TEACHES WITH A COOL CALM COLLECTED ATTITUDE AND AN EXPERIMENTAL CONDITION IN WHICH THE SAME TEACHER TEACHES WITH MUCH ENTHUSIASM AND PASSION. THEN AFTER A SEMESTER OR SO WE MEASURE THE POTENTIAL DIFFERENCES IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE BETWEEN THE TWO CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO INFER WHETHER CAUSALITY EXISTS. AS SUCH, EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES ARE GENERALLY PERFORMED IN THE NAME OF CAUSAL OR PREDICTIVE OR EXPLANATORY RESEARCH. THE SECOND RESEARCH DESIGN FROM THIS CHAPTER IS SURVEY DESIGN. THE KEY IDEA BEHIND THIS RESEARCH DESIGN IS TO USE A STANDARDIZED INSTRUMENT TO COLLECT STANDARDIZED DATA FROM A LARGE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS. RESEARCHERS CAN USE TELEPHONE-BASED SURVEYS OR INTERNET-BASED SURVEYS OR QUESTIONNAIRE BASED SURVEYS. BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT MEDIUM OR CHANNEL THE RESEARCHER USES, THE IDEA HERE IS TO COLLECT RATHER STANDARDIZED DATA FROM A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE. SURVEY STUDIES ARE USUALLY PERFORMED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES. IN OTHER WORDS WE WOULD TYPICALLY SURVEY PEOPLE IN ORDER TO DESCRIBE SOMETHING. THE IMPLICATION OF THIS PROCESS CAN BE EXPLORATORY OR EVEN CAUSAL, BUT THE PROCESS ITSELF IS USUALLY DESCRIPTIVE BY NATURE. THE THIRD RESEARCH DESIGN IS COMPARATIVE DESIGN. THIS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD THE IDEA IS TO COMPARE ONE THING TO SOMETHING ELSE. RESEARCHERS MAY WANT TO COMPARE THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE BETWEEN DUTCH AND GERMAN STUDENTS IN OUR SCHOOL. OR PERHAPS THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF STUDENT SATISFACTION BETWEEN CHINESE AND EU STUDENTS IN OUR FACULTY. BROTHERTON CALLS THIS KIND OF RESEARCH COMPARATIVE RESEARCH. THIS RESEARCH DESIGN IS GENERALLY DESCRIPTIVE. THE FOURTH RESEARCH DESIGN IS CASE STUDY ACCORDING TO BROTHERTON A CASE STUDY IS USUALLY EXPLORATORY AND QUALITATIVE. IT IS CALLED A CASE STUDY BECAUSE THE STUDY IS PERFORMED ON A PARTICULAR CASE -- AND BY CASE WE TYPICALLY MEAN AN ORGANIZATION. BECAUSE CASE STUDY IS PERFORMED IN JUST ONE ORGANIZATION, THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY MAY NOT GENERALIZE TO OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, INDUSTRIES, OR GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS. HOWEVER, AS CASE STUDIES ARE MOST OF THE TIME EXPLORATORY IN NATURE, GENERALIZABILITY IS USUALLY NOT IN MAIN CONSIDERATION ANYWAY, SO IT'S ALL GOOD. RESEARCH DESIGN NUMBER 5, OBSERVATION DESIGN, THIS BASICALLY MEANS THE RESEARCHER WILL COLLECT DATA BY LOOKING AT THINGS. OBSERVATION CAN BE COVERT OR OVERT, QUANTITATIVE OR QUALITATIVE, PERFORMED MERELY AS AN OBSERVER OR AS A PARTICIPANT, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU THINK IS BEST AND WHAT YOUR RESEARCH CALLS FOR, THE RESEARCHER CAN CHOOSE ALL THESE DIFFERENT FORMATS OF OBSERVATION. THE OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH DESIGN CAN BE USED FOR ALL THREE RESEARCH TYPES -- EXPLORATORY, DESCRIPTIVE, AND EXPLANATORY. RESEARCH DESIGN NUMBER 6 ACTION RESEARCH THIS RESEARCH DESIGN INVOLVES THE RESEARCH TAKING CERTAIN ACTIONS WITHIN AN ORGANIZATION. FOR EXAMPLE A RESEARCHER IMPLEMENTS A CERTAIN PROMOTIONAL CAMPAIGN AND THEN MEASURES THE EFFECTS OF IT IN TERMS OF REVENUES GENERATED. THIS IS BIT OF A TRICKY RESEARCH DESIGN BECAUSE THE RESEARCHER WOULD GENERALLY WANT TO PRESENT THE STUDY AS BOTH DESCRIPTIVE AND CAUSAL. OBVIOUSLY IF I WANT TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING IN AN ORGANIZATION AND THEN WRITE IT UP AS A RESEARCH STUDY, I WOULD NATURALLY WANT TO DESCRIBE HOW THE IMPLEMENTATION WENT. BUT USUALLY I WOULD ALSO WANT TO MAKE THIS CAUSAL CLAIM -- SAYING BECAUSE OF THIS IMPLEMENTATION, THERE WAS THIS OUTCOME. BUT AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, CAUSALITY IS IN FACT QUITE DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH, SO AN ACTION RESEARCH DESIGN IS ALSO SOMETIMES REFERRED TO AS A LIVE EXPERIMENT, ACCORDING TO BROTHERTON, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT IS NOT A STRICT EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. FINALLY THE LAST RESEARCH DESIGN FROM THIS CHAPTER -- MIXED-METHOD DESIGN. BY DEFINITION, IT MEANS A STUDY IN WHICH DIFFERENT DATA COLLECTION METHODS ARE USED OR DIFFERENT RESEARCH DESIGNS ARE COMBINED. THIS IS ALSO A RESEARCH DESIGN THAT NEEDS TO BE APPROACHED CAUTIOUSLY, ESPECIALLY FOR BACHELOR'S STUDENTS. BECAUSE THINK ABOUT IT, WHY WOULD I WANT TO COMBINE DIFFERENT COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF DATA PROBABLY FROM DIFFERENT POPULATIONS AND SAMPLES IN JUST ONE STUDY. OR EVEN MORE COMPLICATED, WHY WOULD I WANT TO COMBINE MULTIPLE RESEARCH DESIGNS IN JUST ONE STUDY? IF I TRULY HAVE A NEED TO DO SO, WHY DON'T I JUST DESIGN AND PERFORM A SERIES OF STUDIES WITH EACH ONE HAVING A CLEAR SCOPE AND USING A CLEAR METHODOLOGY? SO JUST LIKE THE ACTION RESEARCH DESIGN, THIS MIXED METHOD DESIGN IS ALSO BIT OF A TRICKY ONE SO IF YOU THINK YOU WANT TO USE THIS RESEARCH DESIGN FOR YOUR BACHELOR'S DISSERTATION, I THINK YOU SHOULD TALK TO YOUR ADVISOR TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS RESEARCH DESIGN IS TRULY NEEDED. SO THERE YOU GO THESE ARE THE THREE RESEARCH TYPES AND THE SEVEN RESEARCH DESIGNS BASED ON THE BROTHERTON BOOK. IN CHAPTER 7 OF THE BROTHERTEN BOOK HE PRESENTS FOUR MAIN DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS THE FIRST ONE IS SURVEY. RESEARCHERS CAN USE DIFFERENT KINDS OF SURVEYS TELEPHONE-BASED SURVEYS, INTERNET-BASED SURVEYS, OR QUESTIONNAIRES BASED SURVEYS BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE MEDIUM OR CHANNEL THE RESEARCHER USES, THE IDEA BEHIND SURVEYS IS TO USE A RATHER STANDARDIZED INSTRUMENT TO COLLECT RATHER STANDARDIZED DATA FROM A RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. SO WHEN WE BUILD A SURVEY, WE NEED TO CONSIDER THE KIND OF QUESTIONS OR ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE PUT INTO IT. GENERALLY SPEAKING, SURVEYS CONTAIN MOSTLY CLOSED QUESTIONS, YES OR NO QUESTIONS, MULTIPLE CHOICE ITEMS, OR LIKERT SCALE QUESTIONS. THERE ARE TWO MAIN REASONS FOR USING THESE TYPES OF QUESTIONS AND ITEMS IN A SURVEY. FIRST, SURVEYS ARE USED TO COLLECT MOSTLY QUANTITATIVE DATA. BECAUSE SURVEYING IS PRIMARILY USED FOR DESCRIPTIVE PURPOSES, AS A RESULT, WE DESCRIBE SOMETHING, WE GENERALLY HAVE THE INTENTION OF BEING ACCURATE AND PRECISE. AND AS SUCH, QUANTITATIVE MEASURABLE DATA IS A GOOD CHOICE. SECOND, FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, PROBABLY NO ONE WILL BOTHER TO WRITE LENGTHY ANSWERS IN A SURVEY FOR YOU. IF SOMEBODY HANDS ME A SURVEY AND IT CONTAINS OPEN QUESTIONS TO WHICH I MUST WRITE LONG BIG ESSAY TYPE OF ANSWERS, WELL SCREW THAT PERSON, I AM SIMPLY NOT GOING TO BOTHER TO FILL IT OUT. SO AS A RESULT OF BOTH THEORETICAL AND OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, SURVEYS TYPICALLY USE CLOSED QUESTIONS THAT RESPONDENTS CAN ANSWER RELATIVELY EASILY AND QUICKLY THERE ARE A FEW IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS WHEN MAKING SURVEY QUESTIONS OR ITEMS: FIRST, OFFERING GRADATIONS IS USUALLY BETTER THAN JUST YES OR NO. INSTEAD OF ASKING DO YOU LIKE THIS OR DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS STATEMENT OR NOT, WE CAN BETTER ASK TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU LIKE SOMETHING OR TO WHAT DEGREE DO YOU AGREE WITH A CERTAIN STATEMENT AND THEN OFFER A LIKERT SCALE. NOT ONLY SUCH ANSWERS WILL MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT THE OPINION AND THE PERCEPTION OF THE RESPONDENT, THEY ALSO OFFER MORE POSSIBILITIES IN TERMS OF DATA ANALYTICAL METHODS. ANOTHER CONSIDERATION FOR CREATING SURVEY ITEMS IS REALLY JUST TO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. FOR INSTANCE, IF THE PHRASEOLOGY OF THE SURVEY ITEMS ARE HIGHLY LEADING OR REALLY PROVOCATIVE, THEN WE CAN ALMOST BE CERTAIN THAT THE RESPONDENTS WON'T BE ABLE TO PROVIDE US WITH HIGHLY RELIABLE DATA. ALSO, SOMETIMES I COME ACROSS SURVEYS WITH MULTIPLE CHOICE ITEMS BUT THE MULTIPLE CHOICES DO NOT EVEN INCLUDE ALL THE POSSIBILITIES THAT MAY EXIST. FOR EXAMPLE -- IF THEY ASK ME DO YOU DRINK WATER OR DO YOU DRINK WINE WITH DINNER? WELL WHAT IF I DRINK BEER WHICH IS NOT EVEN INCLUDED AS AN OPTION. SO REALLY A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS THAT THIS CHAPTER OFFERS ARE JUST COMMON SENSE. SO USE YOUR COMMON SENSE. THE SECOND DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT THIS CHAPTER DISCUSSES IS INTERVIEWING. INTERVIEWS CAN BE STRUCTURED, SEMI STRUCTURED, OR UNSTRUCTURED. BROTHERTON ALSO CATEGORIZES FOCUS GROUPS UNDER INTERVIEWING IN THIS CHAPTER. IF SURVEYS ARE TYPICALLY USED TO COLLECT STANDARDIZED QUANTITATIVE DATA, INTERVIEW IS PRETTY MUCH ON THE OTHER END OF THE SPECTRUM. INTERVIEWS ARE TYPICALLY USED TO COLLECT QUALITATIVE DATA. CONSEQUENTLY - DURING INTERVIEWS ONLY OR MOSTLY OPEN QUESTIONS WILL BE ASKED. INSTEAD OF ASKING - DO YOU LIKE RESEARCH? WE SHOULD BE ASKING WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT RESEARCH? CAN YOU TALK ABOUT WHAT RESEARCH MEANS TO YOU? WHAT IS YOUR OPINION REGARDING DOING RESEARCH AS A BACHELORS' STUDENT ETC. BECAUSE QUALITATIVE DATA COLLECTION IS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH EXPLORATORY RESEARCH WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN GETTING JUST A YES OR NO ANSWER OR LIKERT SCALE ANSWER. WE WANT TO TRIGGER QUALITATIVE ANSWERS - PREVIOUSLY UNKNOWN PERSPECTIVES. WE WANT TO LET NEW ISSUES SURFACE THROUGH INTERVIEWING. THAT IS WHY WE WANT TO ASK OPEN QUESTIONS WE WANT TO ASK FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. WE ASK CLARIFICATIONS. WE ASK RESPONDENTS TO TELL US MORE. TO EXPLAIN AND ELABORATE FURTHER. THAT THAT IS THE GOAL OF INTERVIEWING. THE THIRD DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT THIS CHAPTER TALKS ABOUT IS OBSERVATION. RESEARCHERS CAN CONDUCT OBSERVATION IN DIFFERENT MANNERS -- COVERT OR OVERT, QUALITATIVE OR QUANTITATIVE, AS A MERE OBSERVER AS A PARTICIPANT, IN A CONTROLLED LAB SETTING OR IN THE FIELD. AS THE RESEARCHERS TYPICALLY CONDUCT THE OBSERVATION THEMSELVES, THEY CAN EASILY DETERMINE HOW BEST THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE DONE IN LINE WITH THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF A PARTICULAR RESEARCH STUDY, AS SUCH OBSERVATION IS QUITE A VERSATILE DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT WHICH CAN BE USED IN ALL RESEARCH TYPES, EXPLORATORY, DESCRIPTIVE, AND CAUSAL. THE FINAL DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT OF THIS CHAPTER DISCUSSES IS PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUES. SO THE IDEA HERE IS TO SHOW OR PROJECT SOME KIND OF STIMULUS, EITHER VAGUE OR RATHER EXPLICIT, TO THE RESPONDENT AND YOU ASK THE RESPONDENT TO RESPOND TO THAT STIMULUS. FOR INSTANCE IF I SHOW YOU AN IMAGE OF SOME SORT AND ASK YOU TO ASSOCIATE IT WITH A HOSPITALITY RELATED EXPERIENCE AND THEN ASK YOU TO DESCRIBE THAT EXPERIENCE, THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PROJECTIVE TECHNIQUE. THE BROTHERTON BOOK PRESENTS THIS INSTRUMENT AS TYPICALLY USED FOR COLLECTING QUALITATIVE DATA AND MENTIONS FIVE MAIN TYPES OF USAGE OF THIS INSTRUMENT -- ASSOCIATE, SHOW A STIMULUS AND ASK RESPONDENTS TO ASSOCIATED WITH SOMETHING. COMPLETION, SHOW THE RESPONDENTS STIMULUS THAT IS INCOMPLETE AND ASK THEM TO COMPLETE IT. CONSTRUCTION, ASK RESPONDENTS TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING ON THE BASIS OF THE STIMULUS SHOWN. EXPRESSIVE, ASK THE RESPONDENTS TO EXPRESS THEIR FEELINGS AND EMOTIONS ON THE BASIS OF THE STIMULUS SHOWN. AND CHOICE ORDERING, ASK THE RESPONDENT TO ORDER THE SHOWN STIMULUS ON THE BASIS OF IMPORTANCE OR PREFERENCE OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF CRITERION. SO FOR THE PURPOSE OF YOUR OWN BACHELOR DISSERTATION IN YEAR FOUR, I MAY HAVE MANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU TO CONSIDER REGARDING HOW YOU WANT TO BEST CHOOSE A DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO MENTION ONE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE AND THAT IS CHOOSE JUST ONE INSTRUMENT. I AM NOT A BIG SUPPORTER OF MIXED-METHOD DESIGNS PARTICULARLY IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A BACHELOR'S DISSERTATION. I AM OF THE OPINION THAT EACH RESEARCH STUDY SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR SCOPE, ONE STUDY SHOULD BE ABOUT ONE THING. A STUDY SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING WHERE THE RESEARCHER HAS TO COLLECT ALL SORTS OF DATA USING ALL KINDS OF INSTRUMENTS. BECAUSE IF STUDY WERE LIKE THAT, I CAN PRETTY MUCH GUARANTEE YOU THAT THEIR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS WILL BE ALL VAGUE AND UNCLEAR BECAUSE THE STUDY LIKE THAT WILL TYPICALLY LACK FOCUS AND SCOPE. SO IF YOUR STUDY IS LIKE THAT THAT YOU REALLY SHOULD THINK ABOUT NARROWING THINGS DOWN. AND NOW WE MOVE ON TO CHAPTER 8 -- THE LAST CHAPTER THAT I NEED TO COVER IN THIS VIDEO. WE START BY DEFINING POPULATION, SAMPLE, AND SAMPLING. SIMPLY PUT, A RESEARCH POPULATION REFERS TO ALL THE PEOPLE ABOUT WHOM WE WANT TO DRAW OUR CONCLUSIONS, A SAMPLE IS THE GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM WITHIN THAT POPULATION FROM WHO WE ACTUALLY COLLECT DATA, AND SAMPLING REFERS TO THE PROCESS THROUGH WHICH WE DRAW THE SAMPLE OUT OF THE POPULATION. FOR INSTANCE IF MY MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION IS WHAT DO HOTEL SCHOOL STUDENTS IN LEEUWARDEN THINK ABOUT PBL, THEN OBVIOUSLY THE RESEARCH POPULATION WOULD BE ALL THE HOTEL SCHOOL STUDENTS IN LEEUWARDEN, WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 2,000 PEOPLE. FOR MY STUDY I WILL ONLY COLLECT DATA FROM 200 STUDENTS, THEN THESE 200 STUDENTS WILL BE MY SAMPLE, AND THE PROCESS OR PROCEDURE THROUGH WHICH I CHOOSE THE 200 STUDENTS OUT OF THE 2,000 IS KNOWN AS SAMPLING. THERE ARE TWO MAIN CATEGORIES OF SAMPLING PROCEDURES: PROBABILITY SAMPLING AND NON-PROBABILITY SAMPLING. AND FOR EACH WE HAVE THREE EXAMPLES. WITH PROBABILITY SAMPLING, WE AS THE RESEARCHERS GUARANTEE THAT EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT FROM THE POPULATION WILL STAND THE SAME CHANCE OR THE SAME PROBABILITY OF BEING CHOSEN AT THE SAMPLE -- HENCE THE TERM PROBABILITY SAMPLING. IN NON-PROBABILITY SAMPLING PROCEDURES, OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T BOTHER WITH GUARANTEEING EQUAL PROBABILITY. BY THIS DEFINITION, PROBABILITY SAMPLING IS ALWAYS MORE COMPLEX AND PERHAPS MORE DIFFICULT TO PERFORM BECAUSE WE AS THE RESEARCHERS HAVE THE DUTY OF GUARANTEEING EQUAL PROBABILITY. THE BOOK TALKS ABOUT 4 PROBABILITY SAMPLING PROCEDURES AND WE'RE GOING TO RUN THROUGH THE THREE MOST COMMONLY USED ONES. THE FIRST ONE IS SIMPLE RANDOM SAMPLING PROCEDURE -- MEANING WE ESTABLISH A SIMPLE PROCEDURE TO GUARANTEE EQUAL PROBABILITY. FOR EXAMPLE IF I HAVE A POPULATION OF 100 AND I NEED A SAMPLE OF 20, I CAN PUT THE 100 NAMES INTO A JAR, SHAKE THEM UP, AND PICK OUT 20 NAMES WITH MY EYES CLOSED. THROUGH THIS SIMPLE PROCEDURE, WE CAN REASONABLY GUARANTEE THAT PERSONAL BIAS DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL AND THAT 20 NAMES THAT ARE PICKED OUT ARE PICKED OUT PURELY BY CHANCE. THE SECOND IS SYSTEMATIC RANDOM -- THIS PROCEDURE SAYS THAT WE TAKE THE POPULATION SIZE AND / THE DESIRED SAMPLE SIZE AS SUCH WE CALCULATE THE SKIP INTERVAL. WE PICK A RANDOM STARTING POINT FROM WITHIN THE POPULATION SKIP THE AMOUNT OF SUBJECT AS IDENTIFIED THROUGH THE SKIP INTERVAL AND PICK THE NEXT SUBJECT. MATHEMATICALLY AFTER WE HAVE RUN THROUGH THE ENTIRE POPULATION WE WOULD HAVE SELECTED THE SAMPLE SIZE THAT WE DESIRE. THE THIRD PROBABILITY SAMPLING PROCEDURE IS STRATIFIED RANDOM -- THIS IS TO ENSURE THAT WHATEVER SUBGROUPS THAT EXISTS IN THE POPULATION WILL BE RETAINED IN THE SAMPLE. FOR EXAMPLE IF WE KNOW THE GENDER DISTRIBUTION IN THE POPULATION IS 80 20 MALE FEMALE AND WE WANT THIS TO BE RETAINED IN THE SAMPLE, WE WOULD NEED TO CREATE TWO STRATA OR TWO SUBGROUPS, ONE OF MALES AND ONE OF FEMALES, SO ESSENTIALLY WE BREAK THE POPULATION DOWN INTO TWO SUB POPULATIONS AND SAMPLE THEM PROPORTIONATELY, SO THAT THE GENDER DISTRIBUTION THAT EXISTS IN THE POPULATION WILL ALSO EXIST IN THE SELECTED SAMPLE, THIS CHAPTER ALSO PRESENTS A FEW NON-PROBABILITY SAMPLING PROCEDURES, THE FIRST IS CONVENIENT SAMPLE. THIS BASICALLY MEANS THAT THE RESEARCHER TAKES A SAMPLE BASED ON CONSIDERATIONS OF WHAT IS EASY AND CONVENIENT. IF I NEED 10 PEOPLE AS A SAMPLE AND I HAPPEN TO HAVE 10 PEOPLE IN THIS CLASS, I CAN JUST TAKE THESE 10 PEOPLE THAT AS A CONVENIENCE SAMPLE. NOW IS THIS SAMPLE TRULY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION? WELL I DON'T CARE. IS THAT OK? SURE IT IS OKAY IN SOME SITUATIONS -- IF YOUR POPULATION IS VERY HOMOGENEOUS OR IF REPRESENTATIVENESS IS SIMPLY NOT A MAJOR CONCERN FOR YOU LIKE IN CERTAIN EXPLORATORY STUDIES, THEN A CONVENIENCE SAMPLE IS PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE. THE SECOND ONE IS CALLED JUDGMENTAL SAMPLING -- THIS MEANS THE RESEARCHER WILL SET UP A LIST OF CRITERIA AND THEN JUDGE WHO HE OR SHE WANTS TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE SAMPLE FOR A SPECIFIC STUDY. FOR EXAMPLE, IF MY STUDY CALLS FOR COLLECTING DATA FROM INDIVIDUALS MUST FULFILL A CERTAIN COMBINATION OF CHARACTERISTICS OR EXPERIENCES, THEN JUDGMENTAL SAMPLING MIGHT BE VERY USEFUL. THE THIRD ONE IS CALLED SNOWBALL SAMPLING OR SNOWBALLING. ESSENTIALLY THIS MEANS IF I CAN LOCATE ONE PERSON WHO WOULD QUALIFY TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF SAMPLE, I WILL ASK HIM OR HER TO INTRODUCE ME TO MORE PEOPLE LIKE HIM OR HER WHO MIGHT ALSO BE ABLE TO FULFILL THE CRITERIA THAT I HAVE SET FORTH FOR SELECTING THE SAMPLE. SO THERE YOU GO, IN THIS VIDEO WE HAVE DISCUSSED THREE RESEARCH TYPE, 7 RESEARCH DESIGNS, 4 DATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTS AND SIX SAMPLING PROCEDURES. WITH THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS VIDEO I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO READ THROUGH THREE CHAPTERS IN THE BROTHERTON BOOK AND WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS YOUR QUESTIONS, REMARKS AND COMMENTS IN THE UPCOMING LECTURES AND WORKSHOPS. THANKS FOR WATCHING.

Contents

Origins

Design Research emerged as a recognisable field of study in the 1960s, initially marked by a conference on Design methods[1] at Imperial College London, in 1962. It led to the founding of the Design Research Society (DRS) in 1966. John Christopher Jones (one of the initiators of the 1962 conference) founded a postgraduate Design Research Laboratory at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, and L. Bruce Archer supported by Misha Black founded the postgraduate Department of Design Research at the Royal College of Art, London, becoming the first Professor of Design Research.[2]

The Design Research Society has always stated its aim as: ‘to promote the study of and research into the process of designing in all its many fields’. Its purpose therefore is to act as a form of learned society, taking a scholarly and domain independent view of the process of designing.

Some of the origins of design methods and design research lay in the emergence after the 2nd World War of operational research methods and management decision-making techniques, the development of creativity techniques in the 1950s, and the beginnings of computer programs for problem solving in the 1960s. A statement by Bruce Archer[3] encapsulated what was going on: ‘The most fundamental challenge to conventional ideas on design has been the growing advocacy of systematic methods of problem solving, borrowed from computer techniques and management theory, for the assessment of design problems and the development of design solutions.’ Herbert A. Simon[4] established the foundations for ‘a science of design’, which would be ‘a body of intellectually tough, analytic, partly formalizable, partly empirical, teachable doctrine about the design process.’

Early work

Early work was mainly within the domains of architecture and industrial design, but research in engineering design developed strongly in the 1980s; for example, through ICED—the series of International Conferences on Engineering Design, now run by The Design Society. These developments were especially strong in Germany and Japan. In the USA there were also some important developments in design theory and methodology, including the publications of the Design Methods Group and the series of conferences of the Environmental Design Research Association. The National Science Foundation initiative on design theory and methods led to substantial growth in engineering design research in the late-1980s. A particularly significant development was the emergence of the first journals of design research. DRS initiated Design Studies in 1979, Design Issues appeared in 1984, and Research in Engineering Design in 1989.

Development

The development of design research has led to the establishment of design as a coherent discipline of study in its own right, based on the view that design has its own things to know and its own ways of knowing them. Bruce Archer again encapsulated the view in stating his new belief that ‘there exists a designerly way of thinking and communicating that is both different from scientific and scholarly ways of thinking and communicating, and as powerful as scientific and scholarly methods of enquiry when applied to its own kinds of problems’.[5] This view was developed further in a series of papers by Nigel Cross, collected as a book on 'Designerly Ways of Knowing'.[6][7] Significantly, Donald Schön[8] promoted the new view within his book The Reflective Practitioner, in which he challenged the technical rationality of Simon and sought to establish ‘an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which [design and other] practitioners bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness and value conflict’.

Design research ‘came of age’ in the 1980s, and has continued to expand. This was helped by the development of a research base, including doctoral programmes, within many of the design schools located within new institutions that were previously art colleges, and the emergence of new areas such as interaction design. More new journals have appeared, such as The Design Journal, the Journal of Design Research, CoDesign and more recently Design Science. There has also been a major growth in conferences, with not only a continuing series by DRS, but also series such as Design Thinking, Doctoral Education in Design, Design Computing and Cognition, Design and Emotion, the European Academy, the Asian Design Conferences, etc. Design research now operates on an international scale, acknowledged in the cooperation of DRS with the Asian design research societies in the founding in 2005 of the International Association of Societies of Design Research.

Further reading

  • Bayazit, N (2004). "Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research". Design Issues, 20(1), 16–29. doi:10.1162/074793604772933739
  • Blessing, L. T. M. & Chakrabarti, A. (2009). DRM, a Design Research Methodology. London: Springer.
  • Baxter, K., & Courage, C. (2005). Understanding Your Users: A Practical Guide to User Requirements Methods, Tools, and Techniques. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Cross, N. (ed.) (1984). Developments in Design Methodology. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Curedale, R. (2013). Design Research Methods: 150 Ways to Inform Design. Topanga, CA: Design Community College Inc.
  • Faste, T., & Faste, H. (2012). "Demystifying 'design research': design is not research, research is design". In IDSA Education Symposium (Vol. 2012, p. 15).
  • Höger, H. (ed.) (2008). Design Research: Strategy Setting to Face the Future. Milan: Abitare Segesta.
  • Koskinen, I., Zimmerman, J., Binder, T., Redstrom, J., & Wensveen, S. (2011). Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab, Field, and Showroom. Waltham, MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
  • Krippendorff, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton, FA: CRC Press.
  • Kumar, V. (2012). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in Your Organization. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  • Laurel, B. (2003). Design Research: Methods and Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2014). "Probes, toolkits and prototypes: three approaches to making in codesigning". CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 10(1), 5–14. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.888183

See also

References

  1. ^ Jones, J C and D G Thornley (eds) (1963) Conference on Design Methods, Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press
  2. ^ DRS2016 Online Exhibition http://www.drs2016.org/exhibition/#ddr1
  3. ^ Archer, Leonard Bruce (1965). Systematic Method for Designers. London: Council of Industrial Design. OCLC 2108433.
  4. ^ Simon, Herbert Alexander (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Karl Taylor Compton lectures. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press. OCLC 4087.
  5. ^ Archer, Leonard Bruce (1979). "Whatever Became of Design Methodology?". Design Studies. 1 (1): 17–20. ISSN 0142-694X.
  6. ^ Cross, Nigel (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer. ISBN 978-1-84628-300-0. OCLC 63186849.
  7. ^ Cross, Nigel (2007) [2006]. Designerly Ways of Knowing. Basel [u.a.]: Birkhäuser. ISBN 978-3-7643-8484-5. OCLC 255922654.
  8. ^ Schön, Donald Schön (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-06874-6. OCLC 8709452.
This page was last edited on 9 December 2018, at 02:42
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.