Philosophical Issues: When design meets research

Strandboulevarden 47 Tel +45 35 27 75 00 DK- 2100 Copenhagen Ø Fax +45 35 77 76 00 Denmark mail@dkds.dk Philosophical issues when design meets research CEPHAD 2010 // The borderland between philosophy and design research // Copenhagen // th th January 26 – 29 , 2010 // Master class session Tariq Andersen // PhD student // Human-Centered Computing, University of Copenhagen // tariq(a)diku.dk Jonas Moll // PhD student // Human-Centered Computing, University of Copenhagen // jonas(a)jermiin.dk Troels Mønsted // PhD student // DTU Management, Technical University of Denmark // trmo(a)man.dtu.dk Introduction to CITH We are three PhD students part of a research collaboration titled Co-Constructing IT and Healthcare (CITH – www.cith.dk) headed by professor Finn Kensing at the University of Copenhagen. The CITH group moreover counts four senior researchers from CBS, DTU, and ITU. We are engaged in a collaborative effort with healthcare professionals at the Copenhagen University Hospital’s Heart Center, local cardiology departments and ICD patients (in short, chronic ill heart patients with an implantable device similar to a pacemaker). The CITH project’s aim is twofold. On the one hand we design, i.e. carry out (design) activities, in order to come up with IT and service solutions for the healthcare network. On the other hand we contribute to research by advancing methods and techniques for design of IT and services in healthcare. The research fields that CITH departs on are: Computer-Supported Collaborative Work (CSCW), Information Systems (IS), Participatory Design (PD), Science and Technology Studies (STS). In short CSCW, IS and STS are multi-disciplinary fields based on research methods coming from sociology, psychology, and anthropology which, as opposed to the classic discipline of design. They take on a focus on analysis, i.e. descriptions of work settings, innovative conceptualizations of the relationship between the “technical” and the “social”, as well as elaborated accounts on problems in social settings (cf. (Schmidt and Bannon 1992; Kensing and Blomberg 1998; Bowker and Star 1999; Dourish 2006)). However, approaches that are experimental, explorative and interventionist (which are somehow closer to the classic discipline of design) are also part of the research conducted in these disciplines. PD differs by including research methods from the arts and by having a focus on solutions and methods of design and research. Design and philosophical discourses within these research disciplines are therefore, to a large extent, a part of philosophies of the social sciences. Epistemological, ontological, and methodological discussions of the clash between e.g. design as research are not elaborated as within the emerging field of Design Research (Cross 1984). Being engaged in “design as research”, we are particularly interested in becoming more knowledgeable and articulate about the philosophical issues when research meets design. 1/3 Copenhagen Working Papers on Design // 2010 // No. 1 // Andersen, Moll & Mønsted Design as research When we frame our research as being driven by design we mean that we employ design as techniques for inquiry. Informed by the insights from our fieldwork we design prototypes to act as probes for further inquiry into issues we find particularly interesting. As an example of this approach we are right now designing a software prototype that is intended to help us gain further insights into the levels of patient engagement. We wish to explore the amount and quality of information ICD-patients are capable and willing to produce as part of their daily routine. By this we use the prototype as a tool to engage in a dialectical relationship with the daily practices of patients as well as with the software as a design material (Schön 1983; Löwgren and Stolterman 2007). This dialectical approach helps us refine our problem statements and hypotheses on how best to improve the treatment and care of ICD patients as well as evolving our practical understanding of possible solutions. Issues of developing contributions through ‘research by design’ The fields of PD, CSCW and STS inform and shape the analytical insights that we employ in our research. However, we deliberately strive to work design methodologically with the field, thereby using design techniques and methods to generate knowledge. We employ design as techniques for research inquiry as well as working from a design-inspired outset, where we use the dialectical design approach to inform and reframe our understanding of the field in iterative moves between design and analysis. By using a design methodological approach we are faced with questions of how analytical insights can be set to embody the characteristic principle and criteria for accountable, academic research, i.e. reliability, validity, and, to a certain extent, generalizability (Kvale 1996). We therefore wish to enter a discussion on how we are able to talk about these concepts when doing research by design – e.g. in terms of validity, how do we ensure consistency between what we set out the study corresponds to what the design prototypes actually explore? How to articulate design epistemology, ontology and methodology? We have recently begun discussing issues that Cross (Cross 2006) questions such as: Is it possible to talk about an epistemology, ontology and methodology that is distinct from philosophies of social sciences and in particular treats design as both a discipline of practice and research? However, Krippendorff (Krippendorff 2007) raises a provocation calling design research an oxymoron (a figure of speech that combines two contradictory terms). Design is concerned with evoking values and improving possible futures. In opposition, research (science) is concerned with value free (objective) knowledge without regard of its utility – as Krippendorff (2007, pp 73) argues: “They pursue unlike epistemologies..”. However, and as an important argument of STS, science is, similar to design also socially constructed (Latour and Woolgar 1986). Science could then be interpreted alongside design as sharing characteristics of the relationship to knowledge production. Combining Cross’ inquiry into design and STS’s inquiry into scientific practice a question arises: “What do designers (we) bring into being as part of the social and/or scientific practice when creating 2/3 Copenhagen Working Papers on Design // 2010 // No. 1 // Andersen, Moll & Mønsted artefacts and/or knowledge?” And moreover adding to the realm of modern healthcare: “What new realities, truths and meanings do we, as the hybrid practitioners of being designresearchers, bring into healthcare?”, and “what kinds of logics and rationales do we enact when doing research by design?” (Berg 1997; Mol 2008). References Berg, M. (1997). Rationalizing medical work decision support techniques and medical practices. Inside technology. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press,. Bowker, G. C. and S. L. Star (1999). Sorting things out : classification and its consequences. Cambridge, Mass. ; London, MIT Press. Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester ; New York, Wiley. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London, Springer. Dourish, P. (2006). Implications for design. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Montréal, Québec, Canada, ACM New York, NY, USA: 541 550 Kensing, F. and J. Blomberg (1998). "Participatory Design: Issues and Concerns." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 7: 167 185. Krippendorff, K. (2007). Design Research, an Oxymoron? Design Research Now. B. o. I. R. i. Design, Birkhäuser Basel: 67 80. Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London, Sage. Latour, B. and S. Woolgar (1986). Laboratory life : the construction of scientific facts. Princeton, N.J, Princeton University Press. Löwgren, J. and E. Stolterman (2007). Thoughtful interaction design : a design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, Mass. ; London, MIT. Mol, A. (2008). The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice, Routledge. Schmidt, K. and L. Bannon (1992). "Taking CSCW seriously." Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Volume 1(Numbers 1 2 / March, 1992): 7 40. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner : how professionals think in action. New York, Basic Books. 3/3 Copenhagen Working Papers on Design // 2010 // No. 1 // Andersen, Moll & Mønsted