That's Not Good Science!: An Argument for the Thoughtful Use of Formative Situations in Research through Design

Overview

• This research paper explores the thoughtful use of formative situations in research through design (RTD) methodologies.
• The authors argue that the common critique of "that's not good science!" towards RTD research can be addressed by carefully integrating formative situations into the research process.
• Formative situations are defined as temporary, low-stakes conditions that allow for exploration, experimentation, and feedback gathering during the design process.
• The paper provides a framework and guidance for leveraging formative situations to generate rich insights while maintaining scientific rigor.

Plain English Explanation

The paper discusses an approach called "research through design" (RTD), which involves using the design process itself as a method of research and inquiry. In RTD, designers create prototypes or interactive experiences and study how people interact with them.

However, this approach is sometimes criticized as "not good science" because it may lack the control and repeatability often associated with traditional scientific methods. The authors of this paper argue that this criticism can be addressed by thoughtfully incorporating "formative situations" into the RTD process.

Formative situations are temporary, low-stakes conditions that allow designers to explore ideas, experiment with different concepts, and gather feedback from users. For example, a designer might create a simple prototype and observe how people interact with it in a controlled setting. This allows the designer to learn and iterate on the design without the pressure of creating a fully polished final product.

By using formative situations strategically, the authors suggest that RTD can generate valuable insights while still maintaining scientific rigor. The paper provides a framework and guidance on how to effectively leverage formative situations to support the research goals of an RTD project.

Technical Explanation

The paper presents an argument for the thoughtful integration of "formative situations" into research through design (RTD) methodologies. Formative situations are defined as temporary, low-stakes conditions that allow for exploration, experimentation, and feedback gathering during the design process.

The authors contend that the common critique of "that's not good science!" towards RTD research can be addressed by carefully leveraging formative situations. They propose a framework that outlines how formative situations can be used to generate rich insights while maintaining scientific rigor.

The framework includes several key elements:

1. Establishing the research goals and questions that will guide the formative situations.
2. Designing the formative situations to align with the research objectives, including considerations around participant selection, data collection, and analysis.
3. Integrating the insights from the formative situations into the iterative design process to inform ongoing development.
4. Reflecting on the overall contribution of the formative situations to the broader research project.

Through this framework, the authors demonstrate how formative situations can be a valuable tool for RTD, enabling designers to explore ideas, gather feedback, and refine their work in a rigorous and methodical manner.

Critical Analysis

The paper provides a thoughtful and well-reasoned approach to addressing the common critique of "that's not good science!" towards research through design (RTD) methodologies. The authors make a compelling case for the strategic use of formative situations as a way to generate rich insights while maintaining scientific rigor.

One potential limitation of the framework is that it may require a significant investment of time and resources to design and execute the formative situations effectively. The authors acknowledge this challenge and suggest that researchers need to carefully consider the trade-offs between the depth of insights gained and the effort required.

Additionally, the paper does not delve deeply into how researchers can ensure the validity and reliability of the data collected during the formative situations. While the authors touch on considerations around participant selection and data analysis, further guidance on these critical aspects of the research process could strengthen the framework.

Overall, the paper offers a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the role of design-based research methods in the broader scientific landscape. By providing a structured approach to incorporating formative situations, the authors demonstrate how RTD can be leveraged to generate meaningful and impactful insights.

Conclusion

This research paper presents a compelling argument for the thoughtful use of formative situations in research through design (RTD) methodologies. By carefully integrating these temporary, low-stakes conditions into the research process, the authors suggest that RTD can generate rich insights while maintaining scientific rigor.

The framework outlined in the paper provides a structured approach for leveraging formative situations to support the research goals of an RTD project. This guidance can be particularly valuable for designers and researchers who seek to address the common critique of "that's not good science!" towards design-based research methods.

While the paper acknowledges certain challenges and limitations, it ultimately contributes to the ongoing evolution of RTD as a powerful tool for exploring complex problems, generating innovative solutions, and advancing our understanding of human-centered design.