Re: Who is in favour of empirical research approach?

Wow!!
EXCELLENT feedback.
Thank you all for the generosity.

--------------------------------------

I suspect that there is another (maybe is the same) interesting debate
involving:

(1) information designers who know how to design materials that deserves to
be tested,
but do not (or reject to) know how  to design statistically based
experiments to test them,

and

(2) empirical researchers who know how to calculate if there is
statistically significant difference between materials,
but who does not know how to design (or select) materials that can be
considered as good enough by designers,

My personal challenge as a researcher (and teacher) is to find a reasonable
compromise between
both competencies. I am doing my best so...

I have learned from my experience as a PhD researcher that the
so called "design thinking" should not be restricted to
the design of information design artefacts.
The real challenge is to apply design thinking to the
of design experiments that compares those artefacts.

One possible path is
(1) to compare "design artifacts" that are recognised (or celebrated) as
good responses to a specific problem,
and, if "statistically significant" difference is found
(2) to Iook for theories that explain those results.
It can be the other way around so.
As Jorge has pointed out:
what really matters is to find WHY something seems to be better
in the artificial (and rather limited) experimental context.

But, I can advance that to every reasonable explanation in favour of "Design
A",
I can find an opposite (and quite reasonable too) explanation in favour of
"Design B".
These contrasting views teach us about the
possible scenarios in which A would be better than B and vice-versa.
For me, this continuous re-thinking and re-contextualization of apparently
effective designs
IS the core of the so called design research.

José.


On 6 March 2010 18:35, Rob Waller <[email protected]> wrote:

> The debate about empirical research rather easily descends into a fight
> between "it's just your opinion" (scientists about designers) and "you don't
> understand the real world" (designers about scientists).
>
> A version of this debate has been going on as long as I can remember, and
> before.
>
> From 1965: ‘Before scientific research, printers and type designers were
> concerned mainly with the esthetic appearance of the printed page. This
> preoccupation with esthetics, together with considerations of economy and
> tradition, dominated all typography until about 1920. As a result of these
> obstructive emphases, a scientific typography has been slow in developing.
> Indeed, the printing industry continues to resist procedural changes
> suggested by experimental findings.’ Miles Tinker (1965) Bases for Effective
> Reading, University of Minneapolis Press, page 115.
> From 1982: ‘[the technology of text] exists as a counterpoint to the
> artistic and unsystematic approach to text design and layout that has
> prevailed since petroglyphs were first inscribed on walls’. David Jonassen
> (1982) The Technology of Text, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology
> Publications, page x.
>
> On the other hand...
>
> From 1931: ‘[the univariate research design] is good experimental
> technique. It is an article of faith among investigators. Yet it won’t work
> in the way it has been applied to typography unless one is prepared to go to
> very unusual lengths with it.’ Buckingham BR (1931) ‘New data on the
> typography of textbooks’ , Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
> Education, 30, page 104.
>
> From 1975: ‘No one, in our opinion, can possibly predict all the variables
> that might interact with the one chosen for experimentation. And even if a
> comprehensive list of variables could (by some magic) be drawn up, the
> permutations would generate millions of experiments – far more than could
> ever be executed… The same mental set that predisposes researchers to choose
> problems that can be neatly handled in a laboratory also inhibits them from
> going outside their circle to see the problems that typographers face in
> practice.’ Macdonald-Ross M & Waller RHW (1975) Criticisms, alternatives and
> tests: a framework for improving typography, Programmed Learning &
> Educational Technology, 12, page 76
>
> __________________________________
>  Rob Waller
> Department of Typography & Graphic Communication
> University of Reading
> T +44 (0) 118 378 6411
> M +44 (0) 7850 665933
>
> On 5 Mar 2010, at 20:00, Jose Marconi Bezerra de Souza wrote:
>
>
> Dear Jorge,
>
> I will try to make myself clear:
>
> I am developing a list of arguments in favour of (or against, if you like)
> empirical research.
> But, I am focused on empirical research that involves statistical analyses
> only.
>
> I am not looking for examples of design practice informed by empirical
> research.
> I agree with you in relation to the "Information Design Journal".
> I made a contribution myself.
>
> How about now? Any specific sugestion?
>
> Many thanks for asking.
>
> José.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
> Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers:
>  [email protected]
>
> To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
>  http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe
>
> For all Information Design matters:
>  http://InformationDesign.org
>
> Problems? Write to:
>  [email protected]
> ___________________________________________________________________
>
>


-- 
José Marconi Bezerra de Souza
Visiting lecturer of Paraná Federal University, Brazil
PhD - Department of Typography & Graphic Communication, The University of
Reading (UK)

___________________________________________________________________

Use the following address to post a message to all subscribers: 
 [email protected]

To subscribe, unsubscribe or change your options, visit:
 http://list.InformationDesign.org/mailman/listinfo/infodesign-cafe

For all Information Design matters:
 http://InformationDesign.org

Problems? Write to:
 [email protected]
___________________________________________________________________