Annotated portfolios

Reference: Gaver, B., & Bowers, J. (2012). Annotated portfolios. interactions, 19(4), 40-49.

Abstract: [Note that this paper doesn't have an "abstract", so I'm placing here what I consider one its core paragraphs: "We propose the notion of annotated portfolios as a way to communicate design research. In part, we do this to provide an alternative to accounts that suggest for design to become productive as research, it should engage in some sort of theory formation. While what exactly is meant by theory is not always clear, writers usually have in mind some conceptual machinery that can explain and predict. Experiments test theories. While we do not dispute that sometimes a designed artifact and the experience of its use can have an experimental status, we do not believe this is typically the case in the kind of design research we do in HCI. Accordingly, it is moot whether we want to regard annotated portfolios as a contribution to design theory in HCI, if by theory is meant something with explanatory and predictive power."

My comments: A good addition to the ongoing discussions in design research about what constitutes knowledge, what and how is research conducted, and what are its outcomes. This is the type of valuable contributions to more explicitly distinguish between practice and research in a field like design, beyond merely adopting ideas from artistic research and other traditions. We could also learn from fields such as robotics, where "the thing" (artefact) plays a central role in the contribution to the field. My own thoughts around practice-x research (based, led, oriented, through, etc) have evolved significantly in the last four years and now that I'm teaching research methods, these issues have become one of my main concerns. 

Method-making

Reference: Lee, J.-J. (2014). The True Benefits of Designing Design Methods. Artifact, 3(2), 5.1-5.12. https://doi.org/10.14434/artifact.v3i2.3951

Abstract: This paper calls for a new way of understanding and using methods in human-centred design. Design researchers have recently been active in developing new types of methods aimed at greatly improving their empathic understanding of people’s holistic experience, and their design imagination. The strong motivation for a new methodology stems from critical reflection on scientific rationalisation of human-centred design, which attempts to pin down the design process and develop abstract user models. Despite this, the design community has shown a tendency to use a conventional, scientific rationalisation when applying a stream of new design methods. In this paper, I analyse misinterpretations of the new design methods, which I call ‘empathic design methods’, and seek a more constructive way of understanding and describing how they actually work, going beyond ‘method-recipe’ convention. By analysing design students’ learning diaries, I investigate what learning is going on in method-making processes and demonstrate how those processes help design students to gather contextual knowledge of a design project and to develop their empathic understanding of users.

My comments: This paper starts by questioning "the field’s conventional conception of how methods are supposed to work in design, that is, methods should be easily reproducible and portable, and guarantee satisfying results under correct operation". The work presented here applies qualitative methods, the data consists of two years worth of weekly individual journal entries by graduate students during a design project. The author is explicit about her "loci of analysis": 

• What expectations and preconceptions do the students have regarding empathic design methods?

• How do students choose and make methods in their project context?
• What challenges do they face when making methods and how do they deal with the challenges?
• How do they evaluate the methods during and after using the methods?

This was cross-checked as follows: "Several analysis sessions were iterated in collaboration with two other tutors from the course. Further, the analysis results were verified by interviewing some of the students who took part in the course." 

Fidnings:

• "the method-making action sequence [...] improved not only the relevance and efficacy of the method, but also students’ understanding of what actually matters for users. [...]  we can consider
  the method-making process as the externalization of a designer’s initial interpretation of users and the realisation of future design opportunities"
  
• "I suggest presenting rich descriptions of as it is – what designers (design students in the case of this paper) actually did with methods in particular circumstances"

Indigenous Worldviews of Creativity

Reference: Sosa, R. (2020). Indigenous Worldviews to Inform Participatory Creativity. presented at the meeting of the Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020 - Participation(s) Otherwise - Volume 2, Manizales, Colombia. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1145/3384772.3385127

Abstract: This focused reflection explores how Mesoamerican worldviews can inform participatory work. Purépecha accounts of creation are examined here to discover insights and entailments that sustain other ways of creating. With this, we wish to formulate deep questions about the core beliefs and views of what design(s) can be in a more inclusive world.

My comments: This is a short paper of mine, belongs to the "Exploratory Papers" category in PDC. No comments except to recommend the proceedings of the conference in the ACM Library, free access.

Decolonizing design

Reference: Ansari, A. (2019). Decolonizing design through the perspectives of cosmological others: arguing for an ontological turn in design research and practice. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students, 26(2), 16-19.

Abstract: A closer attention to cultural and cosmological difference as the basis for thinking about how we redesign our own modern technological infrastructures may be the way to decolonize design research.

My comment: A short but well-presented reflection on the "decolonial turn" in design. The notion that the differences between ways of designing and ways of being across cultures is "deeper and much more fundamental" is something that resonates with me in particular. Having lived in multiple continents for a number of years, I do have experienced in my life a certain type of illusion about how we think we understand each other, within but especially across cultures. An idea that I am currently working myself is what Ansari points out here on how designers <<perceive and make sense of concepts central to design practice such as the nature of creativity>>. Ansari formulates 3 takeaways:

1. Cultivate an epistemic humility
2. See our own knowledge and perspective as local and [be] open to globalization within another's worldview
3. Show concrete examples of how things could be otherwise

You can follow Ahmed on Medium.com: https://medium.com/@aansari86

Accretion theory of creativity

Reference: Sosa, R. (2019). Accretion theory of ideation: evaluation regimes for ideation stages. Design Science, 5, e23. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2019.22

Abstract: This paper presents an exercise on theory building to characterise design ideation. It starts by examining how early ideas are defined and evaluated in the literature. An essentialist view is identified that explains the creativity of a final design solution by the creative qualities of early ideas attributed by external judges. Criteria for a theory of ideation that does not rely on the primacy of essence are enumerated. Advanced professional practice is examined to understand evaluation of early ideas ‘in the wild’. Accretion is then introduced as an analogical model to imaginatively drive definitions and conjectures about idea formation in the co-evolution of problem and design spaces. Vignettes from ideation episodes are used to illustrate an accretion theory of ideation. An accretion theory supports new ways to think about ideation as a complex formation process where creative solutions emerge from the synthesis of a multitude of fragmentary and partial ideas – or ‘ideasimals’. An accretion theory of ideation helps to explain the creative value of a final design solution without relying on early ideas having a creative essence, because the creativity of a solution is viewed as emergent rather than present in early versions. An accretion lens is used to suggest new ideation metrics to study the qualities of idea fragments and the process of idea formation. Definitions and relevant assessment regimes for different stages of ideation are discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion on entailments of an accretion theory and next steps for this theory building enterprise.

My comments: This is a recent paper of mine, so no comments to add other than to recommend the rest of the papers in this collection of the Design Science journal themed around the future of design cognition studies, all open access. Do contact me if you find these ideas of interest or want to comment, thank you.

Creative Action: Rethinking dynamic capabilities

Reference: MacLean, D., MacIntosh, R., & Seidl, D. (2015). Rethinking dynamic capabilities from a creative action perspective. Strategic Organization, 13(4), 340-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127015593274

Abstract: Dynamic capabilities research aims to explain how firms manage to change in order to sustain their competitive advantage. Yet, despite considerable progress, dynamic capabilities theorizing struggles to capture novelty, which lies at the heart of change. We argue that this is caused by inherent limitations of the ways in which human action has been conceptualized: dynamic capabilities theorizing to date is based on rational or normative notions of actions, neither of which account for novelty in action. Hence, we propose that to overcome this impasse dynamic capabilities research needs to incorporate a concept of creative action into its theoretical apparatus. We elaborate on the positioning of creative action relative to existing dynamic capabilities theorizing and outline its implications for future dynamic capabilities research.

My comments: This is a very strong essay that sets to go beyond the rational/normative accounts of human action in regard to creativity. Reading work from across disciplines often leads us to important sources that are very relevant to what we do, yet we had never heard of. This paper introduced me to the work of Hans Joas, in particular his 1996 book "The Creativity of Action", which I now look forward to reading soon as it turns out framed a situationalist view of creativity. The paper by MacLean et al. is also a good model for papers of this type: it presents a clear and well-informed account of the limitations of the current paradigm on dynamic capabilities (DC), and then clearly presents an alternative way of defining these when one considers Emerging intention, Embodied expression, and Interactive identity formation, the three components of creative action. Based on these three ideas, the authors follow lines of inferences that lead to novel ways of understanding DC. The final section on "Implications" is well-presented and includes research questions as well as decisions on research methods. The paper is of a conceptual nature, and its methodology is rhetorics. 

Creative leaders promote creative organizations

Reference: Gro Ellen Mathisen, Ståle Einarsen, Reidar Mykletun, (2012) "Creative leaders promote creative organizations", International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 33 Issue: 4, pp.367-382, https://doi-org.ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/10.1108/01437721211243741

Abstract: – The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of leaders’ creativity as a predictor of organizational creativity. The authors expected that creative leaders would promote creativity directly by functioning as a model and inspiration for their followers and indirectly by promoting a creativity‐supporting work climate. Significant positive associations were found between leaders’ creative behavior, organizational creative climates, and organizational creative behavior. Mediation analyses revealed that the relationship between leaders’ creative behavior and organizational creativity was mediated by organizational creative climate.

My comments: Interesting to have evidence to support such basic ideas. The core ideas reveal important methodological issues, ways of seeing the problems that are shaped by the quantitative lens, i.e.: "A positive relationship exists between leaders’ creative behavior and organizational creativity". I mean, it's reasonable to test for such positive relationship, but what does that really tell us about the nature and shape of such relationship? Not much. The study was conducted in small Norwegian restaurants, via questionnaires -and it's always interesting to see the criteria and procedure of data collection. They measured the following constructs: "leader personality", "creative work climates", and two outputs: "organizational creative behaviour" and "organizational creative outputs". I find it incredibly frustrating that one of the most crucial aspects is often omitted in these papers, namely: What and how exactly did you ask participants? Here, only two sample items are made explicit: “we generate new ideas or proposals” and “we accomplish our new ideas or proposals”. What the (highly diverse) group of respondents may have interpreted by that is a "black box" as is usually the case in questionnaire-based approaches. Anyway. Perhaps even more problematic, this is how "creative outputs" was measured: "external evaluators were asked to assess the extent to which the restaurant was considered creative according to ten different areas when compared with other similar restaurants"... meaning what the researchers really measured was the perception of a very peculiar group: "employees at public offices for the advisory of employees and apprentices within the hotel and restaurant sector" via another questionnaire (which we also don't get to see). I mean, I do understand the strength of quantitative approaches, but for all the objectivity claimed for this type of studies, it's always remarkable how obscure and ambiguous are some of the core steps. An "overview" of the items used to ask these people how different a restaurant is, includes: interior decoration, menu layout, meal appearance, and children's menu. I mean, as if the entire area of "experience design" didn't exist.

Of course, also based on the methodological tools used, any conclusions formulated by the study (seem quite reasonable, by the way) lack any explanatory power in terms of the causality -it is entirely possible that the type of leadership and the perceived differentiation by public employees are but effects of something else not addressed by the researchers. But yes, this study can be cited as "preliminary support" (words of the authors) of the elementary idea that the disposition of a leader is connected to the performance of the organisation in factors related to originality and creativity.

Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research.

Reference: Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837-851.

Abstract: This article presents a model for quality in qualitative research that is uniquely expansive, yet flexible, in that it makes distinctions among qualitative research’s means (methods and practices) and its ends. The article first provides a contextualization and rationale for the conceptualization. Then the author presents and explores eight key markers of quality in qualitative research including (a) worthy topic, (b) rich rigor, (c) sincerity, (d) credibility, (e) resonance, (f) significant contribution, (g) ethics, and (h) meaningful coherence. This eight-point conceptualization offers a useful pedagogical model and provides a common language of qualitative best practices that can be recognized as integral by a variety of audiences. While making a case for these markers of quality, the article leaves space for dialogue, imagination, growth, and improvisation.

Notes: [It's been a while since my last blog post!] I'll keep it short: design research REALLY needs to look at this type of papers where criteria of quality and rigour are discussed across research cultures and disciplines. Design research needs to develop its own criteria. 

A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research

Reference: Mahoney, J., & Goertz, G. (2006). A tale of two cultures: Contrasting quantitative and qualitative research. Political analysis, 14(3), 227-249.

Abstract: The quantitative and qualitative research traditions can be thought of as distinct cultures marked by different values, beliefs, and norms. In this essay, we adopt this metaphor toward the end of contrasting these research traditions across 10 areas: (1) approaches to explanation, (2) conceptions of causation, (3) multivariate explanations, (4) equifinality, (5) scope and causal generalization, (6) case selection, (7) weighting observations, (8) substantively important cases, (9) lack of fit, and (10) concepts and measurement. We suggest that an appreciation of the alternative assumptions and goals of the traditions can help scholars avoid misunderstandings and contribute to more productive “cross-cultural” communication in political science.

I found the book version of this paper by the same authors very interesting. Although my main interests or experiences don't include Political Science, the ideas by these authors apply to any disciplinary traditions. The way they dissect the similarities and differences across ways of doing research (cultures) has helped me significantly to shape my collaborations.

Design Self-Diagnosis Applications for Non-Patients

Design Self-Diagnosis Applications for Non-Patients