Category Science

Entries 5 Total

Natural Science and Social Phenomena

Jun 7, ’11 9:33 PM

From Checkland and Howell’s Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field:

“Geoffrey Vickers, in developing a theory of ‘appreciative systems’ through which he sought to make sense of his 40 years of experience in the world of human affairs, was always cogently critical of those who blithely try to apply the method of natural science to social phenomena. In conversation he used to point out that while Copernicus and Ptolemy offer very different hypotheses about the basic structure of our solar system, we know that, irrespective of whether the sun or the earth is at the centre of the system, the actual structure is entirely unaffected by our having theories about it. Whereas when Marx propounds a theory of history this changes history! The methods of natural science, extremely productive in enabling external observers to discover the regularities of the natural universe, are exceptionally difficult to apply to human affairs” (p. 19).

Comments (0)

UTOS and Rigor in Design

Oct 9, ’10 2:24 PM

Wanted to capture this thought before I forget. It comes after reading Shadish, Cook, and Campbell’s Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs. Citing Cronbach who came up with this, Shadish, Cook, and Campbell provide a vocabulary to talk about causal generalization. They write, “Cronbach noted that each experiement consists of units that receive the experiences being contrasted, of the treatments themselves, of observations made on the units, and of the settings in which the study is conducted” (Shadish, et al., p. 19).

So here it is:

  • UNITS | PEOPLE
  • TREATMENT
  • OBSERVATIONS | OUTCOMES
  • SETTINGS | SITES | ENVIRONMENTS

Data are collected or can be collected across these four constructs and relationships established. For example, a frequent construct validity concerns the relationship between TREATMENT and OUTCOME.
The power of this framework comes in establishing experiments. For example,

  • A certain PATIENT EDUCATION (target cause, TREATMENT)
  • promotes PHYSICAL RECOVERY (target effect, OUTCOME)
  • among SURGICAL PATIENTS (target population of units, PEOPLE)
  • in HOSPITALS (target universe of settings, SETTING)

In this setup, one could analyze the heck out of each construct/variable and come to interesting relationship conclusions. Pretty cool.
This vocabulary gives us a way to talk about the external validity (making generalizations using induction) of an experiment. This is a huge concern in a lot of companies and the bulk of quantitative as well as qualitative research – “What can I say about the general population (UNIT/PEOPLE) based off this sample size?” or “Would our product work in a different environment/setting (SETTING)?” This is the way many companies want to make their investments in research actionable. It’s a logic of induction, seeking universal application.

Cool.

It also seems like design is criticized for lacking rigor based off this kind of framework. Taking one construct, for example the SETTING dimension, design is often accused of lacking sophistication because a product in one setting (or condition) may not be able to perform well (or if utility is not the goal, “integrate well”) in another setting. It’s the issue of repeatability.

But the way these critics usually view design is in terms of artifacts, many times, the tangible products with clear structures and/or forms or one-off processes/methods.

Perhaps this is why there is an interest in “design thinking” because championing something that is internal to the designer (a certain way of thinking and even doing) escapes the accusation of the critics: a product might not be repeated with success in a different setting, a process might not be applicable in a different setting, but the mode of creation may be similar. Yet, in order to avoid the danger of saying that this “design thinking” is only contained within certain individuals and personalities, it has to be taken out of the individual.

Suppose this “design thinking” is not within an individual. If we want to talk in terms of Simon’s constructs, suppose this “design thinking” is at the boundary between the inner and outer environments. It’s not found in particular settings nor is it found only in certain individuals. It’s found at the interaction of a designer and his/her environment … and it may even be real (really real) and knowable. What a crazy idea.

Comments (0)

Wicked Problems and Design Science

Oct 8, ’10 6:26 PM

Just finished reading Hevner, et al. “Design Science in IS Research.” 76. MIS Quarterly Vol. 28 No. 1.

Some important IS concepts are:

  • Realm of IS research (people, organizations, and technology)
  • Design artifact (constructs, models, methods, instantiations)
  • Behavioral science (concerns of “what is true?”, passive relationship with technology) + Design science perspectives (concerns of “what is effective?”, active relationship with technology)
  • Utility

Great summary of design-science research:

The fundamental questions for design-science research are, “What utility does the new artifact provide?” and “What demonstrates that utility?” Evidence must be presented to address these two questions. That is the essence of design science. Contribution arises from utility. If existing artifacts are adequate, then design-science research that creates a new artifact is unnecessary (it is irrelevant). If the new artifact does not map adequately to the real world (rigor), it cannot provide utility. If the artifact does not solve the problem (search, implementability), it has no utility. If utility is not demonstrated (evaluation), then there is no basis upon which to accept the claims that it provides any contribution (contribution). Furthermore, if the problem, the artifact, and its utility are not presented in a manner such that the implications for research and practice are clear, then publication in the IS literature is not appropriate (communication). (Hevner, et al. p. 91)

Cool. But here’s where it gets interesting for me. When Hevner, March, and Park introduce wicked problems in the discussion. They write, “Design-science research in IS addresses what are considered to be wicked problems” (p. 81). And later,

Given the wicked nature of many information system design problems, however, it may not be possible to determine, let alone explicitly describe, the relevant means, ends, or laws. Even when it is possible to do so, the sheer size and complexity of the solution space will often render the problem computationally infeasible … In such situations, the search is for satisfactory solutions, i.e., satisficing (Simon 1996), without explicitly specifying all possible solutions. The design task involves the creation, utilization, and assessment of heuristic search strategies. That is, constructing an artifact that “works” well for the specified class of problems. (Hevner, et al., p. 89)

Ahh, I see how Simon’s work is incorporated into the design discourse and the stressing of “heuristics” in HCI and information systems.
Both view design as “a search process to discover an effective solution to a problem.” (Hevner, et al., p. 88).

But this approach does not address the “solving” of wicked problems. If design just comes up with solutions that work (again, emphasis on the principle of utility), what’s being done about the essence of the wicked problem?

Comments (2)