This week we’ve handled and discussed the subject of design research from different angles. FIrst off, at Habio’ lecture, he discussed broadly what research is and how one does research. I found it rather interesting that the idea-creation phase when starting a project should be preferably devoted, almost entirely, to defining a problem rather than coming up with solutions to solve it. Furthermore he went on discussing that problems can be extremely intricate and hard to grasp, but that the biggest obstacle to overcome is how to come up with the simplest solution to that particular problem.
Also, Haibo discussed that it is crucial to solving any engineering problem that it must involve mathematics (and often complicated mathematics). Even though I understand where he’s getting at (since he’s very technically minded, and most technical problems require some form of mathematical skill) I would have to disagree that a media technology engineer’s problem solving skills should be limited to his/her mathematical ability. For instance, solving managerial problems within the media management, or solving HCI problems within interaction design, are valuable skills a media technology engineer can have. These particular areas of problem solving are probably, most of the time, not related to strictly mathematical problems.
Seeing as we didn’t have a seminar, I don’t feel as there is as much to reflect about as there usually is - since one has mostly gotten to digest fixed information rather than discuss certain aspects of design research with people of different view-points. Thus, simply discussing what I’ve learned would mainly consist of me reciting what was written in my previous post on theme 5. However, the lectures have been interesting and have given a deeper understanding to the articles that were read in preparation for each corresponding lecture. Even though I guess they could’ve gone more in-depth on the topic of design research rather than going through their own articles (which we had read already).
Hej,
SvaraRaderaI like how you critically reflect on the necessity of mathematics in engineering problem research. I can also think of many research problems which do not involve mathematics at all. However, these probably do not classify as engineering problems then, right? Your example of managerial problems within Media Management, for example, are simply not engineering problems. Nonetheless, I think it's super important to critically reflect on what we learn in the lectures and to question what the lecturers teach us. What was your opinion on this after the second lecture? We did not talk about mathematics in particular, but I think we saw engineering problems that should be approached with prototypes and that did involve some mathematics, even though not in all cases particularly advanced mathematics (e.g. the tangible programming one).
hi,
SvaraRaderai was giving up on design research when he mentioned that math is very important to solve problem. however seeing from his example solving problem about the camera that suppose to capture users' head. in the end they go with the change of camera placement instead of solving it with more complicated technical engineer thing. so maybe by defining problem you go use math or maybe other choice that doesn't require math as well. however, i think for the technology research field i guess you rarely able to avoid using math to foresee problem or solve problem.
I like your critical reflection! Like you I appreciated how Haibo put emphasis on defining a problem and not just solving it, I do disagree with him though that you should put 90% into defining the problem and 10% into solving it. I think 10% is a bit too little in many cases when solving problems.
SvaraRaderaYour point on HCI and management issues not being solved with mathematics in all cases is very good and I agree!
Keep up the good work!
Hi!
SvaraRaderaI think you did an interesting reflection even though I agree it isn't as much to reflect upon this week. The seminar's are always helpful since you come across different perspective that you might not come up with yourself. I like your critical take on how engineering problems have to involve maths and I think you stated some good examples of situations where it isn't necessarily true. I guess Haibo means that engineering problems are within the technical area, but our education is broad and not only technical.
Even though I like the discussion on how finding the problem is key when making research, I also like that it's pointed out that it's important to find the simplest solution. I think this might be easy to miss when you focus on solving a problem and might consider it completed when it's done, regardless of how complicated the solution might be. Interesting to have in mind.
Good job once again, keep it up!
I agree with you on Haibo's focus on matmatics. I fail to see how that part was relevant to us, since at least parts of our research will be in "softer" areas such as interaction design. In fact, it goes a little against what he said himself, since he talked about the importance of thinking outside the box. Anyway, our write up was good. You didn't talk anything about the other lecture however, something I missed a little.
SvaraRadera