The research
The construction industry is characterized by a high degree of uncertainty. This research focuses at revealing the iterative nature of problem solving in uncertainty situations in order to reveal the existence of the “cohering project” concept. The situations addressed comprise design and construction problems resulting from poor concepts and design specifications, lack of information and inefficient allocation of resources, in the early phases of projects.
The term “project behavior” is used to frame the general object of the study of the research. Organisation, seen as a structuring process for projects, (of the built environment) is studied “in action” as a manifestation of the design activity. It aims at understanding and describing the actual (as opposed to formal and planned) organizing property of projects through collective action. Interaction of individual intentions of actors, animated by their multiple roles within the project, is modeled through decision processes, to describe the “cohering project” phenomenon. The “cohering project” concept is thus put forward in exploring actual project behavior.
Abstract
Hypothesis has a different meaning depending on what scientific paradigm is used for the research. The discourse on how hypothesis should be developed and defined differs considerably from one spectrum of the traditional sciences (often a Cartesian approach), towards the other end, which deals with social matters (often more Constructivist).
The process of establishing proper research questions and hypotheses, very possibly, represents underestimated phase of the whole process. For the beginner researcher, it is even more so since what occurs beyond these research questions, is often unchartered territory for a novice researcher. The questions will set into motion a series of activities that will in fact prove extremely complex, and perhaps futile, if they are not properly set.
What is of concern here lies in defining: what is a design research question?
The present discussion addresses the strategic importance of three interlinked elements that are essential in the research design: (i) a proper (pertinent) and well defined question formulated that addresses a clearly stated problem; (ii) a consequent theoretical framework that will feed and support the argument that was developed within the problematic and (iii) that can both be expressed and communicated adequately in conceptual and operational frameworks (the methodology).
It draws on an experience of a simulated fast track research designed specifically to highlight the traps, inconsistencies and potential hazards of a faulty and inconsistent research design structure. The focus was to develop methodological skills for the analysis of qualitative data. This data was supplied for this exercise. Qualitative analysis and interpretation had to be done based on a conceptual framework that had to be hastily developed from a brief description of the context. The question was developed on the same basis.
The analysis and interpretation that followed dramatically highlighted the weaknesses of the structure, as it produced poor results and transformed the process in a methodological knot. It was therefore possible to rapidly conclude that the research question must be very closely linked to a conceptual and theoretical framework that can be “operationalized”; and that subsequent research questions should also be developed in conjunction with a methodology “aperçu”.
It is therefore not sufficient to address proper questions unless it is possible to answer them within a justifiable theoretical framework. What this means is that a research question requires the foundation of a theory if it is to be answered in a coherent manner. Otherwise, without a theoretical framework, the analysis will not have an operational foundation, often resulting in incoherent interpretation, with regards to original research question. Consequently, depending on the designated field of research, defining questions can be associated to an iterative process where the questions will be refined in order to “tame” the field and material to be treated with available and somehow “fiddled” theory and methods.
Design science problems, as it is understood here, tend to be defined by their “fuzziness”, meaning that design addresses ill-defined or ill-structured problems as opposed to well defined ones. Furthermore, resulting solutions to design problems do not pretend to be optimal but rather “satisficing” (Simon, 1969)
The focus of the present inquiry, and the actual research cited above, deals with the experience of devising questions that span more than one field of expertise, namely management and design, just to name two. More precisely, it tries to accommodate two traditions of inquiry that cohabit in the vast field of project management for the built environment: the rational approach and the “situativity” approach. It addresses specific decision making processes under uncertainty situations. The research aims at revealing the organizing properties of the design activity, when used as a decision process (problem-setting-solving), for project managers and decision makers. If managers aim at managing the design process, why don’t designers design the managing process? In other words, the research uses the design approach, or design thinking, to describe what is, until now, seen as a rational process.
The very nature of the design activity is not well defined nor is it well understood. The “ill-structured” nature of design problems is also well established. Consequently, we can assume that the same can apply to design research. Or can we?
Design is multidisciplinary by nature. It deals with a growing number of issues, from diverse fields. Moreover, design research considers over and above the “material” issues, the central role of the ‘human’. The potential clash between the traditional sciences, that deal with the material world as it is (engineering in general, mostly) and the social sciences, needs to be addressed. Although it is possible, if not necessary, to “borrow” from other disciplines the necessary theories and methodologies (Findeli, 2004), their articulation and application must be carefully orchestrated. Trying to emulate other disciplines can prove very tricky. Other than being prone to scrutiny and criticism from other scientific disciplines, there are sometimes a staggering amount of theories and “schools of thought” that support and animate each branch of science.
The existence of more than one paradigm in the design field (Simon, 1969; Schön, 1987; Dorst & Dijkhuis, 1995; Visser, 2006) adds to the complexity of defining our own identity and scientific tradition.
The reflexion on design activity and the nature of design problems is not the topic of this communication. One cannot underestimate the consequences that this reflexion has on the resulting “scientific value” of the research process and ultimate outcome. The acknowledgments sought from the scientific community, and the emergence of an authentic design research discipline, though, substantially motivates our approach.
The very title of this conference thus raises some fundamental theoretical questions for design science as much as it presents challenges with regards to the design of the research itself. “Questions and hypothesis” are indeed embedded in the research vocabulary and unavoidable stepping stones in the process of the design of the research. (if not what ultimately justifies its very purpose). But surprisingly, as simple as this terminology may seem, it is somehow confusing in many ways. Without semantically dissecting the meaning of both terms it would nonetheless be prudent to understand certain distinctions that are not necessarily made clear in the literature, at least for the novice.
Dorst, K. & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). "Comparing paradigms for describing design activity", Design Studies, 16(2), 1995, pp. 261-274.
Findeli, A. (2004). La recherche-projet: une méthode pour la recherche en design, Symposium de recherche sur le design, Bâle, Swiss Design Network
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitionner, San Francisco, Jossy-Bass. 374 p.
Simon, H.A. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MIT Press.
Visser, W. (2006). The Cognitive Artifacts of Designing, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbraum Associates. 264 p.
