After countless psychology courses that emphasized the scientific process, this article reassured me that the scientific method cannot work for all types of research. Moreover, the fact that”the problem with the real world is that it is fundamentally unpredictable stated by (McAllister 2012) supports how some research can follow the banal 5 step scientific method process, while research that studies variables that can’t be manipulated deviate from the traditional scientific process. In my opinion, research will always be biased because the researcher will covertly or overtly affect the study by their opinion. In other words, certain kinds of research should follow the rigid standard scientific method;but unconventional research can benefit from other processes and techniques. Likewise design researchers can implement their own skills that are concerned with people’s behavior, understanding and analyzing culture, defining context, and setting focus.
In any event, the battle of science albeit soft or hard will continue until Armageddon, but we can agree to disagree that design research can be executed in a professional and ethical way that tailor to the research study. Scientific studies benefit from the conventional 5 step research method process and this has been working so why not forge on?
The Art of Design Research (and Why It Matters). French, J. 2012.
The Science of Good Design: A Dangerous Idea. McAllister, B. 2012.