How can we design academic research to be iterative and dynamic while also being scientific? How can we create and test ideas and launch scientific results in collaboration with “stakeholders”? I look forward to your experiences and ideas (especially in the field of organizational psychology)!
We can design a study together for sure. Can you please send me an email at [email protected]?
One interesting paper that suggests how design thinking can help in improving psychological interventions Article Using Design Thinking to Improve Psychological Interventions...
Please go to this link :
www.ala.org/acrl/publications/keeping_up_with/design
Does the designed solution work?
A designer can use design principles by creating products and processes to solve problems. But how valid are these design principles? After designing the #Handstorm principles for creative collaboration a validation method has been developed and tested. This method has been described in the scientific International Journal of Design Sciences & Technology (IJDST). The title of the article is Validating design principles for creative collaboration.
Abstract article
Design Science Research (DSR) lacks accepted validation approaches to validate its outcomes (design principles and design solutions). The quality of such a validation has to be ensured so that the outcomes of DSR are as methodologically thorough and as practically relevant as possible. This study introduces a pragmatic validation approach to ensure the quality of design principles. It uses a three-step approach, combining (1) evaluating the design solution as a case in practice, (2) qualifying the implementation of the set of design principles, and (3) assessing the validity of evaluation and qualification results. The validation approach is illustrated by assessing the evaluation results of a creativity facilitation course (design solution) developed according to a set of design principles.
Click for full article Article IJDST Frans van Gassel April 2019
@santoshjagtap and colleagues have written on that. have a look Conference Paper Shaping wicked problem solvers: innovating educational progr...
We are first human before researchers. And as humans, we design. We design academic research, we design lab equipment to be used in research and we design our collaborative infrastructure. To get a new broad perspective on design, check https://www.amazon.com/dp/026204336X/ .
To see the benefit of using design in research check paper I wrote few years ago titled: Article The principle of reflexive practice
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/design-science/article/principle-of-reflexive-practice/FEB06C7AB5CEC0FEAC8164361C676FB9In summary: if we do not design properly what we do, we fail and it does not matter what it is that we design.
You may check out work on collaborative problem solving, e.g. at the Transdisciplianrity Lab at ETH Zurich: https://tdlab.usys.ethz.ch/team/person-detail.binbin-pearce.html
http://www.vvz.ethz.ch/lerneinheitPre.do?semkez=2021S&lerneinheitId=149199&lang=en
iterative: 'conceptual blending' seems to be as iterative as science could be, at least from my amateur point of view. dynamic/scientific: 'trial and error' could lean towards randomness but still be generative due to the combinatorial foundations of the inquiry of conceptual blending.
A colleague who is associate editor with a journal has suggested "open reviews" as a means to improve publication speed and collaboration. this is possibly the most "design thinking"-related proposal I've heard regarding the research process. If it were adopted, it would probably make significant changes in the sector.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Microbiology
- Scientific Research