[Sigia-l] Serious Discussion of IA Research?

[Groot, Boyd de]

Adam Tucker:
"There seem to be philosophical differences between people in the list
regarding the usefulness and place of research".

Perhaps it would be good to understand the nature of these differences first
because, in my view, this is the root of many discussions on this list. Like
the field of HCI, the field of IA is harboring and attracting two basic
disciplines that are literally philosophically apart. These core disciplines
are science and design/engineering. Research plays a very different role in
these disciplines. Science is in search of 'truth' or 'laws' while
Design/Engineering is in search of an optimum solution given a set of
constraints and requirements. Of course, engineering is based on science
(hence the term 'applied science' in the engineering field), but pursuing
scientific 'truth' is not the primary objective. 

In this sense, the term 'architecture' in IA adds to the confusion and
debate. In building architecture it is quite clear that this is a
design/engineering discipline. An architect bases him/herself on fundamental
research in structural physics, materials and even psychology (how do people
experience space?). But these findings are applied towards another goal:
what works in a given context? (in terms of Commodity, Firmness and
Delight). Peter Van Dijck's Marty's Law is illustrative of how
designers/engineers view the world in terms of what works. Perhaps 'real'
scientists are critical of this but the Romans were still pretty effective
with their catapults without understanding the physics of motion (to expand
on Ed Housman's example :-)

Also in building architecture attempts have been made to find the 'truth'.
Golden proportions, Bauhaus, Alexander's Patterns. All interesting in
themselves but no real 'truths' yet, in essence, heuristics.

--Boyd

PS not sure, but doesn't the field of cognitive psychology have a nice model
to describe the relation between data-information-knowledge?