Hi list members,

A while ago, I sent out a request for pointers to literature on "normative
research". Since the response was a bit limited, I think maybe I did not
frame my question quite right. (Another possibility is that the literature
on this subject is very  limited - but this seems unlikely.) So here is
another attempt...

On the one hand, the question of normative design research may be slightly
off-topic for this list. Concerning the unclear boundaries of design
research, Terry wrote "I suggest that there are two core foci of design
research that [are not core areas of other disciplines]. A) The study of
designing as it happens inside individuals and among individuals. B) The
study of how individuals interact with designed objects." Normative design
research (i.e. the study of designing as it *might* happen inside
individuals and among individuals) is neither A nor B, although it requires
some understanding of both.

On the other hand, normative design research may be very relevant on two
levels. First, I think that we can not just take for granted the way that
designers design is the best way of designing. In an extreme sense, one
fundamental question should be: 'is it possible that the way designers
design is really bad, and is possible that it is not really worth studying
at all?' (This reflects a feeling I have that, as researchers in design, we
treat the designers with too much respect, and that perhaps we need to be a
bit more brutal.) This relates to a comment by Chris "Sometimes I wonder if,
by contrast, we are guilty of a narcissistic obsession with understanding
just two things - what designers do and how they do it... Some of us have
referred to design as a "field" for research and I sometimes wonder if they
see themselves as pioneering anthropologists parachuting in rather than
members of a discipline" And this also relates to what Bauman Zygmunt points
out (from Culture as Praxis as quoted in Clive Dilnot's paper) that one of
the sociologists tasks is to escape "into the total range of the socially
possible" and that "the social order found empirically is only one among
many orders possible, and even though it has been encountered, it should not
be given undue prominence".

Second, normative design research is very relevant in the sense that it
reflects one of the key properties of the process of designing itself -
being normative. As such , the problem of formulating a methodological
position for normative design research faces some of the same obstacles as
the problem of formulating a methodological position for design. In the last
chapter of 'Space is the Machine', Bill Hillier talks at some length about
the normative approach. Using his terminology, normative design research and
designing (as well as science) are in the business of proposing
'configurations'. "The fundamental characteristic of a configuration is that
every time it is changed, say by the addition or subtraction  of an element
or part, then the properties of the whole configuration change." As a
result, the designer or the normative researcher can not 'induct' the
proposal from an analysis of the parts (the analysis-synthesis method).
Hillier suggests that in these situations, the method used in practice is
more akin to conjecture-test. However, in many cases designers and normative
researchers can not 'test', they can only 'predict'. (An architect can not
test his design, he can only make predictions about the design. Once built,
tests can be made... but this is no longer part of the actual design
process. Similarly for the normative design researcher - I may be able to
propose an alternative design approach - and I may be able to make
predictions about this approach - possibly based on demonstrations that have
been implemented, but I can not test it. Only if my alternative suddenly
caught on, and groups of designers appropriated my method, then it would
become a test. And of course, the same applies to Bauman's normative
sociologist.) Even then, the final test is of limited relevance, because the
situation will have changed (c.f. "It is worth remembering that knowledge is
often ( and perhaps always?) - situated" from Philippa's mail). This relates
to Clive Dilnot's point, that for design (unlike science), experiment is
impossible - once the experiment is done, its too late, everything has
changed again.

So that sets out how I think the 'normative research' problem fits into the
bigger picture. Both design and normative research are 'conjecture-predict'
endeavours, and both seem in need of more stable (and similar)
foundations...


Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Normative research


> Hello list members,
>
> I am working on my PhD, and I am struggling a little with the normative
> nature of my research. I am therefore looking for some references.
>
> My research explores an alternative approach to the design of building.
> (This alternative approach requires the support of a set of software tools
> that I am in the process of developing. The research will use the tools
> developed to demonstrate how this alternative approach will work, and will
> argue that this approach may, in certain situations, have certain
advantages
> over other approaches.) The research is therefore normative in the sense
> that it proposes an alternative design procedure for tomorrow's designers,
> rather than focusing on what today's designers do and how they do it. My
> question to you is, what key references should I be looking at concerning
> normative research and normative methodological positions?
>
> Patrick
>
> ======================================
> Patrick Janssen
> Design Technology Research Centre,
> School of Design, Hong Kong Polytechnic University
> tel: (852) 2766 4924 fax: (852) 2774 5067
> ======================================