Personally, I think that science is something very specifically defined
through things like the scientific method etc.
Research is a wider concept, a ubiqitous human activity, such as design,
and does not have to be scientific, unless it is scientific research.
I can't, even if I stretch my mind, perceive design as a science. If you
want to pursue scientific research that relates to design, you are probably
operating outside of design, maybe applying scientific methods to design or
to the study of design, or maybe you operate within some specific field of
design which wants to become scientific.
The trouble with science is that (expressed here roughly and imprecisely,
from the top of my head, also non-scientifically - please bear with me,
because I have not yet published a digested paper about this in any
peer-reviewed venue ;) ) in science, and especially in the practice of
science, with funding realities, measurability requirements, etc. you must
be able to define your position and the world in which you operate and
describe the events in such a precise, objective and whatever, manner that
most of the most important real problems and phenomena of the universe are
left outside of its domain. In other words, science wants to operate with
non-wicked problems. In the outside of that limited, although quite large,
domain, the pragmatic operators like people, companies and cultures operate
and deal with the real reality every day, but science can't understand a
lot of it. However, the subset that science does operate with is very
influential, because we live in a belief system that still holds science
above most other institutions, only a little below the market economy.
That is why design research has such a wonderful window of opportunity, if
we can get rid of some of the baggage of science and recognize that our
responsibility as people, human beings, requires us to rethink our
relationship to science and related frozen, conservative systems. Maybe we
can defend our right to deal with wicked problems and to research ways to
do that.
cheers, Kari-Hans Kommonen
........
At 10:23 +0300 13.10.2000, Rosan Chow wrote:
>feeling that I had: this dichotomy is a construction and it is a
>reflection of
>a particular frame of mind or a particular value system.
...
>I think, please correct me if I am wrong, that in the above quoted
>statements,
>science is equated with research. And subsequently, the rest of the
>argument is
>framed within this particular perspective and that any other kind of approach
>to inquiry can easily be dismissed as ’Äònot research’Äô, a necessary
>dichotomy.
>
>Please note that I am not doubting the differences between the practice of
>science and design, (not this moment at least), I am questioning the
>effects of
>’Äòscience’Äô being interchangeable with ’Äò research’Äô on any discussion
>about research.
----------------------------------------------
Kari-Hans Kommonen, Future Media Home research
Media Lab, University of Art and Design Helsinki UIAH
Hämeentie 135 C, 00560 HELSINKI, Finland
email: [log in to unmask]
tel: +358 9 7563 0563
fax: +358 9 7563 0555
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|