dear rosan,
i agree with what lubomir said about the distinction between science and
design.  you are unsure of where research belongs in this distinction and i
think your intuition is right that it belongs to the paradigm of science.  i
do not want to quote from previous papers of mine but let me repeat the
argument anyway:

research is after all re-search: searching the record of past observations
again and again to discover patters that moreover can be generalized beyond
the data.  this is a procedure to find continuities that are invariant,
ideally forever, that is also in the future which design is to change.  i
would say that knowing design is orthogonal to the knowledge that research
can generate.

there are other words we could use, inquiry and reflection, for example,
that may have other drawbacks but are not tied to discovering what existed
in the past and is invariant into a future.

i think the kind of methodologies that are essential for design are

(1) narrating possible futures
(2) searching the present for what is variable and can lead to desirable
futures.  this includes examining ways to overcome prejudices, of violating
presumed laws of nature, finding temporary stabilities that hide the
leverage points for effective changes.
(3) justifying designs, a rhetoric whose criteria is not truth but the
recruiting of a sufficient number of stakeholders so that the design project
can be realized.
(4) collaborative designing.  delegating design to others, designers and
non-designers alike.  people talk of goals, values, ethics without realizing
that these are a property not of a designer's mind but of the network of
stakeholders in design.

klaus
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosan Chow [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2000 10:24 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design and research (dihotomies, bicycles, and knowledge of
any kind knowledge of any kind) 


Dear members of the list:

I am really stretching your patience this time, because I don’t  even have
unsophisticated thoughts, just gut feelings. 

When I asked my original question "Is Design NECESSARILY dichotomous to
‘Research’?" (dated 10 Oct, 2000), I was hoping someone would tap on a
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 am slowly
learning to recognize and state my own intention more accurately),

Fortunately, Lubomir’s contributions to this discussion helped surfacing  my
feelings. He wrote in "Re: Design and research (dihotomies, bicycles and
knowledge of any kind)" dated  12 Oct, 2000,

"Science is about discovering something that already exists (otherwise it
will not be science).……. Design is about invention."…… Now, we might have
elements of design in science (the research design) and we might have
elements of research in product design (asking people whether they like your
new shoe design), bu t this does not change the main mode of thinking and
the modality of discovery/invention."

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 ‘not research’, 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 ‘science’ being interchangeable with ‘ research’ on any discussion about
research.  

I would greatly appreciate it if you could help me to sort my feelings out. 

Best Regards
Rosan
p.s. Please let me know if my sentences are brok en again, I have taken some
measure to prevent it from happening.


Rosan Chow
Graduate Student
College of Design
North Carolina State University
– 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%