Rosan and All,
Rosan Wrote: "Is Design NECESSARILY dichotomous to 'Research'?
Lubomir replied: "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), but this does not change the main mode of
thinking and the modality of discovery/invention.
Rosan wrote: "I am questioning the effects of 'science' being
interchangeable with 'research' on any discussion about research.
As I understand it Rosan refers to research in general - learning in
general? Lubomir refers to scientific research. I agree with Lubomir's
reply as long as the frame of reference is scientific research. One of the
requirements is that the research is re-searchable by others. The object of
the research therefore has to exist, even though it may not have been
proven to exist beyond a shadow of doubt. For a scientific research to be
undertaken the researcher must think that whatever is studied may exist. In
other words the existence is mentally present in the researchers mind. The
researcher might be wrong, in which case one of the requirements of
scientific research is that it should result in non-discovery of existence.
The funny thing is that in science we lack the measurement tools for
identifying the undiscovered as long as it is unimagined. It so happens
that measurements developed for understanding and monitoring that which has
been established as existing also have properties that start measuring the
undiscovered, often as a disturbance and unexplicable results that do not
fit our current mental models of the world. One well known instance of this
was the unexplainable movements of planets and stars in the paradigm:
"Earth is flat and the center of the world." The movements of planets fell
into place when somebody imagined the sun to be the center of the universe
and the earth being a ball. However, that theory also fell apart as we were
able to study more of the universe. One more center was identified: The
center of the galaxy. The we discovered many galaxies. The current theory
is that the center of the universe is some explosion point that existed at
some point in time, but the definition is disputed. It makes an absolute
zero point for our time axis unless anti-matter also exists, and that seems
to trouble scientists.
Less known result of not having tools to measure what exists but are yet
undiscovered: Some 15 years ago a german family touring the autobahn became
very ill after visiting a rest stop. They had serious methanol poisoning.
The source was tracked down to wine and juices produced in Austria. It
turned out that wine makers in Austria had added large quantities of cheap
motor coolant to their poor quality wines to sweeten them and increase the
selling price of the wine. Why was this not discovered years ago knowing
the very strict quality controls imposed on wine-making? Apparently nobody
had imagined that anybody willfully would add poison to their product, and
the quality controls could not discover the presence of methanol in wine.
Today the theory of what people might do has changed, and methanol
additions would be discovered long before the product hits the market.
Most of our research is not scientific in nature, e.g. designed to be
re-searchable by others. If I as a business leader thinks that it is
possible to have only ownership to a business concept for creating and
running that business, and outsource every activity necessary to do the
business, I could try exaclty that, even if I was not aware of anybody else
having tried or succeeded. In scientific terms I would conduct a test based
on a theory, but I would not be interested in anybody else doing the same,
as that would lessen the possible economic outcome of my experiment.
Actually, the more successful, the more effort I would put into keeping the
discovery as my tacit knowledge. I might even go on and refine the idea by
measuring effects of what I am doing, and modify it by keeping one activity
in-house: the making of the outsourcing activities contracts, in order to
prevent the idea to be stolen and replicated by others. Not very scientific
even though some scientific methods might be applied. Such experiments are
done by countless numbers of people in all thinkable walks of life every
second around the globe - many of these experiments in parallell in time
and content without the actors being aware of each other, including by
countless designers. We even generalize experience from one context to
another, to build on our knowledge of what works to create new solutions or
extend the solutions to other applications. This is all part of individual
learning. To the extent that you involve others in your undertakings they
may learn the same as you have, and take the ideas with them in their own
constructions of solutions. It is still not scientific regardless of how
much of what is is discovered and understood by some, but not others. The
research becomes scientific when somebody tries to verify that what the
unscientific research has found is actually true, and tries to make the
knowledge accessible to society at large, so that anybody who cares can
start using the discovery, or question its correctness by replicating or
using alternative means of verification, or applying alternative
explanations or definitions of "what is".
In other words the act of designing may, using both scientific and
non-scientific methods of discovery, creation and understanding identify
what is, or even create something that did not exist before its creation
(in a limited way we have the power to act as God). To the extent that the
process of human learning is reflected in scientific methods there is
correspondance between the two, but by all means, all human learning does
not stem from scientific research as it is currently defined. I guess that
most parents do not apply scientific methods in the act of bringing up
their children, but the children learn from their parents - both things
appreciated and abhorred.
Since the understanding of scientific research actually to a large part
reflects the processes of general human learning, knowledge and mastery of
scientific research can help designers to become better designers. However,
if one believes that only scientific research based design is worth doing,
then the designer may become totally impotent. Scientific research is an
excercise in logics and analysis, even when feelings and illogic is the
subject of investigation, and gut feelings and intuition is still what
imagination is made from. I know that some scientists have tried to make
creativity and fantacy into a scientific subject, and even tried to study
such processes to create knowledge of enhancing such human mental
processes. Do you think they have succeeded? Give me your thoughts on that,
and I'll give you some of their answers and experiences.
Brynjulf
Still working at the Norwegian School of Managment, and drinking his cup of
coffee.....
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|