After listening in for a while, I finally managed to sort out some thoughts
and I'll give it a try:
The current discussion on PhD in design has suffered from the lack of being
specific.
Why not discuss which of the many scientific approaches and methods are (or
are not) relevant to design research, and in what way they are relevant (or
not).
As long as we are not able to come further than regarding the realm of
science as one big chunk called "traditional science" we will not be able
to come to develop the discussion further.
Example: Alec Robertson said during the discussion: "I believe that there
is such a thing as visual thinking". This was brought forward as an
argument that visual material can replace text, which would indicate a
design-specific method of research.
The rich tradition in many sciences in dealing with visual material in
research would indicate a clear answer: NO, visual material can not replace
text totally and NO, text can not replace visual material totally.
Besides that visual thinking has been researched before (amongst others
Rudolf Arnheim 1969), visual thinking is a well known thing in many
sciences, ironically particular in hard sciences like astronomy, medicine,
fluid dynamics etc.
In general visuality plays a role on many levels and diverse ways in all
types of research. To see if these research modes are relevant for design
research we need to investigate this in detail. Also I guess there would be
much to learn about how this visuality in research is related to text and
vice versa.
Another example: Pereira says that it is impossible to codify design.
Qualitative research methods based on grounded theory are made to codify
such phenomena as the different aspects of design. So "codifying" obviously
is interpreted in different ways, and hence should be explained.
Another example: The word paradigm is used in so many different ways during
the discussion that it is highly confusing. All different interpretations
seem to be present, all but Kuhn's use of the word which implies that
paradigms are counterproductive in science.
Another example: It is actually astonishing what has NOT entered this
debate, like all the methods from other sciences that should be of high
relevance to design research such as the diverse methods for research in
complex problem fields within ecology, social sciences and practitioner
research, also research to initiate change like action research.
After achieved an overview of these highly different research traditions
one could evaluate them towards appliance in design research. One could
imagine the altering and adaptation of such techniques and methods to meet
the specific requirements in Design research, eventually one could, based
on this detailed knowledge of what research is, invent new methods. The
invention of new methods happens continuously in all sciences. The game has
its rules but the rules are here to be changed.
Luckily the new turn of themes on the list towards anthropology could
trigger off something like that.
Science is fascinating and manifold. Lets not underestimate it nor look at
it as something untouchable and static.
Birger Sevaldson
Associate Professor
Oslo School of Architecture
http://www.ifid.aho.no/bs
http://www.ocean-net.org
tel +47 2299 7149
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|