Thank you Steve for the thoughtful response.
You said:
"Computer Scientists, from my experience, have developed research
as a rarefied form of what they do in everyday practice; Engineers have done
the same...". I would not characterise this as advanced practice. My point is
that they have found ways of using what computer scientists and engineers do
(i.e., in essence problem solving) as the basis of research method. It is by
this means that an "original investigation is undertaken in order to gain
knowledge and understanding" (the UK RAE definition of research). This is what
I'm taking to mean practice here - designing as a research method. So the
issue for me is connected with the "the nature of research needed for design".
Your statement reflects a particular point of view that is present among
some PhD advisors at the Institute of Design (Chuck Owen and Kei Sato for
example). Both engage PhD candidates in a design process that leads to an
extension of design process through research. For example, the development
of an interactive computer-based process to reveal cultural presumptions
embedded in an activity or the development of a genetic algorithm to help
evaluate the "fitness" of alternative designs. I agree completely with you
that these are not simple "practice" or advanced practice in the usual
sense. They are somethingelse.
My problem with this approach to PhD research is that the knowledge gained
is embedded in a very design oriented process or method that may not move
beyond the design community itself. In that sense, design research is
failing to serve the broader knowledge building community. On the one hand
it builds specific knowledge for the discipline of design (which is needed)
but on the other it can easily fail to connect to other knowledge. I
suppose I like the idea of free-floating knowledge bits that are broadly
available, reliable, able to connect with other knowledge bits forming
either the growing/changing understanding of some area of knowledge or
available for recombination and use as needed.
Other approaches to PhD research at the Institute of Design use modified
social science or science models. These models tend to encourage this more
free-floating knowledge development. We are trying to avoid orthodoxy and
have so far embraced a both/and approach depending on the research question
and how it can be answered. Essentially we need to serve design itself with
research and we need to serve the larger knowledge building community.
Sharon
|