Dear Steve,

Your post raises important issues that are already on the wider
agenda. You address them partially. I would like to make them
explicit.

You write, "in a number of the responses there is an implied (Ken and
Sharon refer to it explicitly) model of knowledge generation and
uptake in which basic researchers pick up on problems identified by
practitioners, generating new knowledge which is operationalized by
applied researchers and duly taken up by practitioners. Some years
ago the UK Economic and Social Research Council commissioned a report
on this issue. From memory, this concluded that the classical model
was not very effective and generated a shift in policy across most of
the research councils which required that research activity involve
the potential users of the outcome of that research. Sharon's
description of what she is doing with PhD and MA students is a
version of this, I think. Were are all waiting to see how effective
the UK's research policy has been - I don't think we know the answer
to this yet. I fear that it will have had a marginal impact."

In this paragraph, you raise three major issues. In general, I agree
with your overall point. I raise distinctions on subtle yet important
aspects of these issues.

First, my note was an attempt to define different kinds of
doctorates. I was not arguing for a hard line between the three kinds
of research as a general model.

In research by properly trained researchers, I do not argue for the
model you have described here. Quite the contrary.

What I do argue is that researchers must be properly trained
precisely so that they can cross the fuzzy boundaries between pure,
applied, and clinical research in appropriate ways. This is a
contentious area, and some of the problematic examples of doctoral
research discussed here in earlier thread are problematic
specifically because practitioners have presented practice-based
projects in general form without the conceptual or methodological
background required for the claims they make.

Second, there is a widely recognized need for new models of doctoral
education in many fields and disciplines. You are right to argue that
the classical model has not been effective, and this is true in many
fields. This is a concern raised by many researchers and scholars
around the world. This is the focus of a major inquiry now underway
with the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Third, there is at some times and in some fields a need for research
that meets user needs. Here, there is genuine cause for concern. This
is an important issue in some cases, but not all. It can often give
rise to a short-term pragmatism in which potential user needs
actually inhibits the creation of significant knowledge.

The history of science shows many instances in which potential users
actively worked against streams of research that were later to create
extraordinary benefits for the very fields that resisted them. The
development of hygienic practice by Semmelweiss, Lister, and Pasteur
is a good case in point. The medical profession resisted hygienic
practice for many reasons. On the standard of user engagement and
evaluation by potential users, this entire stream of research would
never have been permitted. (In fact, it essentially was not permitted
in Semmelweiss's case, and the antipathy of the medical profession to
his work destroyed his career and led to his early death.). Hygienic
practice was arguably the most important medical development of the
past two millennia. Other medical advances have been far more
dramatic. Many required greater ingenuity or deeper scientific
understanding. None has created greater health benefits for a wider
range of human beings across a greater spectrum of applications at
lower cost.

The integration of potential users into the research cycle is
important in many situations. I argue for this approach in some
circumstances. I also argue the value of free research. In the realm
of discovery, Einstein's argument for the free play of imagination
remains one important guideline among several, and any research
regime that strictly applies application as a standard will,
ultimately kill the growth of knowledge.

I'd say we need several kinds of research..

This leads to an issue that reflects on several earlier threads,
where you write, "In the long term, design research will have to
demonstrate a clear contribution to the advancement of designing."

This bear reflections and a response a little later.

Best regards,

Ken


--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Technology and Knowledge Management
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University