I have found at least one important contribution to this list by David
Sless. It is the charge that "no-one has yet offered me new knowledge that
will improve my practice". I believe that this is important because it
shows that his evaluation is based on improvements to production. This may
go some way to account for the various schools-of-thought on the list,
because others evaluate research in terms of its effect on reception.
Consider other humanities disciplines such as literature. Research, in my
opinion, makes a greater impact on the reception and interpretation of
works of literature than on their production. It goes back over the content
of the discipline and puts it into a critical context: it puts the "re"
into "research" (as I think Keith Russell would say). I would speculate
that some part of the creativity exercised by authors is a
"shot-in-the-dark" rather than a development of some literary theory. There
is a [Romantic] notion that a certain amount of ignorance of theory keeps
the creative spirit "pure" (I do not subscribe to that view).
To return to design and to David's point: we should be clear whether we are
evaluating research in terms of its effect on production or reception. My
own position is an expectation of greater impact on reception.
Michael Biggs
************************************************************
Dr Michael A R Biggs
Reader in Visual Communication
Faculty of Art and Design, University of Hertfordshire
College Lane, Hatfield, Herts. AL10 9AB
United Kingdom
Telephone +44 (0)1707 285341
Fax +44 (0)1707 285350
E-mail [log in to unmask]
Internet http://www.michaelbiggs.org.uk/pub/
************************************************************
|