Dear Rosan,
This is a quick, condensed response to your reply to Ricardo. You
question the relationship between research and design practice. I
believe that there has been a dysfunction between the two, insofar as
the former has been primarily reductionist(parts of systems) while the
latter is essentially holistic(whole of systems). Emergence of the
sciences of complexity and chaos has done much to resolve this
dysfunctionality, and my 'Common Ground' paper explores this in respect
of design methodology.
This does not mean, at all, that research based on reductionist thinking
cannot assist design practice. Rather such research will never(in my
view) address the core issues of design research in the way that the
sciences of chaos and complexity(I believe) can.
Your response to Ricardo, I believe, made this latter point well if
unintentionally.
Kindest,
John Broadbent
Rosan Chow wrote:
>Dear Ricardo
>
>Thank you for your posts which I have enjoyed reading. My response is not about
>creativity research but rather about research and design practice in general.
>
>The relation between research and design practice interests me very much because
>I am interested in improving the practice of design by engaging in research. And I
>have been trying to establish a perspective to see and hopefully practice research
>from a design point of view*. In the course of my struggle, I have often come across
>statement about the value of research to design practice and here I quote yours for discussion:
>
>"The premise is that the more we know about these fundamental processes and their
>role in shaping phenomena in these areas the better equipped we are to improve our
>design practice by better understanding and drawing parallels to everyday experience".
>
>I have questioned quietly the above premise and now feel that it is a good time and place
>to get some feedback on my silly ideas.
>
>The above premise is based on yet another assumption which is that we need to understand
>BEFORE we design. Researchers collect information, analyze it and interpret it, write it up
>and distribute it to designers, then designers can improve their design practice.
>
>It is indeed the most commonly held belief within and outside the field of design. However,
> J. Christopher Jones (1991)has argued that the design problem and solution are
>interdependent. In other words, the problem is never stable and emerges as designers
>construct it. Designs happen in a context in which the act of designing will have an
> impact on constructing the problems and forming solutions to them. The study by
>Melican (2000) also supports this theory. Nigel Cross (1999) collects personal reflections
>from various famous designers and speculates on a similar theory of designing.
>David Sless (2001) also suggests that "knowledge and understanding are nothing but
> our own making, and the point for designers is to identify at the moment of closure,
>some structure for making design decisions". In other words, there can never be
>ENGOUGH information to be gathered BEFORE designing. All these observations
> imply that designing is a way of finding out or constructing problems and solutions,
>and that designing happens simultaneously with understanding. Therefore, the
>permanent separation in time and space of understanding and designing doesn t
> make sense for design. Nor does the complete separation of research and design.
>
>It may be true that research can increase our understanding of the world. However,
>designing is not a logical-deductive exercise (Lawson 1993) and it has to deal with
> wicked problems . From facts to designs, there is a hole that descriptive or explanatory
>research results do not fill. Given that design is prescriptive by nature (Cross 1982), it is
>hard to imagine how research results, being descriptive or explanatory, can aid design
>decision making without the ability of the designers to interpret and integrate the
>information which keeps on changing its meanings while the designers use it to design.
>
>My attempt here is not to dismiss the value of research or theory building or knowledge
>construction, but rather I am trying to see research, theory and knowledge from a design
>point of view. Your critical comments are most welcome.
>
>Sincerely yours
>Rosan
>
>
>*The idea of a design point of view was expressed by David Sless almost two years ago
>on March 22, 2001 on this list.
>
>Lawson, Bryan. Parallel lines of thought. Languages of Design. 1993; 1:321-331.
>
>Cross, Nigel. Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies. 1982 Oct; 3(4):221-227.
>
>Cross, Nigel. Natural Intelligence in design. Design Studies . 1999; 20:25-39.
>
>Jones, John Chris. Designing designing. London: Architecture Design and Technology Press;
>1991.
>
>Melican, James P. Describing User-Centered Designing:
>How design teams apply user research data in creative problem solving. Chicago:
>Illinois Institute of Technology; 2000 Dec.
>
>Sless, Email correspondence sent through the Internet discussion list PHD-DESIGN
>(http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/phd-design/) on August 3, 2001.
>
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Belgien, Italien, Portugal,... Mit WEB.DE FreeMail koennen Sie in all
>diese Laender SMS senden. http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021173
>
>
>
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER
=======================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
=======================================================================
|
