Terry makes a pretty good point regarding the terminology we use and the
need to have more clear vision and intellectual discipline. The term Design
Research is so nebulous and wide that at this point I look at it as an
umbrella covering many domains. Eventually some of these domains will later
redefine themselves and acquire a personality of their own.

Here comes the question for structuring the field of what we call now
design research. In this way we will have more clear vision about what we
are doing, what is research, and what is design. At least, we will see more
clearly the distinctions and interrelationships between research and design.

As I have mentioned several times before, the problem is with the science
of design/engineering. This problem can not be resolved at disciplinary
level -- it has a philosophical nature.

Regards,

Lubomir Popov

PS The question about the relationship between marketing research and
design is one way to proceed and  come to a better  understanding about
research activities related to design. I am a bit astonished that the
question didn't generate a wave of opinions and debates and hope that this
is because of the vacationing season.

At 02:29 PM 8/7/2003 +0300, you wrote:
>Dear Dr.Love and List,
>
>Your post was interesting to read and I would agree that it is helpful and
>even necessary to continue the discussion on terminology.
>
>You say:
>
>>I suggest the term 'Design Research' is most usefully and technically
>>applied only to the 'study of the human activity of designing' for whuch
>>there is no other specific term.
>and, as I see it, this "human activity" comprises quite a vast field .
>Hence, your suggestion to limit the use of the term design to only this
>does not seem to be useful.
>We can always argue that this or that question in some sense at some stage
>belongs to "the human activity of designing".
>
>All the best,
>Susann Vihma
>
>Dr. Terence Love wrote:
>
>>Dear Lubomir,
>>
>>Thank you for your message. Good to hear from you again. I agree, the
>>post points to differentiateing between engineering design, engineering
>>design research , research to gather engineering data and research into
>>engineering - and also engineering as an activity. The same is true for
>>other professions in which designing is practiced. You suggest it also is
>>important to differnetiate between designing and design research. I agree
>>and feel there are other issues that come up from this way of looking
>>that raise some foundational questions. Particularly, I'm thinking of the
>>implications for design research through looking at relattionhips between
>>designing, design methods and information. In this, I'm using the term
>>'information' in its classic sense of 'that which "informs"' - or more
>>specifically 'that which, when perceived, "forms in" a person a certain
>>emotional/cognitive/feeeling "something" '.
>>
>>Information is central to designing. Designers preceive information about
>>(say) a brief or problem and this forms in them all sort of 'somethings'
>>that may move to 'inform' other 'somethings' that eventually and
>>naturally result in awarenes of possible solutions or pleasing
>>compositions (thanks Harold and Erik). These informations can be held
>>outside a person or they may be held inside them as forms of mental
>>images (not necessaily visual or only visual), or via other processes
>>such as neurologically, structurally or chemically-based disposoitions .
>>These 'informations' may be data and, in this practical and neurological
>>sense, data is identical to information (as is .knowledge). The closure
>>processes involved in identifyoing completed or partiulally completed
>>elements of 'designs' also follows similar affective cognition processes
>>depending on information 'images', perception and feelings.
>>
>>The role of design methods is to faciltitate this process. Almost 100% of
>>design methods are solely information gathering tools. Computer-based
>>automated design tools that create a solution are at an extreme dimension
>>of this especially where thet information they provide is a completed
>>design.. Design heuristics such as colour rules are similarly extreme
>>because they are determinisitic. Design methods for (say) advice on
>>searching literature fit somewhere in the middle. The central focus of
>>design methods, however, is gathering infomation for designers to use.
>>
>>Pretty well all of this information gathering for designers  is the stuff
>>of classical science in traditional disciplines. The information is for
>>the use of designers, but the actual gathering and the techniquies of
>>gathering the information are mainstream science with its usual aims of
>>accuracy, repeatability, generalaisation, formal expression,
>>validification etc. In this sense, the gathering of data depends little
>>on anything specific to the designing in which the information will be
>>used. This raises questions about the prefix of 'design' in 'design
>>research' and 'design methods'.
>>
>>On this basis why use an important term such as 'Design Research' to
>>describe these. general information gathering activities? There are
>>already quite sensible and well etablished terms such as engineering
>>research, management research, history research, social research etc.
>>
>>I suggest the term 'Design Research' is most usefully and technically
>>applied only to the 'study of the human activity of designing' for whuch
>>there is no other specific term.
>>
>>It feel would be helpful to drop the use of the term 'Design Research' to
>>refer to traditional information gathering activities - especially where
>>they are about designed artefact properties, artefact behaviours, user
>>behaviours, interface interactions, general characterisitics about
>>interactions between designers and between designers and clients, or
>>about general management issues in design processes. I suggest this
>>change of definition on the ground of inproving the epistemological
>>clarity in the field - an important issue in terms of addressing some of
>>the field's conceptual problems.I'm aware it's likely to be resisted
>>because it challenges existing hegemonies - for example, it would
>>redefine much of the contents of journals such as Research in Engineering
>>Design, Artificial Intelligence in Design and Manufacturing, and Design
>>Studies along with much of the artetfact specific information in
>>traditional Art, Design and Architecture journals.
>>
>>The need for greater technical terminological precision is significant in
>>this field at this time. The above argument may be flawed in conceptual
>>detail but it remains that in the necessary tighteming of definitions
>>some of the previous meanings of terms would be expected to disappear. In
>>undertaking this process an important question is " Do members of the
>>design research field want to reduce the conceptual mess by tighting
>>terminology. or is it more imprtant for them to compromise the theory,
>>being obsessed with status and cache, for example, by unnecessarily
>>prefixing things with the term 'design'?"
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Terry
>>
>>===
>>Dr. Terence Love
>>Dept of Design
>>Curtin University
>>[log in to unmask]
>>===
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lubomir S. Popov
>>Sent: 5/08/2003 11:24 PM
>>To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Design Research
>>
>>
>>
>>Hi Terry,
>>I am not sure that I interpret you correctly. However, I see something
>>very interesting in your post -- something I want to highlight for a long time.
>>
>>If you differentiate between engineering design and engineering data
>>(research), than we have pretty good ground to infer that we have to
>>differentiate between design and design research. And, you also imply
>>that research contributes to design activity but is very distinct from it.
>>
>>I have always propagated that design and research a very different, even
>>when we talk about design and design research. I accept that in order to
>>do design research it is good to have design experience, although many
>>good design researchers, like human factors  researchers, often have no
>>design education and only tangent interface with design. They are just
>>excellent social scientists who have theoretical knowledge about the
>>design process and particular design tasks and operations.
>>
>>I expect that many colleagues on the list will disagree with me, but in
>>the light of the current topic I would like to start the controversy
>>again -- design and design research are different modalities of thinking.
>>Just don't tell me that in research people make research designs and they
>>get into a design mode of thinking -- in every human activity we can find
>>a design phase or element, no matter whether it is institutionalized or
>>not, explicated or not, and reflected or not. However, that doesn't make
>>every human activity Design. Otherwise, we risk to dilute the concept of
>>design and get in a situation when all the we do is design. With all due
>>appreciation for the point of view that everything is design (I already
>>mentioned that it has fantastic heuristic potential for a general theory
>>of design) we will hardly contribute to the design-research controversy
>>at disciplinary level. I emphasize -- at Disciplinary level, not at
>>philosophical level.
>>
>>Looking forward to hear other opinions,
>>
>>Lubomir
>>
>>
>>
>>At 09:35 PM 8/4/2003 +0000, Terence Love wrote:
>>
>>Dear  Prashant,
>>
>>I guess where you are going with this is similar to the conflating
>>argument that engineering research is the same as research into
>>engineering design. There are other perspectives. Most of my work is
>>about how people design artefacts, systems, services and organisations
>>and about what physical, informatic and social infrastructures offer
>>improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of human design
>>activity. From this perspective on design research, designers use the
>>outcomes of market research as data in much the same way that engineering
>>designers use engineering data. Hence, market research contributes to
>>design activity but is very distinct from it. (Highlighted by LP)
>>
>>Best wishes,
>>
>>Terry
>>
>>===
>>Dr. Terence Love
>>Dept of Design
>>Curtin University
>>Perth Western Australia
>>[log in to unmask]
>>===
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Prashant Kutaula
>>Sent: 5/08/2003 1:48 PM
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Design Research
>>
>>
>>Dear Friends,
>>I would like the group to throw some light on some seminal texts and
>>literature on Design Research and how it is similar/different from Market
>>Research?
>>regds
>>Prashant,
>>Faculty - Design Management
>>NID, India
>>
>