JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  2003

PHD-DESIGN 2003

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: On-line conference, Session 1: Rasmussen

From:

Thomas Schødt Rasmussen <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Thomas Schødt Rasmussen <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:14:01 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (160 lines)

(Who is) the Man of the Our

 

 

Off ran Dingo ­ Yellow-Dog Dingo
­ always hungry, grinning like a
coal-scuttle ­ ran after Kangaroo.

Off went the proud Kangaroo on his
four little legs like a bunny.

This, O Beloved of mine, ends
the first part of the tale!
        -Rudyard Kipling


We all share much in common in
our approach to design, and can
profit by learning from each other
and integrating our approaches.
        -Dick Taylor



First of all, I would like to thank Ken and David for the opportunity to
participate in this unusual conference. The idea of mixing an organized
conference into a running and unmoderated list is a sparkle of inspiration ­
I donıt know who got the idea but there should be enough praise for both of
you to share.

Secondly, I would like to thank Richard Taylor for his opening comments,
and, most certainly, for the ³Proposal for a School of Design at the
University of California, Irvine. The proposal is a radical statement and
ought to be discussed and digested by all institutions of design education
and research. And it is most appropriate that the report is celebrated in
this conference. It merits the attention. This is not to say that all
schools should be like the UCIıs SD in all or any aspect, necessarily, but a
statement of such cogency puts a demand on everybody to built platforms and
arguments of equal strength.

As Head of Research at Danmarks Designskole (DDS), I have been working for a
year and a half, establishing concepts of research, laying out research
policies and recruiting faculty. Currently, I am writing a research and
recruitment plan for the next four years, trying in the process to describe
a research equivalent for artistic practice in design, that will allow DDS
to maintain an artistic profile without getting sucked into the much common
mix-up of art and research.

A central issue in this is, as Dick Taylor points out, is the question of
terminology ­ and having a background in the humanities ­ my PhD was in
Comp. Lit. ­ such questions awake the Duracell rabbit in me. The one that
gets me reaching for my gun is not design. The reference escapes me, but I
know Ken Friedman et al. have compiled a list consisting of either 600 or
6.000 fields of design. The exact number is less significant than the fact
that design, as a field, is much, much broader than what any school can host
­ and the derived consequence: that design is a porte manteau word that
belongs to everybody. This is a good thing since it gives every design
school and every designer the chance and responsibility to define what s/he
means by design. No need to agree on definitions here ­ let the 60.000 or
600.000 flowers bloom.

Where terminology is important ­ not to say essential, in my view ­ is when
it comes to research. At DDS, for instance, discussions on research in
design date back to at least 1973. What is scary is not so much that Nixon
was in the White House, Gravityıs Rainbow was fresh on the shelves, and I
used a pacifier, but rather that 30 years were allowed to pass without the
emergence of research or robust research methods. DDS is not special in this
respect. In an international perspective there seems to be surprisingly
little difference whether design schools are arts and craft based or whether
they are part of technical universities with otherwise robust research
traditions.
 
Why design has been so successful in resisting change is a mystery ­ design,
usually, prides itself of being a factor of change, an avant-garde activity,
not a conservative force. Anyway, I think this has to do with the
conservatism of professional pride. If education consists mainly of training
students to master a craft, disciplines solidify in stead of seeking shared
methods and knowledge. And, what is worse, they tend to insist on their own
right to define their profession in every aspect ­ even when it comes to
defining theory and concepts of research.

Searching the web-pages even of the good design research institutions
worldwide, one finds very few faculty with a background from outside design.
This seems to be true even in the Proposal for a School of Design at the
University of California, Irvine, and if I should raise any questions it
would be this: why not build research by appointing, say, half of the
faculty from other disciplines ­ anthropologists, economists, a physician,
an art historian, a philosopher, who knows, you might find a German
philologist or a PhD in theoretical physics surprisingly useful. Allowing
experienced researchers to work full-time with design issues ­ in stead of
inviting them in as lecturers and visiting professors ­ will place
interdisciplinary research methodology right in the middle of an emergent
design research discipline. The pride designers take in their own
professions should result in an equal respect for the professionalism of
other disciplines. Even if the research methods of, say, anthropology seem
relatively easy to master, the continuous development and refining of
methodology is a part of real research within the social sciences. Without
proper research training the application of these methods will not put
design science at the cutting edge.

Likewise, I bet the one year IIT crash course in ID could teach even me the
basics of design ­ but it would hardly make me a full-fledged designer. The
question is, of course, who is the man of the our? Who, or what, defines the
borders of design science? What makes you a design researcher, your original
background or the research plan you work under? If we stick to a limited
number of the 6.000.000 or 60.000.000 disciplines of design, the challenge
of building research from within will continue to prove difficult.

It is true that the common concepts and methods of research are currently
changing. This, I suppose, has always been the case. Moving methods is an
essential part of basic research. But the situation, in what John Ziman has
labeled a dynamic steady state, has implications beyond the usual
questioning of concepts and methods. The lack of continuous growth in means
for research pushes funding from basic towards applied research. At a first
glance, this would appear to be a privileged situation for the science of
design, design research being applied research in most cases. And the
potential is great. Today, already, any medium-size research project ­ at
least outside of the humanities ­ is very likely to include a PhD in
computer science. As research professionalizes and the pressure on grants
becomes even more desperate, it is very likely that large-size projects in
the future will include PhDs in design.

However, in the traditional research disciplines the shift to a new mode of
research is a step in a long progression. Building the discipline of design
research on applied research alone is risky. And since we can hardly leave
the task to universities whose research funding depends on external grants
alone, basic research should be a major focus in state universities. So, in
a way, its back to you, Arnold.

I hope the UCIıs SD will get the funding it needs. Even though there is a
chance that you will be stealing some of the best staff from the rest of us,
I wish the SD will be up and running soon. Itıs OK to lose a little faculty
if you gain a serious and splendid new ally in a world of voodoo, wild
occurrences and weird objects ­ all labeled design researchŠ

 

Best regards,

 

Thomas Schĝdt Rasmussen

 

 

References: 

Ken Friedman (2003): Review of the Proposal for a School of Design at the
University of California, Irvine. November 2002, in DESIGN RESEARCH NEWS
Volume 8 Number 6, June 2003

Rudyard Kipling (1902): Just So Stories. London: Penguin Books

John Ziman (1994): Prometheus Bound ­ Science in a dynamic steady state.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1994.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager