I'm coming back into this following at trip to Munich, don't have time
to look through everything so may merely be creating confusion so far by
taking a top down approach to emails.
I agree entirely with David's position here and particularly:
> But--and here I offer my first criterion for judging the value of research
> from a designerly point of view--any research on this or other designerly
> topics must satisfy practicing designers that it proceeds from an
> understanding and valuing of the accumulated practical know-how of
> designers.
and
> One final remark. An impression I get talking to many designers and young
> design researchers is that they are in awe of other people's disciplines,
> yet fail to value their own know-how sufficiently. I sense this at times on
> this list. I think a little designerly confidence is in order. Instead of
> sitting at the foot of the table and saying 'don't forget us when the
> important work starts', I think it might be appropriate to say 'Ignore us,
> at your peril! If we didn't do what we do, then the rest of you would have
> nothing to research or talk about'.
I think this sense of awe of other disciplines it very unhelpful. As I
have argued on many occasions, some in print, the design community needs
to decide what research is valuable to it in the first instance, and the
explication and accumulation of practical know-how is, I think,
something really worth doing.
Steve
--
Professor Stephen AR Scrivener
VIDE Research Centre
Design Institute
School of Art and Design
Coventry University
Coventry, CV1 5FB, UK
Tel: +44 (0)24 7688 7477
Fax: +44 (0)24 7688 7759
Mobile: +44 (0)7789 590 228
Email: [log in to unmask]
|