Dear Mark,
I know that my description of the point of view 'where you come from'
was indeed reductionist. I did not mean that 'you have nothing more
than pragmatic reasons for your advice'.
But I am involved in the kind of research you talk about as being
hopelessly broad in scope (approximately: "how will digitalization
influence everyday life anywhere in the world among other
developments in the timeframe of 0 to 50 years and what does this
mean for design?"). However, for me and my purposes it is not useless
because it is broad. I find it difficult to divide it into useful
pieces without having the broad foundation set first. I believe that
some people in the field must deal with this kind of bredth. But
probably not everyone.
Can this be framed as a realistic project? no. Will it be a good
research question for a thesis for some degree? no. Is it useful?
yes, because I gain insight that I can use and share, for example for
generating projects that can be managed (just like you did).
I said that your advice is pragmatic because I see the same concern
all the time everywhere around me and I believe that you are right.
If one aims to do a good research project, and especially if one
wants with that project a degree from a respectable institution, one
takes a huge risk if one does not follow your advice.
However, designers in real life need to deal with questions that are
broad, often to the extent of being useless as research questions.
But they find ways to settle at some point with an answer (or a
completely different new question) that is useful for their purposes,
but does not usually qualify as 'research result', and often through
a route that does not qualify as 'research method'.
My point is that we need that kind of research as well. The society
needs it, but the academic system does not know how to deal with it.
Design research can maybe be in a position to develop ways to do and
understand such research, because of the tradition of dealing with
'wicked problems' it already has in its practice. Unless that culture
is stifled by the academic traditions from other disciplines. We need
both approaches, but one should not be given power over the other, as
it now seems to be. Why? because there is an established and
respected tradition on the other side and too little weight or
conviction on the other.
best, Kari-Hans
...
At 12:35 +0000 22.1.2003, PALMER Mark wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
>
>> I believe I understand you both here...let me try to explain and
>generalize:
>>
> ....I don't know that either of you understand me at the moment!
>
>> --
>>
>> Mark's advice and suggestions come from a pragmatic perspective: how
>> to design and complete a successful research project and come up with
>> results that fulfill xyz criteria.
>>
>> Allan's comments come from the point of view that the issues
>> presented are interesting and it would be nice to know more about
>> them...a very valid stance for research, as well - in my opinion.
>>
>> --
>>
>I don't know how many or you read my original mail as colleagues here
>have told me they received a mess of ASCII. The comment that Allan was
>responding to was the fact that I said that some research projects have
>questions so broad as to be useless. it was a long mail and I don't know
>how many pushed through to the end but I suggested that research
>questions ought to originate from (hopefully burning) questions that
>arise from practice. Apologies if it seems grumpy...I'm in the middle of
>moving house!
>
>Now the problem here is that many seem to think that theory is some kind
>of commentary or explanation of stuff that rather than something capable
>of having its own coherence and rigor; which in turn can disrupt the
>assumptions we make when making or designing. A Ph.D. is a doctorate in
>philosophy, it's about how we think about a problem. When we ask the
>research question it should be open because we don't know the answers,
>indeed it shouldn't necessarily assume that there are 'answers' . But
>what we should be able to do is work through the way we're thinking
>about a problem, leaving things open and being honest and rigorous.
>Clutching at a series of discontinuous explanations in order to produce
>an explanation is not research, being open and rigorous is.
>
>In light of all of this is where questions that are burning issues
>allows one to radicalize one's thinking and address a problem. When folk
>come up with research questions such as the impact of digital technology
>on sculpture these are so broad that the student can be drawn off in a
>load of directions without really addressing an issue. If a student is
>bright enough to do a Ph.D. they ought to be able to address the issue
>that excites them and that needs addressing. This can then carry them
>through years of research. The work I did on my Ph.D. (or ore to the
>point couldn't fit into it) became the basis of a proposal that got me a
>three year fellowship with the AHRB. There is no contradiction between
>rigor and aspiration... the task is to make sure that one does not
>compromise the other!
>
>all the best,
>
>Mark
>
>The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for
>the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised.
>
>If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
>distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
>it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited
>and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and
>any attachment from your computer.
|