Dear Jon and Cindy

In a way I think design research has an "image problem" if we believe
that research will take a leading role in design practice. Design
research can only be leading when it comes to certain forms of
knowledge production. Design practice is probably always leading when
it comes to achievements in actual designing. And design research can
be leading when it comes to universal achievements (read "knowledge")
about design.

I think a problem arises when these two different "approaches" are
compared based by the same "measure of performance" or values. Design
research should produce knowledge that is primarily "useful" within
design teaching and design reflection, and this is a slow process, that
takes many researchers involvement, in an overall ambition to create a
common understanding (maybe "theory" or "philosophy"). Unfortunately,
I think Cindy is right when in her criticism of design researchers in
relation to other researchers when she writes:

"We find that the people we meet are aware of work by others in their
own field. Many are aware of work in other fields. More importantly,
they feel no shame in borrowing from other fields. Those who publish
promote their work from a position of engagement and humility, not a
position of vanity. If their work is known, it’s not because they
promote it a la Wallpaper or Metropolis. It’s because the work is good,
and because they work in a context where others cite the work and use
it." (From the post by Cindy)

There is also an important difference between
(1) knowledge produced that explains and describes the "nature" of
design activities and processes (maybe we might label this "scientific"
knowledge) or
(2) knowledge produced to help us in our understanding and meaning
making of design as a universal activity influencing our world (might
be labeled "critical" or "humanistic" knowledge), and
(3) knowledge that is supposed to support practicing designers (maybe
we can see this as "design" knowledge).

My experience is that research is mostly ( and probably rightly)
involved in the first two forms of inquiry, while practicing designer
are mostly interested and usually more skilled in the third (this is of
course a too crude generalization, but might still to some extent be a
valid explanation).

Ok, without going to far with this, I think my main message is that
design research has to be closely examined as being a mixture of many
approaches with different intentions, aim and purposes, that ends up in
many different outcomes. And maybe we should take Cindys advice to be
more careful as researchers in reflecting on what we are supposed to
do, and maybe as practitioners be more sensitive to the different
forms of knowledge. In the best of worlds this might help give us all a
healthy understanding of what to expect from research, and what we
should not expect.

Erik Stolterman

----------------------------------------------------------
Professor Erik Stolterman, Ph.D., Chair of Department
Department of Informatics
Umea University
90187 Umea
Sweden

Email: [log in to unmask]
Webpage: www.informatik.umu.se/~erik

New books:

  "Thoughtful Interaction Design" by MITpress, more info at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=10334&ttype=2

"The Design Way", information at
http://BooksToRead.com/etp/nelsonad.pdf