Geoff,
Thank you for a succinct and informative post.
You say:
"However imperfect the traditional formats that combine words and images on
paper (or on screen) might be at least they are highly accessible and
relatively permanent."
The increasing use of multimedia together with the notion of the
'research-exhibition' is enabling research done through design to be more
'communicable', especially to the design practitioner community who use the
exhibition as a way of communicating their professional work, as do may
design colleges for examining student work.
The DRS Common Ground 2002 Exhibition was a tentative step in exploring
this. Those interested in this can access some archives of it via the DRS
website at http://www.designresearchsociety.org, which also has a
downloadable paper by Chris Rust and myself reflecting on the experience.
Alec
Alec Robertson
http://www.dmu.ac.uk/ln/4dd
-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Matthews [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 05 May 2004 18:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design Research (Victor's proposal)
Rosan, Victor, Karel, Terry, et al
Terry and others have expressed scepticism regarding
research-through-designing before. I thought we had dealt with that
question, i.e. if in doubt refer back to the criteria for what counts as
research. People are innovating in research methods and creating new types
of knowledge all the time, designers no less than anyone else.
'Research for design', 'research into design', and 'research through design'
are all perfectly reasonable, and through their differing goals easily
distinguishable, as ideas of design research. Research through design does
not imply that all designing is researching. It simply means that some
research can be undertaken using suitably rigorous design processes. The
criteria for what counts as research in the academic sense are pretty
universal. If you can pursue a design in such a way that it meets these
criteria then it is research. There will be many ways of doing this. Plenty
of people are doing it already.
Bruce Archer clarified all of this for us donkey's years ago:
'...The idea that there exists a designerly mode of enquiry, comparable with
but distinct from, the scientific and scholarly modes of enquiry seems to be
defensible by the design methods literature. The idea that there exists in
man [sic] an intellectual process, for the handling of ideas of
configuration and structure independent of natural language and of
scientific concept formation, which I call imaging or cognitive modelling,
seems to be demonstrable in the literature of cognitive psychology. The idea
that there exists a lexicon and syntax for the externalization of cognitive
models seems to link a lot of the work in design methods research. Design,
then, like Science, is not so much a discipline as a range of disciplines
united by a common intellectual approach, a common language system and a
common procedure. Design, like Science, is a way of looking at the world and
imposing structure upon it. Design, then, can extend to any phenomenon to
which we wish to pay designerly attention, just as Science can extend to any
phenomenon to which we wish to pay scientific attention. Design research, on
the other hand, is not equatable with scientific research. It is designerly
enquiry, not Design Research, that is equatable with scientific research.
design Research can, and does, employ the methods of scientific research and
scholarly enquiry in its pursuits, as well as, more rarely, the methods of
designerly enquiry itself.' (Archer, 1981, 34-35)
As Archer expected, the sub-disciplines and formations of design research
have changed since this was written. As designerly enquiry in its broad
sweep has continued to divide and subdivide and reform there are now many
instances of designerly modes of enquiry constituting rigorous forms of
research that we include within the scope of Design Research. See for
example the architectural design doctorate programme at the Bartlett School
of Architecture described by Hill and The Garden of Cool Change project by
Missingham & Selenitch both in the Research by Design conference
proceedings.
One of the criteria for what counts as research is that it generates a form
of knowledge. In my area the kind of knowledge I am interested in is
knowledge of the realizable possibilities for change in the material
culture. This is one way of defining design knowledge and in my case I work
with students to develop design processes and practices that create this
kind of knowledge. Another criterion for what counts as research is that the
knowledge created is presented in an accessible form and made available for
evaluation, use, extension etc. by others. A common mistake is to believe
that a realized design necessarily embodies knowledge that counts as
research. I am quite brutal about this: if that knowledge is not accessible
and does not remain available for evaluation, etc. then it doesn't count as
research.
As some of you know, I am quite keen on the idea that designers should be
able to write up their design research, particularly research through
design, and get it published. This is simply a pragmatic notion. However,
imperfect the traditional formats that combine words and images on paper (or
on screen) might be at least they are highly accessible and relatively
permanent. My take on this is summarised in my paper in the Research By
Design conference proceedings.
References
Archer, B. (1981)'A View of the Nature of Design Research', Design Science
Method, DRS Conference proceedings, Guildford: Wesbury House, 30-35.
Hill, J 'Creative Users, Illegal Architects' pp.150-4
Matthews, G. 'Writing Design', pp.216-21, and
Missingham, G & A Selenitsch, 'The Garden of Cool Change' pp.234-43, in
Langenhuizen, A., M van Ouwerkerk & J. Rosemann (eds.)(2002) Research by
Design, EAAE Conference, proceedings vol. B, Delft University.
Dr Geoff Matthews
Course Leader MA Interdisciplinary Design
Lincoln School of Architecture
University of Lincoln, UK
|