I will add a thought ( as I am on the run and have had little time to
consider all the posts....)

I would agree with Jonas' idea of


" Design-research - in my view - always requires the
> re-contextualization of the knowledge created.
>
> And therefore design knowledge is essentially different from
> scientific knowledge. And design research is not scientific research."

I would add that design research requires investigating the phenomenon that
constitute design knowledge, its construction and production, in both the
research and designing senses noted here.
But this means that design research requires an understanding of
methodologies, rigour, and trustworthiness.
Design research seeks to discover and re-think ways that knowledge is
created. If we consider the processes used to create designs, these cannot
be ignored in design research. And for better or worse, these involve
subjective and objective aspects of human nature and design thinking. Rather
than decide what model, we might instead ask ourselves, what phenomenon are
at work in the aspects of design that we are interested in. This may include
research into the activities of designing, but it could also include
research into the knowledges used to teach these activities,the underlying
values and value systems at work,  the social and political aspects of
designing and many other themes and discussions on this list.
An it is precisely the unpredictability of these design processes, their
production and consequences, and their rapidly evolving practices, that we
need to begin to understand, research and teach.

Regards,
Tiiu


----- Original Message -----
From: "Wolfgang Jonas" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:50 AM
Subject: research by / through design


> Dear Terry,
>
> this looks quite clear and straightforward, but is in fact too simplistic.
>
> >
> >
> >Taking the simple, straightforward path suggests:
> >
> >1) The main role for design research is 'research into the activity
> >of designing'.
>
> Ok, I agree.
>
> >
> >2) Research into designs (and peoples interactions with designs etc)
> >and research for design are already under the province of other
> >disciplines. They are the experts on existing theories, theory
> >problems and research methods in their arenas.
>
> Really?
> But the problem seems to me, that the kind of "purified" knowledge
> created through these established approaches can hardly be
> re-integrated into highly contextual design situations without loss
> of relevance.
>
> >
> >3) Research by design is a misleading theory concept unless it can
> >be defined in considerably more precision than available in the
> >exisiting design research literature.
>
> I completely disagree. In my view it is the most challenging theory /
> research concept.
>
> If we consider the highly unexplored and unexplained activity of
> designing as central subject of design research (you mention this
> above), then we have to take care not to destroy (cut into pieces,
> de-contextualize, etc.) the process when researching it.
>
> We define designing as the activity of transferring existing
> situations into preferred ones. Ok? When we realize that this
> activity is extremely unpredictable as to successful outcomes, then
> we may conclude that we don't understand the process well enough.
>
> There seems to be a strong connection between "designing" and a
> concrete design situation. I think designing "as such" does not
> exist. Designing is always designing something.
>
> This means to me that we need a design process model as underlying
> structure in order to (a) learn more about the process of designing
> and (b) to increase the success rate of outcomes.
>
> What I understand as research by / through design is: Have a concrete
> design situation, maybe experimental, or in educational context.
> Follow the path of a design process, within the process clearly
> identify the points / links where input of knowledge from other
> sources is necessary to improve the sitaution. Do in-depth research
> if possible or request input from other researchers. Adapt the
> knowledge gathered to the design situation and proceed until you have
> reached the preferred situation.
>
> In this model you have the choice: you can follow the design path
> (and do designing) and / or you can go in-depth (and do research).
>
> Design-research - in my view - always requires the
> re-contextualization of the knowledge created.
>
> And therefore design knowledge is essentially different from
> scientific knowledge. And design research is not scientific research.
>
> Mybe you find this fuzzy. I think this is the challenge. Otherwise: why
design?
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Jonas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --