Dear Terry,

I think I have an example of research through design
that indicates at least a difference from the
classical model where the research question can be
well stated before the research begins.

The project I refer, to The Advanced Driver Interface
Design and Assessment Project, was officially
designated "Design and Demonstration" because the
research was to be evidenced by a working prototype of
a design support system that included a VR driving
simulator as well as ways to assess behavior (the use
of driver interfaces) in the simulator. Not only was
it necessary to research how to build a full scale
real time interactive simulator but to devise ways to
assess the human factors involved, and automatically
analyze the resultant data. Traditional research was
undertaken to compare driver performance using a novel
design to performance using a traditional interface
but that research was undertaken simply to demonstrate
the capacities of the system. A lot of research was
conducted to produce the system but the development
itself was reported in research journals including the
prestigious Journal of the Transportation Research
Board. This is the kind of research that surely falls
under the label research through design because we
were acting to design the system throughout.

Anyway, it takes all kinds of research and I can't
imagine this project could have been done through a
discipline without design.

Viva la design research!
Chuck


Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and
related research in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Terence Love
Sent: Saturday, May 08, 2004 6:45 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Research (Victor's proposal)


Dear Geoff,

I feel you are being overhasty in assuming that the
idea of 'research through design' is generally
helpful. I suggest you have misread how it relates to
building sound design theories, and hence
overestimated its utility as the basis for formulating
design research and design-focused research programs.

There are several realities evident in the literature
of the design field that seem to me to be relevant:

"       That many areas of design have compromised
their building of design theory by taking a parochial
perspective that doesn't include the reality that
there are over 650 sub-fields of design. The
consequence is that in many cases local peculiarities
have been overgeneralized into theories about all
aspects of design theory.
"       There is a general lack of awareness of the
different requirements in definitions and language
between informal discussion about design issues and
the technical discourse necessary to formulate
epistemologically coherent theory.
"       There is an unusual avoidance of science and
Maths in the 'Art and Design' design fields. This
avoidance is evident in the peculiar (from any other
perspective) proposition that 'design' (as yet
conveniently lacking an agreed definition) lies in an
epistemologically different realm from science. My
suspicion is that this is driven by personal
interest - especially in view of the reality that
tertiary 'Art-based Design degrees that guarantee no
difficult Maths or science' are very attractive to
full fee paying international students. A similar
phenomenon is happening in engineering design degrees
in the UK where over the last few years the Maths
component is being reduced in order to attract
students.
"       There is a lack of awareness of the real
breadth of the design field and its implications. Of
the 650 or so sub-fields of design, almost half are
neither of the 'Art and Design' or engineering design
areas. The implications of this have not yet emerged
in the design theory literature and some  implications
contradict much of the 'taken as given' in current
proposals for  'generally applicable' theories about
'design', and 'research' relating to design activities

Of the above factors,  the one  most relevant to
responding to your comments is the second -  the lack
of awareness  of the difference between the discourse
for building sound theory, and the use of words and
ideas relating to design appropriate to  chatting,
loose talk in the pub or discussions with people whose
foci lie away from design theory.

As far as I can see, the soundbite 'research
about/for/through design' is only well suited with
chatting/pub/non-technical discourses and loose
informal categorization of design research activity.
It makes some sense in terms of brevity as a general
pointer to research done by someone who is formally
also known to work as a designer. It makes about as
much good sense in theory terms, however, as using the
term 'sweeping through design' to refer to a designer
brushing the floor. Perhaps we should also have
'pencil sharpening through design',  'reading through
design' and  'calculating through design'?

I'm suggesting that when the epistemological
implications are extended, the idea of 'design through
research' falls down under critical scrutiny - it is
unhelpful in building epistemologically sound theory.
In the main this is because it requires adjustably
loose (and shifting on the whim of the author)
definitions of 'design' and 'research' that must
necessarily define 'design' and research as being
similar and overlapping activities. This goes in the
opposite direction from good theory building
practice - which depends on careful unambiguous
distinction between concepts and terms in ways that
avoid overlap

This underpins a collection of related reasons why I
suggest dropping the idea of 'research through
design'. It makes more sense focusing on 'research
about design' and, in conjunction with other
disciplines with the necessary expertise, on 'research
for design'.

As one to whom your email was addressed, I am unhappy
about the style of analysis in it. Falling back on
casuistic argument of the sort ' 'Cos my dad says so'
or ''cos it's written in a holy book' and assuming
(perhaps because of personal interest) that something
has been done and dusted doesn't to me seem to an
appropriate way of addressing difficult theory issues.
Building an epistemologically sound body of theory in
relation to design activity requires careful precise
accurate analysis and reasoning and well-bounded,
unambiguous definitions.

My interpretation of your email is that it is
characterized by broad brush loose generalizations
typical of the academic/chatting/pub talk mode of
discourse rather than careful analysis leading to
sound theory. In addition, it attempts to support
these generalizations via a domain-specific snippet
from the early formative years of design theory
making.

You say:

'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.'

This appears to be speculative hand waving. It doesn't
provide a necessary and sufficient argument that the
idea that 'research is done through design' is
conceptually valid.

You claim,

 "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. "

I've not yet found any successful claims of  examples
of research using ' suitably rigorous design
processes' that haven't been based on  sloppy or
overloose conceptualisations of either or both of
design and research. I look forward to you posting
detailed descriptions of examples that you feel make
your case along with the epistemologically  specific
definitions of 'design' and 'research' on which you
are basing your analysis.

I have a lot of respect for Bruce Archer. Time and
understanding moves on, however, and you are quoting
very old material casuistically as if it is gospel
just because Bruce has said it. Careful analysis of
the material is helpful in avoiding building new
theory on weaknesses of assumptions and analysis from
the early formative years of design research.

You quote Bruce Archer:

'...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.'

It may have seemed to be defensible by Bruce in 1981.
It seemed defensible to me in the 70s and 80s also. It
isn't obviously defensible now when subjected to
careful epistemological study. In fact many of the
analyses, speculations and assumptions of the 60s, 70s
and 80s (often uncritically held today) seem to be
some of the main reasons why the design and design
research literatures and design theories are in such
an appalling mess.

 Bruce speculated (your quote):
'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 modeling, 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.'

Contemporary research findings from the area of
cognitive neuro-science now give a much better picture
that supports and contradicts different aspects of
design theories.  Secondly, there seems to be an
uncritical assumption that this 'cognitive modeling'
_is_identical_to_'design'.

Bruce's claim (your quote) that:
'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.'

This simply doesn't stand up to inspection across the
650 sub-fields of design. Nor does it stand up to
analyses of scientific research activity that
obviously show that this contains many acts of design.
It is, however, a sign of the problematic parochialism
of design activity, research and theory making that
has also contributed to the design research literature
mess.

Bruce claims (your quote):
'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.'

Without definitions of 'designerly' and of 'Design
research' as distinct from perhaps 'design research'
it is very unclear from the snippet you have offered
what Bruce is proposing. It stands, as I said in my
earlier email, as hand waving with little or no
substance to justify any aspects of your overall
claim. Whatever it is, it is clear that by this Bruce'
or your claim is not by any mean

You (Geoff) say:
>'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.'

This I don't see proven. As far as I can see, there is
no obvious significant epistemological differences to
me between the 'designerly enquiries' that constitute
rigorous forms of research and conventional research.
In practical terms, however, there are many  real
examples of  designerly enquiry that do not constitute
the sorts of rigorous research that aligns with
careful epistemological analysis of the sort likely to
be of use in building a discipline of design research.
As for Bruce' comments, a carefully bounded definition
of 'designerly enquiry' that works across all 650
design disciplines would be helpful in moving forward.

You say:
'One of the criteria for what counts as research is
that it generates a form of knowledge.'

This again seems a bit over loose and over
generalized. This is not a 'necessary and sufficient'
condition, i.e. not all processes that generate forms
of knowledge are research, and not all forms of
research are relevant to the current discussion. The
kind of research I'm presuming we are talking about is
the sort that contributes to a coherent well-developed
theory base for a discipline. Typically, this is of
the sort of research that generates outcomes that
research funding bodies would be happy to support -
preferably at the level and with the socially
underpinned confidence that medical, scientific and
engineering research is supported.

You say:
'In my area the kind of knowledge I am interested in
is knowledge of the realizable possibilities for
change in the material culture.'

This sounds like research that would naturally fit
into one or more of the social science or engineering
disciplines.

You say:

'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.'

Perhaps it would be better if your students were also
provided with access to competent specialists from
disciplines in which expertise in research in these
areas is well established? I would think this
particularly important where high levels of
mathematical or scientific knowledge are required. I'm
assuming that the use of mathematical and scientific
modeling is not absent from your design education
programs because it is seen as too hard to learn the
skills.

In conclusion, I ask you to reconsider your position.
I would be very much interested in seeing the detail
of your theoretical analyses if  you feel you have an
epistemologically justifiable case for proposing
'research through design' as a central concept across
all design disciplines that doesn't compromise
significant areas of theory relating to a technical
conceptualisation of 'design' or 'research'.

Regards,

Terry
____________________

Curtin Research Fellow
Dept of Design
Curtin University
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]

Visiting Research Fellow
Institute for Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School
Lancaster University
Lancaster, UK
[log in to unmask]
____________________