Dear Michael
it has been a long time we talk. hope all is well.
when i said 'practice is practice'... it needs to be performed'. the focus is on
the last bit.... it needs to be performed. i didn't intend to get tangled up again
with the two concepts 'research' and 'practice'.
but since we are on it, i might say something to get your feedbacks. my view is
that 'research' and 'practice' are social agreements. we call something 'research'
and other 'practice' when we agree that is a good thing to do. this is not being
obnoxious, but to point out that much of the problem in our discussion is social
and political.
when is practice research, some might still ask, i believe that is up to us to
decide, really. and the answer will bear significant consequences on the future of
design research. and there is a lot of philosophical homework to do to get this
agreement settled in the academy. out of the academy, i don't think many people
care. and this is not to sugget academic discussion is unimportant, but to raise
the point that precisely because there is hardly anyone care about the issue
outside the academy, that intellectual inqiry into 'research' 'practice' is
important. and i believe your 'research into practice' symposiums are making
significant contributions in this direction.
by the way, do you mean your email to go to the list? something is wrong
somewhere, replies to my posts don't get cc to the list.... strange. does anyone
know why???
rosan
Michael A R Biggs wrote:
> Dear Rosan
>
> In the same way that Bertrand Russell reported that when one has a dun
> [brown] cow one has three things: dun[ness], a cow, and a dun cow: so
> perhaps we have three things: research, practice and research-practice.
> While I say not all practice is research I also wish to resist the idea
> that research is necessarily distinct from practice. I therefore do not
> like the idea that "practice is practice" since SOME KINDS OF PRACTICE may
> also be research, i.e. [not all] practice is [only] practice.
>
> best wishes
> Michael
>
> At 15:00 22/09/2004, you wrote:
> >Dear Michael
> >
> >I agree with what you said. but i read Karel's statement (as quoted below)
> >perhaps slightly differently. research of course might help better
> >practice.but practice is practice... it needs to be performed, and it is
> >performed by the designers, not the researchers. in this sense, i agree
> >with Karel.
> >
> >best, rosan
> >
> >Michael A R Biggs wrote:
> >
> > > I suppose practice might be bettered by some sort of "theoretical" or other
> > > research-led development that changed the way practice was conducted, and
> > > thereby bettered it.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > At 04:00 22/09/2004, Gunnar Swanson wrote:
> > > >On Sep 21, 2004, at 7:18 PM, Karel van der Waarde wrote:
> > > >>Research
> > > >>into the way people read, perceive, pay attention to visual
> > > >>information in particular contexts indicates why things fail and can
> > > >>point to 'best practice'. [However, please note: research cannot
> > > >>point to 'even better practice': that is for the 'working designer'
> > > >>to develop.]
> > > >
> > > >Karel,
> > > >
> > > >Much of what those of us who like to think of ourselves as working
> > > >designers like to think of as research is better characterized as play.
> > > >Play is important for designers, it's just not research in the sense
> > > >that Ken means or, I suspect, in the sense that you mean. I wonder,
> > > >however, if designers' play could be harnessed in a slightly more
> > > >systematic way to become, if not traditional academic research, a
> > > >broadly usable source of design knowledge. I suspect that some sorts of
> > > >research could be done by designers (or designers and others) and that
> > > >may be the very sort of research that could lead to some sorts of "even
> > > >better practice."
> > > >
> > > >Gunnar
> > >
>
>
|