** High Priority **

I just wanted to clarify something - I know I said that we don't have time to research - and then my next par stated that we don't have time to do blue sky research - this is what I meant. We are required to conduct research and we do have time to do this but we don't have as much time as before to only do blue sky research. We now need to serve a number of masters.


Kerry London
Senior Lecturer
Postgraduate Director (Architecture and Industrial Design)
School of Architecture & Built Environment
University of Newcastle
AUSTRALIA
tel: + 61 2 49 21 5778

>>> Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> 10/01/04 08:53pm >>>
Dear Colleagues,

Kerry and David bring up important issues.

One key fact remains the difference between national university systems and
the pressures to which governments and funding agencies subject them.
Universities are a knowledge resource that many systems are not nourishing.
The role of academic research in the development of scientific,
technological, and applied industrial advances is clear and visible in most
nations that moved from primary to secondary and then tertiary economies
from the late 1700s to the mid-1900s. As the quaternary and quinary sectors
opened, this remained true.

IMHO, we need both kinds of research for the multiple reasons that Cindy
describes. The problem arises when a nation such as Australia -- and many
of the European nations -- underfund or curtail research or restrict it to
immediately applicable work serving the current perception of national
interest.

Where universities are properly funded, though, we see rich streams of
research leading to developments that serve us all. Again, Cindy gave
useful examples. Those who have never worked in the context of a well-
funded research university simply can't appreciate what this means. These
universities tend to generate a rich combination of basic, applied, and
clinical research, often in partnerships and networks with other
universities and with industry. (Cindy said that, too.)

The situation that David describes in an Australian context sounds right,
given the research situation established by the Australian government. This
constricts research, even apart from funding problems. It may be true that
CRIA's research projects might not be possible in Australian universities.
It might be different if David worked at Stanford with Robert Horn or
Illinois Institute of Technology with Sharon Poggenpohl.

Things would also be different if David worked at the Norwegian School of
Management or Denmark's Design School. We'd have to look for money on
projects that require major research funds, but we would not have to buy
our research time. 50% of my time is dedicated to research by the terms of
senior faculty contracts at both of these schools. Academic freedom means
that we can devote this time to the research topics that interest us.
Department heads at NSM and the research director at DKDS help us with
resources, travel funds, and support.

It's been my sense that the systemic features of first-rate research
schools (and schools attempting to advance by developing a first-rate
resource program) advance research on multiple fronts. Of course, this
entails the pluralism that attracts first-rate researchers. In turn, it
means some of us produce research that may not interest others among us.

I worked in business and industry for many years. All those years, I
traveled from project to project with suitcases full of books that I read
without having the chance to write more than marginal notes and journal
entries. I'm delighted to have a job that pays me to think and write --
and to teach research skills to others who wish to combine research with
practice. It is a pleasure to be able to decline jobs that don't fit my
research interests without worrying about keeping people employed or paying
my own bills.

In my view, we do well to maintain several kinds of research and
development. Without the pluralism established and supported by serious
research-driven universities, we would be little more than intrumental
actors serving corporate or political interests.

I've followed CRIA with interest for many years. It seems to me that no one
could object to a system that funded CRIA's work while providing the
freedom required to do good work. It is unfortunate that such opportunities
are few. It is fortunate that enough major research universities and
research-driven professional schools exist to support some of them.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman



Kerry London wrote:

>> the world of academia has changed and the myth that we have time to
>> research is so far removed from reality (in Australia anyway).
>
>>  I just have to say that years ago this may have been true but it just
>> isn't so in Australia at the moment.

David Sless wrote

>I don't know who leads or follows in research. Given that most private
>research is never published or subjected to peer review, I'm not sure
>how one could tell. I can, however, claim that our own research
>certainly flourishes in ways that I do not think would be possible in
>academia. But that is because there are structural systemic features in
>academia that would inhibit our type of research, even if academia was
>well funded. That may give some others in the design research community
>pause for thought.