Dear Gunnar,
thanks for your response. I assume this discussion has happened
before, apologies for repetition. My interest lies in the area of
graphic design and specifically, typographic education.
On Monday I was speaking with my design students about the value of
research in their own projects, and it seems easy to incorporate some
of the new ideas I am being introduced to in my own research within
this context. It is non-threatening in a classroom environment where
there are no strongly held views about the relationships between
research and practice. There is time for reflection and strategies
and techniques of layout and production can be discussed alongside of
notions of why, what and how the designer functions in society and
where the students see themselves in the future.
Then yesterday I worked on a commercial brochure while pondering some
of the points raised by Ken about research and who conducts it.
Gunnar said 'Having someone restrict how you do your job for
legitimate reasons is often unwelcome for emotional reasons.
Illegitimate restrictions are unwelcome for both emotional and
rational reasons.' This is clear.
Yet it struck me that in my career as both educator and designer, I
have not been hindered by the 'rules' or 'hostility' of researchers,
but more importantly, they passed me by - didn't seem to relate to
what I was doing at 'work'. I am not arguing that research is not
valuable, and that all researchers need to be designers, I'm just
wondering if as you say, 'If some design research creates
obstructions to doing good design the answer is not to ignore or
demonize research but to do more and better research and to increase
designers' understanding of research.' I agree.
The question for me is how does design research impact on the
'working designer'? How do you increase designers' understanding of
research outside the academy? How important is the research if it
passes 'working designers' by? Do design researchers need better PR?
Articles in academic journals have only recently become available to
me through the course of my studies, international publications seem
to be more concerned with eye candy than depth of analysis (with some
exceptions). Not all work designers do is related to client service
and measures/statistics of success/failure, and as Norm has said is
not 'valid in complex or situated contexts like design'.
Rob mentioned 'At issue is the knowledge that design is a profession
directed toward change and academia is more concerned with studying
and teaching about
what already exists.' Ken said 'Most design schools and design
studios still use guild training methods. This involves behavioral
modeling and prescriptive theory linked to normative theory.' My
question is, if this is so, then who is teaching in these schools,
why are they using teaching methods from another era, why are they
are not aware of the value of research in a world that has changed,
and who will increase their understanding of the research being
conducted? Is the burden on researchers, educators or working
designers to become more familiar with the benefits of research?
regards, teena
--
Teena Clerke
PO Box 1090
Strawberry Hills NSW 2012
0414 502 648
|