Dear Kristina and Carl,
I wanted to respond to the snip of text below. What you have to say about
material culture theories versus design research sounds similar to two
analytical approaches I was taught to refer to as descriptive practice and
best practice. Descriptive practice is an analysis of what is, without a
judgment as to its excellence. Discourse analysts often use descriptive
practice in their study of, for example, regional variations in speech.
Best practices often concern what is, but also can point to what could be.
That analytic approach places anything but the most excellent work out of
the scope of the study. Best practice is the approach I am most interested
in at the moment as well. I also think that it is a place to which
designers tend to gravitate.
Best wishes,
Susan
--On Sunday, January 9, 2005 12:18 PM +0000 kristina niedderer
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In my understanding,
> the difference of using e.g. material culture theories
> and methods in research in material culture as to
> using them in research in design is that usually in
> material culture it is a documentation of what was or
> what is whereas in design it can be used to project to
> what could be. I think what distinguishes design and
> design research is that it looks at things with regard
> to FUTURE applications and consequences.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Kristina
>
> Dr Kristina Niedderer, UK.
> E: [log in to unmask]
> M: 0044 (0)7966 892 879
>
> References:
>
> Dunne, A. 1999. Hertzian Tales. London: Royal College
> of Art / Computer Related Design Research Studio.
>
> Dunne, A. and Raby F. 2001. Design Noir: The Secret
> Life of Electronic Objects. Basel: Birkhäuser and
> London: August.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
> http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Susan M. Hagan, Ph.D., MDes.
Postdoctoral Fellow
Carnegie Mellon University
Pittsburgh PA 15213
v. 412.268.2072
f. 412.268.7989
|