Hi Terry
I wasn't intending to put anyone on the defensive. I'm just putting ideas
out there. So no need for that asbestos suit :)
I probably had misunderstood you. I agree with the points you make and I
certainly find I can tire of yet another discussion around process,
especially if it is someone claiming to have found the 'golden one'. My
concern was over that which is examinable in a product, and sharable as
knowledge. So, as is my way, I considered this issue on my drive home using
context extremes. For example, I considered a nuclear physicist thesis being
examined. Though this thesis may be written in layperson language, only
another nuclear physicist is qualified to examine the work effectively. This
then brings to question the 'sharable' nature of that knowledge. We may
acknowledge that it is sharable within a small research community.
Now, looking at design, from the extreme of product instead of a thesis, the
product may need to be examined by a specialist, and the comprehension of
new knowledge may depend on what the examiner reads from the product to
prepare then to examine. This relates to visual-product literacy for shared
meaning. And so the viva depends even more on the oral element to confirm
understanding of the contribution. But beyond such an examination how
accessible would the knowledge in the product be to other researchers? It
can be argued that this product as thesis is purely the vehicle to prove the
candidates ability to design and carry out design research, and not to
produce something that is intended to be shared with a wider community. For
example there could be additional IP issues which could keep the product
confidential, e.g. an MOD product.
However, if I do understand you correctly Terry, we are not actually talking
about replacing the thesis with product but focusing the thesis on product
rather than process. This would certainly make the task of examining easier
because the thinking would hopefully be made explicit in the text. However,
the product-process discussion seems somewhat grey. Surely to describe a
product, the candidate has to describe process? For example, the product is
more likely to have been designed by a team, rather than by the candidate as
sole inventor, and in describing the team and stakeholder contributions, in
order to establish the author's contributions, the candidate is in fact
describing process. How do we separate the design process from the product
designed, in our descriptions? We could focus on describing the IP, but if
that IP holds developmental depth that merits a Doctorate then surely in
describing that the candidate is back to describing a process.
If process is design context dependent then specific process varies with the
product. Contribution to new knowledge then is connected to that which is
different in the product in terms of the technology - IP, and how it was
applied - process.
Now I see a need to return to a previous point I made about research
apprenticeship. The candidate is not purely seeking to prove they can
research, because the Doctorate is not awarded for technical expertise, they
have to contribute to the knowledge of design. But again I find myself
thinking of process. As technology and culture change, I would argue
appropriate process does too. For instance the increasing awareness and
influence of ethics on responsible design practice. We should therefore
never run out of contributions to new knowledge in terms of processes or the
products they produce. Otherwise there would be little left to design or
research.
As a final comment/thought, for this post, concerning the merit locked in
product, I will make a controversial connection to art and say that a lot of
art fails because it does not describe its own context effectively enough,
and so depends upon a more narrow audience who may know the artist and
related genre, or make some intuitive emotional connection without
intellectual engagement dependent upon personal experience. To me,
contribution to new knowledge in art or design is about effective
communication of new perspectives which enable people, in the context of
their own experience, to identify and develop their own opportunities to
create further change and diversity - Innovation.
Regards
Kev
Dr. Kev Hilton
Director of Research
The Centre for Design Research
School of Design
Squires Building
Northumbria University
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 8ST
Tel: 0191 243 7340
Fax: 0191 227 3148
[log in to unmask]
http://www.openfolio.com/users/kevhilton
-----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: 04 May 2006 06:54
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Is individual design process research relevant at doctoral level?
(was PhD/Prof Docs in Design in UK)
Hi Kevin,
I feel you are misunderstanding me.
I'm suggesting that focusing on design process, particularly of an
individual designer, rarely results in useful research outcomes especially
at a doctoral research level and above. (Where has Chris put that asbestos
suit?!)
Instead, I'm suggesting that in research terms it is better to focus on new
knowledge and reasoning identified as a result of the data gathering during
design activity. That is, focusing on the new knowledge needed to be able to
design the new widget or whatever. A significant issue that follows from
this, that some Art and Design fields are slow to accept, is that it is very
rare in research terms that any new knowledge comes from design activity.
This is particularly true in terms of new knowledge at the level of doctoral
research.
A key research issue in the creation of _new_ research knowledge is the role
of _reasoning_. In most forms of design outside craft or art-based design,
reports of representation of development of a design comprises 'snapshots'
of 'knowledge' (mostly represented in terms of concepts and theory) together
with the reasoning, formally and explicitly expressed, that builds the case
to why particular aspects of a design solution were chosen, or develops new
theory. Of course, this is not exactly the way it happens moment by moment
in real life, but is a necessary way to explain it to others and to create
research knowledge (Parnas & Clements, 1986).
I'm also suggesting it is very rare that _new_ knowledge of significance as
a research outcome comes from individual designers subjectively reflecting
on their design activity, i.e. on individual design process. There is
already a very extensive body of literature and analysis in this area. I'm
finding it difficult to see what new knowledge is being added at doctoral
level to, for example, the literature on design process described in (say)
Design Studies in the 1970s.
In most design research literature across design fields, the focus is
mostly on building the knowledge to create the product rather than on the
design process. Exceptions are where the processes are unusually complex and
involve many people over multiple sites. Even then it is rare. For example,
even at the scale of oil and gas design developments involving hundreds of
designers in a 4H (high risk, high cost, high technology and high
complexity) environment, design process research is not exactly cutting
edge.
Its not obvious to me how mapping a design process gives new knowledge. Most
design activity is routine. We know how to do it already. New designs are
made, but that doesn't imply that there is any new knowledge developed
either as used in the reasoning leading up to the design, or in the design
process.
As Michael French (1971) said there are almost an infinite number of was of
describing design process. No models of design process are correct or
accurately representative of what happens inside an individual unless it is
possible to map out their individual neuro-cognitive-physiological
processes. Self-reflection doesn't do that. This makes it difficult for me
to see, in research terms, how researching design processes of individual
designers offers solid generalisable research findings of the sort expected
of a doctoral thesis.
Am I missing something? Thoughts?
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
===
PS.If anyone on the list has one of French's 1971 editions to sell I'd like
to buy it!
Refs:
French, M. J. (1971). Conceptual Design for Engineers. London: Design
Council.
Parnas, D. L., & Clements, P. C. (1986). A Rational Design Process: How and
Why to Fake it. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, SE-12(2), pp.
251-257.
-----Original Message-----
From: Kevin Hilton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 May 2006 9:04 PM
To: 'tlove'
Subject: RE: PhD/Prof Docs in Design in UK
Hi Terry
My feeling on this, is that in engineering there is a level of data
recording and calculation that relates to the process of functional
development, and whereas design would similarly record such functional
elements, the whole process of form recording is left to sketches and
photographs which may be interpreted in different ways. Therefore to
evidence the process adequately the product alone is not sufficient to
communicate contribution to new knowledge.
Surely the value in a product is the reliability of the process that
developed it, not the product itself. As success that does not lead to
further success, or at least engagement, is limited success. Valuable
knowledge, as I see it, leads to other things.
I would agree about design process being a classic form of research, but is
professional practice not about developing more effective approaches to
practice?
Regards
Kev
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous
content by the NorMAN MailScanner Service and is believed
to be clean.
The NorMAN MailScanner Service is operated by Information
Systems and Services, University of Newcastle upon Tyne.
====
This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and
confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take
no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to this e-mail
to highlight the error. You should also be aware that all electronic mail
from, to, or within Northumbria University may be the subject of a request
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and related legislation, and
therefore may be required to be disclosed to third parties.
This e-mail and attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving
Northumbria University. Northumbria University will not be liable for any
losses as a result of any viruses being passed on.
|
