Hi Thomas, Chris, Ken and the others,
I understand I started a very big discussion (though the discussion is similar to another one we had in December).
It seems to me that everyone is convinced here that research is good to practice and that practice and research should meet in some point. I tend to disagree with Chris when he says that researchers should have experience in practice. Although this would be a very good condition in some cases, it is very hard to find this profile, and anyway the fact that practitioners and researchers could work together in the same environment or on the same project would possible have the same or better effect.
Someone in Lisbon was asking me the value of having researchers investigating on design practice. I am convinced that design practitioners, who are very good at solving practical problems, may not see very big issues in design practice, that "pure" researchers can see much better. IN any profession, I think, there is the need for someone to step back from the complexity of the profession and propose reflections ON the profession from a different perspective.
In this sense researchers working with designers can provide perspective views that, together with methodological approaches, could benefit design practice.
Having said this, the problem is how to implement such a cooperation. The problem we are having, as I stated in the previous message, is that, according to the enrolment criteria in our university, as in many others, the universities should be populated by "pure" researchers, whereas my professional colleagues (I put myself in the category of researchers) would like to see more professionals. As Thomas says, there is the need to find this balance in each local context.
Cheers
nicola
-----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 Thomas Rasmussen
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:10 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: SV: Design Position and job requirements
This is funny. Design should be about finding new solutions for different kinds of problems.
How come, then, that we seek THE way of integrating theory and practice?
As long as we stop trying to pull off practice as research... and realize, that we must respect research as much as we want research to respect design... then there should be local solutions for local problems.
In my experience, it is not too difficult to get professionals involved in research... or to tell them about the benefits of research. In fact, what separates amateurs from professionals is exactly that. The etymology is clear: the root of amateur is lover whereas professional goes back to sacred vows of religious orders.
In other words - the amateur has the luxury of referring only to himself. Whereas the professional plays by rules that are bigger than herself. Amateurs don't listen, because they donøt have to. Professionals listen because wising up on the stuff you don't know will help you do the stuff you do know.
A professional designer i 007 knows her compentences - and she knows where and how to get help to develop. Research could be one option.
There might be two reasons why design research has had little luck in reaching practitioners.
1)
If you go to practicing designers and try to sell them protocol or formalized methods - they might not be very interested because they already have their methods. Maybe we should reconsider practicing designers as the target group for design research.
In stead we could address larger fields. I have conducted investigations into the Danish fashion industry - and right now I am investigation the building industry's interest in textiles. And the picture is pretty clear: if you go to the key players in bigger fields and ask them what they want to know - what their strategic and designrelated challenges are... then you see potentials for design research.
This research might not be suited for designers. Maybe anthropology and cultural studies address fashion - and maybe architects and ingeneers should work with technological textiles and constructions.
This will benefit design in a multitude of ways. Bringing professional researchers into design fields - and into design schools - and have them work with design teachers, design students, and design companies etc. creates new potential for deisgners. It also teaches students to relate and communicate with non-designers. And it creates new information streams.
It might also lead to joint research projects - including practitiones and researchers. And it might even lead to doctoral education for design teachers.
2)
Of course designers should research protocol and generalize methodology. Only we should not wonder why practicing designers want nothing of it. In stead we should teach it to our students. We should make sure that the next generations of designers are taught in such a way that they have the intellectual and analytical capacity to extract knowledge from other fields and disciplines.
If they leave our schools as real academics.... then they will find good jobs in design or whereever - and they will use our research in their future work. Because they will know that the whole point about research is to find and adapt ways of solving problems. Take it from the general and apply it to the specific.
This is also why we need more basic research - and, perhaps, a bit less applied and practice based research - in design. We need the basic research because it informs the applied and the practice based research. And we need to drag more competent theory-people into design... and to make sure that we feed them the design knowledge they need in order to hitch their theoretical waggon to our star.
No need to be modest. Design is the future.
Best,
thomas
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
Thomas RASMUSSEN
Head of Research / Danmarks Designskole
Strandboulevarden 47 / 2100 Copenhagen
Phone +45 3527 7593 / Mobile +45 2523 1215
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
|