Thanks Klaus,
You make a good point, and a point which is also a staple on our
list. I will abstain from initiating a new round of talks about
design research, but will briefly mention that my vision about
design, research, and design research, expressed or implied in my
previous posts are in no way detrimental to the progression of design
research or the reputation of people who engage in design research.
Your interpretation is one of the possible options. However, you know
that when you interpret a text you already have "hidden" background
information, attitudes, and interests. If you want, you can say about
an encyclopaedic person that he/she is A Jack in All Trades and a
Master in None.
I present in a simplified way a very complex picture that itself
required several levels of background work and explanation of
relationship until we climb to a point where we will see the picture
clearly by reading a concise description. That is a problem that I
don't want to tackle now. It is quite of an ambitious endeavor and
will take a lot of time. I also replied impromptu in the spirit of ad
hoc academic discussion rather than fine-tuned text for publication.
I will mention here again that design as a planning of an activity
and design as a professional activity are two different things. I
used this assumption in my argument. I envisage the design and
planning component element/component in every activity.
I have positive attitude towards designers, researchers, and design
researchers.
I appreciate your remarks because they help me see potential
misinterpretations of my statements. It is always good to have feedback.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
At 01:58 PM 7/26/2007, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>lubomir, you say:
>
>"Design is not research, although it might utilize research activities and
>products. (Our society is created with this purposes in mind, and I
>personally work towards that goal.) The logic of the design method is
>different. As I mentioned, the closest thing to design in the area of
>research is the creation of research plan (research design) and theory
>construction/building. However, scholars do that in their own way and they
>even do not realize that they engage in design. may be because they not care
>-- otherwise they are bright enough to see it and they have actually seen it
>-- they call it research design or
>plan. However, it has a different status in the larger activity (research)
>-- it is like the planning component in every human activity.
>
>i agree. but doesn't this statement throw a wrench in the loose but
>celebratory talk about design research?
>
>i have the feeling that those who talk about design research are either no
>designers or don't know what research is -- and i mean this as a challenge
>to reflect
>
>klaus
|