On 10/08/2007, at 6:05 PM, Dr. Pradeep Yammiyavar wrote:
> After reading through the exchange of different view points I
> wonder how
> I should be defining ‘Research’ as a Designer and further how I
> should
> proceed to understand “Design research” ?
Dear Pradeep,
Some thoughts for you.
1. Debates about definitions, from my point of view, are essentially
sterile, though they do provide wonderful opportunities for
intellectual gymnastics. Following a post Wittgenstein point of view
I assume that any attempt at definition simply ends up telling us
about the many different ways we use language. It does not get to the
essential nature of THINGS. It gets us to the essential nature of
language use. As Karel suggests, Simon's definition is at once too
broad and too narrow to account for what we actually do as designers.
This would be true of almost any attempt at definition. (I should add
in parentheses that a long time ago, I too went down that route and I
happen to think my definition is better than Simon's*, but I see no
great value in debating the differences.
*Sless D 1978
Definition of design: originating useful systems
Design Methods and Theories 12 (2) 123–130 )
2. Rather than look at definitions, I have found it more useful to
define design in terms of what I do. I can point to a process I go
through and the things I do at each stage of that process. In my case
that is a seven stage process which I have mentioned on this list
many times before.
3. Taking that process as the core of what I do, I then ask about any
investigative process or research finding how it fits into that
process. Is it part of Scoping, Benchmarking etc.? Does it make a
contribution to this or that aspect of what I actually do? It might,
of course, relate to the whole process, offering a different or
better way of doing things, or it may be a critique of the process
itself. No matter what it is, I look at it from WITHIN my point of
view. In a way, I can do no other. To a hammer, everything looks like
a nail.
4. One of the consequences of this is a set of criteria by which I
can look at other people's work and clearly articulate where it is
relevant to what I do and where it is not. It also gives me criteria
by which I can decide on the quality of particular research once I
have located it in relation to what I do.
5. So in a roundabout way what I'm suggesting is that you begin from
what you do. In looking outwards--doing research--look at the world
and what other people do in it and ask what of their work is relevant
to what you do, articulate the reasons why and how it might change,
add, contradict what you do, and come to a view about that. If you do
all of these things with rigour and share it with others, you are
doing design research.
4. There are many who take a very different view and would regard my
position as bordering on being self referential or even circular. I
leave the bigger world to them. I move in small circles.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|