Hi Dori,
I think I can see how you are going with this. Wondering if a bit more
precision might be helpful?
You wrote:
<snip>In graphic design, it is the poster.
In industrial design, it varies on scale but it ranges from the cup to the
car. (Not alphabetically of course) In architecture, it is the blueprint.
<endsnip>
There are some subtle confusions. In graphic design, it is typically the
'blueprint' for making the poster, or rather its represenation in the
desktop computer software or for some, by hand. Many confuse the
representation on their desk computer screen with the poster as finally
'manufactured'/printed but the two are very different. Rarely can the
initial computer or had drawn representation be made direct into the final
poster. Its just that the differences that make the difference (and these
are also part of the graphic design process) are done by 'design
technicians' and 'printing professionals' who convert the visual rep. The
idea that the representation that the designer creates on their screen or
board is the final 'poster' is a deeply embedded illusion of the field; a
'lies to children' explanation by design educators as Pratchett might say.
Similarly, in industrial design, it is typically the representation of the
designed object (a 'blueprint'?) that is asssessed rather than the cup or
car as finally manufactured.
For most of the fields I can think of, it is the representation that is
assessed (or the ability to make part of that represenation) not the final
manufactured version of the designed outcome.
This approach extends into other areas of design?
On a different tack, it might be appropriate to ask "Is 'design research'
the same sort of 'thing' as 'design practice'"? You seem to be proposing
comparing both using the idea of 'artifact of evidence' which assumes
'design practice' and 'design research' are the 'same sort of thing'
(otherwise its like comparing fish and bicycles). If they are seen as the
same sort of thing, then that suggests like lots of other things might be
brought into the mix as they relate to group membership. For example, the
artifact of evidence of truck drivers, prostitutes, managers,...?
Thoughts?
Best wishes,
Terry
-----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 Tunstall,
Elizabeth
Sent: Friday, 1 February 2008 12:05 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: What is the "artifact" of evidence in Design Research?
Greetings group,
I thought I would introduce a new topic.
Context:
I am writing a comparative paper on the questions, assumptions, methods, and
evidence (Barnard 2006) of design practice, anthropology, design research,
and design anthropology. Ken and Klaus's discussion was great for my
thinking about the underlying assumptions (epistemological stances) of each
discipline. I have said for years that the reasons why my design colleagues
occasionally drive me crazy, and vice versa, is that I operate under an
empiricist philosophical tradition while they operate under a rationalist
philosophical tradition. Pragmatically, we find common ground, especially
when I use my empiricism to "prove" their rationalism. "Yes, darling, the
alignment between the ideal poster in your head and what you designed has
been proven by the users." Yet, the heart of any heated argument I have
with my colleagues is normally based on these different epistemological
stances. But I digress.
Question:
What is the "artifact" of evidence in Design Research?
More Context:
In graphic design, it is the poster.
In industrial design, it varies on scale but it ranges from the cup to the
car. (Not alphabetically of course) In architecture, it is the blueprint.
All of which find optimized distribution through the client and competition
prizes.
Note: This is not to say that these are the only artifacts, but they seem to
be the ones in which you are assigned/encouraged to design in order to prove
yourself as a member of the group.
In cultural anthropology, it is the ethnographic monograph.
In physical anthropology, it is the "complete" skeleton.
In archaeology, it is the visual representation of the reconstructed site.
In linguistics, it is the annotated script.
All of which find optimized distribution through peer-reviewed journal
articles.
In design anthropology, I would say it is the "experience model" as
pioneered by E-lab, Doblin and others.
What is it/are they for Design Research?
Dori
References:
Barnard, H. Russell. 2006. Research Methods in Anthropology. 4th ed. New
York: Altamira Press
__________________________________________
Elizabeth (Dori) Tunstall, PhD
Associate Professor, Design Anthropology School of Art + Design University
of Illinois at Chicago
Associate Director, City Design Center
University of Illinois at Chicago
[log in to unmask] email
312.282.2893 mobile
312.996.9768 office
Blog at http://dori3.typepad.com/my_weblog/
City Design Center
820 W Jackson Blvd, Suite 330
Chicago, IL 60607
|