>> Terence wrote:
>>> I took it that Dori's interest was 'evidence' to prove yourself to
>>> qualify
>>> as a member of a particular group - such as the professional group
>>> of
>>> 'design researchers'
>>
I would add patents to the list. They are precise, demonstrate
innovation (if they are granted), and are definitely published. They
have their limitations though, the visual or emotional quality of the
concept being one of them. Another is whether any research was
actually done: some innovations arise in the bath without necessarily
a research phase, or are the product of a designer's intuition (and
rightly so).
Most if not all design artefacts have the same problems. They may be
very poor vehicles for demonstrating the research content of which the
designed artefact is the end result. Once you take the observer out of
their normal zone of professional knowledge (eg. graphics, product,
interiors etc.) they cannot 'read' the product in the same way,
because there is little basis from their experience that leads them to
make a judgement. I have on many occasions invited audiences to tell
me anything about the research that led to a new fume cupboard that I
once designed. There were several innovations to choose from, but
nobody so far has described any of them.
I am an optimist though, and believe that there may be artefacts that
demonstrate with clarity the research process that led to their being.
It would be a great service to the community for list members to point
us to such artefacts.
David
_______________________________________________
David Durling PhD FDRS | Professor of Design
School of Arts & Education, Middlesex University
Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK
tel: 020 8411 5108 | international: + 44 20 8411 5108
email: [log in to unmask] | [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.adri.org.uk | http://www.durling.info
http://www.dartevents.net
_______________________________________________
|