Dear Ranulph,

This is yet another of the strong positions that mistakenly conflates design
with research. This conflation is different from yet related to the “design
as research” position.

The assertion that research is a subset of design rests on semantic
slippage, grammatical slippage, and category confusion.

Design is a process human beings use to plan processes as well as a process
we use to plan products and services. The fact that we must plan a process,
product, or service does not make that process, product, or service a subset
of the planning process. It means than design or planning influences,
creates, shapes, or helps to transform the process, product, or service we
design.

All automobiles are engineered. This does not make automobiles a subset of
engineering. All roast chickens are cooked. This does not make roast
chickens a subset of cooking.

One reason I disagree with the assertion that “research is a subset of
design” is that you’ve never put forward a detailed and convincing argument
for the assertion. You’ve simply said it.

This position is not a corrective to the equally mistaken claim that
positions “design as a subset of research.” Design is not a subset of research.

Design research is one of many forms of research, but not all design
activity is design research.

A subset is something in which each member of the subset is wholly and
entirely a part of the larger set to which it belongs. The assertion that
research is a subset of design states that all research processes and all
aspects of research are a subset of the design process.

This kind of willful semantic slippage appears whenever we conflate all
designed artifacts of to design. This occurs when we refer to blue jeans,
jewelry, or luxury cars as “design.” This rhetorical device is fine for
advertisements, not for deeper understanding.

The grammatical slippage involves conflating nouns (things designed) to a
verb (design as a process that helps to plan the things we design) or to a
noun (the word design used to represent the design process). 

It’s easy to sort out the semantic slippage with an example. Human beings
design all the processes and products used in chemical research and testing.
We design the research methods, the tools, the equipment, and we even design
the chemicals not present naturally in pure form. Human beings have designed
much of the field of chemistry, and all of its theories and concepts. This
doesn’t make chemistry, or test tubes, or Bunsen burners a subset of design.

It is indeed inappropriate to consider design as a subset of research. No
one sensible makes such a claim. 

It is equally incorrect to think of all research as design.

In every research field, we find specialists in research methodology who
design research processes. Specialist or not, everyone who plans a research
project is a designer in respect to the methods, processes, and outcomes of
his or her research. That does not make research a subset of design. It
means that researchers use a design process as one tool in shaping their work.

There are also examples of researchers who do not design. Millions of people
around the world conduct routine research tests and diagnostic research
tests every day. Most routine testing and diagnostics involves no planning.
The tests and the methods they use are designed and planned by others. The
researchers execute them without designing them, and record the results
often without applying them. In many cases, the actual testing is a black
box process in which the tester lacks the competence to design the process
or even to understand it. This occurs when most computer users use
ready-made software packages to run computer diagnostics for testing and
repair or when most people use home testing for pregnancy or medical conditions.

For these people, research is not a subset of design. They are not designers
and they do not design the research. They do the research much as most of us
drive the cars or wear the jeans that others design.

I can’t see why we “need to think of research as design.” 

Our needs are better met when we think clearly, avoiding category
confusions, and avoiding the kinds of semantic and grammatical slippage
these confusions often involve.

Yours,

Ken


On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:16:08 +0700, Ranulph Glanville
<[log in to unmask] wrote:

“Taking what by now seems to be my usual contrary and dismissible position,
I think we need to think of research as design. All research is designed,
but not all design is researched. In this way of looking, research is a
subset of design and it is completely inappropriate (unless practicing
self-reference) to consider design as a subset of research. But I've said
that before, in fact since 1978!”