Hi Ken,

Thanks for an excellent and useful post.

Two aspects of engineering that appear to be starting to blur the boundary
between design and research are:
1. Design drawings that capture all the rationale  explaining the full path
of causal reasoning, i.e. the design contains a full description (available
to researchers to critique) of the searched for knowledge and its reasoned
path to the design.
2. Development of optimisation algorithms that identify the structural
details or morphs of optimal solutions. In this case, the research tool is
the mathematical algorithm that results in the identification of the optimal
solution in a manner that parallels research in physical disciplines. Again
the combination of outcome and algorithm provide sufficient  means to
replicate and test the research process and outcomes.

Yesterday, I attended two lectures by Dr Robin Batterham (until recently
Chief Scientist of Australia). At times in the lectures he talked about
research to identify optimum solutions - some of them were classic design
techniques. At one stage he described a research process that paralleled
Synectics as a means of researching at atomic level the detail of crushing
processes in a ball mill.

The situation gets more intriguing.

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 Ken
Friedman
Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2008 4:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design as Research?

Friends,

The thread that Chris Kueh launched with his query on architectural design
research has been interesting and informative. The posts by Gavin Melles,
Cameron Tonkinwise, Harold Nelson, and other pointed me to sources I did not
know. Ben’s note on Christopher Frayling’s relatively inaccessible paper
deserve a separate comment, so I’ll return with thoughts on that later.

Here, I want to follow up on David Sless’s useful note on investigative
practice.

David raises an important point that all professions engage in investigative
practice to undertake professional assignments. I’ve been using the
distinction between clinical research, applied research, and basic research.
In doing so, I’ve located the diagnostic arts under clinical research.
Perhaps there is a valuable affordance in the distinction between clinical
research and investigative practice. This deserves reflection.

At the same time that this thread brings forward useful information, I have
the sense that some of the crucial issues have already been considered in
depth during earlier debates on this list and in conferences and useful
journal issues. A trawl through the list archives and the archives of DRS
list where we formerly held debates will reveal some of these threads.
Members of the Design Research Society will also find some very good
material in the La Clusaz conference proceedings, and in the bibliographies
supporting the conference papers.

For the purposes of this thread, I’d like to shed a little light on the
nature of research.

Webster’s Dictionary defines research with elegant simplicity. The noun
dates from 1577: “re·search noun Pronunciation: ri-’s&rch,
‘rE-”Etymology: Middle French recerche, from recerchier to investigate
thoroughly, from Old French, from re- + cerchier to search
-- more at SEARCH Date: 1577 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious
inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed
at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories
or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or
revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a
particular subject. (Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1002; see also:
ARTFL Webster’s 1913: 1224; Britannica Webster’s 2008: unpaged; OED Online
2008: unpaged; SOED 1993: 2558; Wordsmyth 2008: unpaged).

The verb emerged in 1593. As a transitive verb, it means “to search or
investigate exhaustively” or “to do research for” something, as to research
a book. The intransitive verb means, “to engage in research
(Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1002; see also sources above).

As the dictionaries note (Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1002; see others), the
word research is closely linked to the word and concept of search in
general. Webster’s defines the word search this way: “Middle English
cerchen, from Middle French cerchier to go about, survey, search, from Late
Latin circare to go about, from Latin circum round about -- more at
CIRCUM- Date: 14th century transitive senses 1 : to look into or over
carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: as a
: to examine in seeking something <searched the north field> b : to look
through or explore by inspecting possible places of concealment or
investigating suspicious circumstances c : to read thoroughly : CHECK;
especially : to examine a public record or register for information about
<search land titles> d : to examine for articles concealed on the person e :
to look at as if to discover or penetrate intention or nature
2 : to uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny -- usually used
with out intransitive senses 1 : to look or inquire carefully <searched for
the papers> 2 : to make painstaking investigation or examination”
(Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1059; see others).”

Many aspects of design involve search and research together. It is helpful
to consider this issue in terms of a triad formed by the concepts of
clinical research, basic research, and applied research.
This shapes a dynamic milieu closer to the reality of professional practice
than the common dyadic division between basic research and applied research.
While the dyadic division may suffice for some natural sciences, it is not
adequate for understanding research in the technical and social sciences or
the professions they support.

Basic research involves a search for general principles. These principles
are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of situations and cases.
Basic research generates theory on several levels.
This may involve macro level theories covering wide areas or fields,
midlevel theories covering specific ranges of issues or micro level theories
focused on narrow questions. Truly general principles often have broad
application beyond their field of original, and their generative nature
sometimes gives them surprising predictive power.

Applied research adapts the findings of basic research to classes of
problems. It may also involve developing and testing theories for these
classes of problems. Applied research tends to be midlevel or micro level
research. At the same time, applied research may develop or generate
questions that become the subject of basic research.

Clinical research involves specific cases. Clinical research applies the
findings of basic research and applied research to specific situations.
It may also generate and test new questions, and it may test the findings of
basic and applied research in a clinical situation. Clinical research may
also develop or generate questions that become the subject of basic research
or applied research.

Any of the three frames of research may generate questions for the other
frames. Each may test the theories and findings of other kinds of research.
It is important to note that clinical research generally involves specific
forms of professional engagement. In the rough and tumble of daily practice,
most design practice is restricted to clinical research. There isn’t time
for anything else. 

In today’s complex environment, a designer must identify problems, select
appropriate goals, and realize solutions. Because so much design work takes
place in teams, a senior designer may also be expected to assemble and lead
a team to realize goals and solutions. 

Designers work on many levels. The designer is an analyst who discovers or
selects problems, a synthesist who helps to solve problems, and a generalist
who understands the range of talents that must be engaged to realize
solutions. The designer is a leader who organizes teams when one range of
talents is not enough. Moreover, the designer is a critic whose
post-solution analysis ensures that the right problem has been solved.
Each of these tasks may involve working with research questions. All of them
involve interpreting or applying some aspect or element that research
discloses. 

The difficulty in conflating practice to research comes in the value of
distinguishing what we seek to know and understanding what we do to know it.

It is in this sense thast some of us question the idea of “design as
research.”

The problem is articulating the metanarrative of research. That is, stating
what we seek to know, describing the steps and choices we take in
investigating problems and finding answers. Much of what I’ve seen presented
under the rubric of “design as research” fails on this count. 

There is also the question of rigor. Per Galle points to a valuable paper by
Michael Biggs and Daniela Buchler based on Michael’s presentation at the
Design Research Society Rising Stars meeting a few years back.

More than this, there is the issue of publication that renders the research
useful to others. What we seek and find for ourselves constitutes study.
Most design practice – including architectural practice – falls into this
category. The artifact that results is a design product or output, not a
research product or output.

It was recently can read an artifact or blueprint, the artifact or blueprint
itself constitutes publication. This is unsatisfactory: the artifact itself
tells us nothing about the metanarrative or research, it does not represent
the choices, nor does it allow us to understand the research problem
involved. 

While I have been accused of “privileging the text” in taking this position,
I’m going to plead guilt by necessity. Research is a human thought process.
Since we cannot communicate thinking by telepathy, only explicit words
communicate research issues.

While Nigel Cross argues for the concept of designerly ways of knowing, he
does not support the notion of design as research. Quite the contrary.

Nigel has long held the position that the category of research by design or
research as design has ben entirely fruitless. He asserts that this position
has produced no visible results to date. Around the time that Christopher
Frayling published his 1993 paper, Nigel wrote the first of two editorials
in Design Studies on the theme of research by design.

In his editorial, Nigel (Cross 1993: 226-7) points out the distinctions
between practice and research and the value of connecting research to
teaching and to practice.

In a second editorial two years later, Nigel notes how little progress had
been made in research by design over the two years between 1993 and 1995. He
writes that part of the problem involves the claim that “works of design are
also works of research” (Cross 1995: 2).

Nigel (Cross 1995: 3) states that the best examples of design research
are: purposive, inquisitive, informed, methodical, and communicable.
This requires articulation and shared knowledge within and across the field.
This, again, requires articulate communication of explicit knowledge. In
1999, Nigel addressed this issue yet again in a debate on research methods
in design.

Looking back over the failed efforts of the past decade to produce valid
examples of research by design, Cross (1999: unpaged) wrote, “. . . as I
said in my Editorial in 1995, I still haven’t seen much strong evidence of
the output from the ‘research for and through design’ quarters. Less of the
special pleading and more of the valid, demonstrable research output might
help.”

Now it could be that Nigel has revised his views on the notion of research
as design, but he has not said so yet in public. 

These are serious issues. One of the crucial problems we face in our field
involves finding ways to incorporate the findings of design practice into
research, along with finding ways to translate research back into effective
practice. We also need ways to work effectively with the different kinds of
research and the contributions they can make to design as a field, and to
the larger stock of human knowing.

Renaming design as research has not helped us to achieve either goal. 

Yours,

Ken


References

ARTFL Webster’s. 1913. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G & C.
Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for American and
French Research on the Treasury of the French Language). Chicago:
Divisions of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html. Date
accessed: 2007 September 18.

Biggs, Michael A. R., and Daniela Büchler. 2007. “Rigor and practice-based
research.” Design Issues, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 62-69.

Britannica Webster’s. 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Online edition. Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. URL: http://www.britannica.com/. Date
accessed: 2008 September 18.

Cross. Nigel. 1993. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 14, No. 3, 1993, pp.
226-227. 

Cross. Nigel. 1995. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995, pp.
2-3.

Cross. Nigel. 1999. “Subject: Re: Research into, for and through designs.”
DRS. Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:43:18 +0000.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
Tenth editOED. 2008. OED Online. Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. J. A.
Simpson and E. S. C. Weiner. 2nd ed, 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford
University Press. URL: http://dictionary.oed.com/. Date accessed: 2008
September 18.
 
SOED. 1993. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Edited by Lesley
Brown. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

Wordsmyth. 2008. The Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus. [WEDT].
Robert Parks, ed. Chicago: Wordsmyth Collaboratory. URL:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/. Date accessed: 2008 September 18.




Ken Friedman
Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

+61 3 92.14.64.49 Telephone Swinburne

email: [log in to unmask]


-----
Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for the
use of the addressee. They may contain information that is privileged or
protected by copyright. If you are not the intended recipient, any
dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is strictly
prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail and any
attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be corrupted in
transmission. It is your responsibility to check any attachments for viruses
or defects before opening them. If you have received this transmission in
error, please contact us on +61 3 9214 8000 and delete it immediately from
your system. We do not accept liability in connection with computer virus,
data corruption, delay, interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised
amendment.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.