I guess where I depart from most of the list on this question seems to  
be becoming fairly clear :). I agree that the basis of research *as we  
have known it for most of its history in the West* has been predicated  
on the idea of explicit knowledge, a common stock of knowledge that  
can be viewed objectively without interference,  and objective  
comparison.

There would be three points I'd make:

1) The statement that the practice of research occurs ONLY through  
these things has been widely disproven through ethnographic accounts  
of what scientific researchers actually do, particularly since Latour  
and Woolgar's Laboratory Life. The out-thereness, explicitness, and  
independence is a consequence of research activities, rather than  
anterior to them. Research is a reality-making activity, bringing  
together human actors (who are definitely not fully external or non- 
interfering) and non-human actors (data, machines) to produce results.  
But much of the actual circulation of knowledge occurs through  
inexplicit or undocumented means (partiucularly in the case of black  
boxes which are common in research). There is certainly no easy way to  
exclude inexplicit knowledge from any actually existing research  
process, which will generally involve certain levels of explicit  
shorthand and various forms of inexplicit knowledge which are assumed  
within a certain community.

2) Designs and cases are analysed, reflected upon, tested, criticised  
to *produce* theory during the making process. That theory may not be  
explicit. But the designer as researcher does undertake a certain  
process of making tangible for themselves, and possibly others  
equipped to "reverse engineer" the work, some kind of reflective  
theory during the making process, whether or not it is written about  
in some other form. That is not to say that all design work is  
research. It's just to say that the process of design production can  
result in an object that embodies knowledge which is "systematic,  
rigorous, critical and reflexive, and communicable," as Newbury  
describes the characteristics of research.  As a designer I know this:  
I can learn something about design by looking, rather than just being  
instructed how to look; I can gain explicit understandings from  
information in designs which has not been theorised or articulated by  
either the designer or a commentator. Sometimes I learn the most by  
observing failures.

3) Definitions of research evolve. I will never read as much as Ken  
Friedman on the history of that evolution (at least until the last 3  
decades of work :) , and I have no desire to challenge it. But I will  
say that it seems strange that such hard lines are being drawn around  
design as research when the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise  
definition suggests otherwise. I know there is no need to reproduce it  
here, but I will:  "'Research' for the purpose of the RAE is to be  
understood as original investigation undertaken in order to gain  
knowledge and understanding. It includes work of direct relevant to  
the needs of commerce, industry and to the public and voluntary  
sectors; scholarship*; the invention and generation of ideas; images,  
performances, artefacts including design, where these lead to new or  
substantially improved insights; and the use of existing knowledge in  
experimental development to produce new or substantially improved  
materials, devices, products and processes, including design and  
construction."

Whatever we think about such policy exercises, this definition does  
allow certain room for design to be undertaken to "gain knowledge and  
understanding", rather than the researcher having to necessarily to  
have to explicitly stand outside of their practice in order for it to  
count as research (as the definition takes no stand on whether the  
knowledge should be explicitly or inexplicitly transmitted).  
Therefore, I struggle to see the value in stating that, as Ken does,  
"*only* explicit articulation permits us to contrast theories and to  
share them. *Only* explicit articulation allows us to test, consider  
or reflect on the theories we develop." (my emphasis). This runs  
contrary to my experience as a designer and an educator, and more to  
the point seems to shut down some of the most promising areas of  
experimental enquiry.

On a final note, Ken, I know my choice of language in the previous  
posts troubled you, but I have to say that I am deeply troubled by  
your claim that "While the river civilizations of
Mesopotamia, Sumeria, Egypt, and China made great advances in  
practical knowledge, administrative routine, and professional practice  
in many fields, they had nothing in the way of scientific theory" with  
the support of some English-speaking scholars as your references.  
Well, they would say that! I certainly learnt some useful insights  
about the mathematical research culture around 200AD or so on my three  
trips to China last year, and it's hard for me to see this sentence as  
anything other than cultural supremacism of the type which I work hard  
to evacuate from my own practice and those of my students. Your  
instructions for us to "read diligently" before making statements on  
Frayling, tacit knowledge etc. are well taken, but I would hope they  
would give a little pause before making such sweeping statements about  
entire cultures and knowledge systems, which in my view entirely  
unnecessary for the argument at hand.

Now, I should be doing some research this morning!

Regards,

Danny

--
Danny Butt
Lecturer, Critical Studies
Elam School of Fine Arts, National Institute of Creative Arts and  
Industries
The University of Auckland
Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand	| http://www.creative.auckland.ac.nz
[log in to unmask]
http://www.dannybutt.net
Ph: +64 9 373 7599 x 89922
+64 21 456 379


On 23/09/2008, at 5:02 AM, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:

> i fully agree with you,
> parag,
> having worked on both sides of the divide and having written much on  
> the
> distinction you make.  there is of course something to be said for  
> providing
> empirical support for a proposed design, even gathering some data to  
> select
> among several alternatives, but this support is always hypothetical,
> speculative, conjectural as we cannot observe the future in which a  
> design
> is to work
> klaus
>
> -----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  
> Parag
> Deshpande
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 11:55 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design as Research?
>
> Dear Ken and everyone,
>
> I am enjoying reading your posts. Thank you very much.
>
> I am a designer (architect) working in the field computer science as a
> researcher and since last few years, I have been trying to examine
> similarities and differences between research and design. To me, the  
> notion
> of design as research is problematic because of following reasons -
>
> 1.	Research entails inquiry or examination where the researcher is an
> observer. Researcher analyzes what he observes, attempts to make  
> sense of it
> and then reports it to the research community. The researcher does not
> interfere with what is being observed since the objective of  
> research is to
> explain the phenomenon as it is. The researchers then reports on his  
> view on
> what has been observed and thus contributes to the knowledge base.
>
> 2.	The designer however does not work in the same manner. The activity
> of
> design involves active participation of the designer in shaping the
> artifact. Therefore, unlike the researcher who simply stands aside,  
> observes
> and reports 'what it is', the designer actively involves herself to  
> shape
> the artifact so that it is 'how it is ought to be'.
>
> While both research as well as the activity of design generates  
> knowledge,
> the knowledge generated in case of an activity of design is limited  
> to the
> designer who actively participates in the process of design. This  
> knowledge
> is often implicit, unarticulated and specific to a design situation  
> and
> therefore can not be communicated, analyzed, tested or criticized  
> which is
> fundamental to the activity of research.
>
> Although, I do not have any evidence at the moment, but rather than  
> design
> as research, research as design seems plausible to me as like design,
> research too begins with an ill-defined problem (question) that  
> evolves and
> becomes well defined through the process of research.
>
> Regards,
>
> parag
> PhD candidate,
> IDC, UL, Ireland