Hello,
I've found it useful to use the Humanities development of Critical Analysis
in following these sorts of discussions. Critical analysis is the central
heartland of Humanities way of thinking and pehaps its greatest contribution
to Design Research.
The role of Critical Analysis is to identify false conclusions, errors of
argument, fallacious argument, biased reasoning, deliberate intentions to
mislead, accidental misthinking, and the kind of sneaky rhetoric that is
intended to persuade against evidence.
I've found Chris Swoyer's free ebook 'Critical Reasoning: A User's Manual'
useful. It's fun in particular to apply fallacy detection tools of Section
IV of Chris' book to 'interesting' reasoning in Design Research.
There's a pointer to Chris' book at 'Concepts and tools' weblinks at
www.allaboutdesignresearch.com (disclaimer - I'm involved with the site).
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Unit,
Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
Institute
Research Associate at Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848 Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office) [log in to unmask]
____________________
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.
____________________
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council,
UNIDCOM/IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
____________________
-----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 Danny
Butt
Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2008 7:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design as Research?
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
|
