[Long post]

Dear Johann

Thank you for going through my post and your reply. Your reply made me go
through my note again and perhaps I could have articulated it better.
However, I do have following points about your post.

You say:

>>
 [2] Design is not manipulation of the user, which is what happens when the
designer actively shapes the artifact "so that it is how it ought to be".
That type of design is what I will have nothing to do with, as I teach my
students. Research comes into the picture when a designer realises that no
design (even when it produces an artifact, it always has to work within a
system) can come into being unless the interactions with user needs are
fully researched, according to accepted research guidelines and principles.
>>

While I agree with you that articulating user’s needs can be seen as
research, you seem to suggest that it is this research that provides us the
design problem. And therefore solving the problem elicited by this research
means that the designer is meeting the need of the user. In other words,
designer designs for what the user needs and therefore “what it is ought to
be” in designer’s view is manipulating the user in your view.

If I have understood you correctly, I do not agree with you. Yes, I agree
that research is needed in articulating needs of the user; but it does not,
on its own, lead to a well defined design problem. In fact, as you know,
design problems are ill-defined and the process of design therefore requires
designer to formulate the design problem which is done by development of a
number of solutions. The research conducted to elicit user needs, in my
view, may (or may not in some cases) lead to a design problem, but more
importantly it uncovers constraints that designer employs as instruments
(Gedenryd, 1998, Lawson, 1980) during the activity of problem formulation.
The outcome of this process is a solution (product or service) which is
“what it is ought to be” in designer’s view as it is she who actively goes
through the process of problem formulation and shapes the solution
reflecting on her design knowledge. 

A solution thus developed, at times, may not directly address user needs as
elicited by research. But then the objective of design is not to design for
what users as clients need but to design what users never dreamt they need
(Lasdun, 1965).

You say:
>>
[1] Even hardened scientific researchers are beginning to admit that an
objective observer is only possible if working with, say, chemicals and test
tubes, and even then (at least in the past) the subjectivity of the human
being that is the researcher has interfered with the so-called objective
reporting of the phenomena.

Working with social phenomena as a social being it is impossible for the
observer (the researcher as well as the designer) to stay objective and not
to "interfere" - mere observation IS interference: Heisenberg proved that
this is so.

The job of the design researcher is to minimize this "interference" by the
process of co-design - by letting the user group have as much insight into
the process as possible. This approach is necessary to address the inherent
problem with qualitative research: taking into account the undeniable
possibility of subjective reasoning from the designer/researcher, how do you
avoid bias and insure " scientific" rigour?
>>

I am not sure I understand you here. On one hand you are saying that it is
impossible to stay objective and not to ‘interfere’, and on the other you
are also saying that the ‘interference’ needs to be minimized. So, are you
suggesting that the researchers needs to remain as objective as possible? If
so, I agree.

And this is what I was trying to point out that while researchers aim to
stay as objective as possible and not interfere with the nature and dynamics
of what is being investigated, designers do not as they purposely interfere
and shape it to move towards a solution.

You say:
>>
This is absolutely wrong. I for one do not recognize this description of
design. 
>>

I am not sure I can respond to this as I have no idea how you understand
design. It might help if you elaborate on it.

You say:
>>
When a designer ( and I do not care whether this design researcher is doing
a fourth year project, a masters or a doctorate in design) goes through the
so-called "normal" design process then possibilities for observing and
recording research data are endless, and a rigorous design-process
observation position is what every designer should be taught. 

That is what is creating future design researchers of our design first years. 
>>

You seem to suggest that designer and design researcher are the same, that
is, the activities carried out by them are the same. If that is so, I don’t
agree with you. This is not to say that designers cannot be design
researcher and vice versa, but there is a clear difference in the nature of
the activities carried out by the designer and the design researcher. For a
design researcher, there maybe value in observing and recording research
data and I agree with you here. But designers don’t just observe but reflect
on knowledge they gain from such observations in formulation of design
problem they are confronted with. It is the knowledge thus gained, by
observing and critiquing not just their own design projects but also fellow
students as well as well known designer that I was referring to in my post.

Therefore, I only partially agree with you that every designer should be
taught “a rigorous design-process observation position” as designers need to
learn more than just ‘observe’ the design process. And you seem to suggest
the same towards the end of your post.

You say:
>>
Your description fits the old-fashioned way of teaching design, in which
versions of the master were turned out as unthinking replicas, taught to
"design" only for themselves, in isolation from any living and thinking user.
>>

I was not referring to teaching design at all. In fact, I was referring to
how the activity of design is carried out where the designer is guided by
her design thinking. As I explained before, designers use constraints as
instruments to formulate the design problem to be solved. It is however
entirely up to the designer to choose the type and nature of the constraints
she wants to use. Since the activity of design leads to a product/service as
envisaged by the designer, it may be so that sometimes designers design for
themselves without giving due consideration to the user of the artifact. And
some designers have done exactly that. It does not however mean that
designers from ‘old fashioned’ school of design always designed ‘in
isolation from any living and thinking users’.

You say:
>>
If a first year design student cannot be taught how to accept a crit in
class, cannot participate in the crit of others' work, cannot, indeed,
communicate, analyze, test or critique, then that design education
environment is useless. 
>>

I have not only gone through formal design education, I have also taught
design at graduate as well as post graduate level. So, I do very well
understand your views on importance of critique in design studio. I agree
with you that teaching critique is extremely important for design students. 

One can argue that critique could be equated with research since it involves
knowledge generation as well as its communication. I, however, don’t agree
with it as knowledge generated during critiques is often solution specific
as well as specific to a particular design situation. Additionally, this
knowledge is usually communicated to the designer to assist her in the
process of problem formulation for a particular project. So, while it may be
possible to communicate this knowledge to a wider audience, it is difficult
if not impossible to test and critique it for another design project and/or
for another design situation.

You say:
>>
A design process that acknowledges the necessity of user inclusion becomes
inherently research-based, and it is a short step from "just design" to
"design research" 
>>

Once again, I don’t agree with you here. Agreed that research need to be
carried out to articulate user needs, but it is only a part of the design
process and therefore design can not be seen as research-based.

I agree that the activity of design or parts of it can be subject of
research and stages of the activity of design may have similarities with
activity of research. However, if we look at the activity of design in its
totality and the role of the designer in carrying it out, there are
fundamental difference between the activity of design and activity of
research. This is what I attempted to point out in my post.

Regards,

parag 


Lawson B, 1980. How Designers Think. Butterworth Architecture,Oxford, UK.

Gedenryd, H., 1998, How Designers Work – making sense of authentic cognitive
activities, PhD Dissertation, Lund University, Sweden

Lasdun, D., 1965, An Architects approach to Architecture, RIBA Journal, vol
72, no 4, April, 1965