dear chris,
thanks for your effort of making bruce archer's paper available.
it shows how much bruce was ahead of his time. many discussions we had on
the phd-design list would have benefited from his conceptions. i don't
agree with everything he said, especially concerning research in the
humanities (and social sciences), but his criteria for systematic inquiry
for design are still valid:
systematicity (planfulness),
question or goal-directed,
providing knowledge (not mere information,
communicability of findings,
providing grounds for informed action
they answer the question whether a phd-dissertation could be a design, or a
mere documentation of what one did.
incidentally, he wrote an enthusiastic foreword for my "the semantic turn, a
new foundations for design" which unknowingly of his paper, embraces his
ideas wholeheartedly
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 Chris
Rust
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 5:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Bruce Archer's 1996 "The Nature of Research" online
Hi everybody,
Thanks to all the people who got in touch with copes of Bruce Archer's
paper. Unfortunately the only copies available so far are rather poor
quality scans of old photocopies, often with handwritten notes added.
So I've taken the liberty of transcribing it to a new pdf. It's lost the
original layout and three images that were not central to the narrative but
I think I've managed to produce an accurate copy.
It's here
http://www.chrisrust.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/academic/resources.htm
This paper is important for several reasons. In it Bruce Archer set out a
very clear and comprehensive overview of research thinking in the sciences,
humanities and arts and discusses the validation expected in the academy,
especially for research degrees. He provides one of the first serious
examinations of the practical implications of "practice-led" research in
design and sets out his three part model of research into, for and through
practice.
I've included a short note explaining why I believe Archer to be the
originator of this model, despite the earlier publication by Christopher
Frayling which is widely cited as the source. Frayling made a useful and
distinct contribution, but it appears that Archer was thinking along these
lines in the 1970s.
Although I feel our thinking has moved on in some ways since Archer wrote
this it's still one of the best expositions of what research is and how it
works out in different fields and I would suggest that it's the ideal first
primer for anybody at the start of their journey as researchers.
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris Rust
|