Chris, Ken, Don, Jose, Jeremy and all,

Having read all the posts and seen the new questions and many answers, I 
might add a few responses:

The context for my original question was admittedly selfish, but one I 
hoped might help other students in this situation. Jeremy cleared up 
what I couldn't express clearly - I am thinking about innovation. Ken 
was right when he deduced that I'm a doctoral student; to add to that, I 
would consider myself a design-researcher because my role is to conduct 
research that contributes to knowledge, and to communicate these 
contributions in the written word and through the results of physical 
experiments. So the basis for asking the question was that both written 
words and artefacts demonstrate the contribution.

Several comments over the last few days have suggested that a 
practitioner might seek publication simply for recognition. While this 
may happen, the basis for my question was that I was hoping the artefact 
might form part of the argument for the contribution of the work - in 
this case resulting from doctoral research. If I wanted recognition I 
might have stayed as a designer, the lure of research was to contribute 
in a different way. The main reason I came to doctoral research from 
being solely a practitioner was because the "research" that occurs on 
the back of an envelope in an industry setting was so often inadequate - 
much like some have suggested here that the word 'research' is itself 
inadequate. Don has suggested that the fields of design and research are 
just different, with different goals. I agree with this, having done 
both. But where this leaves design research might be troublesome. I 
agree that an artefact does not constitute a body of knowledge, however 
I do suggest that an artefact can demonstrate a body of knowledge, 
especially as part of the broader communication methods of journals, 
conferences and chapters.

The cited theses by Whiteley and Pedgley I have read, along with others. 
There aren't many examples of studio-Ph.D research, but they go some way 
to answer Jose's question about wholly written vs. wholly artefact; in 
that a balanced response is good. I have often thought about my Ph.D 
with the analogy of a Chemistry Ph.D; a series of experiments based on 
previous knowledge intended to further that knowledge. This and the 
Scientific method are excellent for the purposes of this research 
student, the only shortcoming being that the 'experiment' goes through 
stages that can be quite protracted - experience of the end user for 
example.

Thanks to the superb archiving system and some recommendations made by 
Ken and others, I'll now get on with that reading - discussions that 
took place before I was in this area.

best regards to all,

Robbie Napper
Industrial Design
Monash University
p) +61 3 990 31059
f) +61 3 990 31440