Hi Don,
The argument seems coherent but i still have two questions that could not answer with your explanation:
- How would you define a new physical artefact that perform a new function that can solve a current crucial problem, and that has for that purpose had to develop new knowledge? It would be good practice, research, etc.?
- This question is related with Robbie's question (what i think he meant in his question). If one practitioner and one 'researcher' present their 'research' outcomes, namely a paper and a physical artefact, and both are presented to an academic peer review (which is the one that counts for academic/research purposes) which one would be considered or they would be cosidered equally?
Thanks for your attention,
Jose
> Date: Fri, 1 May 2009 15:17:15 -0700
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: On publication: Advancing the state of knowledge VS. Being recognized
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
> Ah, a chance to try out the ideas for my keynote for the design research
> conference in Seoul this coming October.
> ------------------------
>
> I recent contributor to this forum raised a question (below) that indicates
> confusion about the nature of research and the distinction between research
> publication and professional recognition.
>
> The correspondent asked:
> -----------------
> "the written word is a large part of our communication, but not the only
> part. In many situations, mine included, the research has resulted in
> manufactured products. Should we design researchers consider these
> artefacts as a publication? If so, who will count them?"
> -------------------------
>
> The question confuses several things. One is the unfortunate ambiguity of
> the word "research" in the term design research. The other is the
> distinction between enhancing the fundamental knowledge about design --
> which is what I call design research -- and the recognition one gets for
> doing quality work.
>
> Many designers call "research" the act of learning about the customers,
> clients, and users of a design. I do not call this research -- I call this
> exploration. I'll return to this later. Instead, I will discuss the other
> two components: getting recognition for one's work and enhancing the state
> of knowledge.
>
> ADVANCING THE STATE OF KNOWLEDGE.
>
> The purpose of research publication is NOT they it be counted. The purpose
> of publication in the world of research to develop cumulative, additive
> knowledge. In most substantive fields -- and especially in science -- the
> work of previous people provides a firm basis of generalizable knowledge
> that can be replicated and built upon by others.
>
> I am aware that mentioning the words "Design" and "Science" in the same note
> offends some people. It shouldn’t. Science does not mean mathematics.
> Science does not mean unimaginative, non-creative, dull, and solely
> concentrating upon function. To believe this is not to understand what
> science is about.
>
> Science is not a body of knowledge: it is a process of open publication,
> replicable results, and oftentimes fierce debate about findings. In the
> long-term, the process filters out the bad and irrelevant and yields a
> substantive body of agreed-upon results, replicable, and generalizable to
> new phenomena and situations. The process, by the way, is often messy,
> contentious, and driven by personalities and private feuds. The long-term
> result filters out these components.
>
> Workers publish their findings and their methods, allowing others to repeat
> the results and build upon them – or fail to replicate, thereby creating the
> healthy debate (and fierce arguments) that constitute scientific discourse.
> It is not enough to publish one’s results: they must be generalizable,
> stated in a way that will aid future people in doing similar – but different
> work.
>
> I want the same thing for design. I am interested in determining a firm,
> repeatable, sustainable body of knowledge that can be taught, that can be
> used to inform designers, and that year and after year, grows, and adds to
> itself in a way that enhances and improves the field of design. It is the
> role of research to develop these ideas, to publish them in a way that other
> people can test them and either build upon them or enhance and modify them.
>
>
> It is important to publish these results in standard places so others know
> where to look. Science journals have established a system of quality control
> called “peer reviewing.” This is a critical part of the publication cycle,
> even if publication is entirely on-line. The better journals in design --
> and Ken Friedman’s recent postings have done an excellent job of describing
> and listing them -- are peer reviewed by anonymous reviewers who look for
> substance and generalizable results.
>
> The reason we need to publish in peer-reviewed journals is that they
> guarantee a level of quality. The reason that we should stick to a small
> number of journals is that we want our colleagues to read them -- if a paper
> is published but not read, it might as well not be published. The purpose
> of publication is communication.
>
> Design has tended to be taught through example, mentorship, and examination
> of prior art. “Designer X did this. Design group Y did that.” That is how a
> craft advances. It is not how to advance a systematic body of knowledge.
>
> DOING RESEARCH ABOUT THE CLIENT, CUSTOMER, OR USER IS NOT RESEARCH -- IT IS
> EXPLORATION
>
> I don’t count this as scientific research and I wish the R word was not used
> here. I call this "exploration.". This is gathering the information needed
> to do great design. If your aim is to develop new methods for doing this or
> to extend and enhance our knowledge of how to do this kind of exploration,
> then yes, that qualifies as research. Otherwise, no, it is just the
> necessary exploration necessary to the act of designing.
>
> RECOGNITION
>
> Some aspects of design work upon different principles. This is fine -- just
> different. What about those wonderful artifacts produced by the world's
> many excellent practicitioner of design? How do they get recognized. Ah, now
> we are asking about recognition -- this is different than the task of
> advancing the state of knowledge.
>
> Practitioners should get recognized. They should present their work in
> juried contests, in exhibitions, and in design magazines. The researchers
> might very well wish to study those works to derive repeatable generalized
> principles.
>
> Researchers also have to be recognized in order to be promoted. The academic
> world looks to publication in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals or
> conferences. (Only a tiny number of conferences qualify to count in the
> world of academics -- the major CHI/HCI conferences do, but these are not
> really design conferences. SIGGRAPH does, but it too is not a design
> conference. Some engineering design conferences do, but this is not the same
> kind of design most of us are interested in. Most design conferences do
> not.)
>
> Practitioners in universities can also be promoted through critical reviews
> of their works. This is how musicians, actors, artists are promoted. Even
> professions such as law, business, and medicine. So too with design. But
> don’t confuse this with research. It isn't.
>
> If you call yourself a researcher but your only output is a physical
> artifact, then you are deluding yourself. You are a practitioner, not a
> researcher. If the work did not enhance our understanding of fundamental
> principles, if it is not generalizable to other kinds of work, it should not
> be labeled research. It is an example of craft. I am happy to have that work
> recognized as important and significant. But until someone determines the
> underlying principles that add to our generalizable body of knowledge, it is
> not a contribution to research.
>
> There is advancing the state of the art. There is recognition for one’s
> works. They are different things.
>
> We publish to advance the state of the art. Although quality publications
> also provide recognition, that is not the proper reason to be publishing. It
> is a sometimes unfortunate byproduct. Unfortunate because it confuses what
> should be the real reason – to advance understanding.
>
> Design today is NOT a cumulative field of study. That is unfortunate. It
> needs to change, especially as we enter the era of more complexity in our
> artifacts, of the need for different materials, for environmentally healthy
> and sustainable materials and manufacturing, where devices have electronics,
> microprocessors, motors, and sensors. Where batteries are deployed that use
> energy, have limited life which both impacts their ability to do the
> required job and also the ability to recycle them appropriately. Our devices
> communicate with people and with the environment, with other devices. More
> and more they exhibit intelligence, acting of their own volition, with
> complex emergent behaviors. To design these properly requires a science.
>
> Don Norman
> Nielsen Norman Group
> Breed Professor of Design, Northwestern University
> Visiting Distinguished Professor. KAIST, Daejeon, Korea
> [log in to unmask]
> www.jnd.org/
_________________________________________________________________
Más rápido, sencillo y seguro. Descárgate ya el nuevo Internet Explorer 8 ¡Es gratis!
http://www.vivelive.com/ie8
|