Don Norman's views on 'Research' are indeed  reflected in many of the
papers published by Researchers  in Design especially those who have a
multi disciplinary background  ( like Don has) in addition to Design.

The problem seems to be the clubbing of two words  'Design' and 'Research'
without much contemplation , by the Designer community. I suspect this is
a subconscious act by designers to retain their 'disciplinary boundary'
which in turn defines their 'identity'.
(We are Designers therefore we are different than others - syndrome)
Instead of Design Research  the term 'Research in Design'  could be more
apt wording.

The never ending  dichotomy between 'Practice' and 'Academics'  in Design
discipline is another unnecessary  category to base arguments on. All
professions have a practice  component. A Chemist practices his/ her art
of chemistry as much as a Designer does. There need not be any exclusivity
about practice in Design. This does not mean one is hinting at a lower
value for ' practice' in design!

Research, be it in Physics, Chemistry , Architecture or Design  is also a
type of 'Practice'. Researchers are practitioners of their 'skills'.
There is as much of Creative effort involved in 'Research' as in 'Design'.

It is painful to see a group of designers  either upholding Research or
pulling down research.

Lastly if one were to carefully read  published  literature in Research 
Methodology  one is more likely to realize that Design has  the 'seed' of
Research within it. In turn Research practice has the seed of design
within it. One is contained in the other - as we say it in eastern
philosophies.

To me Design thinking and Research Thinking are simmilar. They have more
commanality than differences.

Herbert Simon attempted to address this issue by suggesting that there
needs be a 'Sciences of the Artificial' along with Sciences of the
Natural. He put Design under the Sciences of the Artificial.

__________________________________________
Prof.(Dr) Pradeep Yammiyavar FDRS
Department of Design
Indian Institute of Technology
Guwahati India.
www.iitg.ac.in/design/fac_py.htm
____________________________________________

> 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/ 
>
>


--