Dear Leonardo,
I expect you are new to this list so you will not realise that your
question and other versions of it have been debated endlessly for the
past ten years or more. I suspect many of us are quite weary of it and
would rather get on with some research.
It's much more complex that the picture you present. I think Nigan
Bayazit is right but Christopher Frayling is not saying the opposite.
A better starting point is Bruce Archer, who uses some of the same ideas
as Archer but in a much more developed way, Here is a link to his 1995
paper "The Nature of Research"
http://chrisrust.wordpress.com/1995/12/31/archer-the-nature-of-research/
That paper started me thinking about the possibilities, you'll find some
relevant papers of mine on the same blog, and quite a few people have
developed different ideas about "practice-led" research since then. It
has become a very complex subject and there are no easy rules.
The one thing I would say is that "Practice AS Research" is very
misleading and a dangerous starting point. Practice is not research but
different professional practices can be useful research tools.
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
...............................................................o^o
Professor Chris Rust FDRS
Head of Art and Design
Sheffield Hallam University, S1 2NU, UK
+44 114 225 6772
[log in to unmask]
http://chrisrust.wordpress.com/
Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the
future of the human race. - H. G. Wells
Leonardo Parra wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> It was suggested to me at the IxDA list to post on this list the following:
>
> "I am currently involved in a discussion on how research can be a part of
> design.
>
> There seems to be two different paths, Nigan Bayazit wrote: "Some of the
> art, craft, and design people call what they do for art and design
> “research.”...An artist’s practicing activities when creating a work of art
> or a craftwork cannot be considered research.", but C Frayling from RCA
> writes about how the actual design practice IS research. Just an issue
> tickling my mind these days. Any input on this?"
>
> On a different post I wrote this to complete the idea:
>
> "Now to be a little more specific, the actual discussion at my work group is
> aimed at defining research policies in our design department, within
> specific research requirements/perspectives coming from university policies.
> We are looking at how -design activities- are a form of research, which may
> not fit a scientific point of view.
>
> "The danger with the Bayazit approach is that it can end up being totally
> theoretical. " I agree with you, and that is exactly what we´re not looking
> for, or at least a group of us, we believe design practice can be understood
> as research, but I guess you are right when you say "published", we
> certainly need to write about it.
>
> And yes, you are correct again when you speak about "politics in academia"
> We are trying to bend the rules, we still have a designer inside! "
>
> Policy making, validating design practice as research on a very scientific
> oriented university, insights and ideas are what I´m looking for.
>
> Thanks to Gloria for suggesting this list.
>
> Best,
>
> Leonardo.
>
|