Dear Leonardo and Chris,

While it is true that these are old debates, they are not yet settled.
One reason these issues are not yet settled is that so many design
schools have embarked on research programs in recent years. Many of the
people now participating in the list were not active during some of the
past debates.

At the risk of boring some of those who have been here for prior
debates, I’m going to try answering Leonardo’s question. If you’ve heard
me say this before – and I have done – just delete the message or switch
channels.

Much of the confusion in the terminology of “practice as research” is
linked to an ambiguous definition of design research that Frayling
proposed by his 1993 paper. 

Frayling suggested that there are three models of design research,
research into design, research by design, and research for design.
Frayling is unclear about what “research by design” actually means and
he seems never to have defined the term in an operational way. In a 1997
discussion, Frayling noted that his ideas was “distantly derived from
Herbert Read’s famous teaching through art and teaching to art.” This
leads to serious conceptual problems.

Read’s distinctions deal with education and with pedagogy, not with
research. The failure to distinguish between pedagogy and research is a
significant weak area in the argument for the concept of research by
design. In addition to the difficulties this has caused in debates on
the notion of the practice-based Ph.D., it also creates confusion for
those who have come to believe that practice is research. The confusion
rests, again, on a failure to read.

Frayling’s proposal seems to be have been an effort to establish
possible new research categories. As an inquiry or probe, this was a
worthy effort. The problem arises among those who mistake an
intellectual probe with a statement of fact. To suggest that such a
category is possible does not mean that it exists in reality. Dragons
may exist, but we have no evidence that they do. Medieval mapmakers
created great confusion and limited the growth of knowledge for many
years by filling in the empty edges of their maps with such phrases as
“here there be dragons” rather than admitting, “we know nothing about
what lies beyond this point.” 

Beyond this arises the problem of what “research by design” might mean.
If such a category did exist – and it may not – the fact of an existing
category would tell us nothing of its contents. Unlike dragons, we know
that the planet Jupiter exists. Like the edges of the map, however, we
know relatively little about conditions on the surface of the planet.
Even though the laws of nature mean that some facts must be known –
gravity and pressure, for example – these facts tell us little about the
myriad realities that may play out depending on specific factors. 

As a probe, Frayling’s discussion was intended to open possibilities.
Those who mistake it for a report mistake its potential value.

In one sense, however, Frayling misread Read. In adapting the surface
structure of Read’s terms, he failed to realize a distinction that is
implicit in Read’s project. This is the fact that education can be
developed though the direct practice of an art. This is the case in
socialization and modeling, in guild training, and it is the basis of
apprenticeship. In many situations, education and learning proceed by
practicing an art or craft. One can also learn the art and craft of
research by practicing research. Nevertheless, one does not undertake
research simply by practicing the art or craft to which the research
field is linked. 

So far, the category of research by design has proven fruitless. Around
the time that Frayling published his 1993 paper, Nigel Cross wrote the
first of two editorials in Design Studies on the theme of research by
design. One appeared in 1993, the other in 1995.

In his first editorial, Nigel pointed out the distinctions between
practice and research and and to practice.

In his second editorial, Nigel noted that little progress had been made
in research by design over the two years between 1993 and 1995. He
writes that part of the problem involves the claim that “works of design
are also works of research” (Cross 1995: 2).

In the second editorial, Nigel stated that the best examples of design
research are: purposive, inquisitive, informed, methodical, and
communicable. This requires articulation and shared knowledge within and
across the field. This, again, requires articulate communication of
explicit knowledge. In 1999, Nigel addressed this issue yet again in a
debate on research methods in design. Looking back over the failed
efforts of the past decade to produce valid examples of research by
design, Nigel (Cross 1999: unpaged) wrote, “. . . as I said in my
Editorial in 1995, I still haven’t seen much strong evidence of the
output from the ‘research for and through design’ quarters. Less of the
special pleading and more of the valid, demonstrable research output
might help.”

While the phrase “research by design” has been widely used by many
people, it has not been defined. I suspect, in fact, that those who use
the phrase have not bothered to read either Frayling’s (1993) paper or
Read’s (1944, 1974) book. Instead, they adopt a misunderstood term for
its sound bite quality, linking it to an ill-defined series of notions 

The debate still seems quite live to me. In fact, I wrote an article in
the recent issue of Journal of Visual Arts Practice on exactly this
point (Friedman 2008). To my chagrin, I did not do a review reading of
Frayling, and I got the prepositions wrong in my title. Instead of
research into, for and through design, I titled it research into, by and
for design. Judith Mottram wrote on a related topic in the same issue
and got the prepositions right. Now, I’m drafting a correction letter to
the journal, and reminding myself always to check twice rather than
trusting to memory.

But that also goes to remind me that it sometimes heps to review the
issues rather than assume everyone has been here for the debate.

So thanks for your question, Leonardo. One of the great things about
PhD-Design is that it’s a good place to ask reasonable questions. Even
though someone has asked those questions in the past, it’s possible to
deepen our insights by asking again. From time to time, we even learn
something new, as mathematicians and physicists learn all the time as
they review questions others have thought long answered. That’s also
true of philosophers and sociologists.

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

Telephone +61 3 9214 6755 
www.swinburne.edu.au/design


References

Cross. Nigel. 1995. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995, pp.
2-3.

Cross. Nigel. 1999. “Subject: Re: Research into, for and through
designs.” DRS. Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:43:18 +0000.

Frayling, Christopher. 1993. Research in Art and Design. RCA Research
Papers, vol. 1, no. 1. London: Royal College of Art.

Friedman, Ken. 2008. “Research Into, By and For Design.” Journal of
Visual Arts Practice, Vol. 7. No. 2, pp. 153–160.

Read, Herbert. 1944. Education through Art. London: Faber and Faber.

Read, Herbert. 1974. Education through Art. Third revised edition. New
York: Pantheon Books.