Hi Gunnar,

I'm agreeing with you pretty well on everything. We see things from slightly
different angles. For example,

<Gunnar>I agree with Karel's suggestions of some topics worthy of research
(1 role of mediator, 2 professional planning, 3 extension of graphic design
skills into more complex projects, 4 measurement of effects, and 5
evaluation.) It's worth noting that, in contrast to Terry's assumptions,
they seem to mainly reside in the worlds of social science and business
rather than mathematical calculation.

<Terry> I agree. The fosuc of much good research is primarily in
non-mathematical areas. To ensure the results are reliable and useful
thought usually requires some serious maths because the three key processes
are knowledge elicitation, oraganisaitonal process modeling, and
evaluation/validation...

<Gunnar> Although work that goes into the next version of InDesign may be
"design research" in some sense, not very damned much of it is graphic
design research and graphic designers are more likely to serve well as
research subjects than as researchers in the effort.

<Terry> I agree. Designers are most likely to be participants in design
research as research subjects of knowledge elicitation projects. In part
this is because they usually don't have the necessary technical research
skills. What is needed is more designers who can do research to replace
researchers who do not understand deeply how to design.

Eliciting the design knowledge from designers about 'rules of thumb' is only
a tiny part of the research process (although it is usually the part seen as
most significant by designers). The main part is the research to convert
those design knowledge snippets into code and software that offers big
productivity improvements and automates/replaces designers judgments and
design activity - that requires a fair but of work in the maths/science
research domains.

<Gunnar> There are huge advantages in specialization: designers are better
being designers and research being researchers (I hope this is more or less
the right précis)

<Terry> I agree. There are huge advantages in specialization and that is
more or less how things have been done to date. However, there's a
significant drive from designers working in academia arguing design should
count as research and there are benefits in bridging design and research.

<Gunnar>But two questions arise: Why should the research be done by graphic
designers? Why should graphic design education be dominated by researchers?
.... doesn't imply that all graphic designers should become researchers.
Terry's claim strikes me as absurd on the face of it.]

<Terry> You seem to misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting graphic designers
become software programmers or that graphic designers become design
researchers! Being graphic designers seems to be a good place to be.

I'm suggesting, however, it's possible to see four NEW strands emerging in
Art and Design design practices (of which Graphic Design is one of around 40
professions):

1. Increasing technicalisation of design activity in ways that require more
scientific skills (in part due to research done by others, e.g. David Sless'
group) - some design practitioners will find it advantageous to understand
more technical things than they do at present to be able to address more
complicated issues and collaborate with technical designers.

2. Commoditization reducing many design activities to operating computers
that use expert design systems (e.g. Adobe products) that for many skilled
design activities replace the designer to create designs - some designers
will find their work reduced to being a software jockey.

3. A transition by designers who focus on aesthetic issues backwards towards
"design as 'styling'" - the increased complexity of interaction between
disciplines in design activity means that those who focus only on aesthetics
have nowhere to go but do aesthetics. This leaves them primarily in the
traditional role of stylists.

4. Emergence of new fields of design practice that require postgraduate
levels of reasoning using academic knowledge in the sciences, social
sciences, business and biological sciences - the complexity that is
increasingly beginning to be addressed in design activity requires the kind
of skills at dealing with complexity that are found in a postgraduate level
education in the appropriate areas. Designers with these skills in
complexity can also transition into design areas in which complexity is the
norm such as organization design, social systems design, business and
biological systems design. A deep problem that will block this for 5-10
years is that design involving complexity is not yet taught significantly in
Art and Design postgrad courses because typically it requires decent Math
skills.

In parallel, I suggest there are simultaneous trends towards both
centralization of design (a small number of privileged wealthy design firms
) and decentralization (a large number of competent design firms providing
design services both locally and internationally). It's not obvious which
ways this is playing out yet. I welcome others' feelings and thoughts on
this.

All the best for the festive season,
Terry