Dear Mark, and others,
In respect to what you are writing :
> As a point of clarification, I was only referring to researchers
> that undertake creative practice as part of their PhD. I do not
> have an issue with anyone investigating the practice of others. It
> is researchers doing the designing that I find problematic.
wouldn't it be possible to use what researchers on the "practice of
others" have studied as a ground for defining what is the research
side of a practitionner ? (or : of a given formal project, I would say).
Note that this is not an easy task. I remember having been flamed in
a conference when I presented (probably in a very confusing way) an
attempt to formalize what was researched in various types of drawings
(what made them "diagrammatic"). My starting point was very simple
(being a simple mind from this planet earth) : "is there anything
that could suggest, if I find a set of sketches of Matisse in
Tangiers, whether he is an architect or a painter".
Yet, that small study (and a few others) helped me to find criteria
that could clarify my understanding of what is the research topic
within a given project of a given practitionner. This is to say that
not all projects, even from the same designer/architect/ artist etc.
are research. Some of them (a few) can be. And not necessarily at the
place where one (and even the author) believe it might be.
Hope it helps ?
Jean
|