Dear All

Lubomir is right to point out that through this forum we can only really
scratch the surface of the discussions and argumentation of how, and why, to
perform academic research through designing an artefact.  However, the
recent postings in this thread have shown that our colleagues have
contributed some very useful thinking and the scholarly debate is maturing.
 This bodes well for new researchers who would like to judge for themselves
whether the integration of their own design practice will be a beneficial
approach for their research.

I would like to mention one more point to add to the pot.  It is not in
direct response to previous postings.

There is a need to expand upon the term design practice.  It is sometimes
unclear what people mean when they say 'I am using design practice in my
research' or 'I am conducting research through my own design practice'.
 Design practice is a dynamic entity. It is conducted over a timeline. At a
very simple level of deconstruction, design practice = designing (as
activity) + designs (as outcomes). In my own field, industrial design, the
activities and outcomes are strongly dependent. Preliminary outcomes
(models, prototypes) are generated along the way, until a finalized outcome
(i.e. a 'product proposal') is reached. Also, as Terry points out,
industrial design practice is a social activity involving many different
stakeholders. They each play a part - directly or indirectly - in the
designing.

I make the distinction between activity and outcome because it can be a
useful concept for a research student to determine what the subject of their
research - within the broad area of design practice - will be.  Research
studies into designing (as activity) with only marginal interest in (final)
design outcomes is quite plausible (this was the general approach I took for
my own PhD).  For industrial design, a huge range of facets of designing can
be the focus for such research, e.g. user needs elicitation, ideation
processes, management of stakeholder influences, visualization techniques,
decision-making processes, application of intellectual attributes such as
knowledge/skills/values....   In such studies, we may use our own design
practice to expose current methods and activities for critical analysis and
improved understanding of the nature of design expertise. Or, we may use our
own practice to devise, demonstrate and then test improved
activities/methods for designing (hence the strong connection in this case
to Action Research).

However, research studies into designs (as outcomes) should be treated a
little differently. Say the objective of a research project is to improve
upon or change some problematic aspect of a product type so dramatically
that predecessor products become obsolete. This can be a typical focus in
engineering research.  To conduct such a study, we need to know about the
predecessor products, we need to establish the extent of the problems
associated with the products, we need to use design practice to create ideas
for improved products, and then we need to test to see if the design
outcomes really are an improvement, and determine how generally applicable
the improved design outcomes are .  So, even though the main subject of such
a study is an improved design (outcome), we cannot disregard the designing
(as activity) since it is the means to getting to the end; it is the
ingredients and recipe that leads to the dish.

I hope this has given some more insight into the ideas I offer my research
students who have queries about what 'practice-based research' or
'investigative designing' in industrial design can actually entail.  I can't
vouch that the arguments here will apply to all areas of design, but there
should at least be some useful crossovers. Crafts-based design, for example,
has quite a different social setting and the kinds of outcomes generated are
distinct from those in industrial design.

Best regards, Owain

--
Assist. Prof. Dr Owain Pedgley
Department of Industrial Design
Middle East Technical University, Turkey