Dear Owain,
I agree with your argument. I am glad that you make this clarification. We all support the marriage between design practice and research. It is one of the objectives of this list. There is a lot to be done in order to incorporate research and research information in design practice. There are a lot of things to be done on both sides. This can become a discussion of its own.
I agree that it is useful to conduct a design project in order to find answers to practice or research questions. That is how engineers and architects do it. However, as you say, "simply doing a design project and saying it is research is not one of the credible routes." The design project becomes an academic endeavor only after the design process and the product are reflected on, explicated, tested, evaluated, and so on. Of course, there is a necessity for stating the design/research problem, literature or precedent review, describing research designs for data collection and design methodologies, and so on. I would not talk right now about this process.
My only uneasiness is with the use of some phrases and the possibilities that they are misinterpreted, misused, and abused, and so forth. Sometimes finding the right terminology is a great contribution of its own. Because the right terminology will prevent misunderstanding and misuse. Often people take a phrase, interpret it in their own way, according to their interests, and then, on the bases of that phrase they develop a completely new and conflicting ideology, theory, etc.
Thank you very much for your ideas and clarifications,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Owain Pedgley
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:02 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Help please: Practice as a Method of Data Collection
Dear Lubomir & List
You may be surprised to know that I am strongly opposed to equating design
practice as research. That has never been an ambition and I share much of
your thinking that would discredit such approaches.
Instead, what I am keenly interested in is ways to marry design practice
with academic research. I believe there are many strong reasons for wanting
to do so. I am also convinced there are several broad and credible routes
for achieving the marriage, and some (although perhaps not yet a critical
mass) completed research that demonstrates comparative strengths and
weaknesses. Simply doing a design project and saying it is research is not
one of the credible routes.
However, carrying out a design project - specifically as an agent for
answering research questions - holds much merit for me. Action research, as
mentioned by Terry, is one broad methodology that is highly relevant if we
desire to use designing as an 'action' to intervene in a situation or
illuminate a problem worth researching. Researchers who have gone down this route, or academics who have been involved in the supervision of such
studies, will know that it is especially difficult to plan and carry out. I
have witnessed the methodological, practical and epistemological struggles
that can take place. Switching between a designer's hat and a researcher's
hat - or donning a half-researcher/half-designer hat, is an intellectual
challenge that I believe requires some trial runs to get accustomed to.
Nevertheless, despite the difficulties, I have also seen how satisfying the
outcomes can be, and how much of a fruitful learning process the journey is.
Perhaps this clarifies what I meant by 'design practice as a METHOD of data
collection'; I accept that without some further explanation such a snappy
phrase can be readily misinterpreted.
Best regards, Owain
|