Thanks Terry for taking the time to respond. Much to ponder here.

Two particular comments you make reinforce a view I've expressed in  
the past.

That is, in the UK, debate about the development of Research over the  
last century or so appears to have lacked input from the wider 'Art  
School' community due to the fact that 'Art and Design' was taught  
outside of the University sector until 1992.

If the percentages you suggest below are true, it reinforces a view  
that the 'research activity' of Designers trained in Schools of Art  
and Design, much of which we know to reside in what some are calling  
'visual methodology', has gone unreported to the wider academic  
community. And thus, the 'language' of research (much of which is  
confusing and occasionally contradictory, e.g. Bryman and Creswell, in  
the social sciences) has also probably neglected input from 'artists'.

The 7% of 'Art related subjects' you quote appears reflects this  
position.

I would therefore advocate, as I'm sure you will, for more reporting  
on research in design subjects closely associated with art, to address  
this historical imbalance. Let us know more about what research is for  
those areas of Art and Design education that formed the core of degree  
subjects in the late 1960s (Fine Art, Graphic Design, Fashion/Textile  
Design, 3D Design in the UK).

Let us be inclusive if we are to further define design research.  
Perhaps then we can be better informed about the value of Art in  
Design. Though we may take another 20-30yrs to reach a balanced  
perspective on this.

Regards, Robert.





> Design is not so separate from science and the humanities. Around  
> 45% of the
> total number of design fields are in areas that most would regard as
> 'scientific'. A further 45% or so of design fields are in Business,
> Humanities, and Social Sciences *excluding* Art-related subjects. Only
> around 7% are in 'Art'-related design areas.
>


> The literature of Design research, particularly in Art and Design  
> fields, is
> theoretically problematic across the board. I'm suggesting it's time  
> for the
> first steps to be taken in Design in creating theory that is  
> justifiable.
> This is a matter of simple direct thinking rather than imposing  
> mathematical
> models of design activity. It’s a matter of writing theory about  
> design and
> of use to designers and design researchers that doesn't fall apart  
> under
> light critical scrutiny.  It has happened in other areas of design.  
> The
> problem remains in design fields associated with Art.
>
> It seems a useful practical starting point on achieving this   
> clarity of
> thinking and writing to be able to make sound design theory  is to
> differentiate design activity from art activity. For this, and other
> practical reasons, there appear to be significant benefits in Design
> breaking away from the influence and control of Art.
>
> Thank you again for your questions.
>
> All the best wishes for your research and your PhD.
>
> Terry