Dear Jude,

Thanks for your reply. The processes and issues you raise are indeed
one form of design research. My post focused exclusively on the
etymology and meaning of the word "research." These meanings embrace any
activity that constitutes "1: careful or diligent search, 2: studious
inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation
aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted
theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of
such new or revised theories or laws 3: the collecting of information
about a particular subject.” To research is to "search or investigate
exhaustively," 

Some forms of research clearly involve re-search, searching again. This
applies to the processes you describe. Some forms of research involve
looking backward -- history, archeology, evolutionary biology, and
etymology are examples of research focused on the past. But the word
itself means none of these things. These are limited cases of the word.
Each form of research is bounded and limited by its focus and methods.
Research as a noun or verb describes a large range of activities. My
post wasn't an attempt to describe, limit, accept, or reject any form of
research -- it was simply an effort to analyze the word while clearing
up a common confusion by explaining one thing that the word "research"
doesn't mean.

While the word "research" does not mean "to search again," some _forms_
of research do entail searching again. I have no criticism at all of
your interesting and articulate post. It offers a good description. 

Most research methods and processes -- like most thought processes --
require us to think back through our past efforts as well as thinking
forward toward the goals and future states we seek. This applies to
research in which our future state involves finding the solution or
answer to a question or problem, as much as to forms of professional
research in which the future state involves creating something new and
preferred. We've got to think through our processes and our evolving
understandings along the way, and this includes our own steps in the
research process. In this sense, nearly all research requires moving our
thoughts back and forth in some time frame.

I'll come back to some of these issues when I try to meet Klaus's
challenge. For now, thanks again for a robust and detailed description
of several forms of research.

Warm wishes,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
Professor
Dean

Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia
  
-- 
 
CHUA Soo Meng Jude wrote:

--snip--

I have for the longest time wondered why "research" is called
"re-search", and now I know it is not that.  But I think there's some
sense in doing "design research" in precisely this "re-search" sense: as
a kind of retracing of one's design-ing.  There are I think perhaps two
ways to look at it, depending on one's account of what design thinking
or design epistemology is.

If we have a notion of design epistemology that is a science, like a
series of analytic propositions or laws or such like that can be
carefully worked out (like Herbert Simon perhaps), then design re-search
makes sense, because design re-search here means going back again and
again to rework one's design science  (as one would for instance, go
back again and again to refine one's inductive scientific hypothesis or
deductive philosophical scientia, like Simon going back to rework his
decision making heuristics (e.g, detailing how and why one should
satisfice rather than optimize) or rules (e.g., James March detailing
rules to follow or strategies to improve design relevant decision
making) so that one arrives at the most defensible one, which can guide
future designing.  

--snip--