Dear Terence



Thanks for your kind words, and sorry for the late response (happy things have happened at home the past few days and I am now a father.)



In any case, yes you are quite right, my account of "research" would appear at times like the working out of an epistemology--but perhaps we need not be constrained by what "research" means as defined by certain dominant (quantitative/qualitative) paradigms, but what it should mean, determined by a criteria that discerns that kind of inquiry *that matters*, or perhaps, calling to mind here also Ken's remarks regarding what "research" might mean: viz some form of intelligent, inquiry leading to new insight. And yes to me,  sometimes the epistemological study of a certain form of thinking may reveal something of the ontological, not in an ontic (or physical thing-ness)  way but something ontological in the shall intentional sense, often concerning those things that are intransitive or mental, say the certain kind of designerly thinking and its relevance for the construction of or impact on one's identity (e.g, the designer's), etc, which may then be integrated in turn into the designer's "designerly intentions", so to speak.



Thanks for your pointers to neuro-cognition, which is surely worth exploring, and so I will.  I do think, still, that semiotics may have much for detailing some forms of the creative, abductive aspects of designerly creativity; partly because design to my knowledge (ok. I must confess, that I studied design and art long long ago in my pre-university days so I am no expert practitioner!) whilst creative and constructive, is not irresponsible, whimsical, and arbitrary, but rather determined by a kind of *intelligence* which determines or new ideas in a certain way: and it is this that occurs in semiosis, where the interpretant causally specifies the sign-ing to a certain signified (and not just any!), but there is still a fluidity about it. My own account of semiotics follows more closely that of (lesser known Jean Poinsot or John of St Thomas) but no matter.  All this is for me very interesting, if we can detail this constructive creativity that is guided by some kind of a rule or something like a rule. This also signals for me how teaching designerly ways of knowing can not only help someone become a better designer ( if it does) but helping someone become a better theorist, one who can better come up with new ideas and hypothesis, etc: I am thinking of William of Baskerville in Eco's the Name of the Rose, who, whilst learned, abduces all the time!  But in order to do this constructive abduction well, there has to be a good store of knowings or knowledge, present-at-hand, to be called into action to function as interpretants, actualizing the various virtual signs into formal signs. So the good designer or abductive logician (if I may), is actually someone rather learned and experienced, with these ideas in him, waiting to be called to task.  I may be wrong...do feel free to criticise!





Very best!

Jude



-----Original Message-----

From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]

Sent: Sunday, 15 August, 2010 10:12 AM

To: CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS); [log in to unmask]

Subject: RE: The word "research"



Hi Jude,



Good  post. Good reading.



Isn't the kind of reasoning you describe what epistemology is?

Rather than 'research' however, it feels like what you are describing is more like  epistemological 'analysis' and  'critique'



I understand epistemology  as the philosophical study/analysis/critique of the development of theory (representations of knowledge).

Websters Scholastic has  epistemology defined as 'the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with regard to its limits and validity'. The main analytical tools are checking logical validity and identifying fallacies. Theories about a  'designerly way of knowing' are subject to exactly similar epistemological analysis and critique. Other aspects are typically more issues of ontology.



You mention 'abduction'.  Pierce (the usual reference for abduction)  described abduction as identical to 'guessing'.  This understanding hasn't really reached the design research literature yet (although Peirce died `1914!). Researchers outside Design now know a lot about the neuro-cognitive aspects of how we do 'guessing' and this new knowledge is  very different from how 'abductive' thinking is presented in the design research literature (so there is opportunity for some new design research papers!). This new knowledge about how we do guessing  also has deep implications for understanding the ideas and behaviours that were so usefully lumped together by Anita and Nigel as 'Designerly Ways of Knowing'.



There is a significant side problem to what you discuss relating to the use of signs. The core of the problem is that many design researchers have been trained in graphic/communication design and indoctrinated with semiotics as if it is the  central basis for understanding design activity and a core theory of design research. Semiotics ideas are useful for designers but in research terms the world has moved on in understanding the same issues. Nowadays, design research in the same areas that semiotics is taught to designers  requires dropping semiotic theory and moving beyond it to understanding the individual and social processes. Findings from  neuro-cognition, ethology and related fields are useful.



Enjoyed your post. Please write more!



All the best,

Terry



-----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 CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)

Sent: Saturday, 14 August 2010 10:21 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: The word "research"



Thanks much to Ken for this post, which I found beneficial.  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.  This account is possibly more common for people working on design thinking in policy or organizational studies, or in the engineering-design fields, because you have to explain and give rational justifications for your design decisions, that others in future can repeat or criticise and improve upon, or some rational warrant that will enable you to re-design in similar contexts in the future, e.g, a management plan or policy used in different companies or across states. I mean, you just cannot go about saying that a flash of inspiration made possible the new car I am designing, but you do need the science (the maths, the physics, etc carefully considered) to guide you.  The interesting and perhaps paradoxical thing is that, while highly "scientific", what emerges, viz the design science, are strings of practical reasoning--what professional rather than analytic research schools are about (Simon's distinction).  And nothing in this needs to be positivistic; Herbert Simon, for instance abandoned positivism by the time his Science of the Artificial in its 3rd edition was out.



         Or else, if one has an account of design epistemology that is unique but not a science, say for instance like the way Nigel Cross has been proposing, a "designerly way of knowing", unique to the process of design and to designers who think designerly, one may not be able to go back to rework one's design logic or science (because it is not like that), but one can still do design re-search, viz., going back to reflectively retrace what "happened" when as a designer one was designing and thinking in designerly ways.  This account fits nicely with a conception of design logic which is abductive, because abduction is some kind of creative intuition, like Pierce used to liken to the scientists' Eureka moment as a better hypothesis emerges, and you cannot "scientifically" or "logically" detail how this happens.  It's a "sign" logic, a semiotic event, when a virtual sign becomes formally one through an interpretant and gives rise to a meaning. Perhaps designers working on the artistic fields would find this more appealing, because it's not as if there's a "science" for the next piece of fashion wear, but one gets better and better ideas with sketches and sparks of inspirations. But this latter kind of design research may not I think enable designers to design better--perhaps also that's not the point, because, maybe, to design better, one should design more and not do more research (and that's a reflective account of designerly ways of thinking, if true), unlike design research in the sense of working out a design science. But what emerges is a science of design (a rigorous articulation of designerly ways of knowing) that is truly a piece of theoretical knowledge, and traditionally, "research universities" are about these kinds of theoretical knowledge.  So the interesting thing here is that, such reflection on "practical thinking qua designerly knowing" is a theoretical exercise, and also some conceptions of education suggest that education should include this kind of theoretical knowledge.



        I've been thinking about this a bit and my own sense is that both kinds of design research are possible and valuable, because I do think that designing in its broadest and more inclusive senses involves deductive, inductive and also abductive thinking.  I think we should be able to live together and complement and respect each other's work, and even learn from each other.  So the task is not to denounce design science but to arrive at a science of design that captures design science *and* designerly ways of knowing, and to perhaps demonstrate how they come together?



        Sorry these are just some thoughts: perhaps not very original! Or wrong--I am very open to fierce criticisms.



Kindest

Jude









-----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 Ken Friedman

Sent: Saturday, 14 August, 2010 9:01 PM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: The word "research"





Two kinds of words use the prefix “re.”



One kind of word employs the contemporary meaning of the prefix

“re.” These tend to be relatively recent English words created

from English usage. This includes cases in which some parts of the word

may go back to loan words or imported words. Merriam-Webster’s (1993:

971-972) offers an extensive list of those words.



The word “research” is not such a word.



The other kind of word is a loan word or import word from another

language. In this kind of word, parts of the word take on sense and

meaning borrowed from the lending language.



The word “research” is this kind of word, and this is the case of

the prefix “re” in the loan word “research.”



The word “research” was imported from Middle French. It entered the

English language in the 1500s. In the word “research,” the prefix

“re” brought with it a different meaning to the English meaning

of the prefix “re” several centuries later. Despite the fact that

the original word and prefix were French, the word and meaning of

“research” as I use them are English and have been for centuries.

You can see them in the definitions, exemplars, and etymological notes

that I posted yesterday. These are not from French dictionaries – they

are from English dictionaries, and they explain both historical and

current usage.



Your post refers to the current English meanings of the prefix “re”

in Webster’s dictionary (Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 971). These

meanings are: “again,” “anew,” “back,” and “backward.”



This is irrelevant to the word “research.” The issues I raise have

to do with etymology, lexicography, usage, and meaning. Morphology is

also irrelevant.



Morphology examines the physical form of the word, and breaking the

word “research” into two syllables is as inappropriate in determine

what the word means as breaking it into eight letters.



The problem in using morphology is the use of physical formalism.

Physical formalism fails to address the differences in etymology and

history that affect the meaning of this word. This is the task of

etymology and lexicography based on usage exemplars from the living

language.



The entry in Webster’s to which you refer provides an extensive list

of words that use the prefix “re” in the sense that you describe

(Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 971-972).



The word “research” does not appear on the list of words that use

the prefix “re” in these senses.



Neither in English nor French does the prefix “re” in the word

“research” mean “again,” “anew,” “back,” or

“backward.”



In attempting to describe the meaning of the word “research” based

on what you are labeling morphology, you are confusing different senses

of the same prefix. There are indeed many words in which “re” is not

a stem, just as there are many words in which the prefix “re” means

“again,” “anew,” “back,” and “backward.” None of these

conditions apply to the word “research.”



The word “research” simply doesn’t mean “searching again,

repeating a search.” At least it does not to the lexicographers and

scholars whose work became the basis for the dictionary entries I

posted. Those etymological derivations, dictionary entries, and

exemplars offered in my post state what the word means to the broad

consensus of scholars. Given the definitions, I don’t see how this

confirms your interpretation.



Merriam-Webster’s (1993: 995) – the same source in which you

located the definition of the prefix “re” – defines research as a

noun and as a verb. As a noun, it means “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.” As a verb, it

means: “1: to search or investigate exhaustively 2: to do research for

… intransitive senses: to engage in research.”





National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg



DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any attachments, may contain confidential information.

This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other

use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by fault, please

notify the sender and delete it immediately.