Hi All,
In an earlier thread I made the following comment
> Today, there is also a major problem with the university administrative category of 'research'. A great deal of so called 'research' in universities is not really research at all. It's simply the application of routine investigative procedures, much like the routine pathology testing done by the medical profession. Unlike many pathology tests, much of this routine investigation is of dubious validity.
This applies particularly to so called 'design research', much of which is the application of routine investigative procedures as part of design problem solving.
In relation to this body of investigative practices there are a number of useful RESEARCH questions, in no particular order, and without being comprehensive:
1. Do these practices have proven validity, reliability, and sensitivity?
2. At what stages of a design process is a particular investigative procedure useful?
3. Is one method more cost effective than another?
4. What are the contingent assumptions associated with any particular investigative method?
5. How should designers use the findings from these investigative procedures in designing?
These, imho, are real research questions as distinct from collecting information as a result of applying routine investigative methods as a part of the design process. I would therefore suggest that it is useful to narrow the application of the term 'research' to these types of investigation. The consequence of not doing so is to seriously dilute the value of design research
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
|