Terry,
What's the point of a design that isn't actualised?
You state that the important aspect of design research as you see it is the
capacity to predict user outcomes, but how are you going to do that without
making something and gathering user data?
Kind of sounds like a mathematics which is all workings and no answers to
me...
Cheers,
Adam
On 5 August 2010 09:41, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Luke,
> If you look at the purpose of 'through design' research, you find that its
> central valid concern is 'changes in behaviour due to the designs being
> actualised' - or else the research is off track and not about design.
> If you can think of any other valid reason for 'through design' research,
> I'd love to hear it.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Luke Jaaniste [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:24 AM
> To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: types of design research
>
> Hi Terry and all
>
> Design research into the efficacy of design solutions/activities, and
> predictability of this efficacy, sounds like very worthy research. This
> research thus comes alongside and after the design act, as well as helping
> to inform future design acts.
>
> But is that all? Many in the in Anglo-commonwealth countries (Uk,
> Australia,
> NZ, etc), Northern Europe, and elsewhere have been arguing that rigorously
> pursued and articulated making in art and design is itself a form of
> (practical, experimental, embodied, worthy-of-public-funding,
> able-to-meet-academic-protocols etc) research.
>
> I know I am not saying anything here that hasn't been argued by many in the
> last decade or two,
> and I also know that such arguments have not convinced a how lot of other
> researchers/academics in art and design schools, let alone the rest of the
> higher research community.
>
> This is one of the useful distinctions that Frayling's research
> 'through'...
> category was trying to get out. His paper was short, a bit vague and
> contradictory,
> but the project of outstanding design making as a modality of research is
> certainly one that he helped to crystallise in mid 1990s UK, and that many
> of the 'prepositional' arguments (ie, research
> as/is/for/through/with/in/about design or art) are seeking to elucidate.
>
> Luke
>
>
> ---
> Dr Luke Jaaniste | 0411 016 096 | [log in to unmask] | Brisbane,
> Australia
> Research Fellow, Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and
> Innovation
> (CCI), QUT :: www.cci.edu.au
> academic site :: www.creatively.jaaniste.com
> artistic site :: www.lukejaaniste.com
> ________________________________________
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Terence Love
> [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:06 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: types of design research
>
> Hi Gunnar,
>
> My apologies for being unclear. I'm also guilty of over-brevity by not
> distinguishing between design and actualisation.
>
> The purpose of any design activity is to create a design - a set of
> instructions to make or do something. This is the difference between design
> activity and art activity.
>
> The central reason for creating a design is so that when the set of
> instructions that is the design is followed and something is made or done,
> then this will have effects in the world that will change the behaviour of
> people, objects, systems, organisations etc.
>
> These changes in behaviours that result from the implementation of a design
> is its primary function. Behaviour change is the essential functionality
> and purpose of any designed outcome. This means behavioural change due to
> designed outcomes is the central concern of any design activity.
>
> By implication, this means that the primary professional skill of
> designers
> is the ability to predict the changes in behaviour of people, objects,
> systems and organisations that result from any potential design.
>
> Many writing in the design and design research literature have claimed
> that
> the central skill of design is creativity and thinking up new ideas. It is
> hard to see how this is so. It appears obviously false because it is
> possible to teach anyone to creatively think up large volumes of new ideas
> in a day or two. In addition, many designs based on 'creativity' fail and
> they fail by failing to produce intended behavioural changes. In terms of
> professional competence, it is of concern that designers using only
> creativity may be limited in their understanding to predict how and why
> particular behavioural changes are likely to result from their designs
> being
> implemented. Being able to predict the changes in behaviours that result
> from designs is the basis for choosing between design options generated by
> creativity. The creativity needed for generating those options is
> relatively
> routine and potentially trivial if one has the skill of being able to
> predict behavioural outcomes of designs being implemented.
>
> From this perspective, it seems obvious the purpose of all design research
> is focused around improving this ability to predict the behavioural
> outcomes
> that result from any design being implemented. This seems to apply across
> all domains of design from fashion to space engineering, and all categories
> of design research from creativity, aesthetics and emotion to kinematics,
> collaboration and organisational dynamics.
>
> If you can think of aspects of design research that don't fit this view,
> I'd
> love to hear about them!
>
> Seeing design and design research in terms of behaviour changes leads to a
> significant raft of benefits that significantly simplify the mess of design
> theory, research and practice. One of these benefits is it helpfully
> collapses many of the multiple categories and domains of design research
> into a simpler structure. How this happens is the focus of a new journal
> paper I'm working on.
>
> This way of viewing design seems obvious to me. If you feel it is way off
> target, please let me know.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ____________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
> School of Design and Art
> Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
> Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
> Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
> Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
> Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
> ____________________
>
>
>
> -----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 Gunnar
> Swanson
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 August 2010 11:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: types of design research
>
> Sorry if I'm the only one having trouble with reading comprehension.
>
> Terry--Are you saying that viewing the primary focus of all design
> research as "improving the prediction of the behavioral changes that
> result from a design" usefully applies across all design fields and
> that design research that does not improve such predictions is not
> applicable across all fields?
>
> Are you saying that anything that does not have that primary focus is
> not design research?
>
> Or are you saying something else that I'm missing?
>
> Gunnar
> ----------
> Gunnar Swanson Design Office
> 1901 East 6th Street
> Greenville NC 27858
> USA
>
> [log in to unmask]
> +1 252 258 7006
>
> http://www.gunnarswanson.com
>
>
>
> On Aug 3, 2010, at 7:37 AM, Terence Love wrote:
>
> > Dear Felipe,
> >
> > My research suggests there are two central characteristics of design
> > research that usefully apply across all design fields.
> >
> > 1. To view the primary focus of all design research as 'improving
> > the prediction of the behavioural changes that result from a
> > design'. This is regardless of whether the design research is about
> > the designed outcome, context, design problem, design process, idea
> > generation, collaboration, intuition, creativity, emotion, etc.
> > Behavioural change is the central issue of concern in design
> > research -whether it is the behavioural changes in objects, people,
> > theories, interventions, organisations or systems.
> >
> > 2. There is a world of difference between design research relating
> > to those design situations that have two or more feedback loops and
> > those design situations that have one or no feedback loops. Most
> > design research, particularly in the Art and Design arena, ONLY
> > applies to design situations with no feedback loops or one feedback
> > loop. A completely different way of looking at design research is
> > necessary for design situations with two or more feedback loops. The
> > main difference is that one cannot understand or predict their
> > behaviour in one's mind - and intuition, feelings, crowd-design etc
> > do not apply.
> >
> > These two issues result in a different way of seeing design
> > education for design research. They suggest that in many aspects of
> > design education, the historical research concept of 'research
> > for, into and through design' is unhelpful and in some cases false.
> >
> > Perhaps the greatest benefits of the above two characteristics is
> > they result in a more transparent and purposeful ordering of
> > research theory about design and they identify significant holes and
> > absences of effort in design research. They also help identify
> > where some areas of design education are over-emphasised, for
> > example, communication theory and rhetoric.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Terence
> > ____________________
> >
> > Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM
> > Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research
> > Centre
> > Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute
> > Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre
> > Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
> > Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
> > Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon,
> > Portugal
> > Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
> > Development
> > Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
> > ____________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----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 G. Mauricio Mejia
> > Sent: Tuesday, 3 August 2010 5:32 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: types of design research
> >
> > Dear list members,
> >
> > My colleague Felipe C. Londoņo and I are discussing types of design
> > research to create a framework for research education in our design
> > graduate program (PhD in Design). We have reviewed some references
> > but they seem to be contradictory.
> >
> > First, we checked Frayling that proposes three types: research into
> > design, research for design, and research through design.
> >
> > Second we read Findelli, Brouillet, Martin, Moineau, and Tarrago
> > that propose also three types: research about design, research for
> > design, and research through design.
> >
> > Finally we read Forlizzi, Stolterman, and Zimmerman that again
> > propose three types: research on (about) design, research for design
> > and research through design.
> >
> > Even though these three references have similar categories, they
> > have different interpretations of the types of design research. We
> > wonder which classification has more acceptance in the design
> > research community. We know that there is no single answer to this
> > issue but we would like to hear your comments about types of design
> > research.
> >
> > Felipe C. Londoņo
> > G. Mauricio Mejía
> > Faculty members
> > Universidad de Caldas, Colombia
> >
> > References:
> > Findelli, A. (2008) Research trough Design and Transdisciplinarity:
> > A Tentative Contribution to the Methodology of Design Research. In
> > Proceedings of Swiss Design Network Symposium. Berne, Switzerland.
> > Forlizzi, J., Stolterman, E., and Zimmerman, J. (2009). From Design
> > Research to Theory: Evidence of a Maturing Field. In Proceedings of
> > the International Association of Societies of Design Research. IASDR.
> > Frayling, C. Research in Art and Design. Royal College of Art
> > Research Papers 1, 1 (1993),1-5.
>
--
Adam Parker
Senior Lecturer, Games Design (Melbourne)
Qantm College Pty Ltd (Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne)
235 Normanby Road
South Melbourne VIC 3205
Tel. +61 (03) 8632 3450
Fax. +61 (03) 8632 3401
Email: [log in to unmask]
Web: http://melbourne.qantm.com
CRICOS Numbers: 02689A (QLD), 02852F (NSW), 02837E (VIC)
|
