mike,
i do think that scientific research and the kind of inquiries that designers need to make are incommensurable.
i do not claim that scientific research aims only at descriptions of what is. on the contrary, much of scientific research attempts to generalize existing data, extrapolating the patterns found in these data into the past, into not yet available data of the same kind, and into the future. all of these generalizations are predictions (into the past, present, and future) but only of what existed in the data at hand, which excludes the future about which data are unavailable. for example, moore observed that in the history of computing, information processing capacity doubled approximately every two years. this is a typical prediction, somewhat tong and cheek but reasonably well supported. i once computed that this growth reaches a ceiling at which it becomes invalid. the more important point is that it does not say anything about how this could be accomplished, which is where design come in. the past growth was accomplished by numerous innovations in very specific technologies, none of which could be explained from previous data.
the explanation that scientific research provides need to be supported by available data (come to think of it, look at the graph in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law ). Inquiries that support designs need to support proposals to their stakeholders, those who can realize the design, are affected by its realization, or utilize it. this is a very different criterion, necessitated by the fact that for truly innovative designs, evidence becomes available only after capable stakeholders decided to adopt the design, requiring human action, not mere observation.
klaus
-----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 Paul Mike Zender
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 12:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The word "research"
Dear Klaus:
I was with you 100% on your description of research until the following:
<snip>
clearly, what i have described as scientific research aims at explanations, not innovation, at describing what is, not what could be. it is based on data that a researcher needs to generate, find, or be given. data are not about the future that designers are interested in but about what has happened. this is not to say that researchers look only backward. they generalize what was found in the data. but generalizing what happened in the past renders designers the servants of what happened in the past, unable to do their job of intervening in undesirable conditions to generate new and better measures.
<end snip>
Are you suggesting all science research is driven only to describe what is? Would you be willing to consider scientific research as a design activity seeking to create innovative interventions for human problems? If so, what's the big difference between scientific and design research?
Mike
|