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.
|