i am going to tentatively enter the debate here and say i agree with lubomir, and wonder whether perhaps one of the things that perpetuates the circular debate is the term practice-based. i think practice-led works, in this instance, much better than practice-based. it is the analysis and reflection in relation to the practice or artifact that leads to the new knowledge. in fact, i had thought the design community had moved much more to the term practice-led and had left practice-based to fester in fine art, but maybe i'm wrong.
oh, and i use the term fester in a light hearted way...
best,
alison
* * *
Alison Barnes
AHRC funded research student
School of Graphic Design, LCC
University of the Arts, London
http://geo-graphic.blogspot.com/
________________________________________
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 23 November 2010 15:06
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: whether a cell phone is knowledge
Dear Colleagues,
It is good that we revisit many topics again and again. This creates opportunities for developing new perspectives and updating our understanding. However, when it comes to the relationship of research and design, and in particular the notion of design as research, we still revolve in the same old circle. Many of us a tempted by circular arguments.
Jurgen formulates an important question: "The question however here is, whether a cell phone is knowledge or it is applied knowledge."
For several years I am trying to promote the notion that an artifact by itself is not knowledge. The reflection on the process of designing/creating the artifact, the analysis of the artifact, and the conclusions regarding the artifact and the process can be treated as new knowledge. There should be a process of knowledge production, not just artifact production. I agree that new knowledge can be produced in the process of designing, but the design itself is not new knowledge.
In some cases when theoretical avenues are exhausted or bog down in serendipitous speculations, practice provides new insights and opportunities for knowledge prosecution. But practice by itself is not knowledge prosecution. It is artifact production. Sometimes knowledge production can be a side product. Sometimes knowledge production can be the objective of a practice project. And in all cases we have knowledge production only if we engage purposefully in generating new knowledge from the process of ratification. We talked about this regarding doctoral dissertations and their structure in the various engineering and artifact-making fields.
The stiff opposition is induced by university requirements to produce scholarship instead of innovative design. The tenure and promotion system is pushing designers to the brink and forcing them to twist sound logic and the nature of things.
The assumption that a design artifact is knowledge by itself is detrimental for the field of knowledge production. It brings about superficial research standards. It equates row data with research. It generates epistemological and methodological nihilism.
I have also mentioned before that designers should be proud with design and should not try to cross-dress themselves as researchers. They should stick to their strengths rather than compromise themselves with engagements that they are not prepared to do. As a designer and researcher (two PhD's) I believe that design is more imaginative, more fulfilling, and more respected than research. Just to provide a background for understanding my position, agenda, and social interests.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Interior Design Program
American Culture Studies affiliated faculty
309 Johnston Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059
phone: (419) 372-7935
fax: (419) 372-7854
[log in to unmask]
de
|