Dear Pedro,
Many thanks for the excellent articulation of the issues involved with research and clinical practice. We use the same kind of distinction, at ethics, when looking at proposals. Ethics, in this sense, offers a pragmatic clearing process. At Newcastle, we see QA and clinical practice mixed with research on a regular basis.
We also have to treat all things as being some kind of research for the purposes of approval. That is, there can be ethical issues involved with practice and QA even though mostly what is at issue is the publication of results. You can do QA until your head falls off without needing research ethics approval so long as you don't publish the results in any specific way. Similarly, you can implement innovations in daily clinical practice without needing ethics approval but if you want to publish the results with some kind of specific research claim, then you will needs ethics approval.
The presumption here, in terms of clinical practice, is that humans (or animals) are involved. Hence, there are ethical issues. If we are talking about modifying the temperature at which we make our beer, we don't need such fancy things. If we test the beer on our mates, this probably should involve ethical approval, but if it falls within normal clinical practice then we don't need approval. If we want to publish the results, then we do need ethics approval. (Ten got drunk, ten got sick, ten died.)
So, I was aiming to extend the model of clinical practice to the world of design. Designers are using known tools, techniques, theories, resources etc. on a daily basis in an attempt to come up with something that is purposefully differently. Medical people, in the clinic, might be aiming to come up with something that is consistent or better, that is part of their purpose.
While engaged in their clinical practices, new observations might be made that lead to research to test and prove the efficacy etc. of a change.
I agree that the distinctions are mostly operative and I agree that we should always be on the look out for significant differences that might lead to substantial research.
cheers
keith
>>> Pedro oliveira <[log in to unmask]> 06/16/11 1:15 AM >>>
Dear all,
As a (former) clinical psychologist and anthropologist with a recent interest in design ethnography, I am interested in Keith's comment:
'Most university "research" consists of people applying known methods to known materials looking for slightly different outcomes. This I would call clinical practice'.
Clinical psychology research, at least in some cultural models, such as the UK research-practitioner one (which is very much medically-based, compared to other models in Europe), tends to divide research in auditing and research per se. To become a clinical psychologist in the UK, trainees must abide by this division and have to produce work that mirrors the difference between them. Although the lines between the two kinds of practice are blur, it is mostly assumed that:
'Research is about obtaining new knowledge and finding out what treatments are the most effective. Clinical audit is about quality and finding out if best practice is being practised. Research tells us what we should be doing. Clinical audit tells us whether we are doing what we should be doing and how well we are doing it.
The National Research Ethics Service makes a clear distinction between clinical audit and research and states that, unlike research, clinical audit does not need approval from a research ethics committee'.
(Hyperlink: http://www.hqip.org.uk/what-is-the-difference-between-clinical-audit-and-research).
As a non-British trained clinical psychologist (and an ethnographer as well, as I do have a PhD in anthropology) I never thought this distinction was useful to clinical practice. Actually I have always objected to it, in practice. There is a component of research in every single act of clinical practise that this both auditing and research that this distinction seems to obliterate.
Could you please tell me if any of these distinctions translates to the notions of design research that you are putting to the table?
I thank you in advance,
Pedro
--- On Wed, 15/6/11, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Innovation and Design Research
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 15 June, 2011, 12:56
Dear David,
I agree with your basic assessment of Don's account and I agree with the direction of your own account.
However, I'm not sure how any of the examples you provide would count as research as opposed to clinical practice?
Most university "research" consists of people applying known methods to known materials looking for slightly different outcomes. This I would call clinical practice.
Sometimes what happens is quality control (testing systems, checking outcomes, benchmarking, calibrating). This I call tinkering.
Innovation is not research, no matter how radical it might seem. (And, in passing, watches were always emotional objects, indeed, if we accept that identity carries and is carried by an affect, then watches were more emotional in their origin than they are in the age of Swatches - Swatches are post-modern feeling things.)
So, should we start looking for what research is? Or, have we covered this ground many many times before? I find myself dancing.
cheers
keith
|