JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  August 2011

PHD-DESIGN August 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Act First, Do the Research Later

From:

Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 2 Aug 2011 10:07:09 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (78 lines)

Dear Frederick,

I think I see from where you are coming. Your wisdom is generated within your field. I can see the nature of the subject matter, the traditions of the field, and the most common believes shared by your professional community. Here I will join Don and repeat that design and research are terms that have multiple meanings depending on disciplinary and paradigmatic traditions. It seems to me that one this list we use them without specifying our own interpretations. I take responsibility for this as well.

I recently mentioned that I have professional stakes in this topic. Although I use material from architecture, I strongly believe that to some degree there are certain analogues in the other design areas.

For decades I have tried to convince architects that they have to research first (do programming) and act (design) later. I also made a caveat that the interrelationships among programming and design single acts/operations are more complex and intertwined. Different project situations might require different modes of interface and interaction between programming and design. In participatory design we make programming and design almost simultaneously. However, we still don't do the design before programming. And we do not rely on evaluation to make the design. We rely in a two-way simultaneous communication between designers and users.

"Design first and then evaluate the design" doesn't make much sense to me. It usually leads to "garbage in, garbage out." We can repeat that process many times without coming to a design solution that is on par with our potential. Developing design specifications by designing is not the best way. It is much better to start with specifications. Later after we evaluate the design, we can fine-tune the specifications and engage in a new round of design. I simplify the process, but this general scheme is more productive than playing a lottery with users. There is a lot to write about this, if we have the time, of course.

I am talking about an ideal process. I am aware that the reality is different. I understand that designers have to make sacrifices. Our goal as design researchers should be how to develop a methodology for following the logic of user research under very tight time and budget restrictions. Your method is one option to respond to such a goal. But we must confess, this methodology has its own limitations and limits of application. We also have to warn the clients about the risks they are taking by insisting on such a strategy. Acting first and then thinking might save time. Actually, we save time because we use our previous experience. We all know that it may not be correct or fully applicable to the new situation.

I have no problem if you propose your methodology as a way to cope with severe process restrictions. However, design researchers have to work also towards an ideal goal. Ideal situations might be impractical today, but gradually over time they might get their own flesh and blood. At least we can show the world what they should do. Because in the long run, the process restrictions are most often imposed by the clueless client. Clients want that the job is done by yesterday. Because they have poor planning. One of my old professors used to say that we don't need express mail, we need better planning (that was before the time of personal computers).

Again, at least on this discussion list, we need to support design research, its importance for informing design decision-making, and its role for saving resources compared to trial-and-error strategies.

Best,

Lubomir



-----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 Frederick van Amstel
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 7:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Act First, Do the Research Later

Hi Norman!

In your article you separe research from action. You tried to argue in favor
of combining them on the last sentence, but the damage was already done. You
just engrossed the notion that research is just a phase in the design
process, which is the real origin of the shortcomings you observed in your
consulting experience.

Maybe it's difficult for you to peirceve that design is a kind of research
in itself. Design generates knowledge about human values that makes its way
into the material culture. I'm not talking about the narrow "knowledge in
the world" cues you described in POET, but about any possible interpretation
of the world that could be shaped into a form.

Designers are suposed to be experts in "material hermeneutics". As you
mentioned in your article, they must be observing existing objects and
practices all the time to be prepared to use that knowledge when an
opportunity comes. But, observing is just one side of this ongoing process.
Designer's value comes out of interpretating those observations.

When designers need to debate with marketing managers and engineers about
some issue, a personal interpretation is not enough. They need to show off
how that was done, to put his interpretation under the scrutinity of others.
This is increasing as much as design is "stolen" from the creative genius
and put on the "strategic table".

However, if you consider that interpretation is not action, then lawyers do
nothing, which is an acceptable (and funny) POV. But if you really want to
help designers to be aware of their own work process, you must give up
traditional theory/practice, analysis/synthesis, think/act, say/do
dichotomies.

Arguing in favor of doing research first or after won't help. What I believe
that could help is systemathizing action-research approaches for current
industry demands.

I could point to some theoretical debates over aforementioned topics, but I
prefer to just give one good case-study:

Participatory Innovation, Buur and Matthews
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijim/12/1203/S1363919608001996.html

--
.
.{ Frederick van Amstel }.
http://fredvanamstel.com

Faber-Ludens Interaction Design Institute
http://www.faberludens.com

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager