How is what Fred described not learning? Or to be more specific, hypothetico deductive learning?
- Quick note from Derek's iPod
On Aug 2, 2011, at 16:17, Halldor Gislason <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> agree Fred!
> dóri
>
> Professor Halldór Gíslason,
> Oslo National Academy of the Arts,
> Oslo, Maputo, Reykjavik,
> Personal Website: http://www.dorigislason.com/
> Work Website:
> http://www.khiodesign.com/
> Academy Website:
> http://www.khio.no/
>
> On Aug 2, 2011, at 2:13 PM, Frederick van Amstel wrote:
>
>> Don:
>>
>>> I have read your email several times and cannot quite understand
>>> which interpretation of "research" you have in mind, but it is clear to me
>>> that your meaning is somewhat different than the particular one i had in
>>> mind.
>>>
>>
>> That's true. Let's use the three notions of Design Research that Frankel &
>> Racine identified on this list (and the literature) as a common ground:
>> http://www.designresearchsociety.org/docs-procs/DRS2010/PDF/043.pdf
>>
>> Your article was targeted on the clinical view: Research for Design.
>> Research to inform design, to inspire, to serve as an input for creative
>> ideas.
>>
>> I'm making the case that Research Through Design happens during all phases
>> of design practice, even if there is no dedicated research phase. The
>> knowledge produced by this type of research is not a set of requirements,
>> but instead an interpretation of new observations in face of previous
>> experiences. It can be made explicit on sketches or prototypes, but even if
>> it's not, it's still part of the design action in the world.
>>
>>
>> --
>> .
>> .{ Frederick van Amstel }.
>> http://fredvanamstel.com
>>
>> Faber-Ludens Interaction Design Institute
>> http://www.faberludens.com
|