systematic research can be a very creative activity and enhance joyous
productivity !
cheers.
2011/8/2 Eduardo Corte Real <[log in to unmask]>
> No sonnets today.
>
> I see no trouble with Don's article. First it is written as an opinion
> (that's good that we can share opinions), second it is obviously written for
> those that are able to call "research" to some of their activities and to
> call "design" to some of their activities other than the previous.
>
> This discussion is drifting away from what I think is the core
> issue/question of Don's article that is somewhat a design myth (and like any
> myth, has some truth in it) about "sometimes too much research kills
> creativity".
>
> Best regards,
>
> Eduardo
>
>
>
>
> On 02-08-2011 15:13, 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<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.
>>
>>
>>
|