I'm following this conversation as well.

I'm having a difficult time understanding how the version of "design research" that does not differentiate the two activities (i.e. researching, and designing) is actually A) research as differentiated from B) learning.

That is, we learn in valuable and important ways that are not the result of research. For example driving. Or skiing, or playing tennis. There may be tutored learning (someone guides the process as a Master over the activity) and untutored learning. We all engage in both kinds. Some things are better off when tutored, some might not be, etc. 

But none of that research. It is not an explicit form of generating new knowledge based on an explicit method, grounded on a theory. It is not reproducible. 

I'm interested in listening in on a debate about the use of research (before, during, after, etc.) and will not take a stance on it as I'm just not inclined to. But I fear that when research comes to be synonymous with the act of learning I find myself becoming unconvinced because it requires an act of faith in a philosophy I cannot understand while effectively negating some of the essential properties of the research activity. Which is NOT necessary for everything. Just some things. But in this case, the answer is "research is not necessary for such acts of design."

I would be perfectly happy, as a novelist, to say, "research is not necessary for many or most acts of creative writing." Homework is (i.e. looking stuff up). But the generation of new knowledge in a systematic way is absolutely not. And I don't feel this challenges the value or integrity or utility of fiction writing. 

If this note does not help redirect the conversation but rather is seen to further complicate it, you may well choose to shelve it for the moment. I will understand.

Derek.
_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director

The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America

Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org (http://www.thepolicylab.org) 


This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.


On Tuesday, August 2, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Alfredo Gutiérrez Borrero wrote:

> Dear Don,
> 
> Perhaps it is possible to watch this, for free... just in case.
> 
> Jacob Buur on participatory innovation and designing with video in:
> 
> http://vimeo.com/6418251 <http://vimeo.com/6418251>
> 
> It goes in the same line of the book....
> 
> Designing with video: focusing the user-centred design process (Salu
> Ylirisku, Jacob
> Buur)<http://books.google.com.co/books?id=yDeLg4qRGFIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Designing+with+video:+focusing+the&hl=es&ei=fPY3TpLJEo6FtgfFhKXlAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false>
> 
> Maybe it won't explain Frederick's interpretation of research (indeed indeed
> just Frederick can do it) but can help
> 
> Alfredo
> 
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask])> wrote:
> 
> > Frederick
> > 
> > The words "design," "research," and "innovation" are all treacherous, for
> > there are many distinct forms and purposes of each of these, and when we
> > use
> > any of those terms, others are apt to have a different interpretation than
> > is intended.
> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > I am talking about the research that makes the designer a subject matter
> > exert in the domain of the design as well as the research that tries to
> > determine the fundamental needs of the people who will use the design.
> > 
> > I think you are referring to the kind of research that determines whether
> > or not a particular implementation is effective (understandable,
> > communicates the appropriate messages, and allows the intended users to
> > accomplish the desired activities). Your kind of research is important,
> > and
> > it is where co-design can be effective, but it is not the same as the
> > research i was referring to.
> > 
> > As for the paper you referred me to. The abstract is not very convincing.
> > It
> > sounds like a typical academic paper in the genre of co-development,
> > participatory design, etc. The test would be in the details of the case
> > study, but i didn't feel like spending $30 to find out.
> > 
> > Thanks for the note.
> > 
> > Don
> > 
> > .
> > Don Norman
> > *Nielsen Norman Group
> > *Latest book: "Living with Complexity <http://www.jnd.org/books.html#608>"
> > KAIST (Daejeon, S. Korea). IDEO Fellow.