Dear Don, you wrote (ao):
> In the field of design, many of the basic methods and beliefs have never been subjected to this kind of scrutiny. As a result, we do not really know if the claims that are made about them are true. Now, some of the issues in design do not need scientific assessment. Some of them require knowledge that does not yet exist -- such as how to
> assess aesthetic values (there are many attempts to do this, but these are still evolving). But there is nothing inherent in design that would prevent rigor in evaluation.
And Dear Kari, you wrote (also ao):
> The transforming of the world by design is something we should see as a rare and valuable epistemological asset; every action research and design case may not serve as science per se, but we should be able to see them as experiments where new information is produced -- that beyond the level of immediately useful local, particular and timely there is also something that can be used to answer a larger question and compared to other similar experiments. Then we could talk about design science...
Thank you both very much for this joint explanation of my own predicaments, problems or—perhaps more mildly put—discours with 'design research'.
However valuable (to the practice), it seems to me to be almost an excuse to involve in 'rigor in evaluation'. I too believe—I couldn't begin to explain exactly how but I'm working on it—that social practice and convention, along with aesthetics and semiotics, CAN & SHOULD be scientifically studied and described. Kari's proposition that 'there is also something that can be used to answer a larger question' gives me hope (and belief) that a 'higher' level of knowledge of what design is and can do can be achieved, at least by smart people like yourselves.
Kindest,
Carel
| Carel F H M Kuitenbrouwer | Docent-onderzoeker | Faculteit Communicatie & Journalistiek | Hogeschool Utrecht | Padualaan 99 | Postbus 8611 | 3503 RP Utrecht | M +31 6 21 83 37 85 |
|