Dear Derek and all

<<encroaching and furtive notion that design and design research is either "above" all this or somehow different and therefore gets to operate under different rules. It isn't and it doesn't.>> 

The similarities and differences between the different modes of design research and other research fields have been written about and discussed for a long time now. 
Before one makes such cathegoric statements as above one should read up on the litterature, especially coming from outside of the design field and especially when talking of evidence and rigour in research.
What is relevant for design research is defined by the field and not by outsiders trying to impose their conception of research in their field onto another field, forgetting that the same happened to them only decades ago. It is equally ridicolous as imposing research designs from natural sciences onto social sciences.

Best
Birger

________________________________________
Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] p&#229; vegne av Rosan Chow [[log in to unmask]]
Sendt: 8. februar 2012 15:48
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: some more questions on research design RE: Is claim/research on 'success' one-sided?

Dear Derek,

I am enjoying this conversation very much and hope to get some more feedbacks concerning research design.

Before I do that, I should declare that I have followed the discourse on 'Research Through Design' on and off for the past decade and have made some small contribution myself. So I am sensitive  to read <<encroaching and furtive notion that design and design research is either "above" all this or somehow different and therefore gets to operate under different rules. It isn't and it doesn't.>> It is unclear to me exactly what you were referring to and I am very interested in finding out.
I want to remark that there are design (research) by logic, rhetoric and magic but unfortunately often the magicians attract a lot of attention. Anyway,

Returning to research design, you have suggested to me how I might approach answering the question/impression on whether accounts of success of Apple under Jobs are often one-sided. My aim here is to discuss the issues that come to mind when I think about your suggestion.

First, I ask myself whether answering the question will help me. Ultimately, I am interested in finding out what has made iPod, iPhone and iPad so successful on the market or more specifically, are their designs a success factor.  Now, I have learned that I could not trust the accounts or explanations out there because they seem untrustworthy. Incidentally, some anti-trust lawyers have probably been working hard to prove that iPod/iTune achieve market dominance not by Apple making superior product but by violating anti-competition regulations. Will the decision of the court have any impact on answering the question?

Can I study whether Apple designs are a success factor without proving that other accounts on success are untrustworthy, although I see great values in making the case?

Second, even if I were to prove and argue that other accounts are untrustworthy, given my ultimate interest, I wonder if I need to show a general tendency, or whether it is sufficient to point out some examples of invalidity to make the point?

Third, perhaps you notice that I am very pragmatic about specifying the research question: I am not interested in establishing facts and truth per se, but doing that to achieve my goal. Do you find this attitude too limiting?

Look forward to your reply.
Best Regards,
Rosan



-----Original Message-----
From: Derek B. Miller [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Montag, 6. Februar 2012 10:22
Subject: Re: Is claim/research on 'success' one-sided? RE: Apple Success under Jobs

-Snip-

I think a Ph.D. list should - among its others values - be a sort of colloquium. we should be able to work as a virtual design studio ON research design. And when the research is finished (or parts are, anyway), we can help at other phases too.

So more than anything, this is what I meant to promote in my note.

And what I also, by implication, want to encourage a movement away from is the substitution of research for mere conventional wisdom; the use of "groupthink" to relieve of us of the duty of independent thought; and the encroaching and furtive notion that design and design research is either "above" all this or somehow different and therefore gets to operate under different rules. It isn't and it doesn't.

-Snip-