Dear Derek and Birger, 

Might I try to play the role of Keith who often comes in between Ken and me? (smile).

I have to admit that much of the literature on research through design is not the most accessible or understandable or enjoyable.  But I like two recent articles from Jonas. I point to them because not only he is my friend but also they are very readable. Perhaps others can point to other resources. 

http://www.transportation-design.org/cms/upload/DOWNLOADS/20101220_Youthla-Interview_Jonas.pdf
http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf

Following others' lead, I see that design (pace Herbert Simon) is NOT "above all this" ('this' refers to formulating research question, crafting research design, establishing evidence, etc) but rather it is  "beneath all this". In my opinion, in the past decade and more, the design education and research community needed to be insulated and given the space and time to push this notion further.  However, I also see that perhaps now it is the right time to reconcile, so to speak, with what the scientific method can offer. At least,  I feel that I should learn to master the scientific method to complement other skills that I have. Richard Rorty's essay is useful for the discussion. He was talking about the social sciences, but the lessons apply equally well to Design Research as well, I think. 

http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/irvinem/theory/Rorty-Method-SocialScience.pdf

Best Regards,
Rosan


-----Original Message-----
From: Birger Sevaldson [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2012 23:21
Subject: SV: some more questions on research design RE: Is claim/research on 'success' one-sided?

Dear Derek
I gladly apologies for firing from the hip but it comes from a period with building irritation. I do not disagree with what you're saying below except for you insisting that there is ONE academy. Its not true. But let that be.
What really annoys me is that you enter the design field very un-humbled and very loud and telling us about rigor and evidence based design while you don't live what you preach.
The below quote comes from your speech in Gothenburg found here:
http://designleadership.blogspot.com/search?q=derek+miller

"Today, design does not seem to be centrally concerned with building theory or processes that can be disproved. In fact, it doesn't seem to be interested in process at all."

How can you state such a thing? It is an insult to a large portion of the people on this list, but also the entire design profession especially the tradition of industrial design. I have taught in that field since 1990 and there is process, process, process. You might criticise it but do not come with false statements that there is nothing there....  This demonstrates to me that you don't bother reading up on design practice, teaching,  theory and its history. Don't you know about the early period of design methodology where hard scientific methods and perspectives such as yours were tried to be applied in design processes and design research and why this was largely but not totally abandoned? 

Since we have taught together at AHO where i invited you to teach in my studio i sent you several off-list emails to discuss these issues of evidence, research by design etc. I sent you links to one of my papers to get you going on the issue of research by design which you said you did not understand. You never bothered answering these invitations to dialogue once. 
 
To me the question of being inside or outside is not about where you are coming from but where you are going to. I have numerous good colleagues and friends who are not designers but who come from the outside of design. These people are extreemly valuable. But entering the field of design requires to read up on what is going on, to listen and involve in a dialogue and to contribute in a critical yet respectful way.
Your speech linked to above is far from that but full of ungrounded statements and insults to the field: You're talking of grown up issues, well design has always dealt with grown up issues. Many design tasks are about life and death and designers can be held personally responsible of messing things up. We have insurances for this so don't tell us about grown up issues. But design is also about play and culture, emotions and the irrational, thanks god.
Many of us in design research have read Popper but did it never occur to you to think that there might be a reason for the concept of falsification not being more spread in design and design research?

I respect you very much from your fields perspective. That is why i invited you in the first place. I also in the beginning enjoyed your criticism and share many of your concerns. But as long as you don't want to read up on the field of design research and only want to preach rigor without living it yourself you will stay an outsider to me. 

I am sorry to be so hard but I need to say this because you are running the risk of entering the field of design research and doing great damage, exactly what you say might happen if design enters your field uninformed. The damage might come from nummerous young design researchers being lead astray from your approach because it promises a false certainty and they have not yet read up on the whole picture.

Hoping for improvement
Best
Birger