Dear Lise,
I co-wrote a paper last year – Design Research between Design and Research – in which examined the different design research approaches such research in/into/for/through/by design and their overlaps and differences. In this paper we proposed a different categorization:
1. There is design research which deals with ontological questions of what design is and what is it good for.
2. There is design research which deals with epistemological questions of how we can know about design and how we perform design.
3. There is design research which deals with contextual questions of how design interacts with the world when it meets people, cultures, social systems, the environment, etc.
4. Finally, there is design research which deals with procedural questions of which tools, techniques and procedures that are relevant to the execution of design.
You can find the paper here: http://aalborg.academia.edu/NicolaiSteinø/Papers/512047/Design_Research_between_Design_and_Research
Hopefully this can be helpful to you.
Best,
Nicolai Steinø
Associate Professor, PhD
Aalborg University
Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology
Den 13/06/2012 kl. 12.49 skrev "Chris Rust" <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
On 13/06/2012 05:11, Ken Friedman wrote:
For more than a decade and a half, I've been trying to find Frayling's
actual description. What I find, time after time, is people who state
that Frayling described a method -- all of them pointing back to the
original 7-page pamphlet.
Lise's reference to Bruce Archer is the more relevant source. There's something a bit odd about the Frayling version, or at least some interpretations, that position research "through" design practice in quite a different way from Bruce Archer. Owain Pedgley has cited evidence that Archer was pursuing these ideas several years earlier.
As Ken says, Frayling's words were really a provocative pamphlet, very likely influenced by Archer who was his in-house expert on the topic, and clearly he did a good job in creating debate. Archer's paper (as I remember) started out as a keynote speech at a DRS conference and was then developed as a paper in the codesign Journal (not the current CoDesign but a short-lived and interesting publishing project in the mid 1990s.)
So Archer's work is much more considered and framed by a substantial discussion of the nature of research. A senior scientist colleague of mine at the time described it as one of the best pieces of writing on research he had seen. There is much more to it than the famous triad and I would commend it to all novice researchers.
However we have moved on a lot. Archer was discussing a possibility, one which he had explored in his own work but we had very few other practical examples available and he did not cite his own experience*. Since then we have seen a very diverse array of relevant research practices and the most successful have been those which put the inquiry first but recognise the role of designing and other creative practices as instruments of inquiry.
As an example I would like to offer Edward Wade's (2010) PhD by publication at University of Middlesex, UK. Edward is an illustrator who has worked extensively with herpetologists on developing our knowledge of snake varieties through analysis of scale patterns. Over many years Edward worked on the reconstruction of fragments of snakes with drawing techniques to identify the snake varieties present in different geographical areas (often the only evidence available is road-kill. It is valuable to know which actual snakes are present if only to inform which snake-bite antidotes to stock).
The result of his programme of drawing and analysis was both a better understanding of the distribution of snake varieties but also a methodology for reconstruction and identification that has wider application. The project married a high level of skill** as an illustrator with a rich understanding of the relevant science gained through personal study and collaboration with experts. Almost all good "practice-led" projects include these elements of strong professional/creative skills located in a rich context but the glue is the ability to develop a convincing methodology for the inquiry. There are few off-the-shelf methods here.
<http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/view/creators/Wade=3AEdward_O=2E_Z=2E=3A=3A.html>Wade, Edward O. Z. (2008) New reconstructive methods in scientific illustration with reference to systematic herpetology. PhD thesis, Middlesex University. (Available online at http://eprints.mdx.ac.uk/6276/ accessed 13 Jun 2012)
For those who have not seen it I've archived the Archer paper here
http://chrisrust.wordpress.com/1995/12/31/archer-the-nature-of-research/
*I've also archived Ghislaine Lawrence's PhD Thesis on Archer's Kings Fund Bed project. Arguably this project includes an element of research through designing, and much more besides.
http://chrisrust.wordpress.com/2001/12/31/lawrence-hospital-beds-by-design/
**It is always good to have in mind that Lavoisier's great achievements in C18 chemistry depended on his dexterity in manipulating the instruments of his trade. Few others could achieve his results because they lacked his skills. We should never be afraid to claim the particular skills and insights of our various professional disciplines which can similarly unlock problems that resist other forms of inquiry as Edward Wade has demonstrated.
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
..............................................................
Prof Chris Rust FDRS
Head of Art and Design Dept
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
In theory, practice follows theory, in practice theory follows practice
|