Dear Birger,
Thanks for this reply. I’ve read “Discussions and Movements in
Design Research: A systems approach to practice research in design.”
In my view, it is a thoughtful contribution to the conversation. While
I’ve got to think about the categories and taxonomy at greater length,
I welcome this kind of rich analysis of the literature of the field to
date.
Best regards,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
Birger Sevaldson wrote:
—snip—
I had a go at entangling the cliché created by Frailing and undo its
sticky nature in 2010 “Discussions and Movements in Design Research: A
systems approach to practice research in design.” Sevaldson, B.
FORMakademisk, 3, 8-35.
http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/62
page 11-13
Dont know if I was very successful, but one argument in the paper is
that this type of simplified schemas ar doing more harm than good and
that we need to look much closer at what we are doing e.g. at the many
different possible relations between design and reflection.
I prefere the term Research by Design also to detach it from Frailings
sticky cliché.
—snip—
|