Hi Ken,

Thank you for your comprehensive  response.  

My apologies for the delay in responding. It still hasn't convinced me,
though I'm not fully sure why yet.

I've found Wolfgang Stegmueller  worth reading on these kind of issues of
theory development. His 'Structure and Dynamics of Theories' is  great to
read  though it seems a bit hard now to get hold of a copy (University of
Western Australia has one). For a brief on Wolfgang -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Stegm%C3%BCller 

I feel the Basic/Applied/ Clinical model doesn't do justice to the
reasoning, especially if you include that design activity has a layered,
recursive aspect. For example,  the goals and 'brief' are a 'design' as much
as the design for their solution.  As I suggested some years ago, one
characteristic of design methods is to relocate design activity either to
where the issues  can be more easily or efficiently addressed, or where more
money can be made. If it is easier (or better financially)  to design
computers to do design work for graphic designers than to have the graphic
designers do the design work, then the design activity relocates.  

A similar situation occurs in the way that basic research intended to be
exploratory and speculative is in essence for use in the design of future
theories - simply an application of design research in a different realm of
design practice. 

More later,

Best wishes,
Terence

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2012 1:38 AM
To: Dr Terence Love
Subject: Re: Relationship Between Design Research & Practice

Dear Terry,

Thanks for your reply. This involves two issues. I'm going to respond on one
and put the other aside.

On this issue of research, I do see things differently.

The third kind of research I mentioned involves more than developing a
profound understanding of how design works. It includes this goal, but it is
not limited to this goal. I was also making a case for research that leads
to understanding "things: how they are and how they work"
(Simon 1982: 129).

In nearly all fields, there is a difference between research to understand
how things are and how they work and research that helps to improve outcomes
and practices. While this usually leads to progress in the other two forms
of research you describe, this is not its first purpose. The first purpose
of this kind of research is to understand how things are and how they work.
This is the definition of basic research or pure research, without respect
to the field in which it takes place, and without respect to the ultimate
applied or clinical benefits that may arise from this basic research.

A problem arises when you use a definition such as "research that helps
improve design outcomes and design practices." The problem is that people
may impose a narrow set of constraints that demands proof that the research
will indeed "improve design outcomes and design practices." If one cannot
show this to be the case, people whose research does not demonstrate the
immediate or relatively swift capacity to "improve design outcomes and
design practices" are likely to be denied funding. In institutions adhering
to such a narrow definition, people may not be hired where one cannot show
that their research "improve design outcomes and design practices."

It is my view that we know far too little about design to demand that all
research in our field should demonstrably "improve design outcomes and
design practices."

Elsewhere, I've (Friedman 1993: 509-511) described this issue in reasonable
depth:

"The noun research means, "1: careful or diligent search, 2: studious
inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed
at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories
or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or
revised theories or laws, 3: the collecting of information about a
particular subject" (Merriam-Webster's 1993:
1002) .

"The transitive verb means "to search or investigate exhaustively" or "to do
research for" something, and the intransitive verb means, "to engage in
research" (Merriam-Webster's 1993: 1002) .

"The word research is closely linked to the word and concept of search. The
prefix "re" came to this word from outside English. Rather than indicating
the past as some have mistakenly suggested, it emphasizes and strengthens
the core concept of search. The key meanings are "to look into or over
carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something, to read
thoroughly, to look at as if to discover or penetrate intention or nature,
to uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny, to make
painstaking investigation or examination" (Merriam-Webster's 1993: 1059).
Many aspects of design involve search and research together.

"Basic research involves a search for general principles. These principles
are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of situations and cases.
Basic research generates theory on several levels. This may involve macro
level theories covering wide areas or fields, midlevel theories covering
specific ranges of issues or micro level theories focused on narrow
questions. General principles often have broad application beyond their
field of origin, and their generative nature sometimes gives them surprising
power.

"Applied research adapts the findings of basic research to classes of
problems. It may also involve developing and testing theories for these
classes of problems. Applied research tends to be midlevel or micro level
research. At the same time, applied research may develop or generate
questions that become the subject of basic research.

"Clinical research involves specific cases. Clinical research applies the
findings of basic research and applied research to specific situations. It
may also generate and test new questions, and it may test the findings of
basic and applied research in a clinical situation. Clinical research may
also develop or generate questions that become the subject of basic research
or applied research.

"Any of the three frames of research may generate questions for the other
frames. Each may test the theories and findings of other kinds of research.
Clinical research generally involves specific forms of professional
engagement. In the flow of daily activity, most design practice is
restricted to clinical research. There isn't time for anything else.
Precisely because this is the case, senior designers increasingly need a
sense of research issues with the background and experience to distinguish
among classes and kinds of problems, likely alternative solutions, and a
sense of the areas where creative intervention can make a difference."

With respect to design, the relationship among these different kinds of
research is significant:

"In today's complex environment, a designer must identify problems, select
appropriate goals, and realize solutions. Because so much design work takes
place in teams, a senior designer may also be expected to assemble and lead
a team to develop and implement solutions. Designers work on several levels.
The designer is an analyst who discovers problems or who works with a
problem in the light of a brief. The designer is a synthesist who helps to
solve problems and a generalist who understands the range of talents that
must be engaged to realize solutions. The designer is a leader who organizes
teams when one range of talents is not enough. Moreover, the designer is a
critic whose post-solution analysis considers whether the right problem has
been solved. Each of these tasks may involve working with research
questions. All of them involve interpreting or applying some aspect or
element that research discloses.

"Because a designer is a thinker whose job it is to move from thought to
action, the designer uses capacities of mind to solve problems for clients
in an appropriate and empathic way. In cases where the client is not the
customer or end-user of the designer's work, the designer may also work to
meet customer needs, testing design outcomes and following through on
solutions.

"This provides the first benefit of research training for the professional
designer. Design practice is inevitably located in a specific, clinical
situation. A broad understanding of general principles based on research
gives the practicing designer a background stock of knowledge on which to
draw. This stock of knowledge includes principles, facts, and theories. No
single individual can master this comprehensive background stock of
knowledge. Rather, this constitutes the knowledge of the field. This
knowledge is embodied in the minds and working practices of millions of
people. These people, their minds, and their practices, are distributed in
the social and organizational memory of tens of thousands of organizations.

"Even if one person could in theory master any major fraction of the general
stock of knowledge, there would be little point in doing so.
The general and comprehensive stock of design knowledge can never be used
completely in any practical context. Good design solutions are always based
on and embedded in specific problems. In Jens Bernsen's
(1986) memorable phrase, the problem comes first in design. Each problem
implies partially new solutions located in a specific context.
The continual interaction of design problems and design solutions generates
the problematics and knowledge stock of the field in tandem.

"Developing a comprehensive background through practice takes many years. In
contrast, a solid foundation of design knowledge anchored in broad research
traditions gives each practitioner the access to the cumulative results of
many other minds and the overall experience of a far larger field.

"In addition to those who shape research at the clinical edge of practice,
there are other forms of research that serve the field and other kinds of
researchers develop them. Research is a way of asking questions. All forms
of research ask questions, basic, applied, and clinical. The different forms
and levels of research ask questions in different ways.

"Research asks questions in a systematic way. The systems vary by field and
purpose. There are many kinds of research: hermeneutic, naturalistic
inquiry, statistical, analytical, mathematical, physical, historical,
sociological, ethnographic, ethnological, biological, medical, chemical and
many more. They draw on many methods and traditions. Each has its own
foundations and values. All involve some form of systematic inquiry, and all
involve a formal level of theorizing and inquiry beyond the specific
research at hand.

"Research is the 'methodical search for knowledge. Original research tackles
new problems or checks previous findings. Rigorous research is the mark of
science, technology, and the 'living' branches of the humanities' (Bunge
1999: 251). Exploration, investigation, and inquiry are partial synonyms for
research.

"Because design knowledge grows in part from practice, design knowledge and
design research overlap. The practice of design is one foundation of design
knowledge. Even though design knowledge arises in part from practice,
however, it is not practice but systematic and methodical inquiry into
practice - and other issues - that constitute design research, as distinct
from practice itself. The elements of design knowledge begin in many
sources, and practice is only one of them.

"Critical thinking and systemic inquiry form the foundation of theory.
Research offers us the tools that allow critical thinking and systemic
inquiry to bring answers out of the field of action. It is theory and the
models that theory provides through which we link what we know to what we
do" (Friedman 2003: 511-513).

These issues do not involve the epistemological or ontological status of
design activity. My assertion is that a definition of research limited to
improving outcomes and practices provides an inappropriate research
foundation for any field of professional practice.

For the reasons I provide here, I argue that basic research does not
collapse into applied research or pure research. While basic research often
contributes to applied research or clinical research, collapsing the
definitions limits and ultimately damages the inquiry on which every living
field depends.

The other issue you raise is your "simpler definition of the activity of
design as 'to create designs' in which a 'design' has its everyday meaning
as 'a specification to make or do something'."

I see this differently as well.

Because this is a thread on the "relationship between design research and
practice," I'm not going to answer here. I'll respond to this before long in
a new thread.

Yours,

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

--

References

Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York:
Prometheus Books.

Friedman, Ken. 2003. "Theory construction in design research:
criteria: approaches, and methods." Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507-522.
doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5

Merriam-Webster Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Simon, Herbert. 1982. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press.

--

Terry Love wrote:

--snip--

Seems to me that 'Developing a profound understanding of how design works'
seems to me to be a part of the first item in my email to Emma
-

'1. Design research defined as 'research that helps improve design outcomes
and design practices'. Developing a profound understanding of how design
works' is research and its role is to ' help improve design outcomes and
design practices'.

--snip--