Dear Eduardo,
You write quite rightly [1] that medicine embeds practice in research in different ways.
[1] “In Medicine a great deal of research is done by doing medical acts. There is no doubt that a practical profession such as medicine requires that kind of experimentation, validation, implementation processes that go through the practice of medicine. Like in design, medical research is goal oriented and practice led.”
This is also true of engineering, nursing, law, and other professions.
[2] “The thing is that medical research is supported by heavy sciences such as biology, physiology, cytology, toxicology, you name it, and thus very well regarded as research. Whereas, apparently design research (when doing design) stands on the top of nothing.
[3] “But we all know that design research may be also supported by heavy sciences like sociology, anthropology, psychology, engineering sciences and so many more. What we must not confuse is what these sciences are and what design research is (or should be) supported by them.”
In agreeing with your first statement, I’d suggest that your second two statements are ambiguous. As I see it, there is no reason to assert that [2] design and design research stand on top of nothing. We have as many research traditions and methods available to us as do any professions, including medicine. What we do not yet have is a robust research tradition.
With respect to [3] confusing the sciences and the support they offer design research, it is worth looking at medicine. Up through the first decade of the 20th century, medical practice, medical education, and the research traditions that supported them were craft guild traditions stretching back to Kos in the 5th century BC. The debates they experienced were much like the debates we struggle with today.
The change came about with Abraham Flexner’s review of medical education. This was the birth of modern medical education linked with modern medical research. Today, we have taken Flexner’s ideas further with such approaches as evidence-based medicine, meta-analysis, and Cochrane reviews.
A great deal of design practice will never be research-based or evidence-based. There is generally too little time and no budget for research. But the time has come for design education to move forward. Those of us who work in universities have the time for robust research – our universities pay us to take the time, to think things through, and to develop and publish our ideas in a way that builds the field.
If you don’t know how these debates worked in medicine and medical education before Flexner and since, I’d suggest reading Thomas Neville Bonner’s (2002) Iconoclast: Abraham Flexner and a Life in Learning. Bonner says much that applies to design research and design education today. A review of the book follows.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
Reference
Bonner, Thomas Neville. 2002. Iconoclast. Abraham Flexner and a Life in Learning. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|