Mauricio:
I hope you are well! Couldn't resist your good post!
Being by nature simpler than Ken, and briefer, I have a quick thought. As I think you know the CITI institutional research training site with over 1,000 institutions as members defines research as "systematic investigation that aims to produce generalizable knowledge." The cliff Notes version of Ken's definition! Our institutional IRB grants exemptions from research oversight to proposed "research" projects that are simply answering a specific question, because it's not research by the definition above. I believe they call it a 'product improvement' exemption. Design activities are nearly always exempt: not generalizable knowledge = not research, because they are seeking an answer to a specific problem.
Now, one can (and often does) start with non-generalizable intentions (design activity) and come across things that might be generalizable, BUT, additional rigorous work with inferential justification would be required to move it from one-off knowledge to generalizable knowledge. You'd have to work at it.
I certainly can envision "research through design" wherein a design process produced numerous artifacts systematically and tested them according to a plan aimed to proved something generalizable. I believe it's certainly possible. I don't define things such that design making/practice by definition cannot generate generalizable knowledge. It's just seldom ever done, in my experience, because the intention is generally (pun) to solve one specific problem NOT to generate generalizable knowledge.
Best...
Mike Zender
University of Cincinnati
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|