Dear Mauricio (and all)
As someone who was a panel-member assessing UK research in REF2014, the
survey David referred to, I can point you to the definition - strictly a
refinement of a broader definition - used by Panel D*:
> 78. The criteria for assessing outputs will be interpreted as follows:
> * Originality: a creative/intellectual advance that makes an important and
> innovative contribution to understanding and knowledge. This may include
> substantive empirical findings, new arguments, interpretations or insights,
> imaginative scope, assembling of information in an innovative way, development
> of new theoretical frameworks and conceptual models, innovative methodologies
> and/or new forms of expression.
> * Significance: the enhancement or deserved enhancement of knowledge,
> thinking, understanding and/or practice.
> * Rigour: intellectual coherence, methodological precision and analytical
> power; accuracy and depth of scholarship; awareness of and appropriate
> engagement with other relevant work.
*Panel D comprised these fields:
27 Area Studies
28 Modern Languages and Linguistics
29 English Language and Literature
30 History
31 Classics
32 Philosophy
33 Theology and Religious Studies
34 Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory
35 Music, Drama, Dance and Performing Arts
36 Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information
Management
The full documentation of "Panel Criteria and Working Methods" for REF2014
is available at: http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2012-01/
Best wishes,
Stephen
Stephen Boyd Davis
Professor of Design Research
School of Design
Royal College of Art
Kensington Gore, London
SW7 2EU
E [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
T (Inka Hella, School Administrator) +44 (0)20 7590 4274
T (personal) +44 (0)20 7590 4343
www.rca.ac.uk
twitter.com/RCADesRes
facebook.com/RCA.London
From: "G. Mauricio Mejía" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Friday, 6 March 2015 10:53
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: [PHD-DESIGN] Research through design
> Dear Ken,
>
> You are right, Zimmerman et al. (2010) are optimistic about the future of
> research through design. They also briefly report a couple of examples of
> high-quality RtD. However, the diagnosis is that the approach is still weak,
> and I donšt see a much change on that. Regarding the UK report that David
> cites, it seems impressive. I wonder what are the criteria to measure the
> research outputs.
>
> What is missing is a good textbook or several about design research
> methodology. You have mentioned that we could use some books and references
> from other disciplines, but we need our own books. Now I imagine that
> practice-based research supervisors are taking too many different directions.
> I hope Muratovskišs book start to fill this gap. I would love to read it as
> soon as possible.
>
> Thanks.
>
> G. Mauricio Mejía, PhD
> Associate professor University of Caldas, Colombia
> @mmejiaramirez
>
> Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An Analysis and Critique
> of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach
> (pp. 310319). Presented at the DIS 2010, Aarhus, Denmark: ACM 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|