Dear Chuck and All,
Thanks, Chuck, for an interesting post. All — I wrote Chuck off-list. Now that others are building on Chuck’s note, I will reply to the list before anyone goes further. I do not intend to cover the literature beyond the six terms in my research request.
The purpose of my literature search and literature review is not to examine all interesting or potentially useful approaches to design research. I’m trying to address a lack of clarity about a range of approaches to design research that have never been well defined, and I hope to answer some unanswered questions in the process.
As noted in my research request, I am looking at 6 approaches described using different terms in which the issues, approaches, and outcomes overlap: 1) practice based research, 2) practice led research, 3) practice as research, 4) artistic research, 5) investigative design, and 6) generative research. That is the extent of my coverage.
This search began when I discovered that authors use these six terms in many different ways, often confusing them — and certainly confusing me. In some cases, the same terms designate very different approaches, methods, or perspectives. In other cases, different terms indicate the same approach, method, or perspective. More confusing still, some of these terms designate approaches, methods, or perspectives that could easily be characterized using standard research terms from the social sciences, natural sciences, humanities, or liberal arts.
It is not possible to cover everything in one article. I could name several dozen important approaches to research that are useful in different areas of design that I’m not covering — this includes a rich array of qualitative and quantitative research methods and approaches that are demonstrably useful, each in answering certain kinds of questions. To cover them, I’d need to be editing something like one of those massive handbooks that Cambridge University Press publishes from time to time. And mean editing, not writing — no one author can get across all of the hundreds of useful research methods, or the many different approaches and positions.
When I dug into the terms and the paradigms for another article, I found that many opinion papers exist stating that one approach or another defines the position bearing a label — practice based research, practice led research, practice as research, artistic research, investigative design, or generative research. Nevertheless, the labels were poorly defined, unclear, and confusing. Based on this, I decided to learn more. To do that, I am gathering literature loosely clustered around these six positions. When I have gathered enough material, I’ll organize a bibliography, and then — working with a colleague — I’ll gather the ideas together in a critical literature review.
While I agree with the posts on missing coverage, I do not seek to cover every useful and neglected research approach. I want to shed light on a poorly defined and often confusing corner of the design research literature.
Warm wishes,
Ken
--
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|