Hi Danielle,
I don’t want to be self-promoting, but my “semantic turn; a new foundation for design” is full of empirical proven methods dealing with issues of the meanings of artifacts.
Klaus
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 30, 2018, at 11:51 PM, Danielle Wilde <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> again, thank you for messages on and off list. Following some rousing cheers I’ve decided to go ahead and build on what’s out there, which means I will come back to individuals and the list to solicit further input. In the meantime, if anyone else would like to send through suggestions, please keep them coming.
>
> best regards,
> Danielle
>
> Dear Cesar,
>
> fantastically useful, thank you:
>
>> From: Cesar Torres <[log in to unmask]>
> —snip—
>> Celeste Roschuni has been doing work in this area:
>> https://www.thedesignexchange.org/design_methods
>> For the analytical methods, there is a categorization scheme they propose
>> [1].
>>
>> [1] Roschuni, Celeste, et al. "Design talking: an ontology of design
>> methods to support a common language of design." *Int. Conf. Eng. Des*.
>> 2015.
> —snip—
>
> Dear Gjoko,
>
> Your book is a fantastic resource. I am grateful I have it to hand. I looked at it several times over the last days and its organisation—in terms of my current focus on analysis—is part of what lead me to reach out for a map. I’d be grateful for your feedback as I wrangle the different resources into a visually organised taxonomy.
>
>> From: Gjoko Muratovski <[log in to unmask]>
> —snip—
>> I have tried to develop a more structured approach to these things in my book "Research for Designers: A Guide to Methods and Practice" (London: Sage Publications, 2016).
>>
>> https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/book/research-designers#description
>>
>> While I have not quite developed a map, I have introduced a very detailed step-by-step approach for each of the methods that I am reflecting on in the book. The book is written with the purpose to be used for a course on Design Research Methods, so it might be helpful for you to have a look at it in any case.
> —snip—
>
> Dear Heidi,
>
> another great resource. I’d be grateful to receive the pdf.
> please write me to: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> thanks one and all,
> best regards
> Danielle
>
>> From: Heidi Overhill <[log in to unmask]>
> —snip—
>> ... an ontology of outcomes, not of technique.
>> I'd be happy to send a .pdf to anyone interested, but here is a verbal description. Here, the four boxes of the grid represent the intersections of these two axes:• north-south differentiates between research "in theory," and "in practice."
>> • east-west distinguishes whether the research is relevant "in general," or "for one case."
>> These intersections yield four general categories:
>>
>> 1. In practice, for one case: This is the type of routine research found in everyday design practice, including benchmark reviews, literature searches and user studies. All design projects include this type of research, if only in rudimentary form.
>> 2. In practice, for general application: This is the type of research aimed at developing general tools that all designers can use when approaching problems, such as ergonomic databases, codes and standardization, or new technologies.
>> 3. In theory, for general application: This is the development of design philosophy; exploring the meanings of design and designed artifacts using intellectual frameworks perhaps taken from philosophy, psychology or cognitive science. Its relationship with clinical design practice may not be obvious, but it is foundational in terms of tacit assumptions.
>> 4. In theory, for one case: This is work that seeks to establish a context for specific projects; perhaps turning to sociology, management or anthropology for guidance. For example, is the kitchen really a location for "work" or is it a social setting? Theoretical analysis of a problem area may be a preliminary step towards identifying the problem to be solved. This step seems sometimes neglected, or is provided by the client in the form of the design brief or contract.
>> These categories are, of course, blurry (see Lakoff, Women, Fire and Dangerous Things, 1987), but seem useful for student orientation. Category 1 research is the obvious starting point for beginners, offering manageable opportunities to explore methods that are qualitative or quantitative ; primary or secondary.
>> Under this analysis, most of the things mentioned by Celeste Roschuni seem to be useful general tools that can find a variety of applications in design practice. I would describe development of such tools as Category 2 research. Roschini's collecting of them is also Category 2 research, as she develops an over-arching tool-of-tools to use in locating methods. Application of the specific tools to a project would fall into Category 1.
>> Note that I was inspired here by the admirable and useful illustration in: Lois Frankel and Martin Racine, “The Complex Field of Research: for Design, through Design and about Design.” Paper presented at Design and Complexity, the Design Research Society International Conference 7-9 July 2010, Université de Montréal. http://www.drs2010.umontreal.ca/data/PDF/043.pdf
>
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|