Dear Ken,
Thank you for your message. I am glad you did not waste another 19,000 words. If you don't understand what I have written, it may be easier to ask?
As you know from our conversations, on and off this list, for over 10 years I was involved in trying to improve PhD outcomes in design. In part this was as a member of a university Graduate Studies committee in one of the top 10 universities in Australia, and more particularly through clarifying the mess of Design PhDs in Art and Design, devising an intensive supervision method that led to the 3 year fast-track PhD process, and improving PhD guidance.
The 'Four Modes of Design Research' document was derived from that work on improving guidance for candidates doing PhDs in design-related topics.
As a small research project in this area, I collated and analysed a large number of university guides to doing a PhD from many Art and Humanities areas.
Whilst it is obvious that in the main that Humanities research and most Art and Design design research cannot be undertaken from a single questions perspective (as you commented in your email). Yet, almost all of the university guides to doing a PhD from Humanities and Arts departments had that it was important to use a single research question. The 'single research question' mode of PhD had become the 'classic' PhD research mode in the Humanities. In copying inappropriately from the sciences, those guiding PhDs in the Humanities (and especially in Design) had 'over-reified' (i.e. made too concrete in their documentation for PhD research, thesis writing and assessment) ideas on PhDs drawn from sciences. This classic position as revealed from the evidence of the documents insisted on the use of a single question when it is clear that it is in most cases inappropriate and will lead to significant problems for the candidate, their research progress, and the quality of their thesis.
Does that explain things sufficiently?
On your comments on the scope of projects that I've undertaken, I suggest this kind of scope is not unusual for someone who works across fields. It would only be unusual for someone who is a specialist or whose education was restricted by the teaching of school and university and the culture of practice. Since writing that list, I've also realised that there are possibly at least the same number again of projects that are not in the list.
I'm puzzled as to why you feel there is a need for a portfolio. That would be some sort of selling thing.
Finally, you ask for an explanation of how it is possible to work across fields in this way - some explanation of practice?
I suggest that in my case at least (and also in many other people I know work across fields) the two main factors in working across fields are: a strong grounding in mathematics and willingness to learn and put time into learning in any field. That is a combination of mathematical education and autodidactism.
In my own situation, I found avoiding attending teaching at school and university was helpful and instead learning from publicly available resources and guidance from informal mentors. I also fairly consistently spend around a third of my time every week studying and learning and avoid media (tv, radio, films, recorded music etc - live music is great!).
In particular, I suggest that conventional learning from school and university is a problem and a restriction for many. In evidence, I notice young people who study at the 'School of the Air' tend to learn much more than students at conventional schools, in spite of studying for only a fraction of the time each week.
I hope this is a sufficient answer.
Best regards,
Terence
==
Dr Terence Love,
School of Design and Built Environment, Curtin University, Western Australia
CEO, Design Out Crime and CPTED Centre
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
==
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2018 8:01 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: mapping analytical methods for design research
Dear Terry, Heidi, Joao,
While I am reluctant to enter the current thread, I want to put forward a couple ideas.
(1) A massive design portfolio
First, I was astonished at the massive list of things you’ve been working with … "design of outdoor equipment and extreme weather clothing and tents, computerised design optimisation programs in engineering, wordprocessor design, new design theories, new methods of design research, firefighting equipment, scientific laboratory equipment, design of wind and solar power generation, advanced vehicle transmissions, engine design, reproduction antique furniture, graphic design and typesetting, design of alternative technology equipment for 3rd world, AI and robotics systems, predictive software for national daily energy production, Victorian building restoration, local and wide area network design, hypertext learning systems, structural engineering, design of design systems, improved Permaculture design systems, book publishing, research project design, new forms of mathematical and computerised modelling, community policing policy, youth policy design, design and build of eco-houses, alternative parallel social, business and financial systems, new systems theories for transitioning power in hypercomplex systems, new high fashion design, research into historical artists, research into craft methods, methods of addressing wicked problems, environmental design for crime prevention, education programs design, design of improved PhD supervisory systems, new forms of cyber-security, new government policies,, business processes... along with many small scale design projects.”
Surely this deserves publication or a portfolio. You claim to have a system for thinking and working productively across a wide range of kinds and classes of artifact, product, system, service, and process. If this is the case, it would be helpful for you to demonstrate that your processes and idea work. A portfolio with comments and a demonstration of your methods will allow the rest of us to understand what you’ve done, how you’ve done it, and what kinds of approaches make it possible for you to do so much design and so much theorizing across so many fields and sectors. I’ve been able to find a few of your journal articles — primarily theoretical — and a few conference papers, but nothing that suggests this kind of range or this level of expertise.
Please do show us.
(2) Four Modes of Design Research
With respect your your web page — Four Modes of Design Research — I must disagree. Your page appears at the link you provide:
https://www.love.com.au/index.php/23-4-modes-dr
The first three modes seem to me slightly jumbled. They are not entirely wrong, but you don’t explain things very well. I’d expect greater detail and clarity for what amounts to a discussion involving philosophy of science and research training.
People who want to examine these issues carefully would do well to read the careful and detailed articles at The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Web Center for Social Research Methods
https://plato.stanford.edu
https://www.iep.utm.edu
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/
There are also excellent books on models of research for design, including Gjoko Muratovski’s excellent Research for Designers:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Research-Designers-Guide-Methods-Practice-ebook/dp/B018E7FISY
https://www.amazon.com/Research-Designers-Gjoko-Muratovski/dp/1446275140
Full disclosure: I wrote the introduction to this book. You can read my assessment of the issues and the book on my Academia page or on Gjoko’s
https://www.academia.edu/19075187/Research_for_Designers_A_Guide_to_Methods_and_Practice_Book_Preview_
https://www.academia.edu/19075187/Research_for_Designers_A_Guide_to_Methods_and_Practice_Book_Preview_
One reason I like Gjoko’s book so much is that he does a serious job of surveying a large, complex range of issues without oversimplification — and with respect for the details that so often make a difference.
All of these sources require more than four short paragraphs … the ambiguous and slightly careless writing mean that it would take ten times as much text to explain what is problematic about the description of the four modes.
Let me take one set of issue from one sentence that jumps out at me for the number of major mistakes in two short sentences. You write:
"Research based on a single research question. This is a classic research approach common within the Humanities and has been over-reified. The idea has spread relatively uncritically from Humanities for several historical reasons.”
Research based on a single research question is common across all of the sciences, but relatively uncommon in the humanities. Most of the research in the natural sciences and much of the research in the social sciences involves relatively small, careful questions that a researcher can answer clearly and without ambiguity. This is also the case in a great deal of research for mathematics and logic.
There have been something like 50,000,000 research articles published since 1665, and even more conference papers have been presented. A huge proportion of these involve a single research question that can yield what the researcher or researchers believe is a clear answer. Much of the reductionist program in the sciences involves reducing problems to clear component questions that provide basic answers that allow researchers to slowly build an understanding of the world.
At the same time, much of the work in the humanities involves rich networks of linked problems that do not yield a clear answer. History is one of the typical subjects within the humanities. Consider historians who work at the intersection of history and economics. Here is a short list of historians whose work cannot be described as “research based on a single research question” — Eric Beinhocker, Alfred Chandler, David Halberstam, Harold Innis, Fritz Machlup, Joel Mokyr, Sylvia Nasar, Nobel Laureate Douglass North, Arnold Pacey, Karl Polanyi, and David Warsh. In the larger field of general history, most of the serious historians known to me address historical questions in the complex context within which they arise — Gordon Wood, Sven Beckert, Catharina Blomberg, Daniel Boorstin, Jonathan Sumption, Barbara Tuchman, Shashi Tharoor, William Manchester.
The other humanities are much the same. It is difficult to describe a broad topic as a “single research question.” Look at philosophers such as Martha Nussbaum, Soren Kierkegaard, Albert Camus, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, not to mention people who write a kind of philosophy by writing about philosophers, authors such as Sue Prideaux and Sarah Bakewell.
Once you move over into literature or some areas of theology, the idea of a “single research question” is unsustainable. In the classics, it is impossible. Milman Parry? Sarah Bond? Sarah Nooter? Bernard Knox? Joan Breton Connelly? The questions they ask can often be reduced to a single sentence or two of description, but answering these questions requires understanding and linking history, empirical data from archeology and linguistics, literary studies, and more.
And let’s not get started on what you don’t know about the mathematical approaches now common in the digital humanities or data-centric humanities.
To claim that “research based on a single research question ... is a classic research approach common within the humanities” demonstrates a profound ignorance of research in the humanities. You can say anything at all about fields where you apparently do little reading — one expects more on a research list.
The notion that anything “has been over-reified” suggests you do not know what reification is. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, reify is a transitive verb that means “to make (something abstract) more concrete or real; to regard or treat (an idea, concept, etc.) as if having material existence.” Something is reified or it is not. To write that “a classic research approach ... has been over-reified” is meaningless.
Danielle Wilde launched a fascinating thread. Most of the people who have contributed to the thread have done some serious thinking, providing useful facts and original ideas. Your notes have been problematic — generally referring back to something on your web site that you posted long ago, apparently without thinking your ideas through.
It would take too much writing to explain why these four modes don’t work. It took over 800 words to unpack the problems in a two-sentence passage of 21 words. At that rate, it would take nearly 20,000 words to analyze the 500 words on the “Four Modes” page.
There are a few ideas in the hodgepodge that seem reasonable, but sorting them out from problematic concepts and factual mistakes doesn’t seem like a useful way to spend a couple of days.
Might I suggest that it would be more profitable for you to respond directly to people like Heidi Overhill who ask you direct and reasonable questions? If you don’t have the time or patience to answer Heidi directly, why bother? One expects greater thought on a research list.
Your brief comment on the humanities shows little thought and no awareness of the wide range of research approaches at use in the humanities. As for the rest, I’ll avoid the other 19,000 words.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (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 ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (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 ||| 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|