Hi Don,
Is this not just a rehash of 'the difference between a PhD and a DDes' discussion which has been had on the list several times over the past 20+ years? If you go back to the year 2000 page and read the discussion between Rosan Chow and Owain Pedgley and others replying it was covered well back then; https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/wa-jisc.exe?A1=ind00&L=PHD-DESIGN
Alternatively, is not just a rehash of the 'Research about/through/for Design' subject where 'Research-1' is 'Research for Design' (i.e. research to inform future practice so that it is better able to result in better designed artefacts) and 'Research-2' is 'Research through Design'? Isn't the only legitimate way to validate 'Research-1'/'Research for design' through its application in practice anyway? How can a thesis ever conclude any theory is true without proving (in a Relativist sense) that the application of it in practice is beneficial (i.e. that designed outcomes with its application are better)? Isn't the difference here that the validation of 'Research-1' must be done by third party designers, and that 'Research-2' is validated by the researcher? In which case 'Research-2' can never be of the same calibre as 'Research-1' anyway?
Terence Love always said that he believed that the sole purpose of Design Research was to generate theory (later becoming knowledge once validated through practice) for the practice of design to produce better (in the broadest sense) designed artefacts. I have seen many people disagree with him saying that over the years, but I do think the community is coming to a shared definition which is effectively what he has always said.
Regards,
Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|