Dear All,
Don mentioned, 'The design technique called research (research-2) through design is
research-2'
Perhaps many of you agree with the above already (or not). RtD (Research-through-design) can be Research-1
RtD can be Research-1 as long as the project satisfies the aims of Research-1: 'intended to extend the breadth or
depth of understanding', and is generalizable to help build the body of understanding (in design). We (UNIST) like to encourage graduate students with design skills and expertise to bring this into their projects. For example, design & develop a prototypical design as stimuli to understand a (design related) phenomena/address a well articulated research question/assumption. This also has the added advantage of providing design research projects a more unique flavour in methods used - i.e. applying design to drive research.
Research-through-design is not Research-1 where the research is focused upon the design and development of a particular design intervention (i.e. user research/Research-2).
Thanks,
James.
Dr. James A. Self
Tenured Associate Professor of Design
Department of Design<https://design.unist.ac.kr/> | UNIST<https://www.unist.ac.kr/>
Brunel Design School<https://www.brunel.ac.uk/brunel-design-school> | Brunel Univ. London
t. (UK) +44(0)7487377069 | t. (Korea) +82 (0)52 217 2722/+82(0)10 6718 1225
<https://www.unist.ac.kr/>e. [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | w. Design Thinking Research Lab<http://www.designthinkingresearch.com/>
________________________________
From: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Pradeep G. Yammiyavar <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 30 July 2021 12:28:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Fatal flaws in PhDs
Dear All,
Please permit me to share views on simplistic understanding of Research as applicable in Design.
"ON , FOR and THROUGH " have always added to the 'confusion' in not only understanding 'Design research ' but also attempting to define Design itself. We tend to focus on complexity rather than simplicity while defining design research and this is why it makes it confusing especially to young scholars on the threshold of a Research journey.
'Research' is an activity with a process - whatever be the topic / area / problem . Unraveling mystery and underlying truth is what 'Research' aims at as is often seen in writings in Science and Philosophy.
Regardless it being "On, For or Through', the output of research is always uncertain , unknown and at best an intuitive guess , to begin with.
Knowing priory, the outcome may be a Designing activity but may not be sufficient to qualify as 'Research'. It's also true that the very nature of thinking in design while designing has an integral seed of 'research' embedded within it'. How deep one goes investigating while designing is a designer's decision and motivation.
'On , for and through' is a valid way to describe boundaries and process paths to understand thinking but may add to the confusion for any student trying to discover the joy and mystery of designing via the research route.
Similar debate exists between natural Sciences and Engineering which is application oriented . Engineers tend to label 'application research activity as 'Engineering Sciences' it being deeper form of 'Engineering '.
Pradeep Yammiyavar FDRS
Professor Emeritus
IIT . India.
________________________________
From: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Nigel Cross <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2021 7:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fatal flaws in PhDs
Don,
It seems rather simplistic to have just those two categories: 'real' research and ¡®other¡¯ research. In the context of design, the latter is something that you call 'research through design' although your examples appear to be more like 'research for design' ("intended to aid in the development or application of a design" as you say).
'Research for design' may include the quick trials that you suggest, but should also be based on 'real' research norms and methods in order to ensure that practice is based on reliable knowledge rather than quick impressions.
'Research through design' in its most primitive manifestation is based on an errant assumption that design *is* research, but I think the discussion around design-based research has moved on from that to more nuanced and constructive attitudes.
Nigel Cross
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
