I suggest you take a look at the text by Flexner "The usefulness of useless knowledge". Words like "relevant" or "worthy" can (though do not have to) mean obvious societal usefulness (a hazardous yardstick) as well as worthy and relevant to the field (however narrow).
I was going to look at all the terms and discuss them and realized they are all value terms the same as "good" and in the end not definable absolutely.
As long as the method (research plan) is a logical way to answer a question and the question is answered then that´s an adequate process.
Richard Herriott
DSKD Denmark
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ana Neto
Sent: Friday, September 3, 2021 2:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PHD-DESIGN] Relevance of a research problem/outcome
Hi everyone
I am working on an analysis of PhD theses in Design, to which the recent thread on fatal flaws became very interesting (thank you to the original poster and all the contributors to that discussion!). However, my ongoing analysis got me stuck in a question: What makes a research problem or outcome “meaningful”?
But how can one objectively define what a “meaningful”, “significant”, “relevant” or “worthy” research problem/outcome is for design research at a PhD level?
I read some theses which made me feel "this problem is irrelevant" or "this outcome is irrelevant", but I understand I may be limited in my views, and would welcome any input which can help me see things more objectively.
Kind regards,
Ana Neto
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|