Dear Ana
You recently asked us to reflect on: "...how can one objectively define
what a “meaningful”, “significant”, “relevant” or “worthy” research
problem/outcome is for design research at a PhD level?"
I may be wrong but I believe this is THE question that wasn't asked when
decisions were made in the 60s-70s, to merge Design schools into the
University set-up. You, younger generations are now stuck with this
problem of ill-fitted institutions!
I am not an expert in this but I think the institution of "University" was
initiated to conduct search and research on 'truth'; either through a
methodical and agreed upon analysis pathway, or through organized verbal
debate, among equals! And criteria for judgement of “meaningful”,
“significant”, “relevant” or “worthy” research, include, yes, the 'truth'
arrived at, at the end of the exercice, but also, in one case, the aptitude
of the researcher to follow the agreed upon method, and in the other case,
the discursive talent of the orator. Results, at the end of the exercise,
are not that important; they could even be completely 'useless'
knowledge, they say!
But in my understanding of the Design field, it has a completely different
objective, other than search of "truth"; and therefore totally
different criteria to judge the quality, or worth, or use of one's
involvement in the field.
Herbert A. Simon reminded us, precisely during the same period of the
60s-70s, when Design was - carelessly?? - anyhow pushed into the University
institution that this particular field dealing with artifacts was focused
rather, not on 'truth' search, but instead on bettering any present
situation, human situation, with the aid of 'better' artifacts. Therefore
the criteria of “meaningful”, “significant”, “relevant” or “worthy”
judgement/assessment of the artifact proposed should rather be, not the
method, not the talent, but the "satisficing' degree of the proposal.
Consequently, to me, any designed artifact proposal, including a PhD
Thesis, should - objectively and exclusively - be a contribution to the
'satisficing' criteria of the artifact proposed as to its bettering
solution of the current observed/experienced situation. Does the PhD Thesis
conclusion somehow lead towards a better situation?
Perhaps a perspective worth to be explored further?
François
From the northern Rwanda countryside
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:43 AM Karel van der Waarde <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Thanks for this pointer.
>
> Have a look at a 1952 broadcast:
>
> https://archive.org/details/JohnsHopkinsScienceReview-UsefulnessOfUselessKnowledge
>
> Kind regards,
> Karel.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|