 |
 |
I find Lubomir's point to be very useful. We (those involved in design research, doctoral inquiry, and philosophical inquiry) need considerable flexibility in adjusting to the level of discussion and the situation of conversation. I have learned to speak quite differently when working in a corporate setting and working with practicing designers than when writing for the phd list or other groups or in some of my theoretical writings. The two are closely related in my mind, but the issues must be framed differently to be useful. I don't know if I do this very well, but I do hope that our field will gradually develop the kind of sophistication that Lubomir expresses in these matters. Grinding through the issues on this list is part of the process of developing that sophistication. Once we have rehearsed for the hundredth time the relationship between design practice and design research, we will gradually discover the ideas and arguments in this matter that will become foundational for doctoral education and inquiry. I am not suggesting that there will be a single, simple position on this matter--hence, the need to rehearse each variation of the argument among us. But the complexity will become more and more familiar, along with the grace of our discussions. As an example, there is a long, complex and rich discussion of the relationship between rhetorical theory and rhetorical practice. This discourse has matured over a period of more than two thousand years. And there have been moments when that tradition has been forgotten and reinvented. But sophistication comes, and progress in understanding does take place. Thanks, Lubomir--I alternately agree and disagree with your ideas, but I am gradually learning. Dick Excerpts from mail: 12-Oct-100 Re: Design and research (di.. by "Lubomir S. Popov"@bgnet > What I am fighting for is to make people understand that making a reseat > design is not shoe design. The only way to treat these two activities as if > they are of one and the same category is to go on philosophical level and > discuss design on philosophical level. Than my arguments will be different. > Than I might say that everything is design. But as far as our discussion is > on the DRS list, which means a society of product designers, architects, > and the like, and the discussion is far from actual philosophy thinking, I > would oppose any attempt to tell me that research design (the making of the > research plan) and product design are all one and the same -- it is design, > we are designers, and we can do both of these with applause. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%