 |
 |
Dear Steve, Your post raises important issues that are already on the wider agenda. You address them partially. I would like to make them explicit. You write, "in a number of the responses there is an implied (Ken and Sharon refer to it explicitly) model of knowledge generation and uptake in which basic researchers pick up on problems identified by practitioners, generating new knowledge which is operationalized by applied researchers and duly taken up by practitioners. Some years ago the UK Economic and Social Research Council commissioned a report on this issue. From memory, this concluded that the classical model was not very effective and generated a shift in policy across most of the research councils which required that research activity involve the potential users of the outcome of that research. Sharon's description of what she is doing with PhD and MA students is a version of this, I think. Were are all waiting to see how effective the UK's research policy has been - I don't think we know the answer to this yet. I fear that it will have had a marginal impact." In this paragraph, you raise three major issues. In general, I agree with your overall point. I raise distinctions on subtle yet important aspects of these issues. First, my note was an attempt to define different kinds of doctorates. I was not arguing for a hard line between the three kinds of research as a general model. In research by properly trained researchers, I do not argue for the model you have described here. Quite the contrary. What I do argue is that researchers must be properly trained precisely so that they can cross the fuzzy boundaries between pure, applied, and clinical research in appropriate ways. This is a contentious area, and some of the problematic examples of doctoral research discussed here in earlier thread are problematic specifically because practitioners have presented practice-based projects in general form without the conceptual or methodological background required for the claims they make. Second, there is a widely recognized need for new models of doctoral education in many fields and disciplines. You are right to argue that the classical model has not been effective, and this is true in many fields. This is a concern raised by many researchers and scholars around the world. This is the focus of a major inquiry now underway with the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Third, there is at some times and in some fields a need for research that meets user needs. Here, there is genuine cause for concern. This is an important issue in some cases, but not all. It can often give rise to a short-term pragmatism in which potential user needs actually inhibits the creation of significant knowledge. The history of science shows many instances in which potential users actively worked against streams of research that were later to create extraordinary benefits for the very fields that resisted them. The development of hygienic practice by Semmelweiss, Lister, and Pasteur is a good case in point. The medical profession resisted hygienic practice for many reasons. On the standard of user engagement and evaluation by potential users, this entire stream of research would never have been permitted. (In fact, it essentially was not permitted in Semmelweiss's case, and the antipathy of the medical profession to his work destroyed his career and led to his early death.). Hygienic practice was arguably the most important medical development of the past two millennia. Other medical advances have been far more dramatic. Many required greater ingenuity or deeper scientific understanding. None has created greater health benefits for a wider range of human beings across a greater spectrum of applications at lower cost. The integration of potential users into the research cycle is important in many situations. I argue for this approach in some circumstances. I also argue the value of free research. In the realm of discovery, Einstein's argument for the free play of imagination remains one important guideline among several, and any research regime that strictly applies application as a standard will, ultimately kill the growth of knowledge. I'd say we need several kinds of research.. This leads to an issue that reflects on several earlier threads, where you write, "In the long term, design research will have to demonstrate a clear contribution to the advancement of designing." This bear reflections and a response a little later. Best regards, Ken -- Ken Friedman, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design Department of Technology and Knowledge Management Norwegian School of Management Visiting Professor Advanced Research Institute School of Art and Design Staffordshire University