 |
 |
Terry Love: >For example, many engineering designers are >very clear about the differences between undertaking scientific research >and designing (e.g. there is clarity ithat researching new theory about >the hydrodynamics of bearings is primary scientific research, and is different >from designing in which such a bearing is used in a mechanism). I agree with Terry's position in its context, but I do have a problem: In engineering there are a huge number of things that need to be understood. "hydrodynamics of bearings" is an excellent example of a droplet in this deep well of knowledge which might be plumbed by researchers. Sometimes I wonder if, by contrast, we are guilty of a narcissistic obsession with understanding just two things - what designers do and how they do it. A philosophy of design is important but it would be scandalous if the majority of medical researchers spent their days investigating the philosophy of medicine, with maybe 10% studying cancer and toothache. Some of us have referred to design as a "field" for research and I sometimes wonder if they see themselves as pioneering anthropologists parachuting in rather than members of a discipline. So I have two slightly different problems that I would like to understand (1) Is there an appropriate arena for design research? What wells of knowledge might educated designers honourably and helpfully plumb? (2) And how might they do it? My own belief is that there is actually a limitless number of situations and problems which might be better understood if designers participated in relevant research, but most are not usually described as problems for "design research". They may be problems of communication, survival, health, enjoyment, dentistry etc which are all fields in which designers routinely contribute by providing practical solutions, but rarely are designers thought of as people who define the problem or contribute to our understanding of it. And as for how - well designers are good at synthesis, good at integrating complex situations in single artefacts, good at inventing scenarios and making them available for evaluation, good at transcending the laboratory and placing their propositions in real situations and real lives. What we need is the ability to identify and work with the knowledge arising from our experiments (while continuing, whenever possible, to get a good fee for the test rig) That is why I feel that Clive Dilnot's contribution is completely relevant still and is addressing a set of issues different from those raised by Terry. best wishes from Sheffield Chris Rust ******************************************* Professor Chris Rust Art and Design Research Centre Sheffield Hallam University UK [log in to unmask] tel +44 114 225 2706 fax +44 114 225 2603 Psalter Lane, Sheffield S11 8UZ, UK