 |
 |
Rosan, Victor, Karel, Terry, et al Terry and others have expressed scepticism regarding research-through-designing before. I thought we had dealt with that question, i.e. if in doubt refer back to the criteria for what counts as research. People are innovating in research methods and creating new types of knowledge all the time, designers no less than anyone else. 'Research for design', 'research into design', and 'research through design' are all perfectly reasonable, and through their differing goals easily distinguishable, as ideas of design research. Research through design does not imply that all designing is researching. It simply means that some research can be undertaken using suitably rigorous design processes. The criteria for what counts as research in the academic sense are pretty universal. If you can pursue a design in such a way that it meets these criteria then it is research. There will be many ways of doing this. Plenty of people are doing it already. Bruce Archer clarified all of this for us donkey's years ago: '...The idea that there exists a designerly mode of enquiry, comparable with but distinct from, the scientific and scholarly modes of enquiry seems to be defensible by the design methods literature. The idea that there exists in man [sic] an intellectual process, for the handling of ideas of configuration and structure independent of natural language and of scientific concept formation, which I call imaging or cognitive modelling, seems to be demonstrable in the literature of cognitive psychology. The idea that there exists a lexicon and syntax for the externalization of cognitive models seems to link a lot of the work in design methods research. Design, then, like Science, is not so much a discipline as a range of disciplines united by a common intellectual approach, a common language system and a common procedure. Design, like Science, is a way of looking at the world and imposing structure upon it. Design, then, can extend to any phenomenon to which we wish to pay designerly attention, just as Science can extend to any phenomenon to which we wish to pay scientific attention. Design research, on the other hand, is not equatable with scientific research. It is designerly enquiry, not Design Research, that is equatable with scientific research. design Research can, and does, employ the methods of scientific research and scholarly enquiry in its pursuits, as well as, more rarely, the methods of designerly enquiry itself.' (Archer, 1981, 34-35) As Archer expected, the sub-disciplines and formations of design research have changed since this was written. As designerly enquiry in its broad sweep has continued to divide and subdivide and reform there are now many instances of designerly modes of enquiry constituting rigorous forms of research that we include within the scope of Design Research. See for example the architectural design doctorate programme at the Bartlett School of Architecture described by Hill and The Garden of Cool Change project by Missingham & Selenitch both in the Research by Design conference proceedings. One of the criteria for what counts as research is that it generates a form of knowledge. In my area the kind of knowledge I am interested in is knowledge of the realizable possibilities for change in the material culture. This is one way of defining design knowledge and in my case I work with students to develop design processes and practices that create this kind of knowledge. Another criterion for what counts as research is that the knowledge created is presented in an accessible form and made available for evaluation, use, extension etc. by others. A common mistake is to believe that a realized design necessarily embodies knowledge that counts as research. I am quite brutal about this: if that knowledge is not accessible and does not remain available for evaluation, etc. then it doesn't count as research. As some of you know, I am quite keen on the idea that designers should be able to write up their design research, particularly research through design, and get it published. This is simply a pragmatic notion. However, imperfect the traditional formats that combine words and images on paper (or on screen) might be at least they are highly accessible and relatively permanent. My take on this is summarised in my paper in the Research By Design conference proceedings. References Archer, B. (1981)'A View of the Nature of Design Research', Design Science Method, DRS Conference proceedings, Guildford: Wesbury House, 30-35. Hill, J 'Creative Users, Illegal Architects' pp.150-4 Matthews, G. 'Writing Design', pp.216-21, and Missingham, G & A Selenitsch, 'The Garden of Cool Change' pp.234-43, in Langenhuizen, A., M van Ouwerkerk & J. Rosemann (eds.)(2002) Research by Design, EAAE Conference, proceedings vol. B, Delft University. Dr Geoff Matthews Course Leader MA Interdisciplinary Design Lincoln School of Architecture University of Lincoln, UK