 |
 |
Dear Rosan You asked > should phd students be thinking about these things? or am i the silly one? > You are indeed on to defining a very significant area of future research which would in all probability be called "research through design" and be found perfectly legitimate as a field of "scientific" inquiry. (my hunch as well) Design is an area of human activity that is not yet understood in all its manifestations and implications in spite of the heroic efforts of design theorists that dates back to the design methods movement of the sixties or we could look even further into its origins as a profession. Today I got the monthly mail from John Chris Jones in the form of his public writing experiments "Daffodil 30" where he reflects on his recent meeting with Prof. Bruce Archer. We have come a long way in our understanding of design but we have much ground to cover. Victor Margolin has opened up a wonderful thread of discussions that have given us many new insights and I am sure that this line of reasoning will get us to some concrete (or should I say) philosophical directions for future research. I will get back to the list with my own thoughts on the subject of Design Research. My current preoccupation includes "research" as a dessign teacher into cognition and visualisation processes and their role in design action. Thanks to a pointer from the list recently (Chris Rust - thanks) I found the work of Henrik Gedenryd "How Designers work", Lund University Cognitive Studies, 1998 which represents a rare study into human cognitive processes and visualisation as applied to the design process. On searching the Lund University website I came across the published works of Prof Peter Gardenfors and thanks to Amazon.com I have these books at hand, each with a wealth of information and insights that are pertinent to the area under discussion. Peter Gardenfors, in his book Conceptual Spaces (MIT Press, 2004) offers a new theory of Cognition that explains design thinking (to me) like never before. But this is still like ‘information thrown over the wall’ and in design research we will look forward to focussed research into perhaps the differing styles of cognition and representation that perhaps exists in design thinking and action which we are still to understand fully. This would also perhaps give us the key differentiators between design innovation and other forms of innovation in science, technology and management. Would someone on the list care to offer a complete reading list on design cognition and representation, modelling and visualisation ? Cindy Jackson has done an admirable job on design philosophy....and design philosophers? but her list still does not include Bucky Fuller, Stafford Beer and .... we get into fuzzy areas...the task is enormous. With warm regards M P Ranjan from my office at NID 7 April 2004 at 10.40 pm IST References: Peter Gardenfors, "How Homo became sapiens: on the evolution of thinking", Oxford University Press, New York, 2003 Peter Gardenfors, "Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought", The MIT Press, Cambridge, 2004 Hirotaka Takeuchi & Ikujiro Nonaka, "Hitotubashi on Knowledge management", John Wiley & Sons (Asia), Singapore, 2004 Henrik Gedenryd "How Designers work", Lund University Cognitive Studies, 1998 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. M P Ranjan Faculty of Design Head, NID Centre for Bamboo Initiatives Project Head, Bamboo & Cane Development Institute, Agartala Faculty Member on the NID Governing Council National Institute of Design Paldi Ahmedabad 380007 INDIA Email: <[log in to unmask]> Fax: 91+79+26605242 Home: 91+79+26610054 (or) 91+79+26639692 ext 4095 Work: 91+79+26639692 ext 1090 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rosan Chow wrote: > > Dear Geoff > > thank you for your post. i find what you said about design research very > agreeable, so i hate to pester you and others. however, the subject matter is > important to me, so please excuse this post. > > i generally don't view design research as Terry does, but i find it fair and > necessary that Terry comments/asks/challenges the fact that there has not yet > been a well-defined model (or articulation) to support the idea of research > by/through design. > > i am aware of Archer ideas, and i imagine Terry does as well. it is wonderful > to know there are researchers taking on the idea of research by/through design > and realizing it. thank you for the examples that you have provided. these > activities are very important. but... > > a field of research, as i have learned is more than about methods. methods of > inquiry are anchored on philosophy of knowing. if designing is indeed a method > of knowing, shouldn't this method be anchored on some philosophy of designerly > knowing? isn't it fair to say, as a field of research, we haven't yet, as Terry > challenged, developed a model or articulation? we haven't yet, rigorously and > collectively reflected on the assumptions on this powerful idea of research > through design? > > should phd students be thinking about these things? or am i the silly one? > > warm regards, rosan > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Geoff Matthews [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > > Sent: 05 May 2004 18:45 > > To: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: Design Research (Victor's proposal) > > > > Rosan, Victor, Karel, Terry, et al > > > > Terry and others have expressed scepticism regarding > > research-through-designing before. I thought we had dealt with that SNIP SNIP