 |
 |
There is obviously always an excess of possible knowledge that might be determined/derived for any and all situations. The fact that certain operations, such as designing, are carried out with a minium level of expected knowledge outcome that is separate to the object or process designed is indicative of the general pragmatic of design. Put a knowledge person into a design team and you would expect the knowledge outcome to go up. keith russell oz newcastle >>> Sneha <[log in to unmask]> 9/23/2008 3:49 pm >>> I disagree with Parag when he says 'This knowledge is often implicit, unarticulated and specific to a design situation and therefore can not be communicated, analyzed, tested or criticized' And I second what Johann writes, '... goes through the so-called "normal" design process then possibilities for observing and recording research data are endless, and a rigorous design-process observation position is what every designer should be taught... A design process that acknowledges the necessity of user inclusion becomes inherently research-based, and it is a short step from "just design" to "design research" ...' I practice as a designer and know that if the design is not 'communicated, analyzed, tested or criticized' we are out of our jobs! An explicit/ implicit expectation of the client is access to all knowledge that has been generated by our studios in the design process - hence all the design thinking is articulated, documented and shared (Client funds it!). Sneha Dig Design Studio -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Johann van der Merwe Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:41 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Design as Research? Parag I cannot agree. [2] Design is not manipulation of the user, which is what happens when the designer actively shapes the artifact "so that it is how it ought to be". That type of design is what I will have nothing to do with, as I teach my students. Research comes into the picture when a designer realises that no design (even when it produces an artifact, it always has to work within a system) can come into being unless the interactions with user needs are fully researched, according to accepted research guidelines and principles. [1] Even hardened scientific researchers are beginning to admit that an objective observer is only possible if working with, say, chemicals and test tubes, and even then (at least in the past) the subjectivity of the human being that is the researcher has interfered with the so-called objective reporting of the phenomena. Working with social phenomena as a social being it is impossible for the observer (the researcher as well as the designer) to stay objective and not to "interfere" - mere observation IS interference: Heisenberg proved that this is so. The job of the design researcher is to minimize this "interference" by the process of co-design - by letting the user group have as much insight into the process as possible. This approach is necessary to address the inherent problem with qualitative research: taking into account the undeniable possibility of subjective reasoning from the designer/researcher, how do you avoid bias and insure " scientific" rigour? [3] You write: "the knowledge generated in case of an activity of design is limited to the designer who actively participates in the process of design. This knowledge is often implicit, unarticulated and specific to a design situation and therefore can not be communicated, analyzed, tested or criticized which is fundamental to the activity of research". This is absolutely wrong. I for one do not recognise this description of design. When a designer ( and I do not care whether this design researcher is doing a fourth year project, a masters or a doctorate in design) goes through the so-called "normal" design process then possibilities for observing and recording research data are endless, and a rigorous design-process observation position is what every designer should be taught. That is what is creating future design researchers of our design first years. Your description fits the old-fashioned way of teaching design, in which versions of the master were turned out as unthinking replicas, taught to "design" only for themselves, in isolation from any living and thinking user. If a first year design student cannot be taught how to accept a crit in class, cannot participate in the crit of others' work, cannot, indeed, communicate, analyze, test or critique, then that design education environment is useless. A design process that acknowledges the necessity of user inclusion becomes inherently research-based, and it is a short step from "just design" to "design research" Johann >>> Parag Deshpande <[log in to unmask]> 2008/09/22 05:55 PM >>> Dear Ken and everyone, I am enjoying reading your posts. Thank you very much. I am a designer (architect) working in the field computer science as a researcher and since last few years, I have been trying to examine similarities and differences between research and design. To me, the notion of design as research is problematic because of following reasons * 1. Research entails inquiry or examination where the researcher is an observer. Researcher analyzes what he observes, attempts to make sense of it and then reports it to the research community. The researcher does not interfere with what is being observed since the objective of research is to explain the phenomenon as it is. The researchers then reports on his view on what has been observed and thus contributes to the knowledge base. 2. The designer however does not work in the same manner. The activity of design involves active participation of the designer in shaping the artifact. Therefore, unlike the researcher who simply stands aside, observes and reports 'what it is', the designer actively involves herself to shape the artifact so that it is 'how it is ought to be'. While both research as well as the activity of design generates knowledge, the knowledge generated in case of an activity of design is limited to the designer who actively participates in the process of design. This knowledge is often implicit, unarticulated and specific to a design situation and therefore can not be communicated, analyzed, tested or criticized which is fundamental to the activity of research. Although, I do not have any evidence at the moment, but rather than design as research, research as design seems plausible to me as like design, research too begins with an ill-defined problem (question) that evolves and becomes well defined through the process of research. Regards, parag PhD candidate, IDC, UL, Ireland