 |
 |
Dear Terry, Maybe it is necessarily, but not always true... Cheers, Eduardo ----- Original Message ----- From: "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:31 AM Subject: Re: Design as Research? > "A design process that acknowledges the necessity of user inclusion > becomes > inherently research-based" > > Is that necessarily always true? > > Its not obvious to me as proven. Nor that user inclusion converts a design > process into design research. > > Can someone prove either or give solid evidence for or against either? > > Best regards, > Terry > > > > > > > -----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 Sneha > Sent: Tuesday, 23 September 2008 1:49 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Design as Research? > > 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