 |
 |
[Long post] Dear Johann Thank you for going through my post and your reply. Your reply made me go through my note again and perhaps I could have articulated it better. However, I do have following points about your post. You say: >> [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. >> While I agree with you that articulating user’s needs can be seen as research, you seem to suggest that it is this research that provides us the design problem. And therefore solving the problem elicited by this research means that the designer is meeting the need of the user. In other words, designer designs for what the user needs and therefore “what it is ought to be” in designer’s view is manipulating the user in your view. If I have understood you correctly, I do not agree with you. Yes, I agree that research is needed in articulating needs of the user; but it does not, on its own, lead to a well defined design problem. In fact, as you know, design problems are ill-defined and the process of design therefore requires designer to formulate the design problem which is done by development of a number of solutions. The research conducted to elicit user needs, in my view, may (or may not in some cases) lead to a design problem, but more importantly it uncovers constraints that designer employs as instruments (Gedenryd, 1998, Lawson, 1980) during the activity of problem formulation. The outcome of this process is a solution (product or service) which is “what it is ought to be” in designer’s view as it is she who actively goes through the process of problem formulation and shapes the solution reflecting on her design knowledge. A solution thus developed, at times, may not directly address user needs as elicited by research. But then the objective of design is not to design for what users as clients need but to design what users never dreamt they need (Lasdun, 1965). You say: >> [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? >> I am not sure I understand you here. On one hand you are saying that it is impossible to stay objective and not to ‘interfere’, and on the other you are also saying that the ‘interference’ needs to be minimized. So, are you suggesting that the researchers needs to remain as objective as possible? If so, I agree. And this is what I was trying to point out that while researchers aim to stay as objective as possible and not interfere with the nature and dynamics of what is being investigated, designers do not as they purposely interfere and shape it to move towards a solution. You say: >> This is absolutely wrong. I for one do not recognize this description of design. >> I am not sure I can respond to this as I have no idea how you understand design. It might help if you elaborate on it. You say: >> 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. >> You seem to suggest that designer and design researcher are the same, that is, the activities carried out by them are the same. If that is so, I don’t agree with you. This is not to say that designers cannot be design researcher and vice versa, but there is a clear difference in the nature of the activities carried out by the designer and the design researcher. For a design researcher, there maybe value in observing and recording research data and I agree with you here. But designers don’t just observe but reflect on knowledge they gain from such observations in formulation of design problem they are confronted with. It is the knowledge thus gained, by observing and critiquing not just their own design projects but also fellow students as well as well known designer that I was referring to in my post. Therefore, I only partially agree with you that every designer should be taught “a rigorous design-process observation position” as designers need to learn more than just ‘observe’ the design process. And you seem to suggest the same towards the end of your post. You say: >> 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. >> I was not referring to teaching design at all. In fact, I was referring to how the activity of design is carried out where the designer is guided by her design thinking. As I explained before, designers use constraints as instruments to formulate the design problem to be solved. It is however entirely up to the designer to choose the type and nature of the constraints she wants to use. Since the activity of design leads to a product/service as envisaged by the designer, it may be so that sometimes designers design for themselves without giving due consideration to the user of the artifact. And some designers have done exactly that. It does not however mean that designers from ‘old fashioned’ school of design always designed ‘in isolation from any living and thinking users’. You say: >> 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. >> I have not only gone through formal design education, I have also taught design at graduate as well as post graduate level. So, I do very well understand your views on importance of critique in design studio. I agree with you that teaching critique is extremely important for design students. One can argue that critique could be equated with research since it involves knowledge generation as well as its communication. I, however, don’t agree with it as knowledge generated during critiques is often solution specific as well as specific to a particular design situation. Additionally, this knowledge is usually communicated to the designer to assist her in the process of problem formulation for a particular project. So, while it may be possible to communicate this knowledge to a wider audience, it is difficult if not impossible to test and critique it for another design project and/or for another design situation. You say: >> 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" >> Once again, I don’t agree with you here. Agreed that research need to be carried out to articulate user needs, but it is only a part of the design process and therefore design can not be seen as research-based. I agree that the activity of design or parts of it can be subject of research and stages of the activity of design may have similarities with activity of research. However, if we look at the activity of design in its totality and the role of the designer in carrying it out, there are fundamental difference between the activity of design and activity of research. This is what I attempted to point out in my post. Regards, parag Lawson B, 1980. How Designers Think. Butterworth Architecture,Oxford, UK. Gedenryd, H., 1998, How Designers Work – making sense of authentic cognitive activities, PhD Dissertation, Lund University, Sweden Lasdun, D., 1965, An Architects approach to Architecture, RIBA Journal, vol 72, no 4, April, 1965