Dear Chris

 

I  refer to your  original email ” In the area of Jewellery Design and Manufacture there seems to be a strong > correlation between the steps that the design and manufacture process
> follows and that of the action research process (plan/act/observe/reflect).
> However, in the design process, as my students are executing it at the
> moment, the participatory element (from an AR point of view) is missing”

I would like to say that all improvement activities follow the same or similar process as you identified between action research and jewellery design. Linear processes are applied for one off improvement and cyclic processes are applied for a continuous improvement. However, people apply various philosophies, approaches and techniques in carrying out their improvement activities such as empirical research, reflective practice (Dewey, Schon etc.), action research (Collier, Lippitt, Radak, Lewin, Kermis, Elliot and so on) , Deming’s PDCA, Seven Habit model, Strategic Management Models, Change Management Models and so on.   

In my point of view, the basic process is the same in all contexts, situations and areas of businesses   as follows:

1.     Analysis of current situation

2.     Identification of areas for improvement

3.     Development of various options to improve

4.     Selection of  the best option or solution

5.     Implementation of the best solution  

6.     Monitoring & Controlling of implemented solution

7.     Reviewing / reflecting  to identify good and bad points

8.     Refining it

9.     Implementing it

10.   And so on

In carrying out above activities, a researcher starts in selecting a suitable:

1.       Research Philosophy (such as positivism, realism, objectivism, subjectivism and so on)

2.       Then Research Approach (Deductive or Inductive)

3.       Selection of Approach then leads to Research Strategies (Action Research (Living Education Theory) , Grounded Theory, Phenomenology, Case Study, Ethnography, Experiments and so on)

4.       Research Choices. (such as mono method or multiple methods)

5.       Techniques or procedure of collecting data and analysing data (Generally people call this stage as a Research Design and they involve active participants in case of action research at this stage).

I call the whole process from research philosophy to data collection, analysis and compiling thesis or report as  “Research Model”.

However,  Back to your question, “participatory aspect” is missing in your PAOR activities.

 It depends on the  researcher. He or she needs to decide: what sort of participation is required and up to what degree and extent is required at data collection and analysis stage.    The better answer may be given by answering the following questions, designed by Jack and McNiff in 2006:

What are my concerns? 
What experiences can I describe to show why I am concerned?
What can I do about it?
What will I do about it?
What kind of data will I gather to show the situation as it unfolds?
How will I explain my educational influences in learning?
How will I ensure that any conclusions I reach are reasonably fair and accurate?
How will I evaluate the validity of the evidence-based account of my learning?
How will I modify my concerns, ideas and practice in the light of my evaluations?

I suggest, you may choose to give these questions to your students. It will help them in writing their research proposal  and also help them in identifying who can be their active participants and what will be their roles and what will be researcher’s own role and responsibilities.

 

Thanks

Aga

---

From: Dianne Allen <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sat, 3 April, 2010 5:40:38
Subject: Re: Design as Research

Chris, and others interested ...

Here is my longer response, as an attachment, as promised.

It is constructed of some preliminary remarks .. indicating part of why Schon's work 'speaks' to me.

It includes details from my process of reading and transcribing to learn by processing more slowly, and implanting in order to remember, or at least know where I can go for ready reference.

It wraps with a sharing of when I had this realisation of multiple evaluative process, undertaken serially, and where reframing came into play. Note that there was other work, including writing to explicate understanding, and work with other material, between the first read and the revisit and the enhanced understanding.

I would note that it is the descriptive detail in Schon's original material that then becomes so useful.

Regards,

Dianne


----- Original Message ----- From: "Dianne Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Design as Research


> Chris,
>
> Thanks for asking ... I will need a bit of time to work up some thing like a review and overview of Schon's material to come back to you on this and to expose my thinking a bit more clearly.  I hope to be able to settle to this later today, and intend sending that work as an attachment.
>
> Dianne
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christiaan Thomas Johannes De Beer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Design as Research
>
>
> Hi Diane
>
> Having read Schon I find your response very helpful and I relate to the idea that,
> as a natural designer, design = research was 'hidden' from me.
> Could you possibly explain a bit more about "order of evaluative criteria,
> and why one order over another has particular power/value"? It sounds like the type of entry point I'm looking for.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dianne Allen [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 March 2010 04:31 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design as Research
>
> Chris,
>
> My understanding of 'design' and the 'design process' is that it is a series
> of steps and responses, multiple evaluations in a sequence, where the number
> (multiples) of criteria used for evaluation can be added to or subtracted
> from, and where the sequence of compliance to criteria can be reordered, and
> where the multiples and order, as they are varied, can interact ... until
> the 'solution' represents a best fit for all the components, and in a way
> that is aesthetically pleasing.
>
> (I see Donald Schon explicating the design process as he spells out what he
> calls 'reflective practice' in his two key books about educating for
> professional expertise.  I see that reflective practice = design process.
> Donald Schon sees that 'reflective practice' = research, research within the
> professional practice context. By logic, then design process = research.
> See Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic Books.
> and Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a New
> Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco:
> Jossey-Bass.  Watch out for the fact that Schon uses a design studio as his
> 'architectural practice' example.  That can tend to disguise/hide from a
> natural designer what is going on, and how and why it 'fits the bill' of
> being both research and design, and design=research.  Notice how Schon
> extracts the 'general' from the particulars of a number of different
> professional practices to build his description of 'reflective practice'.)
>
> My understanding is that, especially in the development of more mechanical
> devices, design work can also be team work, compared with jewellery and
> other artistic expression design, and where the artistic expression is
> expected to be wholly individual (ie like 'all your own work' of a thesis!).
> In such team work there are brainstorming sessions, and then individual
> focus on solving particular design issues.  The activity, in the design
> studio and in team work in brainstorming sessions, of talking out what it is
> that is being addressed (which evaluative criterion, what order of
> evaluative criteria, and why one order over another has particular
> power/value, in this context) would be akin to some of the 'participatory'
> of 'participatory action research'.  After all, what is going on in
> participatory (democratically processed decision making for action) action
> research is making explicit and then building consensus around the multiple
> values that the participants hold as they endeavour to act in the world, in
> order to take collaborative, or cooperative, or corporate action.
>
> Dianne
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris de Beer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:38 AM
> Subject: Design as Research
>
>
> Dear All
>
> In the area of Jewellery Design and Manufacture there seems to be a strong
> correlation between the steps that the design and manufacture process
> follows and that of the action research process (plan/act/observe/reflect).
> However, in the design process, as my students are executing it at the
> moment, the participatory element (from an AR point of view) is missing.
>
> Is there a  more appropriate methodology/process that I can investigate that
> would lead to more 'depth' and will guide my students towards being more
> immersed in their design work without it becoming an exercise in narcissism?
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> "This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click http://www.dut.ac.za"