 |
 |
Hi all, Whether Terry has got it right or not is one question. (I personally think he's on the right track.) But I am quite certain he's got the right approach: identify characteristics (or properties, or attributes, or whatever you want to call 'em) that assume different "values" (possibly only ordinal) across some spectrum of values of interest. Where the characteristic changes marks a boundary. Find the boundaries, and you can then categorize what's on one side and on the other side based on those boundaries. Same argument, put another way: one of the problems, I think, with using handy phrases like on/about/for is that the same labels mean different things to different people. To try to fix that, one might focus more on the nature of the concepts labelled 'on', and 'about', and 'for' and less on labels like 'design' and 'research'. Cheers. Fil On 3 August 2010 07:37, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear Felipe, > > My research suggests there are two central characteristics of design > research that usefully apply across all design fields. > > 1. To view the primary focus of all design research as 'improving the > prediction of the behavioural changes that result from a design'. This is > regardless of whether the design research is about the designed outcome, > context, design problem, design process, idea generation, collaboration, > intuition, creativity, emotion, etc. Behavioural change is the central > issue of concern in design research -whether it is the behavioural changes > in objects, people, theories, interventions, organisations or systems. > > 2. There is a world of difference between design research relating to > those design situations that have two or more feedback loops and those > design situations that have one or no feedback loops. Most design research, > particularly in the Art and Design arena, ONLY applies to design situations > with no feedback loops or one feedback loop. A completely different way of > looking at design research is necessary for design situations with two or > more feedback loops. The main difference is that one cannot understand or > predict their behaviour in one's mind - and intuition, feelings, > crowd-design etc do not apply. > > These two issues result in a different way of seeing design education for > design research. They suggest that in many aspects of design education, the > historical research concept of 'research for, into and through design' is > unhelpful and in some cases false. > > Perhaps the greatest benefits of the above two characteristics is they > result in a more transparent and purposeful ordering of research theory > about design and they identify significant holes and absences of effort in > design research. They also help identify where some areas of design > education are over-emphasised, for example, communication theory and > rhetoric. > > Best wishes, > Terence > ____________________ > > Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM > Director Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Centre > Researcher, Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute > Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre > Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845 > Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask] > Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal > Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development > Management School, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK > ____________________ > > -- Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Ryerson University 350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON M5B 2K3, Canada Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 Fax: 416/979-5265 Email: [log in to unmask] http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/