 |
 |
Wonderful debate -- just the sort I love, and anyway, I hear my name. But I'm swamped with activities and can't respond. Busy all this week here in Daejeon (Korea), except tomorrow, when I have to be in Seoul. And next tuesday i fly to Milan (to give my paper with Roberto Verganti on design research). I hope to be able to give a coherent response this weekend. Don On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:09 AM, Filippo A. Salustri <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > David, > I always depend on the dictionary as a starting point for resolving > issues of terminology. > All the dictionaries I have access to admit a variety of activities > under "research". > For instance, "The systematic investigation into and study of > materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new > conclusions." (google) > > However, having done both the "usual" academic research and the kind > of research one does as part of a design project, I can tell you that > they are, as far as I can tell, very different activities. > > They are both 'research' in that they both attain the goal of > research, but HOW they go about it depends on the context > (academic/scholarly vs practise vs whatever else). > IMHO, I think people are conflating the goal with the methods. > > Cheers. > Fil > > On 14 June 2011 03:22, David Sless <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Don, >> >> I agree with you that radical innovation is unlikely to come about through most types of design research >> >> However, I think this is because of a deliberately inappropriate use of language. >> >> For various financial/administrative reasons in higher education, and for various self serving reasons in design practice, it is today common to conflate many types of investigative activities under the heading of 'design research'. Most so called design research methods are routine investigative procedures, like quality control measures in manufacturing or pathology tests in medicine. They have their place and value, but are not what I would describe as research. Though, unlike you (tongue in cheek, I presume), I would not go so far as to say that such things as user studies cannot lead to radical innovation. After all, one needs to be open to the possibility of radical innovation arising from anywhere, even user studies! >> >> BTW, I have no difficulty in design finding its home in the craft schools. As I said in a previous post on this list, a long time ago: >>> From where I see design, I see no grand vision. I think we are the travelling tinkers of our time. We fix things—sometimes quite large things—and we sometimes leave them working and looking better than when they were handed to us for repair. We sometimes make new things to fill a need, much as a tinker makes a walking stick to help someone with a gamy leg. We create prostheses, sometimes very effective and beautiful ones, which are much admired, but prostheses for all that. >> >> >> David >> -- >> >> blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog >> web: http://www.communication.org.au >> >> Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA >> CEO • Communication Research Institute • >> • helping people communicate with people • >> >> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795 >> Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640 >> Skype: davidsless >> >> 60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068 > > > > -- > \V/_ > 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/ >