Dear All,
An important question comes before the question, “What is design research?” That question is “What is research?” in general. For this reason, I have shifted from the header “prediction - true or false” to a deeper question.
The physicist and philosopher Mario Bunge offers a reasonable definition. For Bunge (1999: 251), research is the “methodical search for knowledge. Original research tackles new problems or checks previous findings. Rigorous research is the mark of science, technology, and the ‘living’ branches of the humanities.” Bunge gives the words exploration, investigation, and inquiry as synonyms for research.
In my view, both Harry West and John Rousseau are mistaken in their sweeping claims, both regarding the nature of research, and regarding the role of research in design. Most of what these gentlemen are talking about involve answering questions, but most designers are ill-equipped to answer those questions responsibly. The reason that trained researchers take graduate work in such areas as research methods, comparative research methodology, and philosophy of science is that they want to learn how to answer questions responsibly. Simply learning what the customer wants is not research. Rather, it is part of the conversation between designer and client. That conversation is important, but there is much more to research.
Some years ago, I spent a year in a design firm observing the activities around me. What the designers thought of as “research” was usually a quick and dirty inquiry leading to a sales pitch and a contract. Once the contract was signed, no research of any kind took place. Instead, junior designers took the supposed research findings on board as a kind of brief, preparing sketches and proposals based on the implicit brief. If the client liked the job, that was the end of the process.
One of the best designers I ever observed had a solid background in research, research methods, and statistics. He had even taught these subjects at a business school. He routinely suggested the clients set aside 10% of a project budget for serious research before taking on the rest of the job. While he understood that this was usually too little, his background was solid enough that he was able to draw reasonable conclusions from limited data rather than flying blind.
Because design research has many possible goals, it is impossible to state what design research is for all purposes. The taxonomy of design knowledge domains in Figure 2 of my article “Models of Design” (Friedman 2012: 144-145) presents a responsible but admittedly incomplete list of the areas and issues one might need to investigate with some forms of serious research. Research requires skill, experience, and judgement. Machines may generate information and insights, but they cannot judge or evaluate between different factors. Human beings without the requisite skill, experience, or judgment cannot make the best choices when using information systems.
Skilled human beings working with effective information systems as support tools can do better than humans alone. Information systems alone are not better than skilled and experienced human beings. These kind of systems contribute to systemic failure in the hands of human beings without the skill and experience to use them wisely.
You’ll find the article on my Academia page at URL:
https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Ethnography is an important form of design research, but very few designers are properly trained in ethnography. Many designers believe that they can become ethnographers by taking a workshop that lasts a few days or a semester. This is not so. These kinds of workshops are helpful, but they are far from comprehensive. And ethnography is only one of the many kinds of research needed to answer the many kinds of questions that arise in design practice, or in theoretical issues.
David Kelley of IDEO and Stanford d.school (Camacho 2016) offers a balanced and thoughtful discussion on some of these issues in the current issue of She Ji. Kelley’s view is balanced because he delivers value to clients while also meeting the needs of professional education at a first-rank research university. You will find Kelley’s conversation at URL:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/24058726
With respect to the prediction that launched this note, I’d say that the predictions made by West and Rousseau are false.
But what do I know? I’m not trying to sell anything to clients. I’m trying to answer questions in a responsible, methodical way that “tackle[s] new problems or checks previous findings.”
Yours,
Ken Friedman
References
Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Camacho, Maria. 2016. “David Kelley: From Design to Design Thinking at Stanford and IDEO.” She Ji. The Journal of Design, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 88-101. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.009
Friedman, Ken. 2012. “Models of Design: Envisioning a Future for Design Education.” Visible Language, Vol. 46, No. 1/2, pp. 128-151.
--
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
