-----Original Message-----
From: Newton Santosh D'Souza Prabhu
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 10:07 AM
To: 'Lubomir S. Popov'
Subject: RE: paper of interest + PhD in design


Lubimir said (If you do not want to
understand it, do not waist your time with research -- go back to the
drawing board)

Dear Lubimir,
I think your position clearly demonstrates the rift between practitioners
and design acadaemicians. This is the very  reasons for which a practitioner
shies away from research and also vice-versa. Perhaps scientific research as
strong empirical data to fall against. However,  unfortunately in  design
research there is no such privilige. This is exactly why a close nexus
between a practitioner and a researcher should be developed.
I also disagree wuth your concern to protect the "design community" from
"the world of science".I sincerely think there is much to share and learn
from each other.

Regards,
Newton D'souza


-----Original Message-----
From: Lubomir S. Popov [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 12:40 AM
To: Newton Santosh D'Souza Prabhu; [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: paper of interest + PhD in design



Dear Newton,

You make a very good case. I appreciate your post and apologize that  I
will use it to make my case. And I will do this only with the intent to
help you and other people who want research degrees for design thinking.
There is nothing bad in design thinking. We all think in that way  when we
design (I hope we all design -- products, buildings, graphics). However,
insisting to make research within a design idiom is only a way to protect
your position in an unfamiliar world --  the world of science. If you are a
Ph.D. student it will be good to understand that. If you do not want to
understand it, do not waist your time with research -- go back to the
drawing board. This is just a friendly advice that may help you. However,
it will also help society to generate research instead of "play with beads"
(Herman Hesse).

At 02:43 PM 3/22/2001 +0800, Newton Santosh D'Souza Prabhu wrote:
>Dear David,
>Your point of view seems quite important to me. As a student coming from
>practice I was quite amazed by the differences in approaches in the
academic
>contexts. I even remember my supervisors first comments when I submitted my
>pilot study work. He said "Now dont think like a profesional...U r a
>scholar". Perhaps he had a reason for this, but I consider it as a
>detrimental attitude towards design research.

My comments: It is too early for you to consider what is detrimental for
research, even if it is design research. Why do students always believe
they know better than professors? Of course, there are dumb professors, but
you can tell one when he is trying to smuggle his product design as
research disertation.

>It seems to me that, we,
>design researchers have built a large cocoon among ourselves to protect us
>from the barrage of criticism.What is a design research worth if it does
not
>generate and allow for criticism? Even untenable arguments can be valid and
>persuasive even though not directly worth.

My comments. There is no cocoon (or whatever). There are problems of
interaction between producers of information and users of information. The
major reason is that the producers of information are not that good
thinkers as they should be. Another factor is that while the society is
organized on a market principle, research is very often working just for
itself. In some domains this is a must -- in order to develop understanding
about the underlying principles of the world we need to make research for
other researchers. This is not bad at all. The problems arise when
designers can not understand that the intended users of this research are
other researchers and become upset that the information is not useful for
them. If the design community needs useful information, it should
commission the projects for it. It is not easy to do, but this is the way
to do it instead of complaining that research is useless. (Of course it is,
if it is not tailored for you! Have you ever tried a suit tailored for
somebody 200 pounds heavier than you? You would not ever think about that).

I am posting such ideas on this list for about four years and no body wants
to hear. People on this list prefer to wain how useless research is rather
than understand what research is and why it can not always be put to use.
By the way, don't get frustrated, this is a design list rather than a list
of philosophy of science experts. I mentioned many times that these issues
can be resolved much more efficiently and effectively from a philosophy of
science perspective.

Collegiate regards,

Lubomir

PS You  see, there is criticism, even in our community. I hope that will
help.


>Newton D'souza
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David Sless [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 2:34 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: paper of interest + PhD in design
>
>
>Dear All
>
>As I said when I joined this list, my capacity to be a constant and timely
>contributor is quite limited.
>
>I had said that I would get back to Rosan's question by the end of
February,
>but here we are well into March. To remind people, this is what Rosan
wrote:
>
> >Thank you for your post. I read the paper and am trying to make
> >connection to my study and like to ask for your help.
>
>
> >In your paper, your share with us your ideas on co-designing: its
> >philosophical principles, a conceptual map of its practical
> >procedures/processes and examples that are based on and/or result from
> >your over 15 years of experiences practicing this, I may call, approach
> >to design.
>
>
> >Now my question is: what do you see or envision, as a practitioner, can
> >be a link or collaboration with PhDs in design? In other words, what are
> >the contributions you would like to see PhDs in design can make, given
> >your purposes.
>
>I will begin by telling you what I have been working on that has kept me
>away from the list, because it has a bearing on Rosan's question, and may
>offer some possible ways forward.
>
>I've been writing a report on a project we did last year: a critical
>literature review into medicines information research, asking the question
>whether there were generalised principles to the design of medicines
>information which could be applied in a variety of cultural contexts.
>
>Our review was quite broad and took in not only the medicines information
>research but also research on other types of product information, and
>information design more broadly.
>
>Such a review would be quite a common thing for a PhD student to undertake
>as part of their work towards a research thesis. As we sorted through the
>papers from an information design point of view one thing above all else
>struck us; on one side we were accumulating a large and growing pile of
>papers which were of poor quality, or offered us no new knowledge from an
>information design point of view; on the other side was a small pile of
>marginally useful papers.
>
>Ours is by no means a unique experience. Nor was it entirely unexpected.
But
>what struck us on this occasion was the sheer scale of the difference: on
>one side hundreds of papers, on the other side, under ten. As both a
>practitioner and a researcher I would like to have more than ten research
>papers on which to base my design decisions and on which to build my own
>research activity. Therefore, the first thing that I would like PhDs in
>design to do is to do research which is relevant to information design.
>
>Just to give you one example from our review (an example I mention briefly
>in the co-designing paper) In our own research we have found that it is
>possible to specify benchmark performance standards for medicines
>information: roughly speaking, the benchmark suggests that any literate
>person should be able to find and use appropriately 80% of what they look
>for in medicines information leaflets or labels. If a particular leaflet or
>label falls below this benchmark, it has to be redesigned and retested to
>find out whether, once redesigned, it meets or exceeds the benchmark. In
our
>review we looked for studies where these or similar benchmarks had been
>used. We found none. But this is just one of many technical issues on which
>we have very little or no data at all. Creating and developing this type of
>data is one thing on which PhD students could do some useful work.
>
>A second and more challenging area of research concerns the scoping stage
>and boundary shifting, as I call it in the co-designing paper. This is the
>point at which Horst Rittel's 'Wicked problems' manifest themselves most
>clearly. It is the point in the design process when we realise that our
>romantic visions of a perfect design solution--a panacea--turns into a
>prosthetic device, grand vision turns into band-aid. We move between
>philosophical poles, offering on one side the best solution in the best of
>all possible worlds, and on the other side a decorative papering over the
>cracks. I'm not suggesting that these polarisations are the only or
>necessary conditions in which design exists, but I offer them to illustrate
>that design is often a process of radical change in philosophical and moral
>positions. How are we to deal with such radical change? It seems to me that
>thoughtful doctoral students could usefully reflect on these questions and
>offer some interesting insights for those of us who face these on a daily
>basis.
>
>Most challenging of all, it seems to me, is to develop and articulate a
>design point of view: a view that does not see design through the lenses of
>cognitive science, communication theory, rhetoric, art history, cultural
>studies, management science etc, but sees design from a uniquely designerly
>point of view, and measures these other points of view through its own
>distinctive lens. If design is to be central to the liberal arts of this
>century, its legitimacy and disciplines must emerge from its own activity,
>its own point of view. Developing and articulating that point of view
should
>be there in doctoral research in design.
>
>Sorry this has taken so long to generate. I hope it generates some
>interesting discussion.
>
>David
>
>
>--
>Professor David Sless
>Director
>Communication Research Institute of Australia
>** helping people communicate with people **
>
>PO Box 398 Hawker
>ACT 2614 Australia
>
>Mobile: 0412 356 795
>
>phone: +61 (0)262 598 671
>fax:   +61 (0)262 598 672
>web:   http://www.communication.org.au