Thanks to Philippe Gauthier for an interesting post. I am focused on
the thread concerning scholarly communication for several reasons.
One is that I owe David Durling a manuscript, and these issues fit
in. Working with the thread pushes me forward toward a manuscript
deadline next month.

I will only enter Philippe's thread to ask for care in representing
the positions that other people take.

I did NOT ask the question that Phillippe attributes to me,

"... if there was any way to do research while practising design, or
if conducting a design project could meet some kind of criteria in
such a way that it could be regarded as a research activity producing
knowledge comparable to what is done in traditional scientific fields
or at least acceptable as an intellectual universitarian discipline."

I have a position on these issues. The position is clear, well known,
and widely published. [See below]

I assert that it is possible to do research in a comprehensive and
appropriate form while practicing design,

I also assert that design research includes a wide range of issues
aside from practice.

Since it is not clear whether Philippe is representing my views or
his own in his second paragraph, I will make two brief comments.

It should be clear that the status of design as a research frame
means that there are valid reasons for drawing on research techniques
from many fields.

It is best to avoid overly general terms such as "positivism" without
making the use of the term clear. There is no term more widely
misunderstood, nor more commonly misused. It is difficult to
understand what is meant by the terms "objectivist" and
"representational."

Philippe cites Dewey and Schon. Dewey's philosophy and Schon's work
are based on the existence of an empirical world external to the
thinker. Most varieties of reflective realism assert the objective
existence of the world - as Dewey and Schon did - without attempting
to reduce the world to some form of inappropriate scheme.

The varieties of issues and ideas wrapped up in this post deserve
careful attention and clarification. In my view, using these kinds of
terms in cavalier manner is itself a form of reductionism.

Other than the discussion of the "positivist, objectivist, and
representational frame," Philippe later comments make good sense.

He writes "that today traditional scientific fields (but of course
here, I'm talking about certain schools of the humanities) are making
moves that will lead them to think of themselves as interventionists:
and so they'll be doing design or at least they'll be conducting
projects."

This has been a subject of lively discussion for many years, and not
only in the humanities. It forms the core of Herbert Simon's notion
of design science.

The issues that Philippe addresses have been debated widely on this
list and on DRS. All these debates are archived. A look through the
archives will be useful. A lengthy and articulate debate on the issue
of "positivism" and the misuse of the term occurred on DRS in August
1999.

This post does allow me to link back to the thread with which I am
now concerned, the thread on scholarly communication.

A distinguished North American design scholar called me yesterday.
She and her doctoral students are engaged in a research project on
the issue of our literature and the uses we make of it. She has been
shocked by the failure to read or to use the existing literature.

In blunt terms - and that's why I won't identify her - she said of
design research as a broad field, "These people don't read. They skim
a few references and fly by the seat of their pants."

Philippe's post is somewhat unclear. Perhaps he is just writing
quickly. If so, I would like to ask for greater care and clarity.
Perhaps his thoughts have not come across clearly because English is
his second language. If so, then I apologize for the
misinterpretation. I am fortunate to be able to write in my native
language. This gives me an advantage, and that is why I feel a
responsibility to be clear for the benefit of those who do not share
this advantage.

Whatever the reason, Philippe has not represented my views or those
of Dewey and Schon.

Representing ideas effectively requires reading.

-- Ken Friedman



Six publications stating my views on the issues of research,
knowledge, and theory construction to which Philippe Gauthier refers.
Many of these publications also consider the relations between design
knowledge and the knowledge of other fields. Comprehensive
bibliography available on request.


Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum
The Emerging International Research Agenda. P. H. Roberts and E. W.
L. Norman, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and
Technology, Loughborough University.

Friedman, Ken. 2001. "Towards an integrative design discipline."
Creating Breakthrough Ideas, Bryan Byrne and Susan E. Squires,
editors. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Publishing Group. [in press]

Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Design knowledge: context, content and
continuity." In Doctoral Education in Design. Foundations for the
Future. Proceedings of the La Clusaz Conference, July 8-12, 2000.
David Durling and Ken Friedman, editors. Staffordshire, United
Kingdom: Staffordshire University Press, 5-16.

Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Design Education in the University.
Professional Studies for the Knowledge Economy." Re-inventing Design
Education in the University. Cal Swann and Ellen Young, eds. Perth,
Australia: Curtin University of Technology.

Friedman, Ken. 1999. "Theory in Design." Useful and Critical. Pekka
Korvenmaa, ed. Helsinki: University of Art and Design, Helsinki.
Useful and Critical: Conference on Design Research. 9-11 September,
1999. University of Art and Design, Helsinki, Finland.

Friedman, Ken. 1997. "Design Science and Design Education." The
Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of
Art and Design Helsinki.