Dear Ben, Tim, Terry, and friends,

Thanks for many thoughtful posts on the issue of list style. I agree
with Kari-Hans, John, and many others. If we can agree that pluralism
and multiple voices afford us the space we need, I am content. I will
reflect further on these issues. Perhaps there is more to be said. I
will note that I have had interesting posts off-list from people
whose views have not been reflected in the on-list dialogue as well
as from people who share most of the views posted. It is possible
that some people with a different opinion on longer posts do not feel
comfortable writing to the list. That is also the case for some
people who feel their views have been reflected. I would encourage
anyone with something to say to risk a post. (Short notes are also
welcome!)

This note concerns a different topic that Terry, Tim, and Ben have
been exploring on the use of the two terms "design research" and
"design[ing] research." As I mentioned in a dialogue that Terry
referred to, I use the term design research for two specific reasons.
The minor reason is linguistic. The important reason is that design
research covers a larger domain than designing research.

The linguistic issue is simple. Because it has been raised often, it
is worth considering.

It is sometimes argued that we should use the term "designing
research" rather than the term "design research" on the [argued]
basis that the term "designing" is a verb that captures the
processual nature of design in contrast with the notion that the term
"design" is a noun.

In linguistic terms, this distinction between terms on the basis that
one is a noun and the other a verb is incorrect. Both words - design
and designing - function as verbs OR as nouns. Their status as verb
or noun depends on how they are used.

The term "design" is a verb used to describe a process of thought and
planning. In common usage across many fields of human activity, the
verb means "to conceive and plan out in the mind; to have as a
specific purpose; to devise for a specific function or end." Related
to these is the act of drawing, with an emphasis on the nature of the
drawing as a plan or map, as well as "to draw plans for; to create,
fashion, execute or construct according to plan." (Merriam-Webster
1993: 343; see the Oxford English Dictionary for extensive
definitions and examples.)

The verb preceded the noun form of the word when the word "design"
entered the English language in the 1500s. The earliest written
citation of the verb "design" dates from the year 1548. The verb
predated the noun by half a century. Many uses of the verb design
also indicate a field or domain within which the design process takes
place. This is the sense of such terms as "design profession" or
"design research."

In linguistic terms, the word "designing" is both a verb and a noun.
The term "designing" is the present active participle form of the
verb design. It is also a gerund noun. It is no more - and no less -
a verb than the term "design."

The argument that was floating about when Terry and I considered this
earlier based on an incorrect linguistic argument. This argument was
compounded by a value judgment. The argument in short form is that
(1) one word is a verb while the other is a noun, and that (2) the
verb is good because it describes a process - designing -and the noun
is bad because it describes static objects - [a] design or [many]
designs. The first part of the argument is an incorrect claim about
language. The second is a value judgment based on that claim.

In some debates, the different terms have also used to signal a
position. Even though the specific position changes from debate to
debate, I have observed that the use of either term is often linked
to cluster of political, economic, social, or epistemological
arguments. The choice of term somehow seems to mark the cluster of
arguments used by the proponent.

This is not the case here. This thread is a search for clarity and
useful understanding. In this sense, it is helpful to consider the
different domains captured by each verb.

The verb "designing" captures the specific act of designing as a
professional or human practice. When we intend to describe research
that involves the practice or activity of design, designing research
is an appropriate choice. The reason I do not use it as general term
is that the process or practice of design[ing] is only one among
several areas within the larger domain of design research.

The design process entails a rich network of activities other than
the act of designing. This large network of activities, processes,
and undertakings involves many actors. Some design. Some do not. Even
though most of these issues touch on design in some important way,
they are not always a design process.

The full range of issues is necessary for design research as an
entire field, but research on the human act of designing or the
professional design process is insufficient to describe the entire
field. This is why the focus on design(ing) research has failed to
enable significant progress in the field of design research as whole.

Permit me to give a few examples of areas within design research that
do not deal with the design activity. Many approaches to design
history involve the study of designed artifacts. Such themes as
formal evolution, formal qualities, style, stylistics, materials, or
other such topics generally do not focus on the process of designing,
but the status and reception of the artifacts once they exist in the
world.

Many forms of research into the effects, social, or cultural uses of
designed artifacts involve their role in social, cultural, or
economic systems without regard to the human activity that created
them. While the process of designing explains how these artifacts
came to be, it does not explain wise or poor choices of the artifacts
as such. For example, consider the note that Maria shared on
wheelchairs. How a wheelchair is designed explains how the chair came
to be what it is. A completely different range of issues explains why
broken wheelchairs are stacked up in the hospital storerooms of
developing nations. Nevertheless, kinds of study are part of design
research, and I would argue in today's world that this second kind of
understanding is vital to a better design process. Designers may do
better work by understanding a wider range of issues, but this range
of issues focus on the results of the design process and its
outcomes, not on the process itself.

While it is reasonable to argue that WHEN designers engage in this
kind of research, it is part of the design process, the claim is
partially misleading. Allow me to acknowledge this issue while
addressing the larger and more general point. While designers should
probably do this kind pf research at some point in a career, they can
often draw on other colleagues inside or outside design teams for
issues that are part of design research without being designing
research. Moreover, when designers undertake some kinds of design
research as part of the design process, they may not be doing
research on designing, but on its effects or outcomes.

Some forms of research that focus on or serve the design process do
not involve the design process at all. Huge ranges of applied
research within the design field involve technical studies. Designers
draw on these studies for information, but the research itself does
not involve the design process. Studies to determine the properties
and applications of specific materials are one such form of research.
Research on the physical qualities and performance characteristics of
different kinds of sheet metal for industrial appliances is a case in
point. Developing algorithms or heuristic process for choosing among
different programming modules is another. The list is immense.

While one may argue that any one of these kinds of research might be
located within "engineering," "information science," "chemistry," or
some other field, much of this work is done in an applied context
linked directly to design. Nevertheless, it is not the design process
itself.

Many design fields and subfields requiem and are supported by areas
of design research that do not involve designing. These kinds of
research are done because the design process could not take place
without them, yet they do not involve the design act. While many
kinds of research are undertaken because some member of a design tam
needs the information it yields, this research informs the design
process without being part of it. In a larger sense, many forms of
design research that serve the field do not involve designing.

There are also wide ranges of issues in design research that serve
stakeholders, end users, manufacturers, and others without touching
on the design process at all. These are legitimate areas of design
research even though they sometimes do not involve designers. In some
cases, legitimate areas of design research even work against the
pragmatic professional interests of designers.

Consider, for example, a business firm that produces tends of
thousands of information artifacts every year where the useful
working life of each artifact is relatively short. Some years ago,
the company employed a large graphic design department and a print
shop to manage the continual production of these artifacts. Today,
the company uses a web site with a simple template that allows
ordinary employees to enter information and produce it. This process
also yields immense savings through a flow-through process that links
a coordinated catalogue to customer orders, and production
management, inventory, and logistics. With the change in technology,
the graphic design department shrank dramatically leaving three
graphic designers with Web design to handle current graphic design
needs for print and the Web while adding a design manager and an
information specialist to work with the process and the technical
system. This vastly improved process actually worked against the
needs of the large number of graphic designers whose jobs were
rendered needless. Nevertheless, one may argue that the design
research that created this process worked against the specific
interests of all those designers who lost jobs while serving the
manufacturer, customers, ender users, and all the other stakeholders
very well. In reducing paper waste and other forms of waste, this
also rendered the company far more effective in energy savings and
reduced waste means a more sustainable environmental impact.

While research for the new process involved studying and working with
the design process, much of the work involved design research and not
designing research.

Using the word "design" in the term "design research" indicates a
research field incorporates and permits research in any of the rich
array of issues involved in the design field as well as all of the
issues involved in the design process. This is why I prefer it.

I agree with Ben's point on sensitizing concepts, and I agree
completely that we will be a while finding the appropriate range of
epistemological distinctions or the vocabularies of our field.

In this case, I prefer the word "design" for "design research," for
the larger coverage it affords. In my view, the term "designing" is
appropriate for a specific and more limited range of issues and
research streams focuses on the human activity of designing rather
than the larger field within which this act takes place.

Best regards,

Ken Friedman


References

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary.
Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts.