Dear all,
I'd like to make a comment on this post. I am currently attending a
conference: Discourse and Cultural Transformation in Hangzhou, China.

Being from the disciplines of architecture/construction mgt and
economics I am an oddity here as most people are from linguistics or
cultural studies.

In a session the other day I listened to one of the notable speakers in
this area talk about a study he has just completed in Poland whereby he
interviewed some 20 people living in new high-rise flat developments .
What he wanted to explore was issues of privacy related to other larger
problems on the housing estate. It arose because when he was a small boy
in this country (he is now at Loughborough I understand) the walls were
thin and people pulled down their curtains and he believed that there
were a number of building related issues that could relate to social and
cultural problems... and hence he wished to START a discourse on privacy
and space.

For the older architects who may be on the list... does this remind
anyone of Neuman's famous study????? and the ensuing publication
"Defensible Space". (Can't remember what discpline Neuman actually came
from - I suspect sociology/pscyhology - but perhaps architecture- he
certainly had a major impact on architectural education and the study
was commissioned by NY city Urban Design group - I think).

I just listened with fascination- mostly I read literature on
methodology in other disciplines and apply them to problems in my
discipline - this is the first time I had seen something like this - but
in actual fact he was unware of the other study (and no I didn't
publicly question him on his work but quietly introduced myself and
simply asked him what sort of literature had he explored in his study).

I make this point because Kristina asked - are there design research
methods or whether they are  just different in their mode of
application?

Although quite similar studies - I think they actually complement each
other - the Polish study focussed on discourse analysis and cultural
issues whereas the US study focussed a little more on building elements.


My only surprise in this - we are now 40 years on from Neuman's study
.... and we still have the same problem in design?

I have other comments tomake about methodologies and interdisciplinary
research but the internet is a little erratic at this time of the
morning where I am so shall leave it at that.

regards
Kerry


Kerry London
Senior Lecturer
Postgraduate Director (Architecture and Industrial Design)
School of Architecture & Built Environment
University of Newcastle
AUSTRALIA
tel: + 61 2 49 21 5778
>>> Kristina Niedderer <[log in to unmask]> 10/14/04 03:07  $B8aA0 (B >>>
Dear all,

thanks for all your nice responses so far. I have been asked to
'restart' this strand under a new title so that it can be more easily
recognised and searched in the archive. The new heading is:

Defining DESIGN RESEARCH METHODS

For the official opening under new heading, and to prevent confusion, I
copy my request (first two messages) below.


Message 1 (from 2004-10-11):


 Dear all,

 I am a mainly passive reader to the list, as many. However, the
combination of Eric*s recent post (commenting that the debate on design
research issues could be more focussed at times) and of my own interest
in design research, have now sparked me to write.

 I have completed my PhD in design earlier this year. One part of doing
this degree is of course to think about the methodology and methods
which to choose to conduct the research and to gain knowledge in
whatever subject chosen.

 One issue, which frequently reoccurs in the debate around research in
the creative design disciplines (especially practice-based), is whether
we have/choose established research methods from other disciplines
(engineering, sociology, etc), whether there are research methods that
are specific to design, or whether researchers in this area should
invent their own methods?

 I know we had some debate (earlier this year?) on the list about parts
of this issue. However, what I would like to try with this call is to
use the expertise of the list to establish

 1) what specific design research methods there are in design, and
 2) how are they different to design methods,
 3) or whether they are only different in the mode of application.

 With this, I would like to invite your suggestions. Please also give a
reason for any suggestion(s) made.

 If this undertaking proves successful, perhaps it can be taken further
into a workshop at a forthcoming conference and/or some kind of
publication.

 Best regards to all,

 Kristina




Message 2 (from 04-10-13)

Dear all,

I don't have time to reply in detail today, but I would like to thank
everyone who has taken time to reply so far for their responses, and add
a small comment to stir the debate.

I think the debate between Alec, David, and Cindy has proven what I set
out in the beginning. That is, that there is still a confusion in some
parts as to whether and what design methods can be used as research
methods (and in what context), or whether design research methods are
mainly taken from established fields, i.e. basics, qualitative, and
quantitative methods as Cindy has indicated.

As Fatina indicated, design methods can obviously become an integral
part of the research process. This is also my experience from my own PhD
where I have used practice to explore some of the concepts investigated.
However, although there are increasing sources, there is nothing, like a
coherent debate, or some sort of basic agreement about these issues yet.
Therefore the debate. Taken seriously, perhaps it could lead to some
kind of compendium that sets out the ground-rules for (practice-based)
research in art, craft, and design?

best wishes,

Kristina


 Dr Kristina Niedderer
 Email: [log in to unmask]
 Mobile: 0044 (0)7966 892 879