I gree with Glen.
In some parts of the world Design Research means explorative design
practice amongst other things.
My argument about providing references and the length of a posting was
that not everyone on the list comes from the same culture of written
form. I believe that diversity of views and background is important and
to dictate one form on postings would be to exclude posters who may have
quite relevant and useful views on a topic. Design research and practice
should be part of one discussion because to exclude one or the other
area would be to not have the full picture. One area can't exist without
the other and it s not possible to understand one area without an
understanding of the other. This seems to be supported by Ken's outline
of the history of PhD-Design.
______________________________
R o b C u r e d a l e
Professor, Chair Product Design
College for Creative Studies Detroit
201 East Kirby
Detroit MI 48202-4034
Phone: 313 664 7625
Fax: 313 664 7620
email: [log in to unmask]
http://www.ccscad.edu
______________________________
>>> <[log in to unmask]> 09/27/04 10:50AM >>>
Rosan,
As a practitioner and not a researcher - this is confusing to say the
least.
Quoting Paul Graham a LISP programmer and creator of one of the first
spam
filters:
"The difference between design and research seems to be a question of
new
versus good. Design doesn't have to be new, but it has to be good (to
Rob's
point of view). Research doesn't have to be good, but it has to be new.
I
think these two paths converge at the top: the best design surpasses
its
predecessors by using new ideas, and the best research solves problems
that
are not only new, but actually worth solving. So ultimately we're
aiming
for the same destination, just approaching it from different
directions."
ref: This article is derived from a keynote talk given at the fall
2002
meeting of NEPLS.January 2003
Glenn Johnson
|