_______________________________________________ _______________
_______________________________________________ _______________
___________________________________________ __ _ _ ___
_________________________________________ ___ __ ___ _____
_________________________________________ ____ __ _____ ___
_________________________________________ ___ __ _______ __
___________________________________________ __ ____ ___
DESIGN RESEARCH NEWS Volume 11 Number 5 May 2006 ISSN 1473-3862
DRS Digital Newsletter http://www.designresearchsociety.org
________________________________________________________________
Join DRS now via e-payment http://www.designresearchsociety.org
________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS
o Editorial
o Calls
o Announcements
o Web
o Books
o The Design Research Society: information
o Electronic Services of the DRS
o Contributing to Design Research News
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
Editorial
The Story of a Book Review: Visualizing Research
More goes into making Design Research News each month than many
people realize. The seemingly simple task of gathering
information, publishing notes, and organizing book reviews
involves more processes and decisions than is visible on the
surface.
This month, David Durling has been working with colleagues in
Singapore while I fill in as editor of DRN. The May issue of DRN
coincides with an important book review. This review meant
difficult editorial choices, so I will use this leader to
explain how we develop book reviews for the newsletter.
One key choice is whether to review a book at all. As book
review editor of DRN, I choose books for four reasons. The first
is a significant contribution to issues in design research or
design. This includes books on research methods and comparative
research methodology as well as methodology books from other
fields that can serve our needs. Second, we select books that
shed light on broad issues in design research. This includes
books on the sciences and humanities, philosophy, or education
that address the problems and challenges we face. Third, we
sometimes cover books that are simply fun. Reviewing a book
because we enjoy it is a privilege that comes with the work of
editing DRN. The fourth reason is more difficult. Some books fit
none of these categories. We review such books when their impact
on our field requires serious debate. That is the case with this
month's review of Visualizing Research by Carole Gray and Julian
Malins.
As book review editor, I had several rounds of conversation with
scholars and advisors on whether to review Visualizing Research.
At first, we decided that it did not warrant a review. Later, we
reconsidered the decision. The book's publisher, Gower,
advertises this as the first book specifically aimed at art and
design research methods. What is more, they market this as a
textbook for research students and their supervisors. These
advertising claims give the book impact without regard to
content or merit. Many art and design schools have added the
book to the library as the only book of its kind in English. For
the same reason, art schools with a weak history in research
training use the book as a text. This obliges us to review it.
That led to new problems.
The first problem is that few United Kingdom scholars qualified
to review Visualizing Research are willing to do so in public or
in print. We had to look outside the UK for an objective review.
Our second problem came with the book itself. Outside the UK,
people are not interested in reviewing the book for the same
reason we initially decided not to review it in DRN. The content
does not justify a review. The book is filled with problems and
few compensating merits. Analyzing the problems takes more work
than the merits warrant.
There is no point in writing a short review to say that a
research methods book lacks value. One must explain why this is
so. In this case, that requires a careful analysis of a dense,
tightly woven fabric of assertions, mistakes, and invalid
syllogisms, along with a barrage of metaphors masked as logical
statements. Since none of the qualified reviewers outside the UK
intends to use this book, none of them wishes to invest the work
a robust review requires.
We decided to request a review from a scholar well known for his
ability to examine difficult analytical problems for comparative
criticism. This is Terence Love of Curtin University in Perth,
Australia.
This issue of Design Research News is publishing a major
analytical review at the length normally reserved for journal
articles. We do so because a shorter review would not permit the
careful analysis that this book demands. To review this book at
all requires the clear, careful analysis that Terence Love
provides.
Since assigning this review, I have come to believe that the
decision to assign a major analytical review is the right
choice. Several advisors to this review tell me that during the
past eight months, they have reviewed methodologically
problematic and occasionally incompetent conference submissions
and journal articles that use the Gray and Malins textbook to
justify poor research choices. The nature of blind review is
such that we do not know which submissions represent
universities in contrast to art and design schools, but we do
know that Love's concern is reasonable. Any book that serves as
a research methods textbook must itself be a good example of
research training and research skill. A research methods
textbook that creates problems leads to deficient research
rather than improving research.
Gray and Malins quote Brian Eno's statement that "the arts
routinely produce some of the loosest thinking and worst writing
known to history." Terence Love states that this book "continues
the tradition of loose thinking and bad writing."
I want to emphasize two issues that make it vital to publish
this review.
The first issue is that the tradition is changing. Despite the
flaws of one book, the field of design research is growing and
improving at a steady pace. This makes the reasoned criticism of
bad arguments particularly timely.
The second issue is that Love's review is NOT a critique of
practice-led research. The practice-led research tradition is
also growing and improving. Major events in the field signal
important developments. The Arts and Humanities Research Council
is funding an important research review project on practice-led
research at Sheffield-Hallam University. The next edition of the
Research into Practice Conference will meet at University of
Hertfordshire this July. The Sensuous Knowledge conference
series at the National College of Art and Design in Bergen,
Norway is struggling with the implications and challenges of
practice-led research. So is the Material Thinking project at
Auckland University of Technology. This November, the Design
Research Society will present an international research
exhibition as part of the Wonderground conference in Lisbon. We
expect to see many practice-led research papers in the
conference tracks.
Love's critique of a problematic book supports practice-led
research by helping to improve the field.
-- Ken Friedman
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
CALLS
23-25 October 2006: The 8th ACM SIGACCESS Conference on
Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS 2006) will be held this year
at the Embassy Suites Downtown in Portland Oregon.
ASSETS is the principal forum for discussions and information
exchange between researchers, clinicians, educators,
rehabilitation personnel, and policy makers concerned with
information technologies for people with disabilities.
The on-line paper submission system and on-line registration
system for ASSETS 2006 are now up and running at:
http://www.acm.org/sigaccess/assets06/
13-15 October 2006: THE DOCUMENT ACADEMY INVITES: PROPOSALS FOR
PAPERS, PRESENTATIONS, DEMONSTRATIONS AND EXHIBITS AT DOCAM '06,
University of California, Berkeley School of Information South
Hall, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
DOCAM '06 is the fourth Annual meeting of the Document Academy,
an international network of scholars, artists and professionals
in various fields interested in the exploration of the document
as a useful approach, concept and tool in Sciences, Arts,
Business, and Society. It is organized and co-sponsored by The
Program of Documentation Studies, University of Tromso, Norway
and School of Information, University of California, Berkeley.
We are delighted to announce that the key-note speaker this year
will be Professor Geoffrey C. Bowker, Executive Director for the
Center for Science, Technology and Society, Santa Clara
University. Professor Bowker will give his Keynote Address at
the end of the conference and comment on the core questions and
challenges for document research in the future.
http://thedocumentacademy.hum.uit.no
On behalf of the Instituto Superior de Ciencias Educativas -
ISCE -, I have the grateful honour to announce you the two
International Congresses that will take place at ISCE's:
The Ist International Congress of Gerontology: Live forever!,
and the Ist International Congress of Design - Design, Art and
New Technologies: Ways, Exchanges and Frontiers.
Both Congresses will present essays from several scientific
areas, such as: Gerontology, Geriatrics, Physiotherapy, Nursing,
Psychology, Linguistics, Anthropology, Sociology, Geography,
Law, Pedagogy, Economics, Design, Advertising, Arts,
Architecture, Engineering, Ergonomics, Marketing and Computing,
among others.
Such sciences will contribute to spread the knowledge in order
to establish a cultural and scientific relation between all
intervening: from researchers and lecturers to professionals and
students.
http://gerontologia.cidae.net/pt
26-28 September 2006: 1st International Digital Games
Conference (iDig 2006) Portalegre, Portugal
First Call for Papers
The first International Digital Games Conference (iDiG
Conference) aims to promote excellence in research, creativity,
and innovation in games related areas. It intents to gather the
digital games related communities, to promote a comprehensive
discussion of game issues and to share different visions of
future gaming.
Papers containing ongoing research or fresh results are most
welcome. Both full papers (up to 12 pages) and short papers (up
to 4 pages) can be submitted to the conference.
All proposals will be subject to a process of blind peer-review
by the Scientific Committee on the basis of its originality,
technical quality, style and clarity of presentation, and in its
relevance to the field. Prospective authors are expected to
present their paper at the conference.
All proposals will follow a process of blind peer-review by the
Scientific Committee on the basis of its originality, technical
quality, style and clarity of presentation, and in its relevance
to the field. Prospective authors are expected to present their
paper at the conference.
http://games2006.aproje.org
NEW: Journal of Information, Information Technology, and
Organizations
The inaugural issue of the Journal of Information, Information
Technology, and Organizations (JIITO) has been published and is
available for your free use at
http://jiito.org/view.html.
14-17 February 2007: Call for Papers: "Mind the Gap: The
Separate Spheres of Graphic and Product Design". Design Studies
Forum Special Session, College Art Association 95th Annual
Conference, New York City.
What unites graphic design and product design? What separates
them? What do we gain or lose when we conjoin or separate them?
Does this gap exist for the consumer, who relies on packaging to
select a product? Do practitioners now, or did earlier
practitioners (as well as historians and critics), perceive a
divide? How can we acknowledge the inter-relationships without
threatening disciplinary integrity? Do these questions overlook
connections between these practices and other subsets of design,
such as fashion and interiors? Do art history, communications,
consumer studies, anthropology, material culture studies, and
other cultural sciences offer useful lenses through which to
examine these questions?
Papers are sought that both acknowledge similarities as well as
make strong claims for differences between education,
professional development, and conception and production of
objects.
Please submit abstracts (250 words) and a brief c.v. to both
chairs:
Kristin U. Fedders at [log in to unmask] and Michael J. Golec at
[log in to unmask] by 15 May 2006.
International Call for Proposals Best of Design Research -
Projects of Excellence
This call concerns an ambitious book project collecting projects
of excellence in international design research. We would like to
invite you to submit your proposal until the 24th May and would
appreciate if you could forward this call to all researchers in
your own professional network.
Swiss Design Network online : http://www.swiss-design.org
16-17 August 2006: Malaysian Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)
Faculty of Art and Design will organise the International
Conference on Design in Agriculture in Marriot Putrajaya,
Malaysia. The info can be seen as follows:
The deadline for submission of full paper is on 30 June 2006.
For more detail, please do not hesitate to email to INDaG2006
Conference Manager Muhammad Fauzi Zainuddin
[log in to unmask]
http://www.kedah.uitm.edu.my/indag/index.htm
7-9 December 2006: Museum design.
Call for papers (and a call for exhibition proposal), University
of Oslo. The conference is an interdiscplinary conference on
museums design - and will be held in Oslo.
http://www.tii.se/v4m/nodem/
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Second International Conference on e-Social Science
28-30 June 2006: one day workshop on e-Science and Digitisation:
Methodological Infrastructure in the Arts and Humanities,
Manchester, UK
As part of the Second International Conference on e-Social
Science organised by the ESRC National Centre for e-Social
Science (NCeSS), there will be a one day workshop on e-Science
and Digitisation: Methodological Infrastructure in the Arts and
Humanities.
This workshop is organised by Sheila Anderson (Director of AHDS)
and Lorna Hughes (Manager of the AHRC ICT Methods Network) in
their role as Directors of the newly established Arts and
Humanities e-Science Support Centre (AHeSSC).
The workshop will look at how methodological infrastructure can
be made fit for purpose for the arts and humanities (a&h) at
every stage of the life cycle of digital information. It will
consist of contributed papers followed by breakout discussion
groups, a round-table discussion and a closing plenary.
http://www.ncess.ac.uk/events/conference
11 may 2006: How not to get ripped off in the fashion industry,
London.
What can and can't you protect in the fast moving fashion and
accessories industry? Can you really protect your designs in an
industry that works on influences, tributes and trends?
This event will answer these questions and cover the ins and
outs of copyright, what can and can't be protected, how to go
about it and what to do if your designs get copied.
http://www.own-it.org/events/details/?eventId=156&p=1
National Institute of Design (NID), India invites Nominations/
Applications from qualified and noted design educators, eminent
designers and allied professionals from India or Overseas
(working/retired) for the following Design Research Chairs.
Those willing to join on deputation may be also considered. The
period of each chair and commencement will vary.
1. Ravi J Matthai Chair for Design Management/Design Education
Innovation
2. John Bissell Chair in the area of Textile and Apparel Design
& Technology
3. O P Jindal Chair for Stainless Steel in the area of Product
Innovation & Development
4. Asian Paints Chair on Design Research, with focus on Colour
and Home Decor applications
5. Eames Design Fellowship (Emeritus)
http://www.nid.edu
PhD Stipend in Industrial Design.
The PhD stipend is available within the general study programme
"Planning and Development".
The candidate will work on specific aspects of industrial
design, such as: Integrated design, including a wide range of
activities and competences from product design to strategic
design; theory and methodological developments related to design
contents, design methods and processes for the integration and
optimisation of products' business and cultural per-formances as
well as aspects related to production, aesthetics, functionality
and feasibility.
The following strategic areas will be given high priority
- Strategic design theories, methods and practice
- Design-driven innovation in multidisciplinary contexts
- Semantic and aesthetic functions in industrial design
The outcomes of the research project is expected to provide new
knowledge which can contribute to a wide range of professional
and educational areas, including academic and higher education,
industrial companies and design consultancies.
You may obtain further information from Associate Professor
Nicola Morelli, Phone +45 9635 9928, Email [log in to unmask]
concerning the technical aspects of the stipend.
Vacancy for a PhD student on Functional Decomposition in
Engineering Disciplines
The Philosophy section of Delft University of Technology, the
Netherlands, currently has a vacancy for a PhD student (M/F)
(1.0 fte).
Project description:
In engineering, technological products are defined as objects
with functions. The components of these technological products
also have functions, and engineers are able to dissect the
functions of the products into their various component
functions. This dissection process is known as functional
decomposition. The point of departure for the project is the
observation that a number of different models exist for
functional decomposition, all of which are presented as being of
use to engineers, despite the essential differences between
them. The assignment:
It is your job to explain why these essentially different models
of functional decomposition exist side-by-side in engineering.
You will select a few of the models and answer the following
questions by means of a critical analysis:
- What are the differences between these models?
- Why are all these models successful in practice, or why do
they appear to be so?
- Can philosophy help us to structure and understand functional
decomposition?
Working together with a post-doctoral researcher, you will take
part in a NWO (Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research)
VIDI project on Functional Decomposition in Philosophy and
Engineering.
More information can be found at http://www.fil.tbm.tudelft.nl/
> vacancies
25 June 2006: Design Research Workshop at DIS 2006. Exploring
Design as a Research Activity
Design activity consists of bringing together the organized
components of the machine and interfacing them in a particular
way with the outer environment (Simon, 1996). Recently, the NSF
CISE program on Science of Design highlighted the importance of
design in the development of interactive systems
(http://ncl.cgu.edu/designconference/). However, a shared
conceptualization of what constitutes design research and how it
can contribute to design process is still unclear.
The goal of this workshop is to conceptualize design research
and how it should be conducted.
ACM Designing Interactive Systems (DIS) 2006 Workshop
http://www.sigchi.org/dis2006
DPP 1/2006: CONTENTS
Anne-Marie Willis, Editorial: The Review Issue
Cameron Tonkinwise, 'Always Historicise Design' (review of Bruce
Sterling, 'Shaping Things')
Tony Fry, 'Object-thing Philosophy and Design' (review of B.
Latour & P. Weibel, 'Making Things Public'; G.Harman,
'Tool-being' and 'Guerrilla Metaphysics'; Peter-Paul Verbeek,
'What Things Do')
Gavin Sade, 'Why Interaction Design?' review of Jonas Loewgren &
Erik Stolterman, 'Thoughtful Interaction Design')
Anne-Marie Willis, 'From Cultural Difference to Horizons of the
Same' (review of Marshall Sahlins, 'Culture in Practice' and
Bruce Mau et al,'Massive Change')
Maria Cecilia Loschiavos dos Santos, 'Homelessness: A Global
Perspective'
http://www.desphilosophy.com and click on 'current issue'.
THE MUSIC ROOM: a series of workshops on music and the domestic
interior. V&A Museum, London
http://www.cph.rcm.ac.uk/MusicRoom/Home.htm
6-7 July 2006: Practices, Materiality and Product Design A
workshop at Durham University, UK.
This event will be the culmination of a series of four workshops
held at Durham University, each exploring ideas at the interface
of design research and social science and each examining the
role of products in shaping everyday life. The series is an
integral part of a two year research project, Designing and
Consuming.* Previous workshops have successfully generated
conversation and debate between disciplines, through
presentations, discussions and creative workshop activities (see
http://www.durham.ac.uk/designing.consuming for reports).
As the last in the series, this workshop aims to move beyond
conversation to definite outcomes, and to do so by confronting
challenging questions about what social sciences can do for
design practice; and what can be drawn from design to enhance
the practice of social science. To this end, activities and
discussions at the workshop will be structured around a proposed
approach to 'Practice-Oriented Product Design' (POPD).
The concept of POPD allows us to articulate and exploit
synergies between design and areas of social theory. Taking the
insight that design is about not products but about people's
experience of using them, POPD makes connections with
contemporary social theorisation of consumption, materiality,
technology and practices. It provides a framework within which
to appreciate the collective dynamics of product development,
interactive understandings of processes of technological
diffusion, domestication and evolution and through which
critical understanding of the role of design can be brought to
bear upon pragmatic issues of product design.
We present POPD not as a finished approach, but rather as a
provocation for dissent and collective reformulation through
structured discussion of the theoretical basis of the approach,
and of its practical and intellectual implications. To make
space for such discussion, we have built the workshop around
"semi-structured" contributions from all participants.
The workshop will take place at Hatfield College, Durham
University, UK, from 12.30pm on Thursday 6th July to 2pm on
Friday 7th July. Attendance is free and standard class travel
expenses within the UK can be reclaimed. However, places are
limited, and registration is required no later than Friday 2nd
of June (though it is possible all places will be allocated
before this date). The registration form is available at
http://www.durham.ac.uk/designing.consuming/events
or email [log in to unmask], or phone +44 (0) 191 334
1856.
Design Issues 22-2 Spring 2006
Introduction
John M. Carroll
Dimensions of Participation in Simon's Design
Sebnem Timur
The Eastern Way of Time Keeping: The Object and Ritual of
Nargile
Gui Bonsiepe
Design and Democracy
Genevieve Bell
Satu Keluarga, Satu Komputer, [One Home, One Computer]:Cultural
Accounts of ICTs in the South and Southeast Asia Politics of
Information Design
Nathan Stegall
Design for Sustainability: A Philosophy for Ecologically
Intentional Design
D. J. Huppatz
The Chameleon and the Pearl of the Orient
Gerard Mermoz
City of Signs: Istanbul: Revealed or Mystified?
Book Reviews:
Leslie Atzmon
Design and Crime by Hal Foster
Norman Crowe
The Nature of Design: Ecology, Culture, and Human Intention by
David W. Orr
Shelly Evenson
Design Research: Methods and Perspectives by Brenda Laurel ed.
Derek Wallen
Chip Kidd by Veronique Vienne,
Kyle Cooper by Andrea Codrington
Jacob Ristau
Signs of the Inka Khipu: Binary Coding in the Andean
Knotted-String Records by Gary Urton
7-8 July 2006: RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE CONFERENCE 2006
The fourth international Research into Practice conference will
be held at the University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK. The
theme of the conference is the instrumentality of context in the
interpretation of research in art, design, architecture, music
and performance.
REGISTRATION IS NOW OPEN.
Details of the conference, the theme, the venue, online
registration and selected past papers are all available via:
http://www.herts.ac.uk/artdes1/research/res2prac/confhome.html
The Ecology of Queensland Design
Higgs, Peter and Cunningham, Stuart and Hearn, Greg and Barbara,
Adkins and Barnett, Karen (2005) The Ecology of Queensland
Design. Technical Report, CIRAC, Queensland University of
Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland..
Abstract
The Ecology of Queensland Design project is part of the three
year Mapping Queensland's Creative Industries which has been
undertaken by the Creative Industries Research and Applications
Centre within the Queensland University of Technology's Faculty
of Creative Industries. The report examines the nature,
employment, size and impact of the design industries to the
Queensland economy. It provides a context for Queensland's
design ecology in the light of the broader Australian situation
and with overseas studies.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/archive/00002410
9 July 2006: DCC'06 Workshop on Design Rationale: Problems and
Progress
Workshop on Design Rationale at Design Computing and Cognition
'06 in Eindhoven, Netherlands.
Workshop chairs are Janet Burge (Miami, Ohio) and Rob Bracewell
(Cambridge, UK).
The goal of the workshop is to discuss recent advances in DR use
and capture. More information can be found on the workshop web
site accessible from the DCC '06 web pages:
http://www.arch.usyd.edu.au/kcdc/conferences/dcc06/
The latest Artifact Newsletter covering March 2006 and
forthcoming events is now available at:
http://www.artifact.ac.uk/news/newsletters/mar06.html
http://www.artifact.ac.uk/news/newsletters/mar06.html
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
WEB
The National Archives have recently launched a new online
exhibition 'Design Registers' featuring a gallery of Victorian
designs registered with the Board of Trade.
The exhibition features largely ceramic designs, including those
by Christopher Dresser for Wedgwood and designs by many well
known manufacturers such as Spode and Minton. The site provides
both contextual information regarding manufacturers and advice
regarding the identification of ceramic items. There are also,
in addition, leather items and many curiosities.
These original designs were taken from our huge design archive
and extracted from over 9000 volumes. The designs chosen have
been painstakingly conserved and digitised in order to provide
greater access to part of this unique collection.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/designregisters
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
BOOKS
Gray, Carole, and Julian Malins. 2004. Visualizing Research.
Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
There is a strong case for developing new approaches to research
in the visual domains of art and design. Research focusing on
the visual aspects of design must address central issues that
are relatively peripheral in other research contexts.
These include: research into design activities that focus on
visual appearance - including the internal processes of
individual designers and communication between designers;
research into the visual appearance of designed objects,
particularly objects in which appearance is secondary to other
functions; research into contexts of visual appearance as it
relates to designed objects, including design-related aspects of
culture and meaning; research into the relationships between
visual perception and design cognition; research into user
attitudes and behaviours resulting from the visual aspects of
designed objects; research into building necessary and
sufficient epistemological and ontological foundations for
theory-making relating to visually based aspects of art and
design.
These are conceptually difficult issues requiring careful
differentiation of concepts, critical thinking, and detailed
attention to valid reasoning. Without these skills, discussions
become the sort of unjustified speculation that has long
troubled the literature of art and design.
In Visualizing Research, Carol Gray and Julian Malins fail to
apply careful concepts, critical thinking, or valid reasoning to
make the case for new research approaches in visually based
domains of art and design.
To the contrary, Gray and Malins use fallacious reasoning and
sophist rhetoric in a book that actually damages the case for
new research approaches tailored to the visual aspects of art
and design. The authors demonstrate weak knowledge of research
along with problematic thinking in analysis, reasoning, and
research methods. These weaknesses are significant in a book
advertised as a text for training design researchers and guiding
research supervisors. Students and supervisors who use this book
as a source risk compromising their research outcomes.
Many argue that we require new research techniques for research
involving visually perceived, culturally interpreted objects. To
build a case for these new techniques, one must use intelligent
reasoning to identify where, how, and why traditional research
methods fail to meet the needs of research in these fields. This
also requires analysing the epistemological and practical
characteristics of existing research methods, showing how well
developed methods for gathering and analysing data are unsuited
to art and design.
A skilful argument based on sound reasoning must offer a basis
for identifying new research methods. It must also demonstrate
when, how, and why current methods could be adapted to new uses.
Gray and Malins do not do this. They approach research issues
with false reasoning and they use clumsy, ill-conceived
arguments in the attempt to persuade readers to their point of
view. This point of view is that art practices are research
practice in their own right, and that they are identical to
analysis and research.
Reviewing this book was difficult, slow, and unpleasant. The
central difficulty was the problem of finding coherent meaning
in a structurally messy muddle. Flawed logic, questionable
evidence, and sophism often make it difficult to understand what
the authors mean. It required working through the book several
times, often reading it word-by-word and sentence-by-sentence to
unravel a confusing tangle of ideas.
At first, I thought that a collaboration problem between authors
might have been the reason for some difficulties. This can
happen when two authors write different parts of a book that
goes to press without adequate proofing. Identifying and mapping
out problems made it clear that these problems are purposeful:
they involve the strategy Gray and Malins create to support
their position.
In many cases, errors of reasoning involve conceptual and
logical fallacies. More serious, however, is what appears to be
deliberate sophistry. The book uses deceitful argument, false
logic, and manipulated evidence to bolster the authors' position
and conclusions.
False reasoning complicated by repeated conceptual, logical, and
factual errors are a serious problem in a book on how to do
research. Since this book is advertised as a teaching text for
postgraduates learning to do research, readers have the right to
expect excellent reasoning and clear thinking. The authors
should support their argument with good examples. Instead, bad
examples create problems.
This book suffers from a particular misfortune. Malins and Gray
identify the art and design domain as an education sector that
is weak in formal research skills (see, for example, pp. 4, and
167). Given this, we expect the authors to offer examples of
good formal research approaches. Instead, they demonstrate a
huge number of reasoning errors. In a book where the authors
argue that reasoning and critical thinking are essential to
research, this is unfortunate.
Overview
The book has 214 pages and a foreword by Mike Press. The book
contains an introduction, five chapters, four appendices, and a
glossary.
The foreword opens the case by arguing for the authors that
'creative art and design practices become research methodologies
[sic]' (p. xi). The authors echo this perspective through the
book. The authors make a special pleading for creative practices
in 'art and design' as a form of research different to research
in other fields (see, for example, pp. 18, 19). At the same
time, the authors state that research in the art and design
sector has been weak. Deficient methodological awareness, poor
research supervision, and a lack of rigour in art and design
practice-led research often lead to questionable research
outcomes.
In their introduction, Gray and Malins state the primary aims of
the book as educating doctoral and master's degree students,
supervisors, and research managers. They also intend it to be a
guide for postgraduate art and design students undertaking the
research process. Nevertheless, it is unclear what the authors
intend the book to do. They sometimes position the book as a
'proposal contributing towards a public debate about the role of
creative practices in research' (p. 5); as a guide for research
students and supervisors (pp. 1, 5); or even as a definitive
text.
The introduction introduces the central metaphor of the book,
research as a journey. The difficulties start here. The authors
repeatedly and deliberately obscure the distinction between
research and practice. They shift repeatedly from discussing
practice-led research to presenting practice as a form of
research in its own right. This point emerges throughout the
book, sometimes in a clear form, at other times disguised (see,
for example, pp. 165). The agenda behind this confusion is an
attempt to persuade us we should regard visual art practice as
research. This is a shift from the advertised position of the
book as a contribution to methods training for practice-led
research. It is a shift to the polemical position that art
practice is research.
The introduction presents the initial foundations of this
position. Here, the authors create a pseudo-argument conflating
art and design practice to research by stating that we can
regard both research and practice as journeys in art and design.
Gray and Malins exploit the loose metaphor of the journey
throughout the book to support their underlying perspective.
They assume that they can describe both visual art practices and
research in terms of a common metaphorical property, a journey.
They next assume that this implies that visual art practices and
research are similar. This is the fallacy of the undistributed
middle. Most of us know this fallacy from a childhood example of
false logic: cats must be dogs because both have four legs.
The other chapters are:
Chapter 2. Mapping the Terrain: methods of contextualizing
research
Chapter 3. Locating your position: methods of orienting and
situating research
Chapter 4. Crossing the Terrain: establishing appropriate
research methodologies
Chapter 5. Interpreting the Map: methods of evaluation and
analysis
Chapter 6. Recounting the journey: recognizing new knowledge and
communicating research findings
The four appendices comprise adaptations of others work. The
glossary problematically reworks well-established research terms
into definitions that support Gray and Malins notions of 'art
and design research'.
The titles reveal chapter content. This apparently follows the
flow of a conventional research process.
This review will not describe chapter content in detail.
Instead, it will draw attention to some of the main problems of
flawed reasoning and sophist argument found throughout the book.
These problems compromise the book to such an extent that
discussing content is almost irrelevant.
There are many problems in Visualizing Research that this review
does not address. These problems generally involve practical
advice on research. Many other research-training texts give
better advice on specific aspects of theoretical perspectives,
and research methods for data collection and analysis.
Discussing these problems here would require a point-by-point
comparison with better books. This, in turn, would require a far
longer review.
Problems that fundamentally compromise this book
Valid reasoning is central to research, to critical thinking,
and to creating useful knowledge that can be shared with others.
Gray and Malins (p. 24) quote Brian Eno's statement that 'the
arts routinely produce some of the loosest thinking and worst
writing known to history'. This book continues the tradition of
loose thinking and poor writing.
To improve research in the sector, researchers must avoid flawed
reasoning, bias, and deceit. This requires careful attention to
three issues:
1. Fallacies
It is important to avoid fallacies. Errors in reasoning lead to
mistaken or unjustified conclusions.
2. Unjustified assertions
A lack of reasoning altogether leads to unexplained and
unjustified assertions.
3. Sophistry
Solid research requires that we never use sophist argumentation.
Sophistry includes deliberate attempts to deceive or persuade
readers to the authors' position through false reasoning, bad
syllogism, and biased or manipulated evidence.
Unfortunately, Visualizing Research is comprehensively flawed by
all three problems: fallacies, unjustified assertions, and
sophistry. Gray and Malins use a typical argumentative tactic
throughout. First, they build a scenario to elicit sensible
agreement. Then, they introduce a series of distractions
(fallacies of distraction). Next, they shift the use of terms
(fallacies of equivocation and amphiboly). Finally, they use
false reasoning to build an argument based on the illusion of
sound evidence. The stratagem allows them to open with a
reasonable scenario that they transform through distraction and
a shift in meaning. This generally distracts the less than
careful reader. In this book, the sheer quantity of such
stratagems tends to anaesthetize even the most careful critic.
A quick review of the book reveals many pages that contain
between six and twelve serious problems. These include errors of
reasoning, faulty understanding of concepts, confusion and
conflation of concepts, flawed understanding of research
methods, incorrect description of research methods, and what
appears to be manipulation of cited source materials or bias in
choice of references. In some cases, it seems that the authors
intended to persuade readers to their views by deceit. It may
be, of course, that they do not know that they are practicing
forms of flawed reasoning that cross the line from manipulation
into deception.
The underlying problem seems to revolve around a process of
assumption. Gray and Malins first assume that visual art
practice is research. They build whatever arguments they can in
an attempt to post-rationalise their position by accumulating
evidence of any kind - valid or not - by any means, reasonable
or not.
They enable this strategy by redefining key research terms and
concepts in ways that differ from the way that most researchers
use them. Gray and Malins use such terms as 'analysis',
'argument', 'valid evidence', and 'research' in ways that few
serious researchers do, and this includes the growing number of
researchers in the art and design sector. Finally, Gray and
Malins derive support for their redefinitions by selectively
quoting a small number of authors. These techniques are used in
an attempt to indicate that many other researchers join Gray and
Malins on their incredible journey.
Gray and Malins use techniques of sophist manipulation taken
straight from the ancient Greek marketplace. This includes using
false syllogism to persuade the reader to the authors' view
without regard to the validity of syllogisms, reasoning, or the
validity of evidence and assumptions. The authors use a range of
techniques to distract and confuse readers in an effort to make
it seem that the authors have developed a fully justified,
reasoned argument when they have not done so. A broad and
critical view of the text as a whole suggests that this barrage
of tricks is intended to persuade readers without the time to
check carefully for false logic and weak evidence. Worse, yet,
it is aimed at readers new to research, readers who lack the
skill to check carefully for false logic and weak evidence, no
matter how much time they have.
Since this book is aimed at novice researchers, it should be
beyond reproach in these matters. It is not. The main sophist
technique used by the authors takes the reader from apparently
solid ground to false conclusions by subtle changes of meaning,
false arguments, and carefully selected references. These are
interposed with other material as a distraction, after which the
authors claim conclusions radically different from those that
would be logically deducible from the premises with which they
start each sophism.
Let us examine some of the main problematic issues:
Reasoning
While the authors briefly mention reasoning at several points,
this book contains little valid reasoning. Gray and Malins
describe reasoning as an essential foundation of the critical
thinking central to competent research. Beyond this, they omit
or ignore the role of valid reasoning in research and critical
thinking.
In Chapter 2, Gray and Malins state 'Critical thinking and
critical response are key postgraduate skills applicable across
the whole research process...' (p. 38). They also state 'The
critical thinker bases arguments on the use of evidence and
sound reasoning' (p. 39). For the remainder of the chapter, and
elsewhere in the book, there is a conspicuous absence of
reference or discussion of the central role of correct
reasoning, avoiding fallacies, rejecting sophistry in relation
to critical thinking, argument, intellectual standards, critical
writing, reflection, reviewing and analysing literature, and
writing up research. Instead, the authors focus on presentation
techniques that represent content without representing
reasoning.
Problematic redefinition of 'analysis'
The authors use the term 'analysis' in a very different way than
researchers generally use the term. To be fair, their use aligns
with the strict etymology of the term. In this etymology,
analysis involves breaking a whole into distinct parts, a
taxonometric view that is the opposite of synthesis. The 'new'
use of the term analysis in this book contrasts with the more
common research perspective in which 'analysis' refers to
developing a well-justified causal explanation of use by others.
The usual research meaning of 'analysis' depends heavily on the
use of valid reasoning. In contrast, the word is only weakly
related to reasoning as Gray and Malins use it.
Gray and Malins choose a taxonometric definition of analysis to
build support for the position that 'art practice is research'.
They do so because it allows them to claim that the researcher's
personal opinion with the advice of artistic peers is the
reference point for the valid analysis as the subjective choice
of 'which bits to break something into'. In practical terms,
they interpret analysis as being a judgemental or
comparison-based mechanism that filters data. This filters data
either with a 'sieve' that only lets some data through, or with
a 'lens' that only allows researchers to see some of the data
(pp. 130 - 133).
In chapter 5, Gray and Malins present their alternative
perspective on analysis and evaluation. Much of the book hinges
on this perspective. It is also the chapter in which loose
thinking, conflation and confusion of concepts, fallacies and
sophism are most significant. The central theme in chapter 5 is
an argument based on the excluded middle fallacy. In this
argument, the authors persistently suggest that analysis is a
process of personal judgement. They also suggest that analysis
and creative practice are identical. This chapter is notable for
a complete lack of discussion on the role of reasoning or the
study of causal relationships and explanations.
Gray and Malins attempt to argue the equivalence between
analysis and art practice based on shared properties using the
excluded middle fallacy. This, once again, is the cats are dogs
problem. In addition, they attempt to force the issue by
undertaking the same fallacious reasoning from several
directions. This is presumably based on another of their claims
that argument depends primarily on building the weight by
repeating and loading on claims without regard to the validity
or value of sources. At one point, they argue that analysis is
'creative construction' (p. 155). At another, they argue that
analysis is presentation (p. 144-155). There are multiple
fallacies evident in these arguments. To some extent, many
problems originate from deliberately conflating the process of
analysis required for research and the visual tools used to
represent data during and after analysis.
The authors never explain that their approach is at odds with
the extensive research literature in other disciplines. Perhaps
they do not know this literature. Whether they know the
literature or not, their approach combines a variety of
fallacies in explanation, definition, and motive in place of
reasoned argumentation. They support their problematic arguments
by distraction and sleight-of-hand.
Problematic redefinition of 'argument'
Where Gray and Malins' describe how to build an 'argument', they
ignore the role of valid reasoning in developing an arguable
position. Instead of using reasoning, they suggest that
researchers simply build up a weight of material. They propose
locating 'evidence' from wherever it can be found, selecting,
snipping, and reinterpreting it to make the case for whatever
conclusions the researcher wants to propose (see, for example,
pp. 164, 165). In effect, they argue that research in art and
design involves persuading the reader to the researcher's
viewpoint in the style of political manipulation. They
themselves use evidence in examples that make it apparent that
they propose weaker standards of validity than normal research
requires. They also propose weaker standards for avoiding bias.
They seem to do so on the possible notion that if an artist may
choose an artistic statement on purely subjective grounds, then
pure subjectivity is an equally valid method for determining or
avoiding bias.
Ignoring reasoning as a core research skill
While Gray and Malins give major space to providing new
researchers with guidance on key research skills, their advice
almost completely neglects reasoning skills. This is surprising
because the authors state that art and design students and
researchers are weak in such research skills as critical
reasoning. Elsewhere, they state that reasoning and critical
thinking are essential and central to research. Despite this,
they rarely link effective reasoning to the way they present
research methods and research skills.
Chapter 3 (pp. 66 - 91) focuses on the theoretical foundations
of research that lead to identifying research questions and
research methods, and to developing a research proposal. What is
described seems from the outset (p. 66) to be the basis for
undertaking an art project. There is little reference to theory,
or to earlier research findings.
Gray and Malins argue against the use of reasoning and normal
approaches to research when they claim that, 'Most research
questions in our [sic] discipline do not lend themselves to
easily quantifiable answers, and of course they usually cannot
be proved in the scientific sense.' They list six questions (p.
67) to argue that new visually based research approaches are
needed. These six questions do not support their claim. To the
contrary, researchers can address all six questions using
conventional and well-established scientific research
approaches. The questions suggest that the authors are unable to
distinguish between research skills as researchers practice them
and misinformed presentations about research by studio teachers
who do not themselves conduct research. All six questions read
like examination questions in a studio class rather than
research questions in research environment. For example, "What
kind of roles do artists take on in the public realm?'
At this point, Gray and Malins reveal that they do not
understand the issues they discuss. They do so when they claim
that 'the research questions that have been asked in art and
design research are invariably complex and multi-dimensional
...' (p. 67). In fact, a wide range of genuine research
questions involves simple, one-dimensional questions. These are
not major questions, and they may not be difficult questions,
but they involve genuine and serious contributions to knowledge
about materials, techniques, technology, reception,
comprehension, interaction, and many more aspects of art and
design. One must ask how researchers can hope to answer 'complex
and multi-dimensional' questions if they cannot answer simple,
one-dimensional questions, and when they cannot distinguish
between the two kinds of questions. To say that questions in art
and design are 'invariably complex and multi-dimensional' -
invariably! - is to say one of two things. One is to say that
that there are no other kinds of questions in art and design
research. The other is to say that such questions as finding a
specific kind of material for a specific application is
'invariably complex and multi-dimensional,' along with such
questions as the best software to use for a simple desk-top
publishing project, or the kind of paint required for a piece of
outdoor furniture in a specific climate. While these questions
may have more than one good answer, describing them as 'complex
and multi-dimensional' is hardly reasonable.
Elsewhere, Gray and Malins point out that describing scientific
research methods (p. 120) is beyond the scope of this book. This
concerns me on several counts. First, this modest exception is
relatively hidden in a short section at the middle of the book,
mixed in with other material. It leaves the reader with the
impression that research predominately comprises the approaches
described in the book. This is misleading to new researchers.
Second, this claim runs contrary to the authors' position that
they are outlining a new and yet not well-justified mode of
research inquiry. Third, the authors sometimes describe
inaccurately those methods they do describe. Fourth, the authors
actually do attempt to describe methods that involve the social
sciences. Such methods as naturalistic inquiry (p. 72), action
research (p. 74), soft systems (p. 75), and others mentioned
through the book have rich histories in social science,
engineering, information technology, information science, and
other fields. When it suits their purposes, Gray and Malins do
attempt to describe scientific research methods, however badly.
They attempt thereby to claim the prestige and rigour of science
when it suits their purposes. They specifically make claims to
rigour (p. 85). These claims taken together with other problems
of reasoning in the book mean that it will misdirect and confuse
new researchers. (While it will annoy experienced researchers,
experienced researchers are unlikely to use this book.)
Role of reasoning in avoiding faulty thinking
The authors avoid a central problem in their argument. Valid
reasoning should prevent a sharp descent into faulty thinking,
sophism, flawed evidence, and manipulation to win the agreement
of readers. Much supposed support for their position comes from
selectively quoting Chris Hart's (1998) guide to doing a
literature review in many situations outside that specific
context. Crucially, however, they avoid referring to Hart's
position that a key aspect of critical thinking requires
"Finding fault in an argument by identifying fallacies,
inadequacies, and lack of evidence or lack of plausibility"
(Hart, 1998, p. 176).
The lack of attention to valid reasoning leaves the reader
exposed to page after page of confused thinking, flawed
reasoning, and category confusions.
Gray and Malins build arguments on false assumptions. They give
little care to the validity of evidence. They use assumptions
without stating or discussing their assumptions in a reflective
and articulate way. They do not appear to understand the
well-established meaning of research terms and widely used
concepts. Worse still, they often define terms in one way, while
using those same terms in a way that contradicts their
definitions. These flaws are compounded by sophism in their
method of manipulative persuasion.
Misuse of the journey/travel metaphor
Throughout the book, the authors use the metaphor of a journey.
In one role, they use it to tie the book together as a document.
In another role, it underpins the central argument of the book
in an effort to support the claim that art practice is research.
Clarifying the confusion and conflation that the authors use to
disguise their real logic reveals the classical three-statement
fallacy of the excluded middle. (See, for example, Stephen
Downes's Guide to the Logical Fallacies:
http://datanation.com/fallacies/)
The ruling false syllogism of Visualizing Research takes this
form:
Statement 1: 'Research can be thought of in terms of a journey'.
AND
Statement 2: 'Art and design practice can be thought of in terms
of a journey'.
THEREFORE
Conclusion 3: 'Art and design practices are research'.
The conclusion is false. Sharing one common attribute does not
confer equivalence on all attributes. In this case, even the one
attribute is inferred from opinion.
This is one of the classic fallacies taught in secondary school
classes on reasoning skills. It is sophist reasoning if used
intentionally, incompetent reasoning if it is unintentional. In
this book, the fallacy spreads over many pages, combined with a
range of other fallacies, mainly fallacies of distraction.
The kind of false reasoning takes this form:
Statement 1: 'All cats have four legs'.
AND
Statement 2: 'All dogs have four legs'.
THEREFORE
Conclusion 3: 'All cats are dogs'.
This conclusion is false because many objects, including objects
that belong to entirely different categories such as tables and
chairs, share the property of 'having four legs'.
This kind of false reasoning, like many other examples in the
book, concerns me because the book is supposedly an example of
research skills for novice researchers. This suggests either
that the authors are not skilled in reasoning and analysis, or
else that they are deliberately trying to manipulate the reader
through sophism and invalid syllogism.
Fallacies of Explanation
In undertaking their proposal for defining a new form of
visualizing research, the authors entirely neglect arguments and
literatures that contradict their opinions. These contrary
arguments represent a strong current of discussion within the
design fields on conflating art-practice and research. They
represent an even stronger position in the wider research
community.
This omission shows two more forms of classic sophism and
fallacious techniques. The first is fallacy by exclusion,
ignoring contrary evidence or argument to the contrary of a
position. The second is the straw man fallacy, where the authors
ignore the main arguments that contradict their position,
addressing peripheral issues instead of core arguments.
Special Pleading
The authors base many of their arguments on the special pleading
that visually based art and design research is different to
other forms of research. For this reason, they argue, art and
design research need not meet the usual standards of research.
They suggest that because art and design research are different
from research in the natural sciences, the usual conventions of
research should not apply. They fail, of course, to state how
art and design research are unlike the many other disciplines
that differ from natural science. If research disciplines in
fields from theology and philosophy to sociology and literature
require rigorous research, why should art and design be
different in this regard? If research disciplines linked to
professional practice in medicine, law, biotechnology, or
engineering require rigorous research, why should this be
different for art and design?
In making their case, the authors appeal to sympathy, to
evidence from apparent unqualified authorities, biased selection
of sources, slippery slope arguments, prejudicial language, and
an appeal to popularity. This combines a range of fallacious
techniques, from false appeals to authority to using motives
rather than reasons, all muddied over by fallacies of
distraction.
Distilled to its essence, Gray and Malins develop three core
components for their special pleading:
1. Visually based art practice should be considered as research.
2. The usual criteria and standards of evidence and valid
reasoning required in other research disciplines need not apply
to art and design research.
3. Judgments about research quality should lie with the
researchers themselves and their fellow artists rather than with
independent research assessors.
Supervision
The book suggests that Gray and Malins have little awareness of
the important role of supervision in research education. There
is nearly no reference to the role of supervisors in this book,
apart from Mike Press's brief foreword. Press seems to claim
that the main role of a research supervisor is to 'build your
confidence' (pp. x-xii). The foreword is aptly titled: 'By way
of a foreword: "Alice is in Wonderland". Discuss'. The foreword
- as so much in this book - reminds one of studio class
discussion questions rather than research questions. In this
case, the discussion is close to Press's well-known conflation
of art and design research with the Star Trek space opera, 'It's
research, Jim, but not as we know it'.
Current research on research education shows that tightly
structured supervision is an important factor in achieving good
research training outcomes (see, for example, Sinclair, 2004).
This is particularly the case for students who come to research
programmes without a foundation in research skills or the
reasoning and the critical thinking skills that underpin
research. Some students come to research without the kinds of
background that prepare students for research training. This, by
definition, is the case for most students who come to art and
design research programmes from art and design studio
programmes. Where Gray and Malins discuss supervision, they
mainly use the term 'advisers', and they typically define
advisers as artistic peers with competence in visual skills
rather than competence in research training (e.g. pp. 84, 160).
A key issue in research training is moderating the standards for
degree awards across disciplines. Thus, we expect that a PhD
award in, say, environmental science or computer science be
moderated to much the same standard as a PhD in, say,
philosophy, history, or physics. Much of this moderation depends
on an international body of examiners and supervisors who are
skilled in research methods working across disciplines.
Visualizing Research is unclear on this point.
Gray and Malins never address a key problem. They never explain
how to moderate research awards relating to visually based
research fields when supervisors or 'advisers' are artistic
peers with few research skills or none.
Reasoning based on unjustified assumptions
At several points in the book, Gray and Malins build arguments
on unjustified assumptions. They base their reasoning on an
initial statement of the form 'A suggests B' (see p. 130,
regarding trustworthiness, or p. 168, regarding exposition), or
'one explanation of this phenomenon might be' (e.g. p. 101,
regarding methodological trailblazing). From this point, they
write as though the outcomes of the argument are fully
justified. This is a significant rupture of critical thinking
and research traditions.
While this confuses hypotheses with conclusions, it does fit
Gray and Malins' position on effective argument. An argument in
this book is anything that can persuade people to agree, and a
researcher may use any evidence in any way to persuade them.
This is not accepted in most research communities.
Lack of attention to 'necessary and sufficient' conditions
Most explanations require the criteria of 'necessary and
sufficient conditions'. This is an important basis for enabling
a reader to validate the steps of a reasoned argument.
Throughout the book, Gray and Malins ignore these criteria in
their argumentation. When authors give no attention to the
joined requirements of necessity and sufficiency, readers may
generally assume that the authors practice invalid or false
reasoning, either because they intend to delude the reader or
because they suffer from delusion.
Sophist manipulative techniques in building argument
Several sophist patterns of reasoning occur throughout the book.
These generally start with a statement that describes a
situation correctly in a valid and understated way that is
relatively hidden in the text. The authors then write as if
something different were true, writing in a widespread and
dominant way to build their claims on the dominant position
whilst referring to the fact that they have already written the
valid version.
An example of this occurs in the way that Gray and Malins define
methodology. Contrast, for example, their explicit definition of
differences between 'methodology' and 'method' on pages 17 and
18, and their almost immediate misuse of the term methodology,
in their own terms, from p. 18 onwards.
A second example appears where the authors state on one hand
that 'art' cannot fully state the complete details of the
artists reasoning and argument, while they implicitly assume on
the other hand that visual representations in many ways contain
reasoning.
A third example is the elision between 'portfolio as presenting
evidence of achievement from work-based or practice-based
projects' (p.163) and 'PhD evidence portfolio' (pp. 164-165).
The authors do this carelessly in research terms. This is a key
issue in terms of presenting evidence of research: they avoid
addressing the significant epistemological differences between
evidence and validity in the theory-based world of research
findings and the subjective and external worlds of created
objects and creative practices.
A fifth example is the use of sophist techniques of elision,
equivocation, amphiboly, and accent. Gray and Malins often do
this gradually, taking several paragraphs to shift the meaning
of a term, concept, or argument in two parallel paths of
discourse. This gives the illusion of valid reasoning to develop
an equivalence that supports their position. An example of the
technique follows:
Start Path 1: State that research uses research methods.
Start Path 2: State that art practice uses methods.
Sophist Transition: In both paths, start to use the term
'practice methods' as a substitute for 'research methods' and
'art practice methods'.
Sophist Transition: in both paths, omit the definitive prefixes
'research', 'art', and 'practice'.
Sophist transition: Continue to use the term 'methods' in
similar ways in the parallel paths while ignoring the fact that
they refer to ontologically and epistemologically different
entities.
Use a supporting distraction: A typical example of distraction
in Gray and Malins involves a side step citing respected sources
that state that research sometimes requires creative steps.
Sophist transition connecting the two paths: Make the tentative
statement that art-practice methods are used as part of
research. An example of this is providing evidence to which
research data collection and research analysis methods will be
applied. This brings two sets of incommensurate concepts
together by using the same terminology. This will enable the
authors to conflate them.
Use a supporting distraction: The specific nature of the
distraction is irrelevant as long as it distracts the reader,
reduces attention, and disturbs the memory.
Make Claim: Claim that art-practice methods are research methods
for research relating to art-practice.
There are many examples of sophist method in the book, for
example, several modes of elision and similar problematic
techniques are found across pages 26 to 32. This starts with an
unjustified assumption that awarded PhDs are evidence of a valid
research perspective; that conflates the concepts of 'argument'
and 'evidence'; conflates 'art practices' and 'research
methods'; elides from the role of art practice as a source of
research problems to unjustified claims that art practices (per
se) are analytical tools to arts methods are research methods to
sensory perception is research data. By page 32, the authors
have got to the point of claiming that there is a process of
inquiry that places '[art] practice and the [art] practitioner
at the very heart of research' This is part of a larger sophist,
fallacious path arguing that art practices are research. This is
played out using similarly problematic rhetoric in the following
five chapters.
False reasoning through false appeal to authority
Gray and Malins often use a false appeal to authority to support
their arguments. They do this through selective use of evidence,
use of partial quotations, occasionally by reworking material
from other writers to support their own claims.
On my second reading of the book, I realised it was important to
check original sources carefully where the authors use quotation
they claim is 'based on' the work of others. An example occurs
in appendices that quote Scottish Postgraduate education
material that have apparently been modified to support Gray and
Malins in their views.
The appendices also demonstrate an additional point. Quoted
material is used and chosen in a biased fashion. Material on the
same topic from a different research council such as the EPSRC
would have gone against the Gray and Malins position.
False reasoning and sophist manipulation using category
confusion and conceptual conflation
The book is marked by category confusions that create illusory
bridges across epistemologically different discourses. Sometimes
these appear deliberate, some may simply be incompetent.
For example, 'content' is confused and conflated with 'process';
'analysis' is confused and conflated with 'presentation' (e.g.
pp. 151, 152, 154, 170, 171); 'perspective' confused with
'analysis' (p. 154); 'analogy' confused with identical theory
models (p. 154); and 'concept maps' are confused with
unambiguous theory (p. 100). This confusion and conflation,
deliberate or otherwise, is basic to much of the sophist and
false reasoning in this book.
Another example occurs where 'research method' is first used to
mean 'method of data collection'. It is later transformed into
'research methodology', defined at one point as 'the study of
research methods'. Still later, the authors transformed this
into 'anything that the candidate does in their research'. Later
still, the authors drop the term 'research' altogether, changing
the primary focus of reference to the candidate's 'methodology',
which they next transform into 'the candidate's methods'. This
last transformation enables the claim that research consists of
'art-practice methods that primarily focus on creative
thinking'.
Validation of research by personal opinion
In a category-confused discussion of logic and reasoning, the
authors argue that the processes of logic and careful reasoning
in research are identical to the innovative creative thinking of
an artist. Therefore, they claim that the validity of research
is secured and justified by the creative subjective opinions of
the researcher and his or her artistic peers. This claim that
validity depends on the researcher's subjective judgement is in
sharp contrast with normal research practice in which validation
is undertaken objectively though a formal process. In normal
research processes, validation is grounded on checks for valid
reasoning and valid evidence. It uses the necessary and
sufficient role of logical steps that directly connect the
evidence through continuous, valid reasoning and pathways that
link premises, processes, and conclusions.
Gray and Malins' claim that validity is or depends on the
subjective opinion of the researcher conforms to their
overarching assumption that art practices are research. It
conflicts, however, with Gray and Malins' other position that
validity depends on reasoning (p. 39).
Sophist techniques to parry criticism
A cynic might argue that some material in the book is designed
to provide the authors with a way to parry criticism of the
sophism and false reasoning found in the text. In reading the
book, I often felt that many elements were positioned for use as
'escape clauses'. They obfuscate and confuse the text to protect
the authors against challenges to the underlying claim that
art-practice should be considered research. The parrying
approach is illustrated by the kind of dual argument in some of
the earlier examples. The primary argument is that 'validity
depends on the researcher's opinion'. The protecting argument to
deflect criticism is the short earlier note that 'critical
thinking depends on reasoning'.
From this viewpoint, the goal of protecting the authors against
criticism seems to be the reason for many problems. These
include selective quotation, false quotation, biased
interpretation, false logic, flawed logic, and the ongoing lack
of attention to reasoning. They also include motivational
pleading for special conditions on subsidiary aspects of the
argument that art practice is research. The authors use these to
support their restructured meaning of the concept of research.
All along, Gray and Malins omit any discussion of complex
arguments that would contradict their key points. They use
elision and manipulation to support their point, whilst
including material that contradicts the main thrust of their
arguments while minimizing its conceptual importance in the
text.
Conclusion
This book attempts to make a case for a new visually based
approach to research.
The problem in the presentation of this approach is that this
book is compromised throughout by errors of reasoning. The book
is further tainted by sophist techniques of persuasion.
Both of these are problematic. Both compromise the book in its
intended role as a textbook for new students. It is unsuited to
the stated use as a textbook on research where sound reasoning
and avoidance of sophism are essential skills. Both suggest that
new researchers and postgraduate students should not use this
book as a guide to research. They might study it for examples of
faulty reasoning of the sort that will not earn a research
degree, unless they can find examiners with deficient reasoning
skills!
The impression that Gray and Malins' Visualizing Research
communicates is that the omission of reasoning reflects a blind
spot in the authors' understanding of the key role of reasoning
in all aspects of research. Perhaps this blind spot is the basis
for the extraordinary lengths the authors go to in using faulty
rhetoric to persuade readers, when the arguments are so
obviously open to charges of fallacy and sophistry.
My deepest personal concern here is the adverse influence of
this book on the design research field. Students who use this
book as the basis of research training will compromise their
opportunities for careers in design research, and in turn, they
will compromise the design research field.
This book is unsuitable as a supervision text. It offers highly
compromised examples of research, and much here is insufficient
to support a research degree.
This raises deep questions in a book aimed at new researchers
who do not yet have the critical thinking skills to identify the
errors, manipulations, elisions, and examples of false reasoning
that underpin the claims and proposals in this book. Gray and
Malins ask research students to risk compromising their research
careers, wasting time and resources on an inadequate and
problematic new form of practice that the authors claim as
research. They make this claim in spite of widespread critical
concerns about the notion that 'art practice' is equivalent to
'research'.
The problems of false reasoning and sophism in the book extend
further. They cast a shadow over the completed PhD theses Gray
and Malins put forward as examples of good research. While some
of the theses offered as examples have nothing to do with Gray
and Malins, others do, including theses that are marked by the
same problems that typify this book.
The book does have one important virtue. It reminds examiners
concerned with research quality to check a candidate's
references. One useful check is to see whether they have used
this text.
-- Reviewed by Terence Love
Copyright (c) 2006 Terence Love
References
Hart, C. (1998). Doing a literature review: Releasing the social
science research imagination. London: Sage.
Sinclair, M. (2004). The Pedagogy of 'Good' PhD Supervision: A
National Cross-Disciplinary Investigation of PhD Supervision.
Canberra: Australian Government Dept of Education, Science and
Training and the Faculty of Education and Creative Arts, Central
Queensland University.
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
DESIGN RESEARCH SOCIETY
The Design Research Society is the multi-disciplinary
international learned society for the design research community.
DRS was founded in 1966, and since then has established a
record of significant achievements in contributing to design
knowledge.
DRS has facilitated an international design research network in
40 countries comprising members who maintain contact through the
publications and activities of the Society. Members are drawn
from diverse backgrounds, not only from the traditional areas of
design, ranging from fine art to engineering, but also from
subjects like psychology and computer science.
Our interests include:
o recognising design as a creative act common to many
disciplines
o understanding research and its relationship with education
and practice
o advancing the theory and practice of design
We realise these by:
o encouraging the development of scholarship and knowledge in
design
o contributing to the development of doctoral education and
research training
o sharing knowledge across the boundaries of design disciplines
o facilitating networks to exchange and communicate ideas,
experience and research findings among members
o disseminating research findings
o promoting awareness of design research
o organising and sponsoring conferences, and publishing
proceedings
o encouraging communications between members internationally
o responding to consultative documents
o collaborating with other bodies
o lobbying on behalf of members' research interests
o recognising excellence in design research through awards
o sponsoring email discussion groups and a monthly emailed
newsletter
Membership of DRS provides:
o regular communications about research activities worldwide
o reduced subscription to a range of research journals
o reduced fees to DRS sponsored events
o representation of the design research community and members'
interests
o a means of identifying and contacting other members
o an opportunity to contribute to the international design
research community
For further details and to join online:
http://designresearchsociety.org
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
SERVICES OF THE DESIGN RESEARCH SOCIETY
o Design Research News is the digital newsletter of the
Design Research Society. It communicates news about
research throughout the world. It is mailed automatically
at the beginning of each month and is free. You may
subscribe and unsubscribe at the following site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/design-research.html
o Design Research Quarterly is a newsletter sent via
email to full members of the Design Research Society. It
includes news of interest to members. This is currently
under redevelopment, and will be aunched in September 2006.
o PHD-DESIGN is a discussion list open for unmoderated
discussion on all matters related to the PhD in design.
Topics include philosophies and theories of design, research
methods, curriculum development, and relations between
theory and practice. You may subscribe and unsubscribe at
the following site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/phd-design.html
o DRS is a discussion list open for unmoderated discussion
on all matters related to design research. You may
subscribe and unsubscribe at the following site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/drs.html
o Design Studies is the International Journal for Design
Research in Engineering, Architecture, Products and Systems,
which is published in co-operation with the Design Research
Society.
DRS members can subscribe to the journal at special rates.
http://www.elsevier.nl/locate/inca/30409/
o Full information about the Design Research Society may
be found at:
http://www.designresearchsociety.org
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
CONTRIBUTIONS
Information to the editor, Professor David Durling, Middlesex
University UK. <[log in to unmask]>
Book information and suggestions for reviews should be sent to
the book review editor Professor Ken Friedman, Norwegian School
of Management, Oslo, and Denmark's Design School.
<[log in to unmask]>
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
|
