Dear Paul,
Terry wrote:
'Typically, communities of researchers and practitioners in particular
areas of design have to date been extremely parochial. As a result
there has been little awareness of the advances in design research
overall and a relative weakness in the field's development.'
I like to see these various efforts at putting the field of design
research into perspective although at the end of the day the comfort
they provide is always going to be short lived. The overriding message
is that things are a bit messy and are likely to stay that way. However,
this doesn't worry me the way it does some people.
Rorty's opening remarks in his latest collection of philosophical papers
observes that philosophy suffers in the same way (and always has). For
purely practical reasons not every researcher is able to engage in the
larger conversation about where their field of research is going, nor do
they all need to. There is plenty to do in any interesting, well-framed
area of research to keep the researcher busy, productive and
contributing in a useful way. The purposeful crossing of one or two
so-called boundaries in a research career is a good thing. And in due
course the very experienced may start to get a broader perspective on
where the field has been, where it is and where it might be going.
The kind of defensiveness Terry refers to certainly has no place in a
good researcher's practice. The political reality is, of course, that
most junior researchers are in very insecure posts and kept on a pretty
tight rein by slightly more senior researchers who have barely enough
funding to survive from year to year, which is just the kind of
situation that breeds defensiveness. However, that is not the result of
parochialism as such. Many people are aware of the narrowness of their
interests, abilities and opportunities, accept the contingency of their
situation, and do what they can to get along with others.
The idea of timelines and trajectories is fine as long as you are
prepared for the rather tangled and fuzzy picture that is likely to
emerge. My advice is not to look too hard for a direction to design
research in general. We need to surprise ourselves more than that would
allow - pro tem goals, yes; ambitions that are never realised because
something better happens, yes; a loose framework that allows for
shifting and rather blurred boundaries between areas of research
activity, yes. In my view the very messiness of the design research
field is a strength not a weakness.
With best wishes in this season of good will.
Geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Terence
Sent: 18 December 2007 06:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Research?
Dear Paul,
You ask 'Just where is design research going?'. It is perhaps worth
considering it in terms of time-lines and trajectories of development of
different areas of design research.
Design research has been advancing in radically different timeframes in
different areas. Design areas are also dependent on each other in
complex ways. This has been relatively hidden unless you research across
design areas.
Typically, communities of researchers and practitioners in particular
areas of design have to date been extremely parochial. As a result
there has been little awareness of the advances in design research
overall and a relative weakness in the field's development. This adverse
situation has been reinforced by the defensiveness that comes with
parochialism. Many designers and are upset and defensive when they hear
of advances in other design areas that go beyond their own.
Some broad brush characteristics of the development of design research
over the last 50 years:
1. Productivity of design activity and manufacturing, and has been
massively improved as result of design research - mainly and initially
in the areas of engineering and business system design.
* Times to market are around 1/4 of what they were
* Business productivity is up
* Time lag between events and business feedback is around 1/4 of
values in the 1950s
* Graphics and industrial design teams only require around 1/4 of the
staff
* Output quality of designed products systems, services, documents
and organisations has improved
* Design research has meant that current designers do not have to be
so skilled or creative
2. Some areas of design have been able to piggy back on earlier
research.
For example:
* Graphic design software (Quark, Adobe etc) has emerged from early
design research to improve business systems productivity and engineering
design outcomes.
* Industrial design and web design has built on early work in
ergonomics research and research into collaborative multi-discipline
design teams
* Engineering design has benefited from the Art and Design research
focus on human issues relating to meaning and it's drawing and
reformulating philosophical analyses of Saussure, Pierce, Dewey,
Husserl, etc.
3. Much design research (and design) is marching order work, E.g. :
* Much of the near future of mechatronics design can be guessed at
because it is a filling out of a design territory
* Much of Corporate image design can be similarly predicted
* Much of Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 design and design research can be
predicted as it is effectively defined by XML.
4. Most areas of design research have a deep dependence on the systems
research field:
* Design research in the areas of control systems underpins most
complex design work
* Systems research relating to social systems offers considerable
benefits for design research into designing of complex systems involving
people.
Mostly this is seen with hindsight where designers and design
researchers produce faulty designs because they haven't used this
material.
* Organization design research builds directly on systems research for
example of Deming and Senge
* Environmental design, design research in relation to ecology and
saving the world are tightly coupled to systems research. For example,
the classic book 'Limits to Growth' that identified that resources were
finite derived from a large systems dynamics model.
Where design research is going to depends on where you are standing, how
much of it you see and whether you are at the sharp end or somewhere
further back. The differences are significant.
An example, many design schools are teaching web 2.0 and interactive
media design as a relatively new professional skill. A year ago, I was
at a Digital Ecosystems conference in which delegates and presenters
viewed Web 3.0 as already 'old hat'. It is. The working group designing
its core technology, RDF, completed their business in 2004. Service
Oriented Architectures (SOAs) Potentially, RDF will radically change how
we view the web and the distribution of power and, hopefully, relegate
XML and Xhtml back to their original roles as page description
languages. The sharp end of design research is in front of RDF and
designing the kinds of world that is possible.
Similar differences can be found in most areas of design research,
Health springs to mind.
Where is design research going? Very fast into unknown territories in
some cases. Nowhere in others.
Thoughts?
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
Of Rodgers, Paul
Sent: Friday, 14 December 2007 7:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design Research?
Dear List Members,
Apologies for cross posting.
I am currently writing a short article for New Design magazine
(http://www.newdesignmagazine.co.uk/index.html) on the subject of design
research.
I would like to canvas opinions from list members on this subject. I
would obviously like to include these opinions in the article but I am
also happy to make them anonymous if you wish.
On the subject of design research in general and design conferences in
particular, Professor David Durling has recently stated:
"Though peer review and presentation of good and interesting papers is a
prerequisite for me, the real enjoyment of conferences is meeting
people, debating, and making contacts."
DESIGN RESEARCH NEWS Volume 12 Number 11 November 2007 ISSN 1473-3862,
DRS Digital Newsletter
Having attended and presented at 3 design conferences since August 2007
I am wondering where we, as design researchers, are going as a
discipline. It is always good, as David Durling has stated, to meet old
and new contacts and discuss ideas, share interests and so on.
However, are we really developing new forms of knowledge and
understanding in the field? Do we give ourselves enough time to write,
present, listen, think, interpret, reflect and engage with other
researchers in this frantic world of design conference after design
conference?
Perhaps the following questions (and you may have your own) might
stimulate some discussion:
Just where is design research going?
Does design research help (for practitioners, educators, other
researchers)?
Are standards being upheld in design research?
Are there too many design conferences? Or simply not enough?
Does design research help you in your work? If so how?
What are the questions we as design researchers should be addressing or
investigating in the near future?
I appreciate any opinions on this subject and look forward to receiving
your replies.
Best regards,
Paul
Dr Paul A. Rodgers
Reader in Design
School of Creative Industries
Napier University
Merchiston Campus
10 Colinton Road
Edinburgh
EH10 5DT
Scotland
UK
t: 00 44 (0)131 455 2313/2678
f: 00 44 (0)131 455 2292
e: [log in to unmask]
w: http://www.napier.ac.uk/sci
This message is intended for the addressee(s) only and should not be
read, copied or disclosed to anyone else outwith the University without
the permission of the sender.
It is your responsibility to ensure that this message and any
attachments are scanned for viruses or other defects. Napier University
does not accept liability for any loss or damage which may result from
this email or any attachment, or for errors or omissions arising after
it was sent. Email is not a secure medium. Email entering the
University's system is subject to routine monitoring and filtering by
the University.
|
