Friends,

The thread that Chris Kueh launched with his query on architectural
design research has been interesting and informative. The posts by Gavin
Melles, Cameron Tonkinwise, Harold Nelson, and other pointed me to
sources I did not know. Ben’s note on Christopher Frayling’s relatively
inaccessible paper deserve a separate comment, so I’ll return with
thoughts on that later.

Here, I want to follow up on David Sless’s useful note on investigative
practice.

David raises an important point that all professions engage in
investigative practice to undertake professional assignments. I’ve been
using the distinction between clinical research, applied research, and
basic research. In doing so, I’ve located the diagnostic arts under
clinical research. Perhaps there is a valuable affordance in the
distinction between clinical research and investigative practice. This
deserves reflection.

At the same time that this thread brings forward useful information, I
have the sense that some of the crucial issues have already been
considered in depth during earlier debates on this list and in
conferences and useful journal issues. A trawl through the list archives
and the archives of DRS list where we formerly held debates will reveal
some of these threads. Members of the Design Research Society will also
find some very good material in the La Clusaz conference proceedings,
and in the bibliographies supporting the conference papers.

For the purposes of this thread, I’d like to shed a little light on the
nature of research.

Webster’s Dictionary defines research with elegant simplicity. The noun
dates from 1577: “re·search noun Pronunciation: ri-’s&rch,
‘rE-”Etymology: Middle French recerche, from recerchier to
investigate thoroughly, from Old French, from re- + cerchier to search
-- more at SEARCH Date: 1577 1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious
inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation
aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted
theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of
such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information
about a particular subject. (Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1002; see also:
ARTFL Webster’s 1913: 1224; Britannica Webster’s 2008: unpaged; OED
Online 2008: unpaged; SOED 1993: 2558; Wordsmyth 2008: unpaged).

The verb emerged in 1593. As a transitive verb, it means “to search or
investigate exhaustively” or “to do research for” something, as to
research a book. The intransitive verb means, “to engage in research
(Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1002; see also sources above).

As the dictionaries note (Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1002; see others), the
word research is closely linked to the word and concept of search in
general. Webster’s defines the word search this way: “Middle English
cerchen, from Middle French cerchier to go about, survey, search, from
Late Latin circare to go about, from Latin circum round about -- more at
CIRCUM- Date: 14th century transitive senses 1 : to look into or over
carefully or thoroughly in an effort to find or discover something: as a
: to examine in seeking something <searched the north field> b : to look
through or explore by inspecting possible places of concealment or
investigating suspicious circumstances c : to read thoroughly : CHECK;
especially : to examine a public record or register for information
about <search land titles> d : to examine for articles concealed on the
person e : to look at as if to discover or penetrate intention or nature
2 : to uncover, find, or come to know by inquiry or scrutiny -- usually
used with out intransitive senses 1 : to look or inquire carefully
<searched for the papers> 2 : to make painstaking investigation or
examination” (Merriam-Webster’s 1993: 1059; see others).”

Many aspects of design involve search and research together. It is
helpful to consider this issue in terms of a triad formed by the
concepts of clinical research, basic research, and applied research.
This shapes a dynamic milieu closer to the reality of professional
practice than the common dyadic division between basic research and
applied research. While the dyadic division may suffice for some natural
sciences, it is not adequate for understanding research in the technical
and social sciences or the professions they support.

Basic research involves a search for general principles. These
principles are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of
situations and cases. Basic research generates theory on several levels.
This may involve macro level theories covering wide areas or fields,
midlevel theories covering specific ranges of issues or micro level
theories focused on narrow questions. Truly general principles often
have broad application beyond their field of original, and their
generative nature sometimes gives them surprising predictive power.

Applied research adapts the findings of basic research to classes of
problems. It may also involve developing and testing theories for these
classes of problems. Applied research tends to be midlevel or micro
level research. At the same time, applied research may develop or
generate questions that become the subject of basic research.

Clinical research involves specific cases. Clinical research applies the
findings of basic research and applied research to specific situations.
It may also generate and test new questions, and it may test the
findings of basic and applied research in a clinical situation. Clinical
research may also develop or generate questions that become the subject
of basic research or applied research.

Any of the three frames of research may generate questions for the other
frames. Each may test the theories and findings of other kinds of
research. It is important to note that clinical research generally
involves specific forms of professional engagement. In the rough and
tumble of daily practice, most design practice is restricted to clinical
research. There isn’t time for anything else. 

In today’s complex environment, a designer must identify problems,
select appropriate goals, and realize solutions. Because so much design
work takes place in teams, a senior designer may also be expected to
assemble and lead a team to realize goals and solutions. 

Designers work on many levels. The designer is an analyst who discovers
or selects problems, a synthesist who helps to solve problems, and a
generalist who understands the range of talents that must be engaged to
realize solutions. The designer is a leader who organizes teams when one
range of talents is not enough. Moreover, the designer is a critic whose
post-solution analysis ensures that the right problem has been solved.
Each of these tasks may involve working with research questions. All of
them involve interpreting or applying some aspect or element that
research discloses. 

The difficulty in conflating practice to research comes in the value of
distinguishing what we seek to know and understanding what we do to know
it.

It is in this sense thast some of us question the idea of “design as
research.”

The problem is articulating the metanarrative of research. That is,
stating what we seek to know, describing the steps and choices we take
in investigating problems and finding answers. Much of what I’ve seen
presented under the rubric of “design as research” fails on this count. 

There is also the question of rigor. Per Galle points to a valuable
paper by Michael Biggs and Daniela Buchler based on Michael’s
presentation at the Design Research Society Rising Stars meeting a few
years back.

More than this, there is the issue of publication that renders the
research useful to others. What we seek and find for ourselves
constitutes study. Most design practice – including architectural
practice – falls into this category. The artifact that results is a
design product or output, not a research product or output.

It was recently can read an artifact or blueprint, the artifact or blueprint itself
constitutes publication. This is unsatisfactory: the artifact itself
tells us nothing about the metanarrative or research, it does not
represent the choices, nor does it allow us to understand the research
problem involved. 

While I have been accused of “privileging the text” in taking this
position, I’m going to plead guilt by necessity. Research is a human
thought process. Since we cannot communicate thinking by telepathy, only
explicit words communicate research issues.

While Nigel Cross argues for the concept of designerly ways of knowing,
he does not support the notion of design as research. Quite the
contrary.

Nigel has long held the position that the category of research by design
or research as design has ben entirely fruitless. He asserts that this
position has produced no visible results to date. Around the time that
Christopher Frayling published his 1993 paper, Nigel wrote the first of
two editorials in Design Studies on the theme of research by design.

In his editorial, Nigel (Cross 1993: 226-7) points out the distinctions
between practice and research and the value of connecting research to
teaching and to practice.

In a second editorial two years later, Nigel notes how little progress
had been made in research by design over the two years between 1993 and
1995. He writes that part of the problem involves the claim that “works
of design are also works of research” (Cross 1995: 2).

Nigel (Cross 1995: 3) states that the best examples of design research
are: purposive, inquisitive, informed, methodical, and communicable.
This requires articulation and shared knowledge within and across the
field. This, again, requires articulate communication of explicit
knowledge. In 1999, Nigel addressed this issue yet again in a debate on
research methods in design.

Looking back over the failed efforts of the past decade to produce valid
examples of research by design, Cross (1999: unpaged) wrote, “. . . as I
said in my Editorial in 1995, I still haven’t seen much strong evidence
of the output from the ‘research for and through design’ quarters. Less
of the special pleading and more of the valid, demonstrable research
output might help.”

Now it could be that Nigel has revised his views on the notion of
research as design, but he has not said so yet in public. 

These are serious issues. One of the crucial problems we face in our
field involves finding ways to incorporate the findings of design
practice into research, along with finding ways to translate research
back into effective practice. We also need ways to work effectively with
the different kinds of research and the contributions they can make to
design as a field, and to the larger stock of human knowing.

Renaming design as research has not helped us to achieve either goal. 

Yours,

Ken


References

ARTFL Webster’s. 1913. Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (G & C.
Merriam Co., 1913, edited by Noah Porter). ARTFL (Project for American
and French Research on the Treasury of the French Language). Chicago:
Divisions of the Humanities, University of Chicago. URL:
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/forms_unrest/webster.form.html. Date
accessed: 2007 September 18.

Biggs, Michael A. R., and Daniela Büchler. 2007. “Rigor and
practice-based research.” Design Issues, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 62-69.

Britannica Webster’s. 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online.
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Online edition. Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. URL: http://www.britannica.com/. Date
accessed: 2008 September 18.

Cross. Nigel. 1993. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 14, No. 3, 1993, pp.
226-227. 

Cross. Nigel. 1995. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995, pp.
2-3.

Cross. Nigel. 1999. “Subject: Re: Research into, for and through
designs.” DRS. Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:43:18 +0000.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary.
Tenth editOED. 2008. OED Online. Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. J. A. Simpson and
E. S. C. Weiner. 2nd ed, 1989. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Oxford
University Press. URL: http://dictionary.oed.com/. Date accessed: 2008
September 18.
 
SOED. 1993. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Edited by Lesley
Brown. Oxford: Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press.

Wordsmyth. 2008. The Wordsmyth Educational Dictionary-Thesaurus. [WEDT].
Robert Parks, ed. Chicago: Wordsmyth Collaboratory. URL:
http://www.wordsmyth.net/. Date accessed: 2008 September 18.




Ken Friedman
Professor, Ph.D., Dr.Sci. (hc), FDRS

Dean, Swinburne Design
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia

+61 3 92.14.64.49 Telephone Swinburne

email: [log in to unmask]


-----
Swinburne University of Technology
CRICOS Provider Code: 00111D

NOTICE
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and intended only for
the use of the addressee. They may contain information that is
privileged or protected by copyright. If you are not the intended
recipient, any dissemination, distribution, printing, copying or use is
strictly prohibited. The University does not warrant that this e-mail
and any attachments are secure and there is also a risk that it may be
corrupted in transmission. It is your responsibility to check any
attachments for viruses or defects before opening them. If you have
received this transmission in error, please contact us on +61 3 9214
8000 and delete it immediately from your system. We do not accept
liability in connection with computer virus, data corruption, delay,
interruption, unauthorised access or unauthorised amendment.

Please consider the environment before printing this email.