Hi all,
I'm pleased that the distinction between routine investigation and
research is useful, and that there is a recognition of the dangers of
conflating these two. I'd like to add two qualifications.
An interesting paradox:
One of our routine discoveries, during routine investigation, is that
something unexpected always happens. One of the questions we always
ask ourselves after a routine investigation, is 'what struck you?',
'what did you observe that you were not expecting to happen?'
Unlike the tightly controlled environment of scientific investigation,
where you can only test for something you expect to find, our work is
in the much less controllable, permeable, and non-predictable realm of
human action. So the unexpected always happens, and this can lead onto
something that might be described as research.
Invisible research:
There is a type of investigation that goes on at the interface between
designers and the public they serve which is not only in a constant
state of flux, but necessarily takes place in realm outside that of
conventional research.
I'm referring to the emergence of rules from practice. As a specific
example consider the various rules of layout and usage on the
internet. Some of these rules come out of the earlier rules for layout
and usage of print, but some rules are specific to the internet.
As a simple example, the rule about how to show a hyperlink, and then
how to use such a link, is still being developed. The investigation of
such rules takes place at the interface between designers and internet
usersthe to and fro of conversation. The rules emerge out of the
conversation, and eventually become formalised in style guides.
I think this is a kind of research by design, and it does lead to a
kind of shared knowledge. At the very least, designers play a critical
role in this collaborative research. They often create new rules and
rule systems for 'testing' at the interface between design and people,
and they get called upon to articulate the rules, through style
guides, so that others can apply them.
I suspect that to many, particularly in the academy, this type of
research is invisible and unvalued. It should not be so.
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO Communication Research Institute
helping people communicate with people
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
60 Park Street Fitzroy North Melbourne Australia 3068
On 20/09/2008, at 8:41 AM, Harold Nelson wrote:
> Dear Ken and Ranulph
>
> In relationship to your dialogue around the kind of relationship
> that exists between design and research, I have found the seminal
> book by C. West Churchman, The Design of Inquiring Systems (1971,
> Basic Books, NY) to be a great jumping off place. Although his
> examples are inquiring systems whose expected outcomes are truth
> focused I have found the fundamental idea of designing inquiry as
> compelling in other cases as well.
>
> Harold
|