Dear all,
Just a footnote to Ken's very detailed post. As I (perhaps regrettably)
introduced Frayling to this particular thread, I feel obliged to offer a
comment.
I largely agree with many of Ken's points, and I appreciate the distinction
between tacit knowledge (or knowing) and knowledge of other stripes (of
which there are many). Not all knowledge nor its acquisition, nor its
dissemination, earns what we would ordinarily label research, and I too
would argue against their conflation.
I read Frayling a little differently than Ken, though. (Although I have my
own problems with Frayling's paper, and subsequent discussions that appear
to follow similar trails of thought, that is not the occasion for this
post). In my copy of his paper Frayling actually lists several examples of
"research through design", each of which would, I suspect, pass muster in
most peoples' books of what constitutes research. They are, to quote:
"€ materials research - such as the titanium sputtering or colorization of
metals projects successfully completed in the metalwork and jewellery
departments at the College and Camberwel1, in association with Imperial
College of Science & Technology (partnerships are very useful, in this area
of research).
€ development work - for example, customising a piece of technology to do
something no one had considered before, and communicating the results. A
recent example: the Canon colour photocopier at the Royal College of Art,
successfully used by some postgraduate illustration students, who have both
exhibited and written up the results.
€ action research - where a research diary tells, in a step-by-step way, of
a practical experiment in the studios, and the resulting report aims to
contextualise it, Both the diary and the report are there to communicate the
results, which is what separates research from the gathering of reference
materials.
Kenneth Agnew has recently and wisely written that research through the
design of products has been Œhindered by the lack of any fundamental
documentation of the design process which produced them. Too often, at best,
the only evidence is the object itself, and even that evidence is
surprisingly ephemeral. Where a good sample of the original product can
still be found, it often proves to be enigmatic.¹
These types of research resemble Herbert Read's 'teaching through art' - so
long as we're clear about what is being achieved and communicated through
the activities of art, craft or design."
I am sympathetic to Ken's argument against some current movements in design
research, and against the eagerness with which some would embrace design
practice unaltered as research, or as constituting research contributions in
and of themselves. These are things we are right to question, I think. And
while I think Frayling's discussion is misleading in several respects, I'm
not sure that Frayling was trying to, in Ken's words 'establish possible new
research categories', nor do I think he was all that unclear about what
kinds of things he thought were examples of research through it. Ken is
right that he doesn't provide an operationalized definition (though in my
book that might be considered a virtue :-)), but these examples are quite
clear. I think Frayling suggests that he is trying to characterise research
practices that were already in existence. (Interestingly, Frayling thought
that research FOR design was the thorny issue, not research through design).
Yet I agree with Ken that many have since mistaken the label 'research
through design' for things that are quite unlike the examples Frayling gives
here, and that may be due to the fact that few have read his piece. I also
think Erik's point that design and research are assessed by very different
criteria is valuable here.
This has been quite the explosive thread. I look forward to reading the
other contributions and Chris' summary.
Kind regards,
Ben
Frayling C. 1993. Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research
Papers 1, p. 5
--
Ben Matthews
Associate Professor
Mads Clausen Institute
University of Southern Denmark
|
