Dear Mark, and others,

In respect to what you are writing :

> As a point of clarification, I was only referring to researchers  
> that undertake creative practice as part of their PhD. I do not  
> have an issue with anyone investigating the practice of others. It  
> is researchers doing the designing that I find problematic.

wouldn't it be possible to use what researchers on the "practice of  
others" have studied as a ground for defining what is the research  
side of a practitionner ? (or : of a given formal project, I would say).

Note that this is not an easy task. I remember having been flamed in  
a conference when I presented (probably in a very confusing way) an  
attempt to formalize what was researched in various types of drawings  
(what made them "diagrammatic"). My starting point was very simple  
(being a simple mind from this planet earth) : "is there anything  
that could suggest, if I find a set of sketches of Matisse in  
Tangiers, whether he is an architect or a painter".
Yet, that small study (and a few others) helped me to find criteria  
that could clarify my understanding of what is the research topic  
within a given project of a given practitionner. This is to say that  
not all projects, even from the same designer/architect/ artist etc.  
are research. Some of them (a few) can be. And not necessarily at the  
place where one (and even the author) believe it might be.

Hope it helps ?

Jean