Dear Colleagues,

As you know, I am very often a dissenter. I apologize for this. 

If we treat design practice as a method for collecting data, then any other practices, including everyday practices, can be treated as methods for collected data. This annuls the very concept of a method for data collection. Practice is a setting in which data are collected, even when data are collected with the purpose to achieve the objectives of the practice situation. The situation is not a data collection method for itself and by itself. Rather, it is the setting that provides the objectives for the research effort and guides the research focus by defining the information requirements. The data are collected with particular data collection methods. These methods can by layperson methods (not research in academic terms) or research methods (improved and augmented layperson methods, see the Science Game by Agnew).

The broadening the concept of design to major data collection method is a very frivolous exercises in innovation. It can do a lot of damage to research. 

I will mention again that the whole movement "design is research" is an unfortunate response to university policies to tenure and promote only for research contributions. In the "real world practice" (forgive me for this tentative expression) professions, it is more important what you teach. It is more important to teach best practices, advanced practices, and how to innovate. Of course, it might be necessary to do research in order to achieve this. 

I have always maintained that design is more exciting and alluring than research. There is no need for good designers to feel down by researchers or to push themselves to do research if they are not trained for this.

Saying this, I do not downplay the role of design practice for evolving design methods, design thinking, and even design research. I am also a very active supporter of the movement for experiential knowledge, practice related knowledge, and exploration of practices for extraction and reproduction of investigative methods.

But these are very different things from the issue of making research by design. Up to now, in several posts over the years, I have mentioned how practice is integrated in engineering research and doctoral dissertation. Practice is necessary as an object of study in order to develop new design methods. Practice is also necessary as an overall framework for developing requirements for information that is needed for design decision-making and for supplying this information for professional decision-making. Practice is not the method of study. Some people make this logical error in their desire to justify their practice as research for tenure and promotion purposes.

I think that one way to resolve this problem is to change university policies. Invention, innovation, and the like, should count as legitimate grounds for promoting design professors to the next level. Of course, there might be a requirement that before their significant design achievements are accepted for promotion, these professors explicate their way of thinking, their method, and their process, and then they publish them. I bet this would not be a problem for great designers. For example, Peter Eisenman has written more and more substantial materials than many (may be any?) architectural faculty. Besides, he has engaged in interdisciplinary collaboration with Derrida. This is unprecedented. I have also mentioned the rich written legacy of F.L. Wright and Le Corbusier. There aren't many university professors of architecture that can match their publications and the quality of the ideas that they propose. 

It is also astonishing that on a discussion list named PHD-DESIGN there is such a strong push to accept practice as research. 

Again, I apologize for the discomfort that I might have created, but it seems to me that it is more important for the sake of humanity and the new generations of design faculty and researchers to clarify these issues. We already see the confusion that we have created with our "stretching the issues beyond their limits."

Best wishes,

Lubomir

Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Interior Design Program
American Culture Studies affiliated faculty
309 Johnston Hall
Bowling Green State University
Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059
phone: (419) 372-7935
fax: (419) 372-7854
[log in to unmask]




-----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 jose luis casamayor
Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 10:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Help please: Practice as a Method of Data Collection

Dear Ken,

 

Yes, I am a bit confused, although a bit less than some years ago...so i hope i am making some progress, or i will go to sell umbrellas straight away...

 

Coming back to your e-mail...To put things on perspective, the 'research in design methods' area you mentioned would then be included within design practice as a SOURCE of data?, and the area of 'research methods' related with design activities would also be included within design practice as a SOURCE of data?, if this is so, what about the area of research that uses design practice as a METHOD to collect data?. there would be no areas within this broad type of research in design?

 

and of course there will always other be areas for research in design which do not involve design practice, such as history of design, that would also be included within other broad group of enquiry, although as i said, this would not be related with the type of design research which involves design practice (the so called 'practice-based research').

 

I hope this helps to clarify this topic,

 

Best regards,

 

Jose