Dear Owain,

 

I totally agree on this:

 

Perhaps also there is a problem of measuring the impact of an
> industrial design, whereas engineered components can largely be evaluated
> against quantifiable performance data. (Note that this point demands that we
> stake out how industrial designers can radically change a product in ways
> that engineering professionals cannot, which is a debate not to be taken up
> here).


I think this is one of the problems, which implies how to describe novelty (addition to knowledge) in industrial design research (in artefacts-outcomes), which needs, as you say, measurement (but an special kind of measurement), so how we measure novelty in industrial design, and note, not in design engineering, and sometimes the line can be very thin in product design, but i think there is a line. I think the difference lies in the type of design parameters that have to be measured, but here again they overlap and sometimes they are difficult to separate.

 

Thanks for your time,

 

Best regards,

 

Jose
 
> Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 23:09:10 +0300
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Help please: Practice as a Method of Data Collection
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> Dear All
> 
> Jose wrote:
> "As i was reading all this i thought that this type of research is very
> similar to the type of research that has been so debated, where artefacts
> can 'embody' knowledge and be assessed as the main outcome of the research.
> However, in engineering this dilemma does not exist, and the research type
> (based on outcome) exposed by Owain shows exactly this type of research. Why
> industrial/product non-technical design does not recognize this type of
> research when in design engineering it can be normal practice research?"
> 
> I see no reason why research focused on the advancement of artefacts
> (through industrial design) should somehow be rejected in principal. I guess
> the follow-up question is, 'who is rejecting it, and why'? Is it university
> committees? Peer reviewers for journals? Perhaps there is a lack of
> well-executed examples of such research from industrial designers based in
> academia, so people might feel a little uneasy over what such a study should
> look like. Perhaps also there is a problem of measuring the impact of an
> industrial design, whereas engineered components can largely be evaluated
> against quantifiable performance data. (Note that this point demands that we
> stake out how industrial designers can radically change a product in ways
> that engineering professionals cannot, which is a debate not to be taken up
> here).
> 
> As Nigel Cross explains in his book 'Designerly Ways of Knowing' (and also
> ask any industrial designer), designers read and write in visual languages
> and they understand messages expressed through, and in, artefacts. It
> depends on the complexity of the artefact of course, but I am highly
> unconvinced that an innovative artefact can self-express its innovative
> features to such a degree that everything that needs to be understood by an
> observer can indeed be understood. This is why we need words - a patent
> description, a thesis, a project report - to complement the artefact and
> complete the case for its being and its specification.
> 
> Best regards, Owain
> 
> 
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:26 PM, jose luis casamayor <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> > Dear Owain, Lubomir and all,
> >
> > Lubomir in a recent e-mail explained roughly a research project
> > model, which resembled Owain's type of design research through design
> > practice focused in the outcome, not the process (activity). In this type of
> > research, Owain pointed out rightly, that this is approach is typical of
> > design engineering (engineering), and that in order to be considered
> > addition to knowledge it had to make previous products of the same type
> > obsolete, and have at least several patents of several design features of
> > the total artefact. As i was reading all this i thought that this type of
> > research is very similar to the type of research that has been so debated,
> > where artefacts can 'embody' knowledge and be assessed as the main outcome
> > of the research. However, in engineering this dilemma does not exist, and
> > the research type (based on outcome) exposed by Owain shows exactly this
> > type of research. Why industrial/product non-technical design does not
> > recognize this type of research when in design engineering it can be normal
> > practice research?
> >
> > I hope this helps,
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Jose
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 17:52:28 +0300
> > > From: [log in to unmask]
> >
> > > Subject: Re: Help please: Practice as a Method of Data Collection
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > Dear All
> > >
> > > Lubomir is right to point out that through this forum we can only really
> > > scratch the surface of the discussions and argumentation of how, and why,
> > to
> > > perform academic research through designing an artefact. However, the
> > > recent postings in this thread have shown that our colleagues have
> > > contributed some very useful thinking and the scholarly debate is
> > maturing.
> > > This bodes well for new researchers who would like to judge for
> > themselves
> > > whether the integration of their own design practice will be a beneficial
> > > approach for their research.
> > >
> > > I would like to mention one more point to add to the pot. It is not in
> > > direct response to previous postings.
> > >
> > > There is a need to expand upon the term design practice. It is sometimes
> > > unclear what people mean when they say 'I am using design practice in my
> > > research' or 'I am conducting research through my own design practice'.
> > > Design practice is a dynamic entity. It is conducted over a timeline. At
> > a
> > > very simple level of deconstruction, design practice = designing (as
> > > activity) + designs (as outcomes). In my own field, industrial design,
> > the
> > > activities and outcomes are strongly dependent. Preliminary outcomes
> > > (models, prototypes) are generated along the way, until a finalized
> > outcome
> > > (i.e. a 'product proposal') is reached. Also, as Terry points out,
> > > industrial design practice is a social activity involving many different
> > > stakeholders. They each play a part - directly or indirectly - in the
> > > designing.
> > >
> > > I make the distinction between activity and outcome because it can be a
> > > useful concept for a research student to determine what the subject of
> > their
> > > research - within the broad area of design practice - will be. Research
> > > studies into designing (as activity) with only marginal interest in
> > (final)
> > > design outcomes is quite plausible (this was the general approach I took
> > for
> > > my own PhD). For industrial design, a huge range of facets of designing
> > can
> > > be the focus for such research, e.g. user needs elicitation, ideation
> > > processes, management of stakeholder influences, visualization
> > techniques,
> > > decision-making processes, application of intellectual attributes such as
> > > knowledge/skills/values.... In such studies, we may use our own design
> > > practice to expose current methods and activities for critical analysis
> > and
> > > improved understanding of the nature of design expertise. Or, we may use
> > our
> > > own practice to devise, demonstrate and then test improved
> > > activities/methods for designing (hence the strong connection in this
> > case
> > > to Action Research).
> > >
> > > However, research studies into designs (as outcomes) should be treated a
> > > little differently. Say the objective of a research project is to improve
> > > upon or change some problematic aspect of a product type so dramatically
> > > that predecessor products become obsolete. This can be a typical focus in
> > > engineering research. To conduct such a study, we need to know about the
> > > predecessor products, we need to establish the extent of the problems
> > > associated with the products, we need to use design practice to create
> > ideas
> > > for improved products, and then we need to test to see if the design
> > > outcomes really are an improvement, and determine how generally
> > applicable
> > > the improved design outcomes are . So, even though the main subject of
> > such
> > > a study is an improved design (outcome), we cannot disregard the
> > designing
> > > (as activity) since it is the means to getting to the end; it is the
> > > ingredients and recipe that leads to the dish.
> > >
> > > I hope this has given some more insight into the ideas I offer my
> > research
> > > students who have queries about what 'practice-based research' or
> > > 'investigative designing' in industrial design can actually entail. I
> > can't
> > > vouch that the arguments here will apply to all areas of design, but
> > there
> > > should at least be some useful crossovers. Crafts-based design, for
> > example,
> > > has quite a different social setting and the kinds of outcomes generated
> > are
> > > distinct from those in industrial design.
> > >
> > > Best regards, Owain
> > >
> > > --
> > > Assist. Prof. Dr Owain Pedgley
> > > Department of Industrial Design
> > > Middle East Technical University, Turkey
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Con las alertas de Hotmail no perderás detalle de tu correo. ¡Contrátalo
> > ya! <http://home.mobile.live.com/MobileAttach.mvc/?mkt=es-es>
> >
 		 	   		  
_________________________________________________________________
Recibe en tu HOTMAIL los emails de TODAS tus CUENTAS. + info
http://www.vivelive.com/hotmail-la-gente-de-hoy/index.html?multiaccount