Dear Mauricio,
after this massive statement claiming the
uselessness of the Research through / for / about
categorization by Ken it is high time to state
that there is a considerable number of
researchers who DO find the categorization useful
and worth to develop it further.
In the following article I have tried to clarify
some fuzzyness in the categorization:
Jonas, Wolfgang (2007) "Design Research and its
Meaning to the Methodological Development of the
Discipline", in: Design Research Now - Essays and
Selected Projects, Birkhäuser, Basel 2007
And in a very recent article you can find the
sketch of an attempt at designing a theoretical /
cybernetic foundation of the categorization:
http://141.51.12.168/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/MAPS2.0_DRS2010_100425.pdf
The whole issue - in my view - is not so much
about truth or usefulness but about politics and
definition power. But this is a long (hi)story
and I won´t go deeper into this.
I am interested in theory design. Also concepts
of design research are designed:
http://141.51.12.168/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/19_wolfgang_jonas.pdf
Best wishes, also to Ken,
Jonas
______________
At 19:16 Uhr +1000 05.08.2010, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Mauricio,
>
>If I might suggest two sources, you'll find a different view. From my
>perspective, Frayling's divisions are misleading and poorly stated. I
>state my view on approaches to research in an article from Design
>Studies (vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 507-522):
>
>"Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and
>methods"
>
>If you search for the title in Google Scholar you'll find a link. I
>address other issues and offer a hopefully useful taxonomy in another
>article,
>
>"Creating design knowledge: from research into practice"
>
>If you search for it in Google Scholar, you'll find a link for the
>download from a site at Loughborough University.
>
>I stated my argument against Frayling's divisions in an article in the
>Journal of Visual Art Practice (Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 153-160):
>
>"Research into, by and for design"
>
>Incidentally, when I published that article, I got Frayling's three
>divisions wrong -- instead of checking my sources as I usually do, I
>drafted it from a discussion paper. Judith Mottram published an article
>in the same issue titled "The pedestal and the pendulum: fine art
>practice, research and doctorates." I am perpetually explaining to
>people that Prof. Mottram got Frayling's title and divisions right and I
>got them wrong -- in my writing workshops, I offer this as a public
>confession of what goes wrong when you write from memory rather than
>checking sources each time and every time. Despite my mistake on the
>title, however, the problems involved in the construct "research into
>design, research for design, and research through design" remain. It's a
>misreading of Sir Herbert Read's distinctions for teaching art.
>
>I am a great admirer of Christopher Frayling's own work as a scholar --
>especially his work on Westerns -- but I disagree on this. None of the
>three-part divisions really serve the need for understanding research in
>our field.
>
>You'll find my models in the two articles, one in Design Studies, and
>the other in the Loughborough paper.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken
>
>Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS
>Professor
>Dean
>
>Swinburne Design
>Swinburne University of Technology
>Melbourne, Australia
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
>URL: www.swinburne.edu.au/design
>
>Phone Dean's Office +61 3 9214 6078
>Phone Faculty Switchboard +61 3 9214 6755
|