dear ken,



your compilations of the etymology of "research" is helpful and confirms my interpretation in english and french.



one has to distinguish the morphology of the word and its interpretation.



regarding the morphology, re-search (english), re-cherche (french), re-cherchieren (german), webster defines the prefix "re-" 1. again, anew as in retell and 2. back as in recall. another defines "re-" as "to double" or "to repeat".



not in all words starting with "re" can one distinguish a prefix and a word stem, for example "reach", "reality", "reading", "red".



so morphologically, research is searching again, repeating a search.



for something to be searched again, it needs to stay put, unchanging. the sound of a spoken word disappears after it is uttered -- unless it has been recorded, has become a datum. in the sciences we collect data, recordings, transcripts, lists of measurements, precisely because one could not re-search them otherwise, but data are always generated in the past.  one cannot have data about the future.  moreover, one cannot have findings unless the findings were there before one searched for them. 



why would one want to search again? of course one wants to be sure, demonstrate to fellow researchers what one has done with the data and how one came to ones findings.  your dictionary interpretations attest to research being thorough, systematic, carefully done, which can be accomplished mainly because one looks at the data again and again to be sure nothing is overlooked.  the interpretations you cite are fully consistent with re-search as a repeated search among data -- whatever they consist of.



unlike what you allege, i never said that re-search is looking back into the past, only that it proceeds on what has survived from the past into the present.



scientific predictions, i.e., data based predictions are generalizations from available data to data not yet available. the latter do not need to concern future phenomena, only to phenomena one does not have evidence for.  for example schliemann predicted the location of troy from available records and indeed found its ruins. 



people predict all kinds of things: doomsdays, the return of prophets, or economic downturns.  however, scientific predictions, predictions based on research are always extrapolations of patterns, trends, stabilities that are manifest in data from the past. scientific predictions concerning future events are always extrapolations of past stabilities (ergodicities if you like the technical term).





to me all design encourages human actions that change something which could not have come about without purposive human actions. Hence "design research" is an oxymoron in the sense that "research" reveals what persists, while "design" seeks to intervenes what would otherwise persist. it alters the researchable past in unpredictable yet desirable ways.



in "the semantic turn" and my oxymoron paper i pointed out the epistemological problem that all designers face, which is convincing stakeholders that their proposals have the potential of being realizable and desirable without being predictable from available data and i developed several ways one can develop empirical support for the claims that designers need to make.



i challenge ken to spell out what he means by "design research" (incidentally, i am teaching at a major u.s. research university and i think i know what i am talking about), and i challenge terry to be clear about what he means by prediction.  (incidentally terry still owes my an example of design theory that does not use language (or drawings). in earlier exchanges he insisted that i was wrong in asserting that design theory requires language and we better be aware of what language does).



klaus    





-----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 Ken Friedman

Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 1:56 AM

To: [log in to unmask]

Subject: Re: types of design research -- understanding the word "research"



Dear Klaus,



This is a quick note to clarify my understanding of the word research.

I write in English, as you do, and I use the English interpretation and

meanings of the word research.



The reason I have mentioned the French origins of the word research is

to clarify a specific issue. In the past, you have suggested that the

term “design research” is an oxymoron on the principle that research

looks backward and design looks forward. That’s the same point that I

have heard in the query, “Where’s the search in research.”



The French etymology of the word suggests that the suffix “re” in

the word “re-search” does not mean “to look backward.” In this

case, the suffix “re” of Middle French seems to be a reinforcing or

an emphatic suffix. 



English suffixes come from different sources and words that use the

same suffix take tones and meanings based on their heritage. The words

resource, respect, and regret all use the same suffix, “re,” yet the

suffix has different functions and meanings in each case. In some cases,

the “re” suffix designates repetition, in others a backward look, in

others still, looking around and comparing.



As a noun, the word research means “careful or diligent search.” 



As a verb, it mans, “to search or investigate exhaustively.” 



It doesn’t mean “to search again” or “to look backward.”



There are many approaches and forms of research. Historical research

looks backward. Mathematical research requires us to invent. Logical

research involves analysis, though some of the new logics required

inventive research to launch the new approaches. Philosophical research

involves a wide range of approaches. Many forms of research in design,

technology, or even science require us to look forward systematically,

though not necessarily to predict. If we could not engage in

forward-looking research, we would not be able to invent. 



Many of the design activities you describe below fall within the senses

of the English word research, at least in relation to significant

applied and clinical research. While there are other senses of the word

than those to which we apply the terms “basic,” “applied,” and

clinical, it is useful to review what these terms mean and to understand

the uses we can make of them.



Basic research involves a search for general principles. These

principles are abstracted and generalized to cover a variety of

situations and cases. Basic research generates theory on several levels.

This may involve macro level theories covering wide areas or fields,

midlevel theories covering specific ranges of issues or micro level

theories focused on narrow questions. Truly general principles often

have broad application beyond their field of original, and their

generative nature sometimes gives them surprising predictive power.



Applied research adapts the findings of basic research to classes of

problems. It may also involve developing and testing theories for these

classes of problems. Applied research tends to be midlevel or micro

level research. At the same time, applied research may develop or

generate questions that become the subject of basic research.



Clinical research involves specific cases. Clinical research applies

the findings of basic research and applied research to specific

situations. It may also generate and test new questions, and it may test

the findings of basic and applied research in a clinical situation.

Clinical research may also develop or generate questions that become the

subject of basic research or applied research.



Any of the three frames of research may generate questions for the

other frames. Each may test the theories and findings of other kinds of

research. It is important to note that clinical research generally

involves specific forms of professional engagement. In the rough and

tumble of daily practice, most design practice is restricted to clinical

research. There isn’t time for anything else. 



In today’s complex environment, a designer must identify problems,

select appropriate goals, and realize solutions. Because so much design

work takes place in teams, a senior designer may also be expected to

assemble and lead a team to realize goals and solutions. Designers work

on several levels. The designer is a seeker who finds problems or an

analyst who discovers problems. The designer is a synthesist who helps

to solve problems and a generalist who understands the range of talents

that must be engaged to realize solutions. The designer is a leader who

organizes teams when one range of talents is not enough. Moreover, the

designer is a critic whose post-solution analysis ensures that the right

problem has been solved. Each of these tasks may involve working with

research questions. All of them involve interpreting or applying some

aspect or element that research discloses.



Because a designer is a thinker whose job it is to move from thought to

action, the designer uses capacities of mind to solve problems for

clients in an appropriate and empathic way. In cases where the client is

not the customer or end-user of the designer’s work, the designer may

also work to meet customer needs, testing design outcomes and following

through on solutions.



This provides the first benefit of research training for the

professional designer. Professional design practice is located in a

specific, professional situation. A broad understanding of general

principles based on research gives the practicing designer a background

stock of knowledge on which to draw. This stock of knowledge includes

principles, facts, and theories. This stock forms a theoretically

comprehensive background that no one person can master. Rather, this

constitutes the knowledge of the field. This knowledge is embodied in

the minds and working practices of millions of people. These people,

their minds, and their practices, are distributed in the social and

organizational memory of tens of thousands of organizations.



At the same time, many forms of research are not generalizable and

cannot be. The specific qualities, tone, and shape of human needs mean

that in some respect, every design project is unique. At the same time,

the fact that we are all human, and all humans bear some relation, great

or small, to other humans means that we can draw and apply ideas by

analogy, metaphor, transfer, and other means from one field, experience,

or problem to another.



To use the term research does not commit anyone to a positivistic

approach. In all the years I’ve been active as a researcher, only one

or two of the many people with whom I have worked approached things from

an openly positivist approach. Admittedly, quite a few are influenced by

hidden forms of positivist epistemology, but for the most part, people

were genuinely opposed to positivist paradigms. There are many forms of

research approaches within a rich range of large-scale traditions and

frames: theoretical, empirical, conceptual, positive, descriptive but

not positivistic, normative, mathematical, logical, philosophical,

historical, textual, exegetical, hermeneutic, interpretive,

phenomenological, and I’m sure others can expand this list.



For me, the physicist and philosopher Mario Bunge (1999: 251) offers an

elegant short definition of research, describing research as the

“methodical search for knowledge.” He continues, “Original

research tackles new problems or checks previous findings. Rigorous

research is the mark of science, technology, and the ‘living’

branches of the humanities” 



Exploration, investigation, and inquiry are useful synonyms for

research, and that’s how I use the word.



Yours,



Ken



Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS

Professor

Dean



Swinburne Design

Swinburne University of Technology

Melbourne, Australia



Reference



Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York:

Prometheus Books.







Klaus Krippendorff wrote:



—snip—



i am somewhat allergic to using the word “research” without much

reflection on what is involved. to me, “re-search” (and i know that

ken prefers the french interpretation of the word while i write in

english) means repeatedly searching for generalizable patterns that

underlie available data. if one takes the task of a science for design

seriously, one would have to SEARCH for (a) what is changeable (not what

persists), (b) who, which stakeholders, resist or support design

interventions and what would need to be done to overcome the obstacles

to a design; (c) what technological, material, individual, social and

political resources are available or recombinable to realize a design.

(d) the sole purpose of (a) through (c) is not to predict or understand

for its own sake but to provide convincing arguments (justifications)

for a design to be acceptable to interested stakeholders (so that they

can take up their stake in it).



—snip—