Dear all,
As a (former) clinical psychologist and anthropologist with a recent interest in design ethnography, I am interested in Keith's comment:
'Most university "research" consists of people applying known methods to known materials looking for slightly different outcomes. This I would call clinical practice'.
Clinical psychology research, at least in some cultural models, such as the UK research-practitioner one (which is very much medically-based, compared to other models in Europe), tends to divide research in auditing and research per se. To become a clinical psychologist in the UK, trainees must abide by this division and have to produce work that mirrors the difference between them. Although the lines between the two kinds of practice are blur, it is mostly assumed that:
'Research is about obtaining new knowledge and finding out what treatments are the most effective. Clinical audit is about quality and finding out if best practice is being practised. Research tells us what we should be doing. Clinical audit tells us whether we are doing what we should be doing and how well we are doing it.
The National Research Ethics Service makes a clear distinction between clinical audit and research and states that, unlike research, clinical audit does not need approval from a research ethics committee'.
(Hyperlink: http://www.hqip.org.uk/what-is-the-difference-between-clinical-audit-and-research).
As a non-British trained clinical psychologist (and an ethnographer as well, as I do have a PhD in anthropology) I never thought this distinction was useful to clinical practice. Actually I have always objected to it, in practice. There is a component of research in every single act of clinical practise that this both auditing and research that this distinction seems to obliterate.
Could you please tell me if any of these distinctions translates to the notions of design research that you are putting to the table?
I thank you in advance,
Pedro
--- On Wed, 15/6/11, Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
From: Keith Russell <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Innovation and Design Research
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Wednesday, 15 June, 2011, 12:56
Dear David,
I agree with your basic assessment of Don's account and I agree with the direction of your own account.
However, I'm not sure how any of the examples you provide would count as research as opposed to clinical practice?
Most university "research" consists of people applying known methods to known materials looking for slightly different outcomes. This I would call clinical practice.
Sometimes what happens is quality control (testing systems, checking outcomes, benchmarking, calibrating). This I call tinkering.
Innovation is not research, no matter how radical it might seem. (And, in passing, watches were always emotional objects, indeed, if we accept that identity carries and is carried by an affect, then watches were more emotional in their origin than they are in the age of Swatches - Swatches are post-modern feeling things.)
So, should we start looking for what research is? Or, have we covered this ground many many times before? I find myself dancing.
cheers
keith
>>> David Sless <[log in to unmask]> 15/06/11 5:17 PM >>>
Don
What you say is in no way disagreeable or even mildly controversial. But what you and many people associated with design call 'design research' is only research in a very limited way.
When a doctor gets a lab to do a test on some blood, it's possible to describe what she is doing as 'research'. But…
The point is that the blood test is an application of a routine investigative method used for diagnostic purposes. In the same way, such things as usability testing, ethnographic studies, etc, in design practice are used for diagnostic purposes. Calling them 'design research' implies they have a more significant role in the design process than they actually have. They then become an easy target for deflating. This is what I think you are doing.
But this is an old debate. I made some notes on this list in a previous post that might be worth revisiting on this occasion in the archives (see below). In it I discuss the differences between design research and routine investigation. I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't think your conclusions have a bearing on design research, only on the limited value of routine investigative procedures. And I don't think anyone would disagree with you about that.
>> From: David Sless <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: types of design research
>> Date: 4 August 2010 11:59:27 AM AEST
>> To: phd-design phd-design <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi All,
>
> In an earlier thread I made the following comment
>> Today, there is also a major problem with the university administrative category of 'research'. A great deal of so called 'research' in universities is not really research at all. It's simply the application of routine investigative procedures, much like the routine pathology testing done by the medical profession. Unlike many pathology tests, much of this routine investigation is of dubious validity.
>
> This applies particularly to so called 'design research', much of which is the application of routine investigative procedures as part of design problem solving.
>
> In relation to this body of investigative practices there are a number of useful RESEARCH questions, in no particular order, and without being comprehensive:
> 1. Do these practices have proven validity, reliability, and sensitivity?
> 2. At what stages of a design process is a particular investigative procedure useful?
> 3. Is one method more cost effective than another?
> 4. What are the contingent assumptions associated with any particular investigative method?
> 5. How should designers use the findings from these investigative procedures in designing?
>
> These, imho, are real research questions as distinct from collecting information as a result of applying routine investigative methods as a part of the design process. I would therefore suggest that it is useful to narrow the application of the term 'research' to these types of investigation. The consequence of not doing so is to seriously dilute the value of design research
>
> David
David
--
blog: www.communication.org.au/dsblog
web: http://www.communication.org.au
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO * Communication Research Institute *
* helping people communicate with people *
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (0)3 9489 8640
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street * Fitzroy North * Melbourne * Australia * 3068
|
