Dear Birger and Keith,

A vital relationship exists between advanced professional practice and
research. Professional practitioners in most fields serve clients by
understanding and analyzing the situated problems they help clients to
solve. This is true of physicians, lawyers, managers, engineers,
therapists, and more. For this reason, many fields of professional
practice fit Herbert Simon’s concept of the design sciences. Those who
handle purely mechanical tasks for these professionals do not solve
problems, and do no research. In our field, this includes junior
designers and computer operators who undertake tasks on the instructions
of a senior designer. In contrast, members of a design team who solve
problems engage in clinical research. To solve major problems, they may
engage in applied research. Some few even engage in basic research. (For
an explanation of basic, applied, and clinical research and the
relations among them, see Friedman 2003: 510-512.)

So I agree with both of you. There is a category of design research
arising from and entailing practice. Just as research in chemistry,
medicine, or engineering may arise from and entail the practice of
chemistry, medicine, or engineering, this may also be the case in
design.

Some people in our field do this, as do the younger researchers they
educate. A short and incomplete list of people whose work engages
professional practice from the position of robust research includes:
Lily Diaz, David Durling, Ilpo Koskinen, Per Mollerup, Tiiu Poldma, Don
Norman, Klaus Krippendorff, Meredith Davis, Kei Sato, Erik Stolterman,
Eli Blevis, Nigel Cross, Ezio Manzini, Paul Hekkert, Lorraine Justice,
Chris Rust, Kees Dorst, … It’s a growing list.

Equally important, designers with serious research experience and skill
develop an improved ability to make situated judgment calls in cases
where they lack the time or funding for a full research project. Since
the majority of problems we face come bounded by constraints on time,
money, and resources, the diagnostic skills we develop through research
make us better working designers.

So we do make some kind of sense when we talk about a kind of engaged
professional practice in which research and design acts come together.
This is also the key to what Andy van de Ven (2007) describes as
“engaged scholarship.”

Been trying to write shorter posts, so I’ll stop at 375 words.

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia

--

References

Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research:
criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003),
507–522.

Van de Ven, Andrew. 2007. Engaged Scholarship. A Guide for
Organizational and Social Research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

--

Birger Sevaldson wrote:

—snip—

I also like your suggestion of terminating the rubric “Design
Research”. Though it will take some time to get there. More synergy
between design research and practice might be needed. I am working hard
with my students to change their mentality towards a more research
oriented mind, not to necessarily become design researchers but to
become more research oriented in their practice, where they might
realize the huge potential for design practice to develop further and
for designers to do a bigger impact by adapting to such a role. The old
arts and craft mentality still sticks, e.g. it is still hard to make
them read, but it seems new generations are coming who are able to
combine the highest level of design talent and skills with good
analyzing skills and reflection.

—snip—

--

Keith Russell wrote:

—snip—

We are making some kind of sense when we talk about research through
design even though I agree the sense we make is desperately in need of
explication.

—snip—