Dear Ken
Thanks for your comment, as always with some interesting references that were below my radar :)
I agree with you about the prepositions but they seem to stick and therefore they need to be continuously criticized.
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.
Best
Birger
________________________________________
Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] på vegne av Ken Friedman [[log in to unmask]]
Sendt: 29. august 2011 14:19
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: Distinctions between different types of design research
Dear Nic, Birger, Ben, and All,
When Nic posed his question to the list on distinctions between
different types of design research, a colleague was visiting from
Finland. We spent a bit of time discussing the thread over dinner.
One topic of conversation was the odd fact that people are still
discussing the Frayling (1993) proposal discussed so often and so
earnestly so many years after Frayling floated the idea. After
mentioning the idea in passing, Frayling never bothered to explain it or
to follow it up. This is not a situation like that of Fermat’s Last
Theorem where it takes the rest of us three centuries of earnest work to
find out whether the conjecture was right or wrong – it was an idea
that the still-living author has not bothered to pursue in the two
decades since first mooting it. There are reasonable arguments against
the notion. I stated my version of these arguments in Friedman (2002:
22-24). You can locate the full paper here:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
Nigel Cross (1993) challenged Frayling’s notion two decades ago, soon
after Frayling first proposed it, revisiting the problem again (Cross
1995, 1999). No one has yet answered Cross’s objections, nor mine. At
a certain point, revisiting the “into, for and through” proposal is
like a chemist revisiting phlogiston theory. Of course, the fact is that
the notion of phlogiston made a certain kind of sense from the 1670s
through a century of empirical experiments until Lavoisier explained
combustion with a theory that contained “fewer forced explanations and
fewer contradictions.” These are the kinds of explanations we require
to make sense of “into, for and through.”
Birger Sevaldson (2010) makes a good beginning to a new approach by
asking what kinds of issues are at stake in addressing design. This
approach considers issues, frames, and the appropriate methods we need
to address them.
If I were to address this today, I’d be starting with a taxonomy of
issues, frames, and methods. An example of a taxonomy on domains of
design knowledge appears in Friedman (2001: 38)
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41897
While I’d make a different taxonomy today, the idea remains the same.
At the end of the day, we are describing different forms of research
that allow us to address, work in, understand, and create improvements
to design practice, outcomes, and artifacts.
The rubric of “design research” was valuable at a time when only a
few of us in the design field engaged in research. Today, I’m
beginning to wonder if it may be time for something different. We
don’t speak of “chemistry research,” “physics research,”
“engineering research,” or “psychology research.” There are
fields of chemistry, physics, engineering, and psychology and different
forms of research that support those who address, work in, understand,
and create improvements to practice, outcomes, and – where appropriate
– to artifacts in those fields.
For the moment, we have some confusions to sort out. One of these
involves recognizing that research supports every field of advanced
professional practice. Nevertheless, practice is not research. Move past
the confusion over “into, for and through” will help us take the
next step.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia
--
References
Cross. Nigel. 1993. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 14, No. 3, 1993,
pp. 226-227.
Cross. Nigel. 1995. Editorial. Design Studies. Vol. 16, No. 1, 1995,
pp. 2-3.
Cross. Nigel. 1999. “Subject: Re: Research into, for and through
designs.” DRS. Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 13:43:18 +0000.
Frayling, Christopher. 1993. Research in Art and Design. RCA Research
Papers, vol. 1, no. 1. London: Royal College of Art.
Friedman, Ken. 2001. “Creating design knowledge : from research into
practice.” Design and Technology Educational Research and Development.
The merging International Research Agenda. E. W. L. Norman and P. H.
Roberts, eds., pp. 31-69. URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41897
Friedman, Ken. 2002. “Theory Construction in Design Research.
Criteria, Approaches, and Methods.” Common Ground. Proceedings of the
Design Research Society International Conference, Brunel University,
September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton, Editors. Stoke
on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press.
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
Lavoisier, Antoine Laurent. 1777. “Memoir on Combustion in
General.” Mémoires de l'Académie Royale des Sciences 1777, 592-600.
URL:
http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/lavoisier1.html
Sevaldson, Birger. 2010. “Discussions and Movements in Design
Research: A Systems Approach to Practice Research in Design.”
FORMakademisk, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 8-35. URL:
http://www.formakademisk.org/index.php/formakademisk/article/view/62/85
--
|