Dear Martin,

Thanks for your long-ago reply. These are profound, questions, and
I’ve been thinking on them.

Christopher Frayling’s (1993) essay was indeed published as a
pamphlet – it’s a five page essay in a seven-page document. That
fits the definition of a pamphlet in the Oxford English Dictionary: “a
short printed work of several pages fastened together without a hard
cover; a booklet; a leaflet.”

Those who have never had a chance to read the essay for themselves will
find it at this URL:

 
http://www.uacj.mx/DINNOVA/Documents/SABERES%20VERANO%202012/Christopher_Frayling.pdf

Frayling was hardly the first to suggest that designers could conduct
design research. Rather, the ambiguous approach he suggested –
“design research could be conducted by designers using design’s
own methods” led to a great deal of confusion on the difference
between design methods and research methods. 

To me, the idea that one “need[s] to imitate other disciplines of
research: psychology, engineering, computer science, ethnography,
philosophy etc.” is problematic. We choose research methods based on
the questions we need to ask. Since designers solve problems across a
wide range of issues, these are all appropriate research disciplines for
some of the questions we consider in design research.

For me, the confusion that emerged in the wake of Frayling’s essay
was not a step forward. It was a step backward that took people away
from the pioneering work of people such as Buckminster Fuller and Don
Norman. Fuller was a working designer as Norman is still. Frayling is an
art historian specializing in culture studies and spaghetti Westerns.
The lack of experience and expertise in design and design research
explains was he was unable to address design research effectively.
Instead, he adapted Herbert Read’s concept of “teaching to art and
teaching through art,” without thinking that this works for teaching
but not for research. One learns a method through practice whether or
not this practice constitutes research. Research itself is a practice
which may or may not entail and embed the practice of professional
skills – depending, as always, on the question.

My specific critique of Frayling’s approach appears in a paper I gave
at the 2002 Design research Society Conference. A digital copy is
available at this URL:

   http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967

Since designers work with many kinds of problems, they need an
understanding of multiple methods. Don Norman (2010) explains why –
and why designers get so much wrong when they attempt to solve research
problems in the applied social sciences by using design methods rather
than appropriate research methods. For the full explanation, read his
Core77 blog post at URL:

 
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp

The topic of the conference at Aarhus – the role of hypothesis in
design research – is interesting. Frayling’s work sheds no light on
topics such as this.

I share your enthusiasm for the new book by Ilpo Koskinen, John
Zimmerman, Thomas Binder, Johan Redstrom, and Stephan Wensveen (2011).
One reason the books is so good is that the four authors represent a
multiplicity of research backgrounds and skills – with training across
a rich variety of methods and disciplines, including hardcore social
science and economics.

The broader range of issues you raise requires more thought. Perhaps it
is time for some renewed thinking on the question of research through
design – or, in a larger sense, the field of what is sometimes called
practice-based research.

Yours,

Ken

Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3 9214 6078 |
Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design


--

References

Frayling, Christopher. 1993. Research in Art and Design. RCA Research
Papers, vol. 1, no. 1. London: Royal College of Art. Available at URL:
http://www.uacj.mx/DINNOVA/Documents/SABERES%20VERANO%202012/Christopher_Frayling.pdf

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. Available at URL:
http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967

Koskinen, Ilpo, John Zimmerman, Thomas Binder, Johan Redstrom, and
Stephan Wensveen. 2011. Design Research Through Practice: From the Lab,
Field, and Showroom. Waltham, Massachusetts.

Norman, Don. 2010. “Why Design Education Must Change.” Core77, 2010
November 26. Available at URL: 
http://www.core77.com/blog/columns/why_design_education_must_change_17993.asp


--

Martin Kofod Ludvigsen wrote:

—snip—

Of course you are right. Frayling does not in any detail describe a
method, but he does make the useful distinction that so many have been
working after since, calling it research through design.

What Frayling did - in that pamphlet as you call it - was of course to
state that design research could be conducted by designers using
design’s own methods, and relieved of the need to imitate other
disciplines of research: psychology, engineering, computer science,
ethnography, philosophy etc. A distinction that we consider a major step
forward in the academic design discipline.

The reason we mention Frayling’s description in the call is that a
range of different research efforts have been undertaken with that
shared reference - and from there going into different directions with
more detailed definitions of methodologies. From architects looking into
carpentry and use of wood in aesthetically oriented research to computer
scientist and HCI-researchers exploring better technologies and
processes for the future. 

So, we could have included Koskinen et al.’s book “Design Research
Through Practice: Lab, Field and Showroom”, or Forlizzi and
Zimmerman’s publications through ACM channels, along with many
other. But as we consider the call an open invitation to participate and
not so much as a scientific contribution in its own right, we have
chosen to incorporate the most shared references, and not write of parts
of the design research community by being e.g. interaction
design-centric.

We would like to see many of these directions come together and explore
what the relationship is between research through design and a broader
filed of scientific inquiry. So, for instance, in this first course
(part 1 of 3 to be announced) we will explore the role of hypotheses in
research through design. Which is interesting because design itself
already has this future-state concern built in - the abductive approach
of saying ‘what if...’. So, if design is already a
‘hypothesising’ practice, should design research be conducted
more rigorously or more freely to stay connected to design while
bridging to science - or is it the other way around?

We hope that you and other design academics can see that there is a
need to deepen our understanding of the practice of research through
design. We are trying to be as inclusive as possible in offering this
course.

—snip—