Ken Friedman kirjoitti 12.11.2012 kello 2.00:
1) We have not yet evolved a common language for these issues. There is a wide range of terms that somehow describe or entail forms of research in which practice plays arole. In some cases, the engagement primarily involves practice. In other cases, artifacts also play a part.
Without defining them, these terms include “research through design,” “research by design,” “practice-based research,” “practice-led research,” “design-led research,” “generative research,” and “constructive research.” The more standard terms “clinical research” and “applied research” sometimes appear in this context, as do such terms as “action research,” “transformative research,” and “situated research.”
The terms “studio research,” “artistic research,” and “practice as research” also appear in this context, but these terms generally refer to work that avoids articulating or theorizing what emerges from the design activity or practice. Instead, the position associated with these terms suggests that activity orpractice is itself a form of research and the resulting artifact is a research output. This is instantiated, for example, in the claim that a teapot, a toaster, or a piece of software might count as research. This also leads to the occasional claim that it should be possible to get a PhD for making a teapot, a toaster, or a piece of software, presenting the artifact together with a short essay incorrectly labeled as an exegesis.
Ken – to the point, and neatly formulated.
Although we in principle and in general can say that artifacts contain knowledge ("power of knowledge" like Marx it aptly put), that knowledge is not directly available to us. To become a subject of academical research discussion, it has to be articulated, reflected upon, and communicated. We do not really have such a research genre, and not even a good vocabulary to discuss directly about the novelty and significance of artifacts in practices. (That is why the "annotated portfolio" idea by Bowers and Gaver is important, it is an attempt to improve our vocabulary in this respect). We now have to go around beating the bushes and use "surrogate measures" such as efficiency or user experience (which themselves are of course relevant and important).
best regards,
--Kari Kuutti
Univ. Oulu, Finland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|