Dear All,
This has been an interesting thread with some useful issues brought to the fore. It seems to me that some of this involves a confusion over language and a cultural problem over the word research. Let’s imagine that there were a process – [x] – that enabled us to answer questions in useful and relatively reliable ways.
Let’s say that the dictionary defines [x] as: “1 : careful or diligent search 2 : studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws 3 : the collecting of information about a particular subject.”
Let’s say that [x] had a number of approaches and applications. These include methods – how we do [x], methodology – the comparative study of the methods that enable us to do [x], and methodics – the collection of all the methods of [x] in any given field. Let’s also say that in any field, there are different methodological approaches, traditions, and positions, bringing a wide range of issues into fuzzy but useful constellations as we find ways to do things.
Let’s say, further, that [x] is the “methodical search for knowledge. Original [x] tackles new problems or checks previous findings. Rigorous [x] is the mark of science, technology, and the ‘living’ branches of the humanities” (Bunge 1999: 251). Exploration, investigation, and inquiry are synonyms for [x].
This [x] process would be quite useful, wouldn’t it?
This useful [x] phenomenon is research, and the definitions suit design and designers well, providing that we actually engage in a rigorous process as distinct from the purely traditional rule-following of the craft guild tradition.
I’ve been reflecting on some of the quite interesting comments here – Rather than say more at this point, I will return when Birger completes his note on basic research.
For now, if you would like to read more on [x], you’ll find my views in the article “Theory Construction in Design Research.” I’ve made it available on my Academia.edu page:
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Have a good Easter. I’m just back from shopping. Roast lamb for us on Sunday, served with steamed green beans, potato gratin, tomato salad in a garlic vinaigrette, olives in lemon-chili marinade, and a dessert of berries, fresh orange slices, and mango. Some of us will drink a Penfolds St. Henri 2003 Shiraz, others – myself among them – will have Cooper’s Extra Strong Vintage Ale from the 2011 bottling.
Leftovers will appear at a breakfast for Second Easter Day – herring, sliced lamb, scrambled eggs, and toast.
Wishing you all a festive, fragrant, and tasty Easter, I am
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China
References
Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1993. Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. Tenth edition. Springfield, Massachusetts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|