Dear Ken,
You wrote
'Experimental development overlaps clinical research, but a great deal of clinical research does not add new knowledge, and therefore, it does not constitute a sub-set of experimental development.'
I'd suggest that something undertaken as 'clinical research' that doesn't add new knowledge is either failed research in which case it is a subset of 'experimental development' OR it isn't research at all, in which case it was misclassified. If it isn't either, then it's a subset of 'experimental development'. Whichever way, 'clinical research' appears to be a subset of the richer category of 'experimental development'.
Think, for example, of 'problem reframeing', 'exploratory design', 'kansei', 'UX', 'trial and error methods', 'product testing', ' agile programming' and many other examples of design practices that involve formal and informal experimental investigations as part of the design practices. All of these fit well into the idea of 'experimental development as 'research through design practices', yet they don't fit easily into the iodea of 'clinical practice' unless you redefine it .
Seems to me, at least, the concept of 'experimental development' as a way of describing 'research through design practice' is more helpful than many others.
You are right that the Frascati Manual's way of cataloguing research (basic/applied/experimental development) is not the same as the categories you prefer (basic/applied/clinical) . I suggest, hoiwever, the Frascati Manual categories are much better especially for design and research through design.
In addition, again in contrast to your claim otherwise, I suggest the concept of 'R&D' is both well established and appears to be a/the primary terminology for measuring research in Humanities, Social Sciences, Anthropology, History, Philosophy, Musicology, Religion, Art, Language, Communication, and other non-science disciplines. See for example the American Academy of Arts and Sciences Humanities Research and Development Indicators (e.g. http://www.humanitiesindicators.org/cmsData/pdf/IV-10c.pdf ). The use of the term 'Research and Development' (or R&D) appears the most common terminology of research in the above disciplines - again in line with the Frascati Manual.
Thank you for posting a restricted set of documents on your teaching page. To me, they look too limited. I suggest people exploring this issue would be better reviewing a wider choice of documents. For example, the literature on assessment of national research would be more relevant. A couple of examples are:
http://www.researchtrends.com/issue23-may-2011/research-assessment-101-an-introduction/
http://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/171711/Elsevier_BIS_2013_web_Dec2013-2.pdf
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
Honorary Fellow
IEED, Management School
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Sunday, 15 March 2015 5:41 PM
To: PhD-Design
Subject: Re: Basic, applied, and clinical research
Dear Terry,
As earlier, you are cherry-picking terms to suit your own purposes. The Frascati Manual does not apply to all forms of research in all fields. With respect to the humanities, the section of the manual to which you point (OECD 2002: 46-50) is “2.4. Identifying R&D in software development, in the social sciences and humanities and in service activities and industries.” The focus is “research and development,” but it does not cover all kinds of research unless they cover development. In this section, the manual gives clear examples for software development but none for the humanities.
There is no further benefit to continuing this discussion. You feel that I am “fundamentally mistaken” in my understanding of the Frascati Manual. I agree with the Frascati Manual. I disagree with your interpretation of its contents.
On points 1, 2, and 3 in my earlier post, the text of the Frascati Manual contradicts your claims. On point 4, experimental development overlaps clinical research, but a great deal of clinical research does not add new knowledge, and therefore, it does not constitute a sub-set of experimental development.
For the purposes of the ERA, the Australian government defines research as “the creation of new knowledge and/or the use of existing knowledge in a new and creative way so as to generate new concepts, methodologies and understandings. This could include synthesis and analysis of previous research to the extent that it is new and creative” (Australian Research Council 2008: 1) But this is not the Frascati definition. Rather, it is “based on the Frascati definition of research” (Australian Research Council 2008: 1). The ARC rewrote this definition to meet the needs of all research fields and disciplines.
For me, the main issue is that the Frascati definitions do not cover the same ground as basic, applied, and clinical research. They are useful and helpful where they apply. I don’t agree with the notion that they apply to all disciplines equally and without exception. Each time you put forward a quote or citation that you believe supports your claims, careful reading shows that the document does not state what you claim it states. The Australian definition is based on the Frascati definition but the revision is significant enough that the ARC definition covers all forms of research where the Frascati definitions do not.
It is pointless to take this further. For those who want to read the Frascati Manual for themselves, or the Australian Research Council ERA Indicator Descriptors, I have placed these in the “teaching documents” section of my Academia page at URL:
https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
These documents will be available through March 26th, at which time I will delete them.
The documents posted through March 26th are made available to support the conversation in this thread, and in the earlier thread on “Research through Design.” These include: the OECD Frascati Manual, the ARC ERA Indicator Descriptors, Richard Buchanan’s “Design Research and the New Learning,” Zimmerman, Forlizzi, and Evenson on “Research through Design,” David Sless on “Designing Philosophy” and Christopher Frayling’s “Research in Art and Design.”
I understand that you think I am “fundamentally mistaken.” I am happy to let list members study the documents for themselves to reach their own conclusions.
Unless anyone has something new or useful to add, I can’t see going further in this thread.
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in Cooperation with Tongji University Press | Launching in 2015
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
—
References
Australian Research Council. 2008. ERA Indicator Descriptors (19 December 2008).
OECD. 2003. Frascati Manual. Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
