Dear Mauricio.
This is an important question. There have been serious discussions on this for many years — just yesterday and today, I was reviewing an online debate from 2000 — and the proceedings of the La Clusaz conference on doctoral education in design. Many of the comments and contributions revolve around the questions you ask. But so far, no one seems to have answered the questions in a satisfactory way.
Mario Bunge (1999: 251) defines research as: "The methodical search for knowledge. Original research tackles new problems or checks previous findings. Rigorous research is the mark of science, technology, and the ‘living’ branches of the humanities.” The synonyms for research include exploration, investigation, and inquiry.
Many “research-creation” projects lack a question. Pablo Picasso once said, “Others seek. I find.” He was a magician and an artist, not a researcher. Researchers seek, they describe their search, and if they find, they show how they found what they found and what it means. Research involves 1) explaining the research problem, 2) describing the research process, and 3) discussing the results so that others can 1) further develop the research problem, 2) further develop the research method, or 3) further develop the research outcome. Few “research-creation” projects meet these criteria. That is, they may be creative, but they generally are not research.
In 2010, I examined some of these issues from another perspective (Friedman 2010), but my general conclusion is probably the same as that of Zimmerman, Stolterman, and Forlizzi (2010)-
Most of what people do as “research-creation” has little impact. The work has little value as research because it yields little that allows others to 1) develop the problem, 2) the method, or 3) the outcome. What most folks seem to want is to represent that they are doing research by creating something — it doesn’t matter to them that no one uses it or builds on it.
People doing “research-creation” often make a distinction between “knowing that” and “knowing how,” as though design research involves knowing how to do something practical rather than describing something in the world and generalising from it. One of the great problems in the field involves exactly this distinction. Designers do know how to do something. Showing a creative product shows us “that” a designer knows “how.” Research shows us “how.” Research shows us the “how” of how to do it.
Research involves 1) explaining our research problem, 2) describing our process, and 3) explaining our results so that others can 1) further develop the research problem, 2) further develop the research method, or 3) further develop the research outcome. As a general model, explanation in any form of research requires the researcher to: 1) state the research problem, 2) discuss the knowledge in the field to date, 3) discuss past attempts to examine or solve the problem, 4) discuss methods and approach, 5) compare possible alternative methods, 6) discuss problems encountered in the research, and 7) explain how the researcher addresses those problems, 8) explicitly contribute to the body of knowledge within the field, and in most cases, 9) state the implications for future research.
Serious research allows us to build on individual projects in the larger context of a progressive research program.
Tore Kristensen (1999: np) states that a progressive research program involves: “building a body of generalized knowledge; improving problem solving capacity; generalizing knowledge into new areas; identifying value creation and cost effects; explaining differences in design strategies and their risks or benefits; learning on the individual level; collective learning; and meta-learning.” A great deal of design research involves useful individual learning to solve situated problems for specific clients – but this kind of research goes no further than professional practice does. The difference between practice and practice-based research requires building a body of generalized knowledge, then generalizing the knowledge into new areas while helping the field to learn as a community.
Practice-based research is a serious and significant kind of research in many fields — law, medicine, engineering, nursing. Meeting the criteria of all forms of research makes practice-based research a form of research. To constitute research, practice-based research, research through design, and research-creation must meet the criteria that apply to research of any kind. Much of what is called “research through design” fails to do this. The record for “research-creation” tends to be even worse. Design projects may be effective, useful, and creative. Research goes beyond the specific project to something broader and more general — research enables others across the field to understand general principles and apply them across other projects in useful and effective ways.
Warm wishes,
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
Email [log in to unmask] | Academia http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
—
Reference
Bunge, Mario. 1999. The Dictionary of Philosophy. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
Friedman, Ken. 2010. “Heuristic Reflections on Assessing Creativity in the Design Disciplines.” In Creativity, Design and Education. Theories Positions and Challenges. Anthony Williams, Michael J. Ostwald & Hedda Haugen Askland, eds. Sydney, Australia: ALTC Australian Learning and Teaching Council, pp. 171-180.
Kristensen, Tore. 1999. “Research on Design in Business.” Useful and Critical: Research in Design. University of Art and Design, Helsinki.
Zimmerman, J., Stolterman, E., & Forlizzi, J. (2010). An Analysis and Critique of Research through Design: towards a formalization of a research approach (pp. 310–319). Presented at the DIS 2010, Aarhus, Denmark: ACM Press.
—
Mauricio Mejia wrote:
—snip—
In my department, we have a PhD program in design and we are always discussing what is and what is not design research. There are several students that hope to use practice as the central part of the research activity and some have been interested in approaches such as “research through design” and “research-creation”. I argue that practice can be part of research when practice activities serve research purposes; in other words, engaging in practice may allow the researcher to answer certain types of questions or provide scenarios or products to test hypotheses. I add that “research through design” and “research-creation” are not, yet, mature approaches to reliably use them in PhD level research. Zimmerman, Stolterman, and Forlizzi (2010) identified three obstacles of research through design: a romantic view of design; theory is not an intended outcome; the need of a standard to document the design process. These are large challenges.
I have seen, with awe, in this list and elsewhere many events and calls for researchers and authors using “research through design” and “research-creation” approaches.
Is the design research community close to deal with Zimmerman and colleagues’ obstacles? Does anyone know of recent and relevant literature on this issue? This has been previously discussed in this list, but it would be interesting to update the discussion or know current developments on design research epistemology and methodology.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|