Dear Ken,
I wish I had more time! One of the reasons (though not the only one) that I mentioned my prior contributions to the list, was because I am pushed for time. I have three project deadlines and one paper deadline staring down at me. Much as I would love to contribute to this ongoing and important thread at this moment, the moment will have to pass. No doubt there will be other occasions!
David
--
blog: http://communication.org.au/blo <http://communication.org.au/blo>g/
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (03) 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
> On 7 Sep 2016, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Mike, Karna, and David,
>
> Thanks for your replies. I generally agree with these issues, especially with Mike’s carefully developed comment.
>
> Please allow me to clarify six specific points. This is, for the most part, a concurring opinion. I want to show why I agree, and to provide useful resources on some of the specific points that Mike and David raise.
>
> 1) At no time did I state what research is *not*. Someone in the thread titled “prediction - true or false” might have done so. The ambiguities in that thread were one reason for me to launch a new thread rather than simply respond. The only *not* in my note is a statement that the predictions of West and Rousseau are mistaken — machines cannot do research on their own, and automated data systems will not make researchers obsolete. The prediction is wrong.
>
> The reason that the prediction is wrong lead me to describe different forms of research.
>
> 2) I can agree with Mike’s proposal to substitute “Answering questions through methodical study” for Bunge’s definition. All concise definitions require expansion and exemplification.
>
> In the taxonomy I mentioned, I include marketing, market research, and — under slightly different terms — different forms of consumer research. Again,
>
> “Because design research has many possible goals, it is impossible to state what design research is for all purposes. The taxonomy of design knowledge domains in Figure 2 of my article “Models of Design” (Friedman 2012: 144-145) presents a responsible but admittedly incomplete list of the areas and issues one might need to investigate with some forms of serious research.”
>
> You’ll find the article on my Academia page at URL:
>
> https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
>
> 3) While I agree with Mike on generalizability as a common criterion for research, it is not all-encompassing. There are occasions for limited research. Most clinical research by physicians involves diagnostics to solve one problem for one patient. It draws on general research, but it is limited in its conclusions to the specific case.
>
> Some years ago, I wrote an article in which I defined research more carefully than I did yesterday. In that article, I distinguished between basic research, applied research, and clinical research (see: Friedman 2003: 509-513). The title of the article is “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.” It is accessible on my Academia.edu page.
>
> Most serious marketing research and many serious consumer studies take the form of clinical research to answer one question. These are legitimate forms of research.
>
> The distinction I put forward yesterday is that few design firms engage in serious research of any kind, not generalizable and not limited. The notion that we can use software to do our research for us is a way of suggesting that we can avoid the expense that research requires. Most design firms don’t want to cover the cost of research because costs eat into profit margins, and the long-term cost of a salaried employee is among the most difficult costs to trim unless a firm simply avoids the staff position.
>
> Using 10% of every project budget for serious research made the firm I mentioned yesterday less profitable. Over the years, the firm grew and shrank radically based on market conditions. What never changed was the dedication to outstanding design. Toward the end of a long, successful run, the owner of the firm was approaching 70 and deciding what to do with the firm. He received a large, profitable buy-out offer from another firm that wanted to capitalize on his reputation and his many awards. He did not sell because he knew the other firm could not deliver what he delivered — he did not want to walk away from decades of good design and serious research knowing that his name would be used to sell ordinary projects to clients who might not know the difference between serious research claims and a sophisticated sales pitch.
>
> It is difficult to make money running a design firm. One very well know design researcher had a successful practice up through the first decade of the new century. He told me once that market conditions in his former nation changed so much in recent years that he simply couldn’t keep up. He had research skills, a solid PhD, a rich range of design skills, and the capacity to deploy these in a university job while raising millions of dollars in grant funding for projects he would enjoy. He makes a good living as a tenured professor and sometimes as a dean or center director. Even though he can’t monetize those millions for personal profit, he enjoys his work, and he is free to consult.
>
> It is easy to understand why West and Rousseau want to believe that there is an easy, inexpensive way to substitute information systems for research. The design business is increasingly difficult, and design firms must increasingly represent a capacity for research to succeed. They must also justify proposals, and “our research shows that [x]” is a great pitch.
>
> Even worse for standalone design firms, many major companies with significant research capacity have entered the design industry. Some work only in-house. Others serve clients of all kinds. And these firms can actually do research — they have budgets and staffing that enable them to compete successfully despite the costs.
>
> Gjoko Muratovski describes some of the changes in the design industry in an article titled: "Paradigm Shift: Report on the New Role of Design in Business and Society.” It is available at URL:
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872615300265
>
> There is a need for limited research as well as for generalizable research. My point was that any research requires responsibility — machines cannot take that responsibility.
>
> 4) Slightly to the side to this discussion, but relevant, is Karl Weick’s (1979: 35-42) research clock metaphor. The clock has two hands, but three points. These occur at 12 o'clock, 4 o'clock, and 8 o'clock. The three points represent the general, the accurate, and the simple. Weick proposes that we can achieve two of these qualities at any one time, but not all three.
>
> We can be general and accurate but not simple. We can be accurate and simple but not general. Or we can be general and simple but not accurate. In each case, we meet two criteria by accepting the fact that we must sacrifice one of the three criteria: generality, accuracy, or simplicity.
>
> 5) I find the idea of big “R” Research and little “r” research hard to understand. It requires too many definitions. And in public talks, it demands that we spend too much time using sign language to make air quotes.
>
> The issues of generality, accuracy, and simplicity linked to the widely accepted terms of basic, applied, or clinical research tell the story in a clear, parsimonious way.
>
> 6) It is difficult to understand why David disagrees with me. I have not taken a narrow administrative view on research. The taxonomy to which I referred is broad enough to cover all these issues — and it concurs with Mike’s views.
>
> Perhaps David is confusing my position with something else in the earlier thread. It’s clear that he did not take the time to look at the material I referenced. I gave one specific reference — this is far less to read than the 517 posts David has written since 2002 involving research as a subject.
>
> It may be that I did take a “narrow administrative view” that is “an artefact of the administrative educational environment from which it originated.” If David can show that my position is indeed narrow and administrative, he should do so. I often agree with David, and I’m not disagreeing here except to ask for a demonstration.
>
> It seems to me that if I concur with Mike — and I think that I have shown that I do — and if David is broadly sympathetic to Mike’s view, then I would rather expect David to broadly sympathize with my position.
>
> But again, nothing in my post says what research is *not*, and I hope my view is not administrative. If David takes the time to look at the chart (Friedman 2012: 144-145), he’ll see what I mean. He even has the paper copy of Visible Language in which the chart appeared, as he has an article in the same issue!
>
> The article I note here (Friedman 2003) is even more general. I develop and use ideas common to the history of science and the sociology of knowledge. Now it is an unfortunate and sad reality that many of the people that write on these topics work in universities. In the two centuries since the Humboldt university reforms in Germany, many of the world’s societies began to provide a “sheltered workshop” environment for people who prefer to this about these kinds of things. Those sheltered workshops are universities — that does not mean that everyone working in a university takes an administrative view — not even those of us who once served in senior management.
>
> Some folks with the same skills might rather than use advanced mathematics to earn a living in finance — quants can make real money in finance, especially if they can sell. See, for, example Michael Lewis’s (1990) excellent book about his days in Salomon Brothers or his (2011) description of the recent global meltdown. Other folks might use the skills of rhetoric and inquiry to sell hot dogs or build workshop furniture.
>
> Unfortunately I’m not good enough at math, and I can’t build things in wood, at least not good ones. Back in the 1970s, I had an offer to join a small but highly profitable real estate partnership that would likely have made me a multi-millionaire. I turned it down. After moving through a couple of careers where I made real money and lost it again, I finally won a research position suited to my skills (and my failings).
>
> Please, David, take my views as my own. I earned them the hard way, by thinking. My positions on research may be mistaken, but they originated with me. They did not originate in an “administrative educational environment,” and they are not an artifacts of administrative thinking.
>
> I stated my views in one post, supported by a specific reference to one chart. I supplement this here with a four page section in a single article. If you’re going to disagree with me, please disagree with what I’ve said. It doesn’t require reading 517 separate posts — just a chart and a few pages.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> —
>
> References
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2012. “Models of Design: Envisioning a Future for Design Education.” Visible Language, Vol. 46, No. 1/2, pp. 128-151.
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research: criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507–522. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5 Also available at URL:
> https://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
>
> Lewis, Michael. 1990. Liar’s Poker. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
>
> Lewis, Michael. 2011. The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
>
> Muratovski, Gjoko. 2015. “Paradigm Shift: Report on the New Role of Design in Business and Society.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation. Vol. 1, No. 2, Winter 2015, pp. 118–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2015.11.002
>
> Weick, Karl. 1979. Social Psychology of Organizing. 2nd edition. Boston: Addison-Wesley.
>
> --
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
>
> 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
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
