Dear David, Danielle, and all
David, it is no longer a casual coincidence, a surprise that we both agree
on this List. Fundamentally, you from a Communication Design background and
orientation, and me, from a Product Design training and focus, we both
nonetheless are anchored in a perspective viewing “design” as a theoretical
and practice field where artifacts of all kinds are conceived, first and
foremost, for necessity and ‘good’ use.
Therefore, I here again concur with you saying that conceiving artifacts is
not a matter of having and mastering investigation through a nomenclature
of methods. “… But with no analysis of the comparative merits of
particular methods and the contexts in which they worked best, or not, as
the case may be”, the nomenclature remains nothing else but… “a good
postage stamp collection – no matter how ‘credible’ it may be ‘for its
completeness’.
From my niche of Product Design, I came to realize that the phase of
methods search, research and analysis would be dealt with only once their
respective necessity has been stated, and their corresponding use
pertinence rationally justified. Artifact designing does not/should not be
starting with focus on methods. Decision on which method to use is/ought
to be made after decision has been made, following analysis, indeed on
which ‘methods
work best in…a particular conceiving case on hand, when to apply them, and
how to value the findings and outcomes from…. applying such or such other
method’, among those already existing or, eventually, one or those of own
invention by necessity!
In my view, I see conceiving artifacts as a two level continuous analytical
process, prior to ‘creating’ or ‘making’: 1.analysing and deciding on which
artifact to conceive; 2. Followed with analysing, deciding on, and
proposing the best way to make the artifact selected.
And I understand Danielle’s query from this perspective above: she asks if
there is a way of mapping, a way-finding procedure, into existing
‘analytical methods for design research’. To me, too, all these already
existing methods should each be scrutinized on the basis of their
pertinence to clarify the two objectives above: which artifact, and which
‘best’ way to make it, under circumstances of the moment.
For daily use products conception, my sub-field, I propose that ‘methods
that will work best in/for this sub-field, when to apply them, and how to
value the findings and outcomes from these methods’ should be assessed and
selected, not in abstract, but all along following a 12 steps prior product
concept – not focus on methods first - analytical procedure that I
reported on in “Design Issues, Autumn 2010, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 57-71”. It
is following decision analytically reached on each of the 12 steps that
corresponding method(s) will be searched, researched (analysed), and
decision taken to use it/them. To me, those 12 research phases LEAD the way
into mapping/analysing those only needed methods for design related to
daily use products.
The other way to understand Danielle's query is in relation to,
comparatively or not, study/analyze different design research methods per
se, and their respective degree of pertinence to.... But this is another
design sub-field, Design Research Methodology, a domain I am not familiar
with!
Warm regards,
François
Rwanda
On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 5:19 AM [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Danielle
>
> I would like to add my support to what you are doing. A full scholarly
> collection of this kind is needed and would be useful to us all.
>
> Can I suggest, however, that mapping is in the end only of limited value.
> Of much more importance in the long term is a critical analysis of design
> research methods. Going back to Christopher Jones’s collection of design
> methods (which is where I started my exploration of this area many years
> ago) I was struck by its lack of critical framework. In the end, it was
> like a good postage stamp collection: credible for its completeness, at the
> time. But with no analysis of the comparative merits of particular methods
> and the contexts in which they worked best, or not, as the case may be.
>
> In my own limited field of information design, I have put some effort into
> making research and practical decisions about the methods that work best in
> my field, when to apply them, and how to value the findings and outcomes
> from these methods.
>
> I would like to encourage you to take your mapping to this next level.
>
> David.
>
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|