|
Dear Klaus,
thank you. I probably should have known that. I look forward to reading it.
best,
Danielle
> Klaus Krippendorff (2006). The Semantic Turn; A New Foundation for Design, Boka Raton, London, New York: Taylor & Francis.
>
> The book is concerned with human-centered design, the meanings of artifacts in particular and it develops concepts embedded in design and design research methods.
>
> Klaus
Dear Ali,
thank you. I completely agree with the challenge of disentangling analysis from other design research activities. Nonetheless, I think that trying to do so somehow can be helpful. My intention is not to pull up the methods by the roots and in doing so sever any connection with other elements of practice, but to highlight analysis, wherever in the design process it plays out. Analysis is different from collecting data or conceptualising a new approach, even if these activities (and others) contain analysis. There is something about the orientation that is important. Hopefully I can capture that.
> From: Ali Ilhan <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Dear Danielle,
>
> This is not specific to design research, but you might find it useful:
>
> http://methods.sagepub.com/methods-map
>
> I don't think it has the best UX/UI design but it is pretty comprehensive.
>
> Furthermore, I think a black-white distinction between analysis and other
> issues/phases in research, at least for some cases, might be
> counterproductive. In some methods, conceptualization, data collection and
> analysis are so intertwined, it is hard to discern when one starts and the
> other phase ends. And more importantly there is a lot of iteration that
> further complicates demarcations. Sage's map is encompassing in this
> sense,too.
>
> Yours,
>
> ali
Dear Terence,
I’m surprised that you feel that design can be reduced to these four items, as they do not encompass most of the kinds of design research we teach or practice at SDU or that I, personally, have engaged with throughout my career. I suspect it’s a question of how we see the world. Following Heidi’s response, I won’t add anything further.
best,
Danielle
> From: Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
—snip—
> I suggest all the purposes of design research are included in the following four items:
>
> 1. To improve the prediction of behaviour of designed outputs
> 2. To improve the prediction of the behaviour of outcomes that result from designed outputs
> 3. To identify how humans and machines create designed outputs on the basis of their inputs
> 4. To reduce the number of design solutions and problems that are regarded as 'wicked' and 'hyper-wicked'
>
> The above place clear bounds on any map of analytic methods of use in design research.
—snip—
Dear Heidi,
Thanks, I could not have said it better
best,
Danielle
From: Heidi Overhill <[log in to unmask]>
Dear Terence,
Reducing the impact of design to "behaviour" is ultra-anthropocentric. What about design's impact on the natural world?
Recent writing on evolution notes that animals inherit not just genes, but also the modifications to the environment made by earlier generations -- consider the beaver's dam. Since design modifies both the environment and the human actor in it, this makes it an agent of self-evolution (in a Lamarckian sense). Because such evolution impacts everything from biological life to cognitive tools, it sets a field of enquiry for design that is far broader than that of mere "behaviour."
On that point, consider also the role of feedback and simultaneity in the experience of reality, and behavioural reactions to it. It is unrealistic to try to abstract the mutuality of that emergent experience into sequential "inputs" and "outputs."
Best wishes,Heidi
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
