Comments on: Design Practice Research, Part I http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/ Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:12:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Andrew Blauvelt http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/#comment-696 Andrew Blauvelt Sun, 30 Dec 2007 05:43:59 +0000 http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/#comment-696 Daniel, I most certainly agree that we need to distinguish cutting edge design from research. The conflation, I think, centers on the notion of the "experimental" which is in turn conflated with the individual. The often heard refrain in education, "new to you," is not the same as being new to the field or discipline. The former is about the transmission of knowledge, the latter about the generation of new knowledge. I think the ill-defined nature of what is meant by design research is part of the larger problem of design's disciplinary status (or lack thereof). I doubt that this can be solved in any simple and clear way however, and therefore I prefer a multiplicity of possibilities. That said, the most coherent attempt at defining design as a distinct discipline that I've come across was out of Britain in the late 70s or early 80s and posited design as occupying a third space between the arts and sciences. It asked what was the basis of exchange, (how does the discipline communicate) or what is our design (architecture, industrial, graphic, etc.) language? If the arts were premised on literacy and sciences on numeracy, then design's language would be akin to modeling or prototyping--visualization as proposition. In this way, design would be synthetic, transformative, and design research would be propositional. Another tactic I've used in the past to counteract the entrenched mentality of problem-solving is its inverse: problem-posing and problem-seeking. The point is to stress that the "solution" of problem-solving is a cipher in the equation, and to suggest the expansion of the designer's role into whole territory of design, which has been neglected or ceded to others. I suppose all of this is to suggest that we can also be strategic in those domains which have been defined for design but only by dismantling its assumptions. Daniel,

I most certainly agree that we need to distinguish cutting edge design from research. The conflation, I think, centers on the notion of the “experimental” which is in turn conflated with the individual. The often heard refrain in education, “new to you,” is not the same as being new to the field or discipline. The former is about the transmission of knowledge, the latter about the generation of new knowledge.

I think the ill-defined nature of what is meant by design research is part of the larger problem of design’s disciplinary status (or lack thereof). I doubt that this can be solved in any simple and clear way however, and therefore I prefer a multiplicity of possibilities.

That said, the most coherent attempt at defining design as a distinct discipline that I’ve come across was out of Britain in the late 70s or early 80s and posited design as occupying a third space between the arts and sciences. It asked what was the basis of exchange, (how does the discipline communicate) or what is our design (architecture, industrial, graphic, etc.) language? If the arts were premised on literacy and sciences on numeracy, then design’s language would be akin to modeling or prototyping–visualization as proposition. In this way, design would be synthetic, transformative, and design research would be propositional.

Another tactic I’ve used in the past to counteract the entrenched mentality of problem-solving is its inverse: problem-posing and problem-seeking. The point is to stress that the “solution” of problem-solving is a cipher in the equation, and to suggest the expansion of the designer’s role into whole territory of design, which has been neglected or ceded to others. I suppose all of this is to suggest that we can also be strategic in those domains which have been defined for design but only by dismantling its assumptions.

]]> By: Daniel van der Velden http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/#comment-614 Daniel van der Velden Mon, 24 Dec 2007 01:13:08 +0000 http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/#comment-614 Hi Andrew, Thanks. My opening remarks at the symposium were intended to outline ways in which research could be approached from practice, without declaring simply that practice always is some kind of research. The latter in my view is a risk - a manner of labeling or tagging what already exists rather than outlining new or other ways of working. Especially it seems relevant to distinguish research design from 'cutting-edge design'. Although they formally may overlap I guess with research I mean all the parts of extended practice that require and expand on knowledge-related and knowledge-intensive notions in design which allow 'failed' experiments to become productive - not just in a personal, but in a public way. These may involve journalistic research or artistic research methods (although the latter term is vaguely defined), speculation, and also at some point scientific or purely empirical research which are directly related to design and design projects. Notably, in practice, designers are often expected to work with the 'empirical findings' of marketing departments; these definitely demand an answer from the design community. What I meant with the warning about making was that designers nowadays are, in general, expected to be available 24/7 which means that the time to let an idea incubate, or to actually do or make the work you want to do in either pure practice or research based practice, requires concentrated time spent in unavailability to requests. 'Who has time for research?', depending on where you stand, may eventually be replaced by 'Who has time for making?' or 'Who has time to think?'. When you write that 'Contemporary design practice is constrained by the need for specific problem-solving', I couldn't agree more. Yet that situation requires us simultaneously to look for other methods and practices where our way of working can become more strategic, rather than just tactical (as in problem-solving). We can only be strategic in domains that have not been defined for us by others. Hi Andrew,
Thanks. My opening remarks at the symposium were intended to outline ways in which research could be approached from practice, without declaring simply that practice always is some kind of research. The latter in my view is a risk - a manner of labeling or tagging what already exists rather than outlining new or other ways of working.
Especially it seems relevant to distinguish research design from ‘cutting-edge design’. Although they formally may overlap I guess with research I mean all the parts of extended practice that require and expand on knowledge-related and knowledge-intensive notions in design which allow ‘failed’ experiments to become productive - not just in a personal, but in a public way. These may involve journalistic research or artistic research methods (although the latter term is vaguely defined), speculation, and also at some point scientific or purely empirical research which are directly related to design and design projects.
Notably, in practice, designers are often expected to work with the ‘empirical findings’ of marketing departments; these definitely demand an answer from the design community.
What I meant with the warning about making was that designers nowadays are, in general, expected to be available 24/7 which means that the time to let an idea incubate, or to actually do or make the work you want to do in either pure practice or research based practice, requires concentrated time spent in unavailability to requests. ‘Who has time for research?’, depending on where you stand, may eventually be replaced by ‘Who has time for making?’ or ‘Who has time to think?’.
When you write that ‘Contemporary design practice is constrained by the need for specific problem-solving’, I couldn’t agree more. Yet that situation requires us simultaneously to look for other methods and practices where our way of working can become more strategic, rather than just tactical (as in problem-solving). We can only be strategic in domains that have not been defined for us by others.

]]> By: Andrew Blauvelt http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/#comment-544 Andrew Blauvelt Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:42:05 +0000 http://blogs.walkerart.org/design/2007/12/14/design-practice-research-part/#comment-544 Interesting comments by Daniel. It raises several issues and problems, I think. The first is the dichotomy between work and research. It's funny that the fear is that research will overtake work when the reality is exactly the opposite. Who has time for research? Also, what model of research are we proposing here? Academic inquiry, scientific inquiry, artistic inquiry, business-based research and development? Each of these has a framework that subtlely or not-so-subtlely guides the value and nature of research. Even if we don't disclose our model, it still forms an impression. It is quite possible that the work itself is a form of research, without deluding ourselves into thinking that all work is. Most work is an answer to a brief. Contemporary design practice is constrained by the need for specific problem-solving. The more open-ended the questions and answers the closer we approach the idea of inquiry. True research questions cannot be answered with a yes or no, or other simple binaries. Interesting comments by Daniel. It raises several issues and problems, I think. The first is the dichotomy between work and research. It’s funny that the fear is that research will overtake work when the reality is exactly the opposite. Who has time for research? Also, what model of research are we proposing here? Academic inquiry, scientific inquiry, artistic inquiry, business-based research and development? Each of these has a framework that subtlely or not-so-subtlely guides the value and nature of research. Even if we don’t disclose our model, it still forms an impression. It is quite possible that the work itself is a form of research, without deluding ourselves into thinking that all work is. Most work is an answer to a brief. Contemporary design practice is constrained by the need for specific problem-solving. The more open-ended the questions and answers the closer we approach the idea of inquiry. True research questions cannot be answered with a yes or no, or other simple binaries.

]]>