Talk:Design research
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Let's expand the article
This article needs a good overview of anything, which can be identified as design research. In Brenda Laurels book "Design Research" there is a good introduction which has a three-fold categorization of what design research can be: 1. Research into design 2. Research by designing 3. Research for design
There are more useful categorizations, which are a bit broader. However, this might be useful for the purposes of Wikipedia (as it is not an academic resource). --Desres 22:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that this article seems overly focused on a definition of design research meaning only research about design. While the concept of "Research by designing" or "Research through design" or "Design as Research", may not be agreeable to all readers, it is what some mean by "Design Research." A good article should start with the broadest sense of a term first and then break it down further. Here are some decidedly California centric examples: Brenda Laurel designed Art Center College of Design's Graduate Media Design Program around the idea of design students conducting original human centered research, and is now redesigning California College of Arts graduate program along the similar lines. Art Center also now requires all undergraduates to take a class in research, in which designers search for their own discoveries through structured inquiry into a subject. Perhaps for clarity purposes a new article "Design as research" should be created. What do others think?67.49.29.212 07:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I am rather critical of the Laurel book as a source for 'design research' (see review on Amazon). The three categories mentioned above were borrowed from Chris Frayling, who I think may have borrowed them from Bruce Archer, who may . . .etc. Originally they were: research into, for, and through design. I have always struggled with the concept of research 'through' design. Nigel Cross 17:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- "For instance, two potentially useful chapters, overviews of quantitative and qualitative methods respectively, have just one reference between them, and that's to Cooper's The Inmates are Running the Asylum, in the qualitative methods chapter." Ouch! Using Cooper as the only reference? Sounds like the book should be titled "Design Inspirations". --Ronz 21:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- The Laurel book is an overview of working methods and lessons learned, writen by practioners. It is not an acadmeic book, and doesn't seek to justify itself through academic means.67.49.29.212 07:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New version
I've provided a new version, much longer - I hope it's acceptable to everyone. Nigel Cross 17:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Does someone know how to remove the 'this is a stub' etc? I hope it's not any more.
- Removed stub tag and added cleanup line, so someone can come along and format, categorize more thoroughly, etc.D-rew 17:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Design Research
I am glad to see that there is a design research page. We would like to link to it from design methods and look forward to seeing the expansion of design research, given its importance. Good luck. (Design Methods 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC))
Please follow the protocols used in other Wikipedia sections and stop editing out useful content and useful links.
- The above comment was added anonymously by User:Harvardnet. --Ronz 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
