Modes of Design Research

Modes of Design Research

by Sep 28, 2014
by 风景园林新青年 Sep 28, 2014

Lecture at the joint doctoral seminar at Tsinghua University Beijing, 2010
Gesche Joost

In today’s research landscape we are seeing new interdisciplinary approaches that focus on design practice as a research instrument. With these approaches the design disciplines are expanding the scope of their own self-image to include scientific and scholarly methods of inquiry and alternative methods of gaining knowledge. At the same time established definitions of valid research in other disciplines are being evaluated and revised with new perspectives. Research through design has been established as a new and prominent paradigm in the past few years, at least in design research. It is a type of research which – through the processes and methods used in design and thus also in the act of designing – exposes new findings that prove relevant for other scientific and scholarly methods of inquiry. One of the central methodological challenges is determining the relationship between design practice and research. For the design disciplines, it is necessary to work out an independent research profile that clearly specifies how a design-specific approach and process should be configured. This has an impact on both the choice of methods and specification of the type of knowledge. When Nigel Cross talks about “designerly ways of knowing,” he makes clear that approaching scientific and scholarly questions or problems through design practice leads to specific types of insights that could not be gained through other methods – whether it is collecting practical knowledge, explicating “tacit knowledge” or simply materializing knowledge into a prototype.

In recent years these research approaches have become increasingly important in the German-speaking realm, while in the Netherlands, Scandinavia and Great Britain design research has been integrated into the disciplinary canon much earlier. There is currently a virulent debate in Germany, Switzerland and Austria concerning the establishment of a separate research category with specific methods, processes and descriptive models. These questions connect a number of different design-oriented disciplines, ranging from architecture and landscape architecture to design and the fine arts, but also civil engineering; but the discussion touches on different traditions and terms in each discipline. These issues also have another frame of reference: on the one hand alternative forms of knowledge production are currently being widely discussed, ideas that extend far beyond the established terms found in the “scientific approach”. On the other hand there is the question of doctoral programs in design and other design-oriented disciplines, given that German institutions of higher education are currently in the middle of a major structural transition from the Diplom and Magister degrees to bachelor’s and master’s programs. This creates new challenges in the professionalization and specialization of the discipline far beyond merely creative competence. This links up with our Chinese colleagues, who are also dealing with the question of how a doctoral program in landscape architecture can be set up. Given the complex requirements found in professional practice, generating highly specialized knowledge in the design disciplines is of vital importance. The multifaceted problems that arise not just in landscape architecture but in all design disciplines require a solid foundation of knowledge, which can be built up through research. Nevertheless, what this actually entails in the concrete projects must be worked out step by step, in order to formulate “designerly ways of research.”

Looking back, we do find precursors to design research in the past, making this not a new phenomenon but rather a rediscovered one with an eventful, fractured history. Some of the first precursors are seen in the theoretical orientation of the Bauhaus school, which, in Germany, was further developed at the Ulm School of Design by Tomas Maldonado and Gui Bonsiepe in the 1960s. The relationship between science and design, between theory and practice was a central theme at the school and had a lasting impact on its teachings. The key approaches to visual/verbal rhetoric and to audiovisual rhetoric are prime examples of design research at that time. Almost simultaneously the Anglo-American arena saw the emergence of the “design methods” movement, headed by figures like John Chris Jones and Christopher Alexander, who advanced the project of developing a scientific methodology for design. The movement was born in 1962 with The Conference on Systematic and Intuitive Methods in Engineering, Industrial Design, Architecture and Communications, which pursued the question of whether or not a transitional, craft-oriented form of design could still fulfill the requirements of an industrialized society and its changed production conditions. It developed a vision of design work underpinned by science, a discipline that is learning to deal with the multifaceted problems of modern society through working in interdisciplinary teams. This context intensified the number of questions regarding standardization, and also provided the background for Christopher Alexander’s “Pattern Language,” a book of recurring figures in architectural design. However, the rigid concept of scientific methodology and the reduction of design work to rational, predictable processes prompted the central protagonists to distance themselves from the movement. Indeed, they considered the project a failure.

Today, design research at large is meaningful in the scrutiny of social, ecological, gender-specific and daily-life contexts to explore how we wish to live in the future. In innovation research and management practice, we also see practices like “design thinking” gaining ground, practices which ultimately are based on the methods and processes of design research – an indication of a wide scope of relevance that extends beyond the discipline. But still the current discourse doesn’t always appear to bear in mind the early precursors or draw on their learning. Fundamental questions are always asked again and again. Is design itself a component and instrument of research? Or is it the subsequent implementation of knowledge that has been gained through established research methodology? Where is the line between a design project and a design research project? How can we comprehend the relationship between design practice and research, between reflection and action? Ascertaining the significance of one’s own idea of research remains a topic of discussion. It is only in the past few years that a common understanding has emerged of how design research can be described as a separate category in terms of its processes and methods. Theoreticians such as Wolfgang Jonas and Alain Findeli have been instrumental in establishing this understanding. Describing the research competency of design does not require an understanding of design as a new and genuine science. Measuring its processes and results according to standardized quantitative methods from engineering disciplines is also not the only way to gain trust in the relevance of design research. Cross states that today’s debate is neither about a “design science,” a term coined by Buckminster Fuller, nor a “science of design” that examines the processes, methods and products of design from a superordinate position. Here the approaches of the design methods movement have clearly been overcome, so that design research in today’s understanding of the term cannot be understood as the systematization and standardization of design. Instead, there is an opportunity to formulate design as a research discipline on a continuous quest to discover information that informs the design process, and also to formulate knowledge for and about design itself. Donald Schön touched on this idea in 1983, when he formulated the concept of the “reflective practitioners,” in which he addressed the situational, fuzzy and uncertain nature of the design process. He described design as “[…] an epistemology of practice implicit in the artistic, intuitive processes which some practitioners do bring to situations of uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict.” At the forefront is the question of the insight that lies in the act of designing. Schön does not speak of processes that can be rationalized or put into parameters, but rather of art and intuition, of the uniqueness and ambiguity of the situations in which practitioners intervene.

Here, Jonas and Findeli develop systematic descriptive models of design research that depict the relationship between theory and practice. Originally the three commonly discussed categories hark back to Christopher Frayling. They describe the relationship between design and research as “research about design,” “research for design,” and “research through design.” The first category, research about design, is comparable with what Cross describes as the “science of design,” in which – also based on the other disciplines – design as a phenomenon and field of knowledge becomes an object of investigation. A historical investigation of certain products, their development and significance, would be one example here. Research for design, as described in the second category, is on the other hand intended to inform the design process. Here, too, procedures and methods from other disciplines can be incorporated to support a design project. One example is the use of psychologists to lead surveys in focus groups researching the development of new products or systems. However, a new and central model in design research is research through design. In this context the relationship between research and design is an inherent one. What is currently being discussed and practiced is thus an alternative view of research rather than one based on the connection between the research process, with its scientific methodology, and design practice – the design. Here the scientific or scholarly aspect cannot be separated from the practical context: a type of research whose central element is a design project in which the hypothesis is tested and through which new insights are gained.

Findeli describes the design research process as follows: “Design Research is a systematic search for and acquisition of knowledge related to general human ecology, considered from a ‘designerly way of thinking.’” In other words, the knowledge is generated through the design research process. This refers to a design-specific type of knowledge acquisition and generation that emerges from the joining of research and practice, precisely what Nigel Cross calls “designerly ways of knowing.” In Findeli’s definition, the subject of study in design research is our day-to-day life, with all of the interactions that take place between individuals, groups and artifacts in different social contexts. The location in a social context and the accompanying focus on real-world problems that are context-driven and concrete has a significant influence on the underlying notion of research. Just as in the discussion on the production of knowledge in the Mode 2 concept, the idea here is clearly that research deals with complex problems and that the results should also be relevant for and stand up in society.

Furthermore Findeli defines the “relevance” that design research should have in its own discipline. The results should be evaluated according to three criteria:

  • Design knowledge: what knowledge has been gained for design practice?
  • Design practice: which insights have been gained about the target groups and contexts that inform design practice? How can this design knowledge be transferred systematically into practice so that it serves as more than merely an inspiration?
  • Design training: which insights gained through the design research process can be generalized and taught?

This gives rise to knowledge that leads beyond the practice and the discipline, resulting in knowledge, for example, that is relevant for the social sciences or opens up new, interdisciplinary fields. These areas in particular make evident the interdisciplinary positioning of design research, whose relevance extends beyond mere thematic boundaries and into the social context, complex social issues, and the exploration of how we will live in the future.

These models for design research describe processes and methods of research on the one hand, and derive criteria for relevance and evaluation on the other. A comparison of the two models reveals which gaps remain to be filled. Research practice clearly shows, for example, the central role that thinking plays in the development of prototypes, how research hypotheses can be clarified through the concreteness of the design, how visualization can be used as a method of analysis and a way to represent knowledge. Yet the question of how this interweaving of theoretical reflection and design practice can be depicted in scientific or scholarly research remains open, waiting for an answer from the many examples in design research.

There does seem to be agreement that the process of designing produces specific types of knowledge. The activity of designing, also in its more specialized form of prototyping, is a research tool that clarifies problems, illustrates hypotheses, and explores and forecasts the first approaches to solving future problems. Design-specific types of research and generating knowledge are always connected to a particular situation, they are artifact-oriented, contextualized and often interdisciplinary – the challenge thus remains to grasp this unique feature in a productive manner, to develop an independent idea of research and to try it out in research practice.

To conclude I would like to add a few practical considerations. In design research we observe, as shown, a completely different type of research methods and processes, a different theory of insight and production of knowledge. This difference also draws on alternative formats of evaluation, such as speaking with people in workshops and with experts, and employs evaluation criteria for designing that have long been established in other disciplines. An examination of these forms of evaluation and criteria can also be productive for other academically established structures, because it makes possible new formats for insight, publications and evaluation that answer questions arising in other discourses as well. We are currently seeing the rise of a new generation of design researchers who, as part of their doctoral studies are connecting design practice with substantiated theoretical reflection. This new generation is simultaneously developing job-oriented skills and the foundation for an academic career, in addition to the design competencies, methodological tools of research and empirically inspired, theory-based models used in design research projects.

In the design research community we have the task now to establish an independent idea of research. Therefore, we have to establish the necessary structures to support this at colleges and universities. The discourse within the individual disciplines is thereby just as important as the exchange and friction between neighboring disciplines – and thus with other epistemologies and concepts of science, research and the interplay between theory and practice. To my mind, the widening of the idea of research, as well as the distinctive nature of hybrid research approaches, holds a great potential to help us deal with today’s complex questions of our changing society. To do this requires openness to new things and the courage to experiment, both of which are essential components of the design disciplines.

One thing our community could do is to find and analyze practical examples from design research – do they match the theoretical model of research through design? We should explore these new kinds of research in interdisciplinary teams and combine the different methods and processes. The overall task is to create new forms of research through design! Now we need to make sure that these disciplines get involved in the debate for the long term, to help create and establish forward-looking, application-oriented and real world-applicable interpretations and formats of science and research.

>> 点击这里查看本文中文版《设计研究模式》




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



树屋 留学 设计展 WEST8 SWA 海平面上升 Julius Fabos 贝聿铭 北川 Gleisdreieck Mader 刘秀晨 数字图解 机场 植物 客座教授 住宅花园 绿道 王欣 巴塞罗那 几何 纪念碑 工程 散步道 雕塑 雨水 2012IFLA亚太区会议 新年 布鲁克林大桥 NITA Juergen Weidinger 西方建筑 宋晔皓 岭南园林 土人景观 教学 自然观 上海 年会 创业 Ron Henderson 实验 休斯顿探索公园 Brownfield 牛雄 居住区 政治 俞昌斌 檀馨 伊利诺伊大学 UIUC Malden 鹈鹕湾 论坛 日本 墨西哥 MLA 盆景园 绿色设计 枡野俊明 朱胜萱 风景园林学 安藤忠雄 Prof. Gesche Joost 苗木 禅修 花园 历史理论 意识形态 弗吉尼亚大学 UVa 公益 雪铁龙公园 RTD 2012IFLA 设计未来城市 空间 建筑 IFLA 绿色基础设施 普渡大学 首尔 深圳前海 设计研究 喷泉 数字化 维格兰 风景园林学会2015年会 王劲韬 Prof. Nigel Cross 生态 LABash 灾后 公共交通 摄影 技术 地域性景观 环境效应 ASLA学生奖 青海 教育 北欧 德国 香港 孟兆祯 野生动物廊道 布鲁克林 长椅 希望小学 9.11 参数化设计 挪威 公共花园 概念方案 鸟类 步行街 铁路 广州市绿化公司 保研 LIM 种植 城市雨水 日本设计 流浪汉 捷得国际 logo 永昌河 托滕堡公园 北角公园 古根海姆博物馆 就业 购物中心 洛阳 加拿大 园博会 风景区 台湾 宾夕法尼亚大学 展览 联谊 毛细水 维吉尼亚理工大学 经验 清华同衡学术周 可持续 设景 buffalo 狼牙山 种植装置 卡尔维诺 Diana Balmori 2013北京园博会 开放空间 广场 博士 Peter Walker 托马斯·丘奇 理论 原子城 Jack Ahern 地震 幻觉 韩国 预制混凝土 手绘 绿墙 反思 城乡 Ruggeri 万科 水盒子 考研 绿色屋顶 陈俊愉 Gesche Joost 会议 人居环境 西班牙 冯纪忠 世界风景园林师高峰论坛 罗马奖 铺地 城市景观 垃圾 马克 可持续城市 TOPOS 游乐场 布法罗河湾散步道 Michael Van Valkenburgh and Associates 保护 方塔园 合作 调查问卷 Hans Joachim Mader 庭院 老人 Vertical Greening Systems 沥青 碛口古镇 河流 太阳能 张乔松 龙安寺 玛莎·施瓦茨 GSD 马萨诸塞大学 UMass 多样性 城市空间 BIM 如园 批评 LEPC 枯山水 清华 地砖 美国 安友丰 法国 成范永 瑠公圳 区域园林 泰山 城市 竞赛 佛罗里达 数字景观 韩炳越 洪盈玉 哈佛 雨洪管理 三倾园 水文 北林 景观都市主义 滨水 交通节点 朱育帆 文化景观 北京 可持续化 哈普林 halprin 毕业设计 Xeritown 南湖中央公园 雕塑公园 迪士尼 Disney 书评 棕地 何巧女 旅游 非言述性和默会性知识 风景园林学会2011年会 图解 欧洲 纵向耕作 商业建筑 辰山植物园 设计竞赛 现代主义 Kingston University 风景园林新青年,就在你身边 视觉文化 沃夫岗·哈勃 志愿者 Waterboxx 京津冀 风景园林月 AGER 低收入住宅 鹿特丹 公园 Stoss Landscape Urbanism 护栏 校园 证书 中央公园 讲座 Media Ship 天津大学 植物园 年报 加州花园 国家公园 禅意 华盛顿 美术馆 低能耗 Prof. Loidl-Reisch LAM 银泉市 Silver Spring 骑行 Greenway 自杀 迪士尼音乐厅 英国 康奈尔大学 教学元素 迪拜 城市建设 风景园林学会2013年会 场所 IGA 视频 纪念性景观 香格里拉植物园 翻译 学习方法 人文 环境 便携 多伦多 Prof. Wolfgang Jonas 跨学科教育 世博 沙龙 儿童 职业实践 裁员 纽约 新加坡 James Corner ARC 风景园林 五角大楼 Dr. Rosan Chow 苏州古典园林 西安世园会 矶琦新 Prof. Jürgen Weidinger TAMU 夏成钢 德国市民花园 湿地 新青年读老经典 新西兰 历史 SANAA 水景 Vista Hermosa 钢笔画 国际风景园林师高峰论坛 ASLA 盐湖城 马晓暐 张唐景观 什刹海 碳补偿林 空气污染 铺装 行业 钓鱼岛 华南 经典 自然文化资源 珊瑚礁