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 *



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