At my first BUZZ tutorial I was advised to set out a classification of research skills that I intended to use to monitor and observe my students' researching activity. It seemed like a simple enough exercise, however when I set about doing it so many questions were raised that I felt I needed to investigate design research methodologies and theories to get clarity on what I wanted to include within my own classification for BUZZ. In part I think this also grew out of a degree of confusion during the tutorial. As I spoke with Kieran and Maria it became clear that I viewed certain aspects of the whole process as 'researching' whereas my tutors felt that these aspects belonged in the activity of 'design' and therefore didn’t have a place in an investigation into research methods and skills of my students. There is a divide between the researching and the doing and I needed to define the difference.
A discrepancy again emerged in our discussion in relation to the end product of the brief - the design artifact - with Kiernan feeling that this element held little relevance to the knowledge production of the researching process. I realised that I needed to put in place definitions of what I intended to investigate and back up a rationale behind the relevancies of any decisions on what to include or not. This took me on a very interesting and in depth journey over the past few weeks and I have done extensive reading on the matter which I have found enormously fruitful and enlightening. Oh the joy of learning!
I began by looking at what I currently had in place...
My current research classification
Currently in my conversations with students and in the marking of a brief, I carve up the evidence of research in my students sketchpads into 2 main categories: subject research and visual research.
Subject research concerns itself with investigating the major themes of the project - either those outlined in the brief or those identified by the student through their interpretation of the brief. Engaging in this form of research informs the students hugely and leads them in deeper understanding of any communication issues they may wish to make on a particular subject (be that drug addiction, the solar system, whatever). In essence the body of knowledge and understanding gained through this research forms the focus for the conceptual development - and the potential of visual solutions through analysis of the context.
Visual research meanwhile focuses on 2 key strands: firstly – investigations into whatever design discipline the brief is engaged with (branding, editorial design etc) and secondly visual research that aligns itself with the individual direction the student is exploring thematically (visual examples of ‘distressed’ typography or spacial layouts that communicate, for example, a sense of calm etc).
Both categories characterise a process of analysis and synthesis. Analysis relating to the method of investigation, enquiry and understanding central to the research of a project brief, concept or the particular context. Synthesis then is the means by which the student is able to draw upon his or her analytical work and investigation to draft meaningful communications. The students' ability to understand the range of issues affecting the creation of a successful visual communication – audience, the intention with the message/product, materials, the use of appropriate visual language - all influence the final form the artifact takes.
Reading (RE: search)
My methodology so far has included much reading focusing on models of design research; the analysis and documenting of student sketchpads; informal interviews with my case study participants, and with peers in academia and industry. In this post I want to focus on the reading I have engaged in over the past few weeks.
My attempts to define research have led me to many found definitions for example:
“A critical investigation or search or inquiry to discover new facts and information or to collect and collate old data. Research employs methods and schemes of testing to interpret events, fact or information, and is a process of observation, discovery and recording”
(Ian Noble “Visual Research: An Introduction to Research in Design’)
“Rather than to define research in terms of use of specific methodological techniques, it makes more sense to concentrate on what it is both research and science in its most basic form tries to achieve: to produce knowledge and to seek the truth."
(Fallman, D. Why Research-Oriented Design Isn't Design-Oriented Research. 2005, Umea Institute of Design Press)
I have investigated design research literature to understand historical and currently proposed models of design research. My reading, meant to ground my own inquiry and provide a framework for the drawing up of my own classification of design research, has focused on the history of design research; attempts to define and classify it; and the role of the designed artifact forming part of the research. I am including here some recurring names and models of note which are influencing my own classification efforts:
Sir Christopher Fraying: ‘Research in Art and Design”
- a pivotal paper from Royal College of Art 1993.
Frayling identifies three key modes of design research:
1. research into design; 2. research through design, and 3. research for design.
Research into design includes the traditional historical and aesthetic studies of art and design. Research through design is project based and includes materials research and development. Research for design is the hardest to characterise, as its purpose is to create objects and systems that display the results or purpose of the research and prove its worth. (more about this below)
Donald Schön: ‘The Reflective Practitioner”
In adding to the research discussion of design methods, Donald Schön introduced the idea of design as a reflective practice where designers reflect back on the actions taken in order to improve design methodology. While this may seem counter to the science of design, where the practice of design is the focus of a scientific inquiry, several design researchers have argued that reflective practice and a science of design can co-exist in harmony.
Daniel Fallman:
‘Why Research-oriented-Design isn’t the same as Design-oriented-Research’ (2005)
‘To briefly introduce these two notions, one can see design-oriented research — where research is the area and design the means—as a conduct which seeks to produce new knowledge by involving design activities in the research process. Here, design is used to drive and propel research. In research-oriented design however—where design is the area and research the means—the creation of products, and in that process answering to the problems and real-world obstacles that are faced in that process, is the primary objective. Here, research is used to drive and propel design.
I have included more on this below.
The Artifact as Part of Design Research
As I stated earlier part of my intent within my BUZZ investigations was to observe and document the impact of any research conducted upon the final design artifact. I realise that the research skills students apply to the activity is the primary concern but I believe that the created artifact embodies that research activity. I needed to define and clarify my thinking with regard to the research relevance of the artifact the students will design.
As briefly outlined above Christopher Frayling identifies three key modes of design research: 1. research into design; 2. research through design, and 3. research for design. Research for design is the hardest to characterise, as its purpose is to create objects and systems that display the results or purpose of the research and prove its worth.
This is the element that intrigues me most and that perhaps goes some way in validating the inclusion of the artifact as part of any observation of my students research activities.
“The thorny one is research for art and design, research with a small ‘r’ in the dictionary, what Pablo Picasso considered was the gathering of reference material rather than research proper. Research where the end product is an artifact - where the thinking is, so to speak, embodied in the artifact, where the goal is not primarily communicable knowledge in the sense of verbal communication, but in the sense of visual, or iconic or imagistic communication.” (Sir Christopher Frayings’ ‘Research in Art and Design”)
I refer to Daniel Fallman again here in relation to this point on the artifact as part of the research. In his paper cited above he argues that “in design-oriented-research the knowledge that comes from studying the designed artifact in use should be seen as the main contribution – the ‘result’ – while the artifact that has been developed becomes more of a means than an end. This implies that the artifact takes on a philosophically interesting role as a kind of middle ground between a thought experiment and a real thing. They are not designed entities per se—they are means to get at knowledge”.
However, he goes on to explain that "in contrast to this, research-oriented design is a term that is believed to better illustrate the relationship that consultants, applied researchers, and designers from industry typically hold in relation to design. In research-oriented design, the artifact is the product or primary outcome; it is regarded as the ‘result’ of their efforts." "Obviously, this conduct also generates knowledge however that it is not what is emphasized and this difference in purpose of the design activity generates different kind of knowledge which is not universal but rather it is particular to its character. The artifact also takes on a much clearer and explicit role in what the designers stress as their contribution."
"Yet another quite important difference is that research-oriented design most often has problem solving as a key component. This is because in the world of research-oriented design, the designer’s main guarantor, or customer, (or lecturer!) is typically a third party that puts up restrictions of different kinds and expects certain results. While research-oriented design may relate to, seek influence in, and even contribute to research (i.e. the generation of knowledge) in different ways, it has the production of new artifacts as its main motivation and goal."
In a design project, research-oriented or not, decisions are often based on intuition and judgment. For instance, the form given to a specific element of a logotype is due to the designer’s judgment in the specific situation - based on his or her competence, intuition, experience, taste, knowledge of the context and so on - in a very complex process where the designer moves back and forth between considering details (e.g. exact coloring, specific shapes, and font kerning) and considering larger wholes (e.g. flow of characters, the logotype’s whole gestalt, and big issues like branding and corporate identity).
The main disparity between research and design from this perspective therefore is not primarily that design only produces artifacts and research only produces knowledge, there is room within each activity to accommodate both and within my classification I will have to decide how and why they differ within the context of the design brief I am observing within BUZZ.
My reading on design research has revealed much on a combination of research and making, however the focus in much of the writing has been on design as a practice and not as a research discipline that makes contributions of knowledge. Graphic design practice focuses on making a successful piece of visual commuication, but it could be argued that design research is engaged in the creation of artifacts that are intended to be questions or crafted observations offered up to the viewer. These artifacts stimulate discussion around a topic or challenge the status quo – the designer becomes the critical observer, analyst and communicator. It could be argued that student designers occupy this space more substantially as they have the freedom to do so free from commercial constraints. Again however it does depend on the project brief and some facilitate this level of research activity more than others. I would have loved to have been in a position to give my case study group a project that had less of a 'real world' focus in the interests of my own BUZZ investigations, however syllabus restrictions meant that the final brief needed to capture particular elements. I do believe however that the brief given accommodates the creation of artifacts that can contribute knowledge and generate further questions. I still intend to maintain this model within my own research classification as the project brief given expands the students’ focus on methods and analysis of artifacts to include making as a method of inquiry.
