Thursday, May 17, 2012
Student Work/Research Spaces
Here is a little window into my 3 students' worlds. I asked them to photograph their researching spaces for me... the main places that they conduct their research. Interestingly all of them photographed their work desks with their computers for internet research very much present. However they all had mentioned the college library as a research resource. When I asked them about this they each replied that while they access books there and do a certain amount of researching in the library itself (depending on the loan restrictions on the books they were accessing) they all borrow the books and bring them home so they have the more comfortable and informal environment to research... drinking tea and listening to music and being able to say 'hey look at this' to housemates. Altogether a more social activity than you might imagine!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Outline Student Interview Questions
Here is an outline of the questions I used for my student interviews. I did the interviews with out working directly from this list and didn't 'lead' the students as much as some of the clarifiying comments in brackets here might suggest! These comments were more to assist me if the student was having difficulty answering which, thankfully, was not the case .
Questions for student interviews:
How do you approach research for a project - (is it something that you tackle from the outset to help define some parameters for yourself or do you begin it later when you have a clearer idea of your intent or is it something different to those egs altogether?)
Do you approach it in a calm organised way or is you approach more intuitive and hap-hazard?
What is the tempo of your research - time consuming and reflective or bursts of intense searching where much progress is made quickly or something else altogether?
For you what is the main type of research you engage in - (for example might it be... Historical research - looking at existing designs for the area you are investigating e.g. logos for a similar product etc. Or primary research - investigating it yourself through photography, sketching etc)
What are your main researching tools? for example - Internet - which sites or searches ? Library - books and journals?Visiting sites - eg shop to view brands? Primary research?
How, for you, does the research findings contribute to your design practice would you say? Could you give a % even for this maybe?
When do you employ research mostly e.g. beginnging of project, middle or end or all through or not at all?
When do you apply the research then to the design?
How do you feel the research maps onto the various stages of the design process for you? (i.e. here how do you apply the research)
Is there a difference in how and when you approach visual research as opposed to the subject research?
Is there a blurring between researching and designing for you - are are they 2 separate activities? (Do you research through your design experiments?)
How long for per ‘session’... or does it pour out into conversations with classmates over coffee … or it is something you approach in a structured search kind of way?
How do you record what you find? (do you comment on it or do you expand upon it and detail how it might be synthesised into your design work)?
Do you enjoy the researching part of the process or is it a ‘have to do it’ part of the project because it is marked?
How do you think researching impacts on the amount of learning you do within a project brief?
Questions for student interviews:
How do you approach research for a project - (is it something that you tackle from the outset to help define some parameters for yourself or do you begin it later when you have a clearer idea of your intent or is it something different to those egs altogether?)
Do you approach it in a calm organised way or is you approach more intuitive and hap-hazard?
What is the tempo of your research - time consuming and reflective or bursts of intense searching where much progress is made quickly or something else altogether?
For you what is the main type of research you engage in - (for example might it be... Historical research - looking at existing designs for the area you are investigating e.g. logos for a similar product etc. Or primary research - investigating it yourself through photography, sketching etc)
What are your main researching tools? for example - Internet - which sites or searches ? Library - books and journals?Visiting sites - eg shop to view brands? Primary research?
How, for you, does the research findings contribute to your design practice would you say? Could you give a % even for this maybe?
When do you employ research mostly e.g. beginnging of project, middle or end or all through or not at all?
When do you apply the research then to the design?
How do you feel the research maps onto the various stages of the design process for you? (i.e. here how do you apply the research)
Is there a difference in how and when you approach visual research as opposed to the subject research?
Is there a blurring between researching and designing for you - are are they 2 separate activities? (Do you research through your design experiments?)
How long for per ‘session’... or does it pour out into conversations with classmates over coffee … or it is something you approach in a structured search kind of way?
How do you record what you find? (do you comment on it or do you expand upon it and detail how it might be synthesised into your design work)?
Do you enjoy the researching part of the process or is it a ‘have to do it’ part of the project because it is marked?
How do you think researching impacts on the amount of learning you do within a project brief?
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Classification Of Research Skills for BUZZ
This task is no longer in progress after my second tutorial. The aim now is to seek a more ethnographic approach. Now in retrospect it is better to let the students give their own account of how they research and let the classification, the construct, grow out of that. (previous idea of setting up a classification and mapping the students researching activity against that is not the approach now.)
I hope to...
'seek a richer story giving a sense of the individual'.
I hope to...
'seek a richer story giving a sense of the individual'.
'how long do they research at home / what are their thoughts / what is their tempo etc'?
'Go home with them and photograph their work spaces'
'Observe their lives day to day'
'The context of the research for brief is just a slice, the brief and artifact are aren't so important' So I will continue with photographing the students' work and will also interview them on their personal researching activity and methods etc in an attempt to get a sense of them.
researching RESEARCH
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”
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.
“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.
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.
Ita's Sketch Pad
I am including for now some images of one of my case study students' work to date for the branding brief. i am photographing from the sketch pads weekly to keep track of progress, but am not yet sure how I will manage/display them - or on the basis of my tutorial - if i need to display them at all in fact. However in the interests of managing the image gathering myself and to get a clearer picture of how to map and cross reference the students progress in researching against my classification of research. I am still working on how best to visually articulate that - for myself at least! Crucially - I am also still finialising that classification, but for now I am including an update here of just one students work to give a flavour of things so far.
Choosing the object and concept generation around its' new function:
Some visual research into logos that feature animal motifs (aligned with her concept):
Working on name development:
Early drafts for trial name 'hound husher':
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Research Based Practice
“One of the most impressive design research based practices in the world belongs to the architect Rem Koolhaas. Koolhaas has built his world wide reputation in large measure by designing and publishing the results of his research in provoking ways. From ‘Delirious New York: A Retrospective Manifesto for Manhattan' to 'S,M, L, XL' in collaboration with graphic designer Bruce Mau, to ‘The Harvard Design School Guide to Shopping', Koolhaas has consistently deployed design research in distinct ways. A look at his approach makes it obvious that design as research is not the same as science as research. Its emotional, subjective, sensitive to social context and culture and its precisely this that makes the results of design research resonate with people." (Peter Luenfeld, 2003)
In the current brief I have given to my students part of my aim with it is that they see and understand their role as designers to be able to create beyond branding and into shaping the design of products and services - that they view their role as more expansive, that they have more authorship.
With so much hype about new design software tools (After Effects anyone!?) this is precisely the time to revisit the debates about deep design over styling. Our profession is in some degree of turmoil at present. I witness it in my own professional practice and regularly discuss future directions and definitions with my peers. Design is being squeezed by the requirement for web usability, site analytics etc and increasingly the role of the designer is “greying out”. It is difficult to prepare students for the profession when the ground is moving beneath our feet. I firmly believe that while all these new elements and influences are necessary within design in a contemporary context, we need to return to the touch stones of designs’ own power and intelligence. Design research is at the very heart of this. "It is a rational practice but one where emotion is allowed to manifest and guide. Its as much like a cooks kitchen as a scientists’ lab. "(Peter Luenfeld, 2003)
In my teaching practice my hope is to help students understand that while things may speed by on the surface they have a foundation in a calmer, more fundamental place. And it is here that research is undertaken, understood, and utilised in different contexts, and ultimately shaping the creative output in whatever form it takes. In short, I aim to instill in student designers an ability to harness the power of research and in doing so increase the value and meaning of their own work and ultimately of the discipline itself. The ‘consequences’ of their designs become more intentional, purposeful, engaging through the research that helped shape it. It is something I fervently hope students will bring with them from academia to industry.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
BUZZ PROJECT BRIEF
This is the final brief I am giving my students for this year and it is the brief I will be using as the basis for my case study during BUZZ. It's a branding brief that brings students through identity design, investigation of branding strategy, then on to the expansion of that into packaging design and finally the brands' further expression as a website. At the outset of the project students are asked to come up with concepts that shape the type of product they are branding, defining it function and its audience. This level of involvement is increasingly more common in industry where rather than a designer being brought in to 'style' a product or service as a final stage, we are now assisting in the development, definition and naming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)