Talk:Design research

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)

I've been doing design research for a while and when looking at this article I was surprised not to see any reference to Liz Sanders, who has been writing and contributing a lot to (a) design research development and (b) tools for design research. Her articles can be found at http://www.maketools.com/ and biography at http://www.dundee.ac.uk/design/profiles.php?profile=elizabeth-b--n-sanders&section=biography

"Liz Sanders is a pioneer in the use of participatory research methods for the design of products, systems, services and spaces. She divides her time between teaching and practice. Liz teaches human-centered design to students, clients and colleagues around the world. She has an Honorary Professorship in the School of Design at the University of Dundee and serves as an Advisory Board Member for the School of Design at Carnegie Mellon University. Liz teaches the required design research courses to all the design students at The Ohio State University."

other excelent reference is the recent book with a collection of design and development processes, which fits perfectly in the design research discussion http://www.dubberly.com/articles/how-do-you-design.html

--Adler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.216.59.225 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Please see WP:SPAM and WP:EL. I'm happy to discuss this in detail if you'd like. --Ronz 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to add my voice to the discussion should it prove necessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Design research and design science

Design research and Design science - seems like a duplication. Should these articles be merged? If there are differences, they need to be reflected in the text. This article, in articular, does not seem to even acknowledge the existence of the other one.Викидим (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m not sure how a merge would benefit Wikipedia users. What title would you suggest for the merged entry? Certainly the two entries currently overlap in the lead sections, but the main entries seem to be addressed to two different audiences. The Design science entry is now being interpreted as primarily concerned with information science, which considerably narrows the more general meaning. The associated entry for Design science (methodology) aka Design science research also makes this especially clear: “a research paradigm focusing on the development and validation of prescriptive knowledge in information science” and “DSR focuses on the development and performance of (designed) artifacts with the explicit intention of improving the functional performance of the artifact.” These two statements suggest DS as having a much narrower focus than DR – on prescriptive knowledge and functional performance (in information science), whereas DR has a much broader interest in all aspects and applications of designing. To reflect this in the text (as you suggest) would imply editing the DS entry (e.g. modifying the lead to narrow its context). Designergene (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For me it comes from a fairly practical issue: while writing the Computer-aided architectural design (History section), I needed to describe the research, dating back to 1960s, that is studying the technological (computer) aspects of the architectural designs. In the context-specific literature, it is referred to as "design research", see, for example, Fraser, M. (2021). Design Research in Architecture: An Overview. Design Research in Architecture. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-94510-3. Retrieved 2024-02-15.. While trying to provide a wikilink, I have discovered that neither the design research, nor the design science are adequate, while being very close at the lead level. So I am somewhat stuck with the following definitions:

1. Design science research (DSR) is a research paradigm focusing on the development and validation of prescriptive knowledge in information science;
2. Design research was originally constituted as primarily research into the process of design, developing from work in design methods, but the concept has been expanded to include research embedded within the process of design, including work concerned with the context of designing and research-based design practice;
3. A concept of design science was introduced in 1957 by R. Buckminster Fuller who defined it as a systematic form of designing.

None of these will be helpful to a reader that would try to click the wikilink in the CAAD article, so the link (currently pointing to design research) is not very useful. It might make sense to clearly acknowledge the existence of similar terms in the lead, or close to it, and indicate the differences. Викидим (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your work on the history of Computer-aided architectural design is good, clear and helpful. Linking to Design research may not be very helpful to those interested in CAAD, but it’s more helpful than linking to Design science. I think that early design research included a lot of CAD and especially CAAD, so that could be referenced explicitly within the Early Work section of DR (which does already mention architecture as strongly represented in early work). That might make the link a bit more helpful to readers of your CAAD history.

The problem with Design science is that it has been largely appropriated by a Hevner-heavy view of information science research. It really needs some serious editing. Of your definitions, above, 1 is especially restricted to that view, 2 is rather discursive but not un-helpful and could be improved, 3 is not very helpful at all (and I’m not sure if the ‘definition’ is accurate).

So merging Design research and Design science still doesn’t seem a good idea to me, but you have rightly pointed out that they both need some editing to clarify a distinction between them (especially in their leads) and to improve both. Designergene (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to explain the situation. I am going to point the link to the "Early work" section. Case closed. Викидим (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to do some editing of both Design Research and Design Science in the next few days. Designergene (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)