Research Methods week 2 readings

John Mellas

Reading 1: “Cross Design”

1:  “We are exploring the ways and the implications of design being a part of everyone’s education in the same ways that the sciences and humanities are parts of everyone’s education.” In some ways it already is with schooling teaching art classes and introducing how we would approach a design problem. I believe that breaking from the strict layout of the US school system would be beneficial to each individual. We know how math and science works, but with design, you are finding out how you work. How would this help the design professions? To what extent would the design field be taught?

2:  “There are things to know, ways of knowing them, and ways of finding out about them that are specific to the design area.” Is the design way of thinking the only way to solve a design problem? Can the thought process of another profession be a better way of thinking and solving a design question? Is interdisciplinary design better than singular disciplinary design?

3:  When you fail to exercise, your muscles break down, becoming weaker and weaker. “In educational terms, the development of constructive thinking must be seen as a neglected aspect of cognitive development in the individual.”  If design were part of required general education, would there be an increase of knowledge in all fields due to the underutilized portion of our brain? Would we see an increase in interdisciplinary design by people engaged in design as well as other general education fields?

Reading 2: Verbeke “This is Research by Design”

1:  “Human learning and (social) constructivist thinking are strongly based on experience, perceptions, and interactions between people.” With this in mind, would having a directed research that is essentially a one on one studio with a professor a good idea? If we are isolated to interactions with just a few people in our design efforts, would the design process begin to get stale? Wouldn’t being in a larger group doing such research be more beneficial than just a one on one discussion all the time

2:  “Architecture and the arts were strongly linked in the past.” Design process feels too mechanical. We need to find the balance between art and architecture. The two things that come to mind here are Zaha Hadid, and the city in the movie Tomorrowland. Both seem to blur the lines between art and architecture, while still being architecturally and programmatically significant. Can the architecture profession survive as an artistic form of designing rather than more practical?

3:  Having too much information could pull us in too many directions when we are designing.  As we continue to design our projects, is there a moment where research no longer is necessary or needed? If you have a design method and purpose, and are set in stone with those, should we stop researching and then (using the research that we have done) begin to formulate our own results?