Reading 1: “Designerly Ways of knowing”

1. If the phrase ‘further research is needed’ is counted as an excuse in science and the humanities, isn’t the author using ill-defined or ill-structured problems in design also as an excuse?

1. According to the reading, is it better for designers to understand the problem deeply then explore its solution rather than being solution-focused? For example, one of the main concerns of a thesis for an architect student is to define the main question of her topic.

1. Based on this paper and the previous ones, it seems to me that the question is not whether design needs researching or not. In science, the outcome of each research topic is unique and it will be counted as an achievement only for that specific researcher. On the other hand, in design the same topic can be studied in different situations such as different geographical locations or different cultures and the topic is not unique and is dependent on the conditions.

Reading 2: “This is Research by Design”

1. Based on the concepts of ‘knowledge of’ and ‘knowledge for’ by Ranulph Glanville, designers do not need knowledge of what it is, they need knowledge for changing the world.  Isn’t “what it is” a necessary part of the knowledge for changing the world? How is it possible to change the world before getting to know what it is first?

2. Both ‘Mode 1’ and ‘Mode 2’ knowledge and ‘Nomothetic’ and ‘Idiographic’ sciences which were introduced by Gibbons and colleagues and Wilhem Windelbrand respectively, try to draw a line in types of knowledge. However, is this kind of distinction completely applicable to architecture.

2. Why in the conclusion part of the article, thinking in the narrow sense and exploration are discussed as conflicting matters? Isn’t it true that designers need to pick a narrow topic and explore a lot to find an answer for that topic?