Designerly ways of Knowing:

1. Using the term Artificial World as the phenomenon of study in design does not sound convenient to me. Design in my point of view is trying to construct the next realities.

2. While design should not be confused with art, with science or mathematics, it seems comprehensible to talk about using science in design. But what artistic design could be? What happens when art and design tend to combine?

3. What are different modes of cognition and how are they distinguishable? How do concrete/iconic modes relate to design and formal/symbolic are relevant in science?

This is Research by design:

1. What is reflective thinking?

2. In the article, it is suggested to avoid imposing checklist of qualitative aspects. What is an example of imposing such a list?

3. Artistic research and research by design are currently developing widely. It has been also mentioned that “there is no such thing as research that is not designed” and “it is ridiculous to try to make design subject to the rules of research.” Does considering these three statements together, suggest that Research by Design will constantly stay in a state of exponential growth?

Reading 1

Nigel Cross, “Designerly Ways of Knowing”

• As mentioned in the article, the three criteria of education “Value, self-awareness, cognitive perception” to gain knowledge, and well trained person doesn`t mean he/she is educated. Isn`t the knowledge is reached by the students` experience which is part of the reality?  Knowledge is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject
• In term of design products and the design process. Is there direct or indirect effect to the reality, and its existing?
• In Piaget`s and Burner`s models of the cognitive and intellectual development, Piaget`s stages are concrete which is mature understanding of the reason and effect, Formal is the abstracted logical thinking. Burner`s has the Iconic which is the mental images as the sectional drawing of Johan Van Den Berghe, Symbolic is the formation of knowledge. As shown is the intersection of all stages is it possible to have the 4 stages combined together to be relevant to design or science?

http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/the-sydney-opera-house-by-jrn-utzon-celebrates-its-40th-anniversary_o

Reading 2

Johan Verbeke, “This Is Research By Design”

• Does the concept of Zeewu and Glanville “knowledge for change” can be reached by “knowledge of what is”, since architecture is multi- discipline where it’s constructive process?
• What does determine the quality and the level of the design/ the research in the three possible situations?
• In the third situation, how does indicate the Research by design?

Nigel Cross, “Chapter 1: Designerly Ways of Knowing”

1. Peters says that the first principal criterion for education is that worthwhile knowledge of some value must be transmitted. He then tries to define what knowledge is considered “worthwhile”, stating that it is value-laden and problematic. Shouldn’t “worthwhile knowledge” be determined by each person’s subjective opinion? Isn’t what we want to know that makes it worthwhile?

2. This article firmly states that a designer has to be properly educated and trained. However, every teacher teaches differently due to their own preference and experience. Does it make any difference that there are multiple ways of how a student can be taught to be a designer?

3. “These experiments suggest that scientists problem-solve by analysis, whereas designers problem-solve by synthesis.” This statement seems a little too cut and dry for these two groups. Don’t designers do research first before making something while scientists conduct experiments to prove their analysis?

Johan Verbeke, “This is Research by Design”

1. Ranulph Glanville states that, “Design is not interested in describing what it is, but changing what is,” using ‘Mode 1’ and ‘Mode 2’ knowledge. However, isn’t the whole purpose of research in architecture to know what is before changing it?

2. The concept discussed by this article is “research by design” and how it works. So how would the reverse, “design by research” be perceived by the author? What would change? What wouldn’t?

3. The issue of the arts and architecture were brought up in this article several times as parallels of each other. It was even stated that they were strongly linked in the past. Why aren’t they still strongly linked today? Is it our evolving research or technology that changed this or is it something else?

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?

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?

Designerly Ways of Knowing, Nigel Cross

1. “Traditionally, design teachers have been practicing designers who pass on their knowledge, skills, and values through a process of apprenticeship.” Wouldn’t it be more ideal for students to have an educator that is a currently a practicing designer opposed to one that used to be?
2. “Education must be designed deliberately to enhance and to develop students intrinsic cognitive process and abilities.” If education was to be designed to enhance not only cognitive, but also tactile, auditory, and sensory abilities, would it be more beneficial?
3. “The concrete/iconic modes of cognition are particularly relevant in design where as formal/symbolic modes are more relevant in the sciences…it is clear that there is a strong justification for design education in that it provides opportunities particularly the development of concrete/iconic modes.” Can design education also help formal/symbolic modes or the other way around?

This is Research by Design, Johan Verbeke

1. Instead of simply research ‘on’ architecture, researchers should try to establish research ‘in the medium’ of architecture. This means to investigate architecture through architecture not through history, theory, social science or environmental science. If “developing architecture research is to incorporate practice and design studio work into it,” should we not research through other mediums as well to further help develop our research?
2. Verdeke explains the difference between nomothetic and idiographic. Would it be beneficial to the field if architecture was researched through a nomothetic sense? Or would the study of different fields in a nomothetic sense be more beneficial to architecture?
3. “The problem hence with academia today is that is undervalues the diversity in knowledge…This overly particular interpretation is one of the major problems that the ‘creative and ‘making’ disciplines currently face as they attempt to incorporate several types of knowledge.” Doesn’t this some what contradict what Verdeke states later on about how research should be investigated purely ‘in the medium’ of architecture? Does that mean design also undervalues the diversity in knowledge?

Reading 1: Cross

1. Cross states that traditionally design teachers are firstly designers and teachers by coincidence. Teachers in general however should be teachers first and “only secondly, if at all, specialists in any field”.  “The main distinction lies in the difference between the instrumental, or extrinsic, aims that specialist education usually has, and the intrinsic aims that general education must have.  What are the extrinsic aims of design education?
2. Cross quotes Ryle (1949) in his writing that the difference between being educated and being highly trained is a matter of “knowing how” versus “knowing that”. If this can result in a designer that is very skilled but that also have little cognition of what they are doing, how does design education avoid that paradox?
3. Is the phrase “further research is needed” applicable to design research if the process of design is solution oriented? Once we reach a solution how do we know we need to go further?

Reading 2: Verbeke:

1. Verbeke, like Cross, notes that design school teaching staff are typically practitioners within the field. Is this common across all professional degree types?  Or, is this unique to design education programs?
2. Verbeke analyzes Ranulph Ganville’s declaration that there cannot be research without design. Ganville concludes that it is “impossible to make design subject to the rules of research, when research itself is only possible because of design”.  If the tools of research had to be designed before research could be done, does that mean that design is validated as research?
3. “So, the key issue for developing architectural research is to incorporate practice and design studio work into it. Instead of simply research ‘on’ architecture, researchers should try to establish research ‘in the medium’ of architecture”. What kinds of design problems would require both types of research?

This is Research by Design, Johan Verbeke

1. The core of the field of architecture (or designing, artistic, and related activities) has become the basis or vehicle for research or knowledge. What has Verbeke offered as an understanding of knowledge?
2. Knowledge modes 1 and 2 stress the importance of multidisciplinary research in the field of architecture. Why is this important? To Verbeke, why is theory also important?
3. Verbeke says, “research by design is high-level research in which these core competences of the field in designing and making are the main pathways to establish new understanding and knowledge.” Why is research by design so important to Verbeke?

Designerly Ways of Knowing, Nigel Cross

1. Cross is concerned with the processes by which students are educated, stressing the manner in which they are educated are as important as the matter which is transmitted – why is this?
2. To Cross, designers impose primary generators in design problems that defines the limits of the problem and suggests the nature of its possible solution. How can research by design fit into this method?
3. How can both design research and design education develop a common approach to design as a discipline?

Reading 1

Nigel Cross, “Designerly Ways of Knowing”

Question 1:

Cross describes the values of design as being such; practicality, ingenuity, empathy and a concern for appropriateness. Is he describing what the ideal values of design are? In reality, the design process might not be practical or have a sense of appropriateness, but rather be the opposite. All avenues of thought are explored through design.

Question 2:

Peters states that “one is trained as a designer, or doctor, or philosopher, but that alone does not make one educated. It is ironic that we state that “you must go to college and get an education”. Architectural schools in general do state that they are training you to be a designer. Does the idea of being truly educated in  the way that Peters is describing it come from the practice of design in the real world? Is one considered “educated” once t hey take the knowledge they have learned and apply it to the real world? If this is the case, are professors who only stay in academia and do not practice considered “educated”?

Question 3:

Cross stated, “Concrete/ironic modes of cognition are particularly relevant in design, whereas the formal/symbolic modes are more relevant in the sciences.” Why is this? Can’t the process of gathering knowledge in design be formal or symbolic as well?

Reading 2

Johan Verbeke, “This Is Research By Design”

Question 1:

Is design too broad a subject to incorporate into research? Glanville stated that “The problem for design and research is that the academy has become too specialized. Science used to mean knowledge. Today, it has come to be known as a particular type of knowledge.” There are many different aspects of design. In order to research by design, does design need to be more focused into a specific category or means of design?

Question 2:

If research is design, then is design research? Would the act of researching through design mean that you are researching your research? By that I mean, the design process, which is considered research, creates something that can be subject to evaluation and further research.

Question 3:

“Research by design results in the development of spatial understanding and human ecology which has daily impacts on behavior and living conditions. It is not about analytical thinking in the narrow sense, but rather exploration.” Does this article contradict whether or not design is “Research” or “research”, as suggested in the previous classes reading by Frayling? By saying research by design is about exploration, does this mean that this method of research is research with a little “r”?

Reading 1: Designerly Ways of Knowing

Q1_ “These design teachers tend to be firstly designers, and only secondly and incidentally teachers.  This model may be defensible for specialist education, but in general education all teachers are (0r should be) firstly teachers, and only secondly, if at all specialists in any field.”  Design is a profession where you learn and gain experience by doing.  If this method is so ingrained in us as designers, shouldn’t we want the people teaching design, to have actually designed?

Q2_ “We have to be able to identify that which is intrinsically valuable in the field of design, such that it is justifiably a part of everyone’s education and contributes to the development of an ‘educated’ person.” I think design is a field where you learn by making, but only after you have begun this process do you learn the questions you are really wanting to answer.  This leads to a method of inquiry that not only engages you on a technical level of how things work and how you can build them, but also on a larger contextual level of how to learn to ask questions of yourself. This sort of learning is unique in design and promotes a different way of thinking, is this not valuable to learn in general education?

Q3_ In the reading, the author states that many times designers are trained and not educated, I think in recent modes of education, it is becoming more prevalent to ask, “Why are we designing?”

Reading 2: This is Research by Design

Q1_ If a Ph.D is meant to contribute knowledge to the “field” and we are already recognizing the difference in knowledge from science to design, then why is there a stress to research in a multidisciplinary setting?  Why is a design Ph.D presented and  scrutinized the same as a humanities or science Ph.D?

Q2_ “However, linking theory and practice should be the basis of any serious academic education and research…More in general it should be observed that a fruitful relationship between theory and practice seems to work better if initiated by practitioners, not by theoreticians.” While I think it is good to create valuable links through research and practice,   it is a bit dangerous to only value the work carried out by practitioners.  The separation between a theoretician and the practice can allow for him to question or think about things outside of the current mode of thought.  Is this not something that can inform practice later on?

Q3_  “Architecture researchers should try and establish research ‘in the medium’ of architecture: this means to investigate architecture through architecture and not through history, theory, social science or environmental science” If history, theory etc. many times informs our designs, then why should we not use them to research design as well along with using architecture as a medium?

DESIGNERLY WAYS OF KNOWING

1. Does design education’s inability to clearly articulate its process and concerns have adverse affects on student retention. Are we losing too many good students to other fields?
2. Pye states that, “in general invention comes before theory. The world of doing and making is usually ahead of the world of understanding – technology leads to science, not vice versa as is often believed.” As technology and society continue to progress do we see this system of creation followed by understanding, being at all altered?
3. Design is a skill that requires one to both “Know How and Know That”, is one more essential to design than the other or would a hierarchal view of this only weaken the field?

THIS IS RESEARCH BY DESIGN

1. Verbeke states, “Research outputs should also follow the media which are most appropriate to the field: maps, drawing, sketches, model, and so on.”; however in these early stages of research I have found myself and many others relying heavily on reading or writing. I attribute this to our current level of uncertainty, however over the past several years we have all been trained to think through the act of making. Is focusing so heavily on literature a mistake in a design thesis, if not for the work but for the designer themselves?
2. Much design research seems to be focused heavily on looking into curiosities and developing progressive knowledge for both self and profession. A large portion of this research however may not have a direct monetary value. What problems does this cause for the field within our capitalist society?
3. “Formulating a question implies delimiting space in which a possible answer may be found. Yet research often resembles an uncertain quest in which the questions or topics only materialize during the journey, and often may change as well.” This analysis of design research suggests that the work with proper interest and rigor could continue/evolve endlessly, and since making is an inherent part of design research production of tangible things is occurring all throughout. So how does one know when to stop and is it a decision made by author, peers, or the abstract deadline?

READINGS:

Nigel Cross, “Chapter 1: Designerly Ways of Knowing”,Designerly Ways of Knowing, Birkhauser Verlag AG, 2007.

Johan Verbeke, “This is Research by Design”, in Fraser, M. (ed.), Design Research in Architecture- An Overview, Ashgate 2013.