 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Second, that there actually is a transparency of the method and the questions that you are asking so that it can be reproduced at some point by someone else with the purpose of further verification but, more important, so it could be understood and use it as a way of informing design. Third was this issue about stamina. Doing research is not a onetime kind of shot and, certainly, there has to be a commitment on the part of where the researcher is in conducting research, whether it's a practice in the academy or some other practice model, to continue to focus the resources on the question over time so that you can really get a clear idea of what is the knowledge that you're actually creating. Finally there's this issue about how you evaluate the design and the outcome that's there. So it takes on the form of “review your evaluation.” One of the cultures that we have to actually create is the kind of culture where research is an extra kind of discipline or profession. What is the real research? What are burning issues in here? What is the relationship with what needs to be addressed? Is it the one that basically creates a mechanism that creates strategy and tackles with capturing and disseminating existing and new knowledge in evidence, both to practice, clients and to the public? That is, does it find strategies and tactics for capturing and sharing existing and new knowledge or evidence to practice, clients, and the public? It is really about this network by which we have been creating, which is not a lot unless we build something and have the mechanism to actually disseminate that information. In fact design research can actually be utilized and understood in the larger context. The next piece was really promoting and finding ways to promote the notion that design is knowledge-driven. That takes on the whole issue of base design, i.e., to promote knowledge as the basis of design. |
|
