On and off over the last year I've had a number encounters with the term "design research." Obviously, I'm not alone. It seems to be one of the hot and most important topics in design conversations today. But the more I heard it used, the more it seemed I was in a "design research" tower of Babel. Design research seemed to mean somewhat different things to different people in different contexts. What I really wanted to know was what was design research as something meaningful and useful to practitioners whose interests are in the the camp of conceptual and visual form development.
So this year I used the challenge of the "High Ground" design retreat (the annual discussion held at Kathy and Mike McCoy's where 15 or so design"wranglers" informally and briefly present their current obsessions) to wrestle with this concept. What I ended up doing was dancing around the subject, but at least it led to a description that hopefully will be a tad bit valuable to the CalArts grad students — particularly the ones developing their thesis projects. If nothing else, at least it feels useful to moi. Oh well.
The following description of design research is based on one provided by Dori Tunstall – a Design Researcher, herself. Dori's description outlines the qualifications that are sought in "official" design research proposals. I reshaped this definition, trying to honor the meaning, but elaborating the characteristics in terms that hopefully make sense to graphic/communications design practitioners. What i feel these "principles" outline constitutes some common sense guidelines for doing design research that stays focused and produces meaningful and useful outcomes.
Here goes:
- The researcher needs to provide a sufficient description of the research's intentions. In other words, what is the research about? What specific knowledge do you hope to gain through the research? For example: "To understand what typography in non-traditional digital forms has been produced."
- The research needs to describe the methods that will be used to do the research. Methods can include making, reading, visiting archives, interviewing, etc. And certainly it can be a combination of these depending on what you are researching. But definitely and absolutely making is an important and vital research method and is why the first thing you do in the thesis year.
- The researcher needs to describe the qualifications of what is being researched. In other words, what are qualities of the work that you're looking for? For example "Typography made with Processing" or "Generative type systems"
- What is the intended outcome of your research? In other words, what will give your research value? For example "To gain a good understanding of what typography in non-traditional digital forms has already been produced."
The research should give you general knowledge of your thesis subject so that you can make principles or statements about what you want to address as your thesis – i.e. statements from which you are able to describe the problem you want to address or the opportunity you want to create. For example: "Typography produced in non-traditional digital forms to date can be classified in 3 ways: Produced with Processing; produced by creating algorithms; produced by plot-pointing in 3-d software, but what hasn't been addressed is x. X will be the subject of my thesis."
Your thesis project, when completed, will be the specific solution to the problem or opportunity you've chosen to address. Your understanding of that problem or opportunity is based on the discoveries and understanding produced by your research. (But also keep in mind that you'll also be asked why this is important and to whom?!)
