Refine
Document Type
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (21)
Keywords
- Design Research (3)
- Connected Discipline (2)
- Design Studies (2)
- MAPS (2)
- Research Through Design (2)
- Alternative Design (1)
- Autopoietic System (1)
- Fragmented Adhocracy (1)
- Integrative Design Research Medium (1)
- Knowledge Production (1)
Institute
- Fakultät Architektur (21)
Begutachtungsstatus
- peer-reviewed (3)
Moving forward together
(2018)
Design Research in Germany?
(2015)
Projection before Analysis
(2009)
Design research is an academic issue and increasingly a success factor for industrial,organizational and social innovation. Efficient methodical support is crucial. The fiercerejection of 1st generation design methods in the early 1970s resulted in thepostmodernist attitude of "no methods", and subsequently in the strong adoption ofscientific ways of thinking for design research. The situation regarding methodologyhas been characterized by unproductive dualisms such as scientific vs. designerlymethods, normative vs. descriptive methods, research vs. design. The potential of theearly (1st generation) methods is neglected and the practical usefulness of designresearch is impeded. The suggestion for 2nd generation methods, conceived asdiscursive instruments, as discussed by Rittel and others has hardly been taken up indesign. The development of MAPS is aimed at the support of practice-oriented design,innovation and research processes. The long-term aim is the development of anintegrated knowledge and communication platform for research through design. MAPSis based upon the idea of a productive reconciliation of the strong dualisms between"scientific" and "designerly" modes of inquiry and supports the emerging concept ofdesign thinking. The paper reports on the ongoing research and development processfrom MAPS1.0 towards MAPS2.0 and beyond.
Beyond Dualisms in Methodology. An Integrative Design Research Medium "MAPS" and some Reflections
(2008)
Design research is an academic issue and increasingly an essential success factor for industrial, organizational and social innovation. The fierce rejection of 1st generation design methods in the early 1970s resulted in the postmodernist attitude of "no methods", and subsequently, after more than a decade, in the strong adoption of scientific methods, or "the" scientific method, for design research. The current situation regarding methodology is characterized by unproductive dualisms such as scientific methods vs. designerly methods, normative methods vs. descriptive methods, research vs. design. The potential of the early (1st generation) methods is neglected and the practical usefulness of design research is impeded. The suggestion for 2nd generation methods as discussed by Rittel and others has hardly been taken up in design. The development of a methodological tool / medium for research through design – MAPS1 – (which is the central part of the paper) presents the cause and catalyst for some reflections about the usability / desirability / usefulness of methodical support for the design (research) process.
Designwissenschaft, Designtheorie, Designforschung ¿ diese Begriffe werden immer noch recht bunt gemischt verwendet. Wir halten Designwissenschaft für das übergeordnete Konzept, das die Aktivitäten und die Ergebnisse der Wissensproduktion im Design bezeichnet. Designwissenschaft entwirft auch Theorien und forscht, um neues Wissen im Design zu schaffen. Das Buch soll einige Aspekte des Für und Wider der Designwissenschaft erörtern. Es richtet sich an alle, die bezüglich der behandelten Themen nach Orientierung suchen. Das Buch wird auch signalisieren, in welch komplexe Kontexte Design eingebettet ist. Die vorliegende Sammlung bietet eine Momentaufnahme des Zustands der Designwissenschaft in Deutschland. Die Beiträge sind ernsthaft, engagiert, wenig ironisch und lassen Konvergenz in Richtung auf einen Konsens allenfalls erahnen. Es handelt sich, wie nicht anders zu erwarten, um eine erste Bestandsaufnahme, die, so hoffen wir, weitere Überlegungen, Diskussionen und Forschungen anregen wird.
We currently observe an interesting paradox: on the one hand, a narrow and determined preoccupation with the world we actually live in, away from the multiple pasts and futures in which we are embedded. On the other hand, we note a recurrent appeal to transcend the present towards the future – without reference, however, to the questions, perspectives, value propositions and investments that might define the necessary steps for ‘moving forward’ in important areas of social, cultural and economic life.