4.2 Framing the Integrity

The Appropriateness of Design-oriented Research

I will use the notion of appropriateness to consider the overall integrity of the design research approach being presented here. Cross uses the notion of appropriateness to describe designers’ core concern for how successfully a project serves the purpose it was designed for (2007, p18). Arguably, Cross uses the term ‘appropriateness’ to acknowledge the central design activity of negotiating a multiplicity of considerations, in an attempt to design something that is appropriate for the stakeholders, client, community and environment.

For this research project the notion of appropriateness rests with the capacity of the research to ‘resonate’ with the designer, and more specifically, the practitioner-educator. This resonance operates in two parts. First, the model I propose needs to reflect the designer’s interests and expertise enough to motivate him or her to develop a research practice. Second, the way the research is shared and the kind of knowing produced need to be relevant to practitioners. I understand these two concerns to work as basic commitments for the research, similar to the way I would keep ‘checking-in’ to see whether my design propositions were serving the stakeholders of a design project. I say ‘checking-in’ because designers often intuit the appropriateness of their work through discussions and previous experience, rather than relying on empirical evidence.

To address the first benchmark for resonance I discuss the ways that the research approach modelled here seeks to motivate practitioner-educators to undertake research by aligning their expertise with the discipline of researching. Referencing Cross’s term (and book title) ‘designerly ways of knowing’, this section is titled ‘designerly ways of researching’ to emphasise that my project seeks to model a critical approach to researching that draws on the core abilities of a designer. Cross summarises the expertise of a designer by acknowledging his or her ability to resolve ill-defined problems, adopt solution-focused strategies, employ abductive and productive thinking and to use non-verbal graphic modelling media (2007, p38). In what follows, I propose various ways these skills can be aligned with the ambitions of research. My assertion is that this approach presents a particularly designerly perspective on how practitioners might shape a practice of researching that is appropriate for both the discipline’s expertise and the expectations of academic research.

4.2.1 Designerly Ways of Researching

This project recognises that each disciplinary orientation brings its own core perspectives. Given that research resonates in distinct ways for each community, design-led research must speak to the core concerns of designers in the same way that theory-led research is often written for an audience of scholars. This section asks what it would mean to build on the expertise of the designer while ensuring that the research makes a valid contribution to design knowing. For example, the opportunistic nature of designing teaches a practitioner to be skilled at thinking in action. This ability to constantly evaluate the potential of multiple ideas and imagine one or two steps ahead where each proposition might lead can be a useful skill for interrogating mutable terrain.

This section pulls back to translate how the integrated nature of the research design of this program embodies the skills a designer might build on to practice as a critically reflective researcher. Recognising the ways in which a design-oriented approach could be characterised as a call for the designer to think like a researcher and the researcher to act like a designer, the following paragraphs downplay the distinction between designing, writing and framing to focus more on what a designerly way of researching might look like.

In the introduction, I proposed that it was possible for design-oriented research to meet the characteristics of being purposive, inquisitive, informed, methodical and communicable. In what follows I respond to Cross’s list of characteristics for good research (2007) by specifically identifying what the practitioner brings to the practice of research.

The first characteristic for research is that it be purposive: that the topic be identifiable and capable of investigation. To consider how the designer-educator responds to this is to understand the identification of the research topic in relation to the speculative, opportunistic nature of designing. Fixing the hypothesis or area of investigation is counter-intuitive to the hunches of a designer; however, by iteratively asking whether the material or theoretical proposition is appropriately addressing the objectives of a research project, a more relevant cyclical model for design research is put forth. The design-led practice of co-evolution of the problem and solution can be deployed to define the research program, the object of study, the design projects, and ultimately the main argument of a thesis. The design-inflected approach to action-research modelled here allows for a purposeful yet intentionally revisable action plan. Haseman’s description of the practice-led researcher proposes that they:

construct experiential starting points from which practice follows. They tend to ‘dive in’, to commence practising to see what emerges. They acknowledge that what emerges is individualistic and idiosyncratic. This is not to say these researchers work without larger agendas or emancipatory aspirations, but they eschew the constraints of narrow problem setting and rigid methodological requirements at the outset of a project (2006, p3).

By responding to the questions or hunches that emerge from practice, the researcher may appear to bypass the call for questioning the worthiness of the research. Yet, beginning with a question of direct relevance to the researcher allows the designer to re-frame his or her hunches as research stakeholders are considered and practice understandings challenged. Such an approach sees the potential for the reflective conversation with the overall research situation (including the audience) to determine the relevance and appropriateness of the research’s purpose or ambitions.

The second characteristic for research proposes the importance of being inquisitive, or enquiry motivated to acquire new knowledge. The research commitment of this approach focuses on how the uncertain knowing of practice can be translated by working with the discursive nature of designing and the designed artefact. Acknowledging the experiential knowing of design practice, this type of research is not interested in building a thesis on the back of evidence-driven knowledge, but is drawn to exploit the designer’s expertise at imagining possible worlds. Therefore, research insights can emerge from the prototyping act of designing: a process suited to tackling the particular kinds of ‘fuzzy’ problems and situations that are not easily defined at the outset but can be considered by proposing into the research situation (Rittel and Weber 1973). In this way, working with the discursive agency of design-oriented research presents a practice-led strategy for exploring the ill-defined situations of research into design praxis. Practice-led insights can be communicated to engage the design audience to generate their own interpretations and imagine the potential of the work. In turn, this liberates the practitioner to frame the discussion of his or her cloudy, tacit knowing as a critical move toward a new understanding.

The importance of the designer being informed by previous and related research is the third basic characteristic of research. External design precedents regularly inform the practice of a designer, as does the repertoire of previous experiences that he or she draws upon when designing into a new situation. In addition, the designer as researcher has to know the literature of design scholarship if he or she seeks to participate in discourse that surrounds design research and education. By drawing on the practitioner’s predisposition for thinking through problems by proposing provisional solutions, the designer-as-researcher can propose design iterations, half-formed theories or tentative conceptual frameworks into a space as a strategy for becoming better informed. This designerly approach allows the informed researcher to not just practice reflection in, and through, action, but also to reflect on his or her reflection of the situation (Schön 1992). This reflective conversation with the research situation allows the researcher to synthesise an analytical approach of assessing “what is” with a projective approach of wondering “what shall be” (Jonas 2007, p206). Conceptualising the research program as adaptive, as a series of activities and interventions that can respond to the changing direction of the research, further supports the practitioner informing him- or herself of the research situation by simultaneously framing, investigating and identifying the research subject.

The fourth characteristic of research calls for a methodical, disciplined approach to research. A design-oriented approach proposes that it is possible for the practitioner to be both performative and methodical, as long as ‘methodical’ does not translate to prescribing a linear, predetermined approach to a research project. Scrivener notes how established notions of theory and practice can trouble the procedural experience of practice-based research, specifically acknowledging how working methodically through conventional research steps might paralyse the practitioner-researcher. Scrivener came to the realisation that PhD candidates did not need to initiate their research by reviewing the field. He came to understand that “making is the central driver and the creator of material for thought in certain modes of practice” (n.pag). For the designer-researcher, being methodical might not refer to a prescriptive sequence of steps, but the adoption of strategies that support the feedback loop between the designer-researcher and the design work – between the research audience and the research situation. The crafting of a research program that enhances feedback calls for multiple research activities, the consideration of the subject from multiple perspectives and the communication of the research through multiple modes. The ‘multiplicity’ method may not lend itself to pre-determining the research direction yet it can tap into the cognitive discipline a practitioner brings to designing. The fluid yet complex character of such a research program requires a researcher who can successfully navigate input from multiple fronts and negotiate the reflective conversations generated by the different modes of enquiry. The practitioner’s capacity to process and communicate the back talk of the research interventions establishes the consultative integrity of the design-oriented research model presented here.

The fifth and last research characteristic Cross mentions emphasises the value of generating results that are accessible to others (2007). A design-oriented approach is not interested in whether the research is ‘repeatable’ but does seek to produce insights whose relevance for others can be corroborated. The designer’s practice of alternating between different activities (for example, designing, writing and framing) is connected to his or her ability to disclose new ways of seeing (Akin and Lin, cited in Cross 2007). Exploiting the multi-modal nature of design practice, a design-oriented approach promotes the act of dissemination as an evolutionary and discursive practice. Integrated into a research program, these modal shifts can do more than provide a space by which the practitioner can ‘notice’ new insights; multi-modal enquiry can help the audience to potentially see things from a new perspective by offering a new conceptualisation of the content (Doloughan 2002). This approach allows for the communication of research outcomes that can come to embody the possibilities the research community might also envision for the research, rather than simply presenting the researcher’s view.

4.2.2 Reflection, Relevance and Resonance

The integrity of my approach to design-oriented research does not, however, rest with designerly ways of thinking and acting alone. The inclusion of reflection-based methods gives the designer-researcher additional tools by which to access his or her own knowing and to communicate the insights so he or she can inform the perspectives of others. As mentioned in chapter 1.2.3, the integrity of the approach is also concerned with how the mode of sharing the research and the kind of knowing produced further establishes resonance for the immediate research audience engaged in the consultation process, and for the distributed audience of practitioner-educators whom the research seeks to motivate. This interest in research that makes a contribution beyond the practitioner’s mastery requires several tiers of reflection and ultimately places more weight on the more discursive framing exercises that provide a space for direct consultation and corroboration of the research’s relevance.

Making a case for the validation of practice-led research, McLaughlin places responsibility on the practitioner-researcher to verify “that there is evidence that this aspect of the situation that seems interesting … [also] … shows up interesting possibilities and limitations of established perspectives in the domain…” (2006). I appreciate the intention of this argument, but am unsure what type of evidence McLaughlin would consider sufficient to meet her expectations. In this project, the claims that I am making are predominantly the result of secondary reflection and therefore offer only anecdotal evidence of the extent to which the methods I have adopted or the claims I am making either have or will resonate for others.

However, there are several structural moves within the approach to research presented here that I believe offer some support for my intention of producing insights that are of interest to others. For example, my ongoing reflective conversation with the research situation drives the periodic evaluation of the overall research program, serving to iteratively consider the appropriateness and relevance of the research direction with respect to the stakeholders. Reflection is stimulated and nourished through engagement with the applied project space of designing, allowing the initial framing of the research project to be revisited and the research questions revised (Findeli 1999). The reflective conversation with the research situation supports my commitment to examine the research subject from multiple positions so that the research can be redirected as my understanding of the subject emerges. The direction of the research is informed by interventions, such as the grounded theory pin-up, that provide discrete moments for assessing whether my research-in-progress interpretations are grounded by the project data. Activities such as these were intended to subvert research insights that would simply reinforce my own base understandings. Similarly, the use of parallel practice spaces provides a range of different contexts by which insights can be further investigated and compared. Additional ways to cross-check my insights, not explored in this case study, would be to work within a collaborative framework or to simply get insight into the audience’s interpretations of the research potential without first framing my own.

Then there are the moves enacted at the level of developing the insights. The negotiation that translates research insights into new understandings works on the basis that when a researcher is presented with a perspective alternate to his or her own, he or she might more easily acknowledge the implicit background understandings he or she has been holding onto. Findeli describes this “back-and-forth movement” between the stages of insight and validation as essential “in order to stabilize the truth” (1999, p111). I find this notion of bringing into focus the beliefs already held is an appropriately reflective yet intuitive way of drawing a practitioner and/or the audience to pay close attention to how new perspectives might challenge or reinforce what they already know. In the case of my model for design-oriented research, the essential step of translating practice insights into a substantive contribution to an understanding of design sought external consultation through multiple modes of peer review. Conference papers and publications have worked within formal and informal peer review processes and research presentations and work-in-progress critiques have presented an opportunity for peer feedback that was not simply one-directional. By integrating an ongoing discussion with the research audience throughout the research program, the step of consultation becomes central to the process of corroborating the insights. I see corroborating as a process, since the objective is not on securing a fixed understanding of the research potential. The process is more importantly about engaging in the act of examining the practitioner-researcher and the research audiences’ individual assumptions of practice and collective understandings of design.

*

The overall integrity of the research model proposed by this PhD is embedded in my commitment to engage the practice community of educators in both undertaking and debating the potential of practitioner-led research projects. The model that I have developed has arisen out of the experience of the case study. I have sought to extrapolate from my own situated experience so that others can identify key structural and procedural characteristics of design-oriented research, yet I still understand that the project is essentially propositional. The development and the writing up of the model is in part an exercise for me, the practitioner-researcher, to examine and discuss the potential of this approach with others.