Designerly research and researcherly design skills, mindsets, and methods for revolutionary practices

  • Ricardo Sosa
Keywords: Research methods, Queer uses, Non-Traditional Research Outputs, Design methods

Abstract

This paper builds on the complementary identities of a 'researcherly designer' as a person who informs their design practice with research and a 'designerly researcher' as a person who informs their design practice with research and a 'designerly researcher' as a person who informs their research practice with design. Here, I extend and examine this reductive duality paying close attention to the skills, mindsets, methods, and practices in design and research. I argue that when the skills, tools, techniques, and methods normally used in design activity are used in research activity, clear distinctions need to be articulated on the purposes and contexts of their use. Individuals who are in the position to execute roles as different as design and research can be considered to be 'ambidextrous' or "revolutionary' as they have the potential to cultivate disruptive synergies between these worlds. The paper addresses the rich diversity, the opportunities and risks, and the ethical tensions that come from 'changing hats' between design and research established practices, and the 'queer' uses of methods in such interstices. I draw from earlier work on the creative adaptation of design methods for cross-disciplinary research (Sosa & Grocott, 2020). The paper concludes with generative questions for those who embark onto the emerging revolutionary practices between design and research.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Ricardo Sosa

Is Associate Professor at Auckland University of Technology and Adjunct Associate Professor at Monash University. He teaches and conducts research in design with an emphasis on creative and critical technologies. His early work introduced the use of computational social simulations to study the societal dimensions of design creativity and innovation. He now collaborates with specialists from across areas and with local communities to enact ethical social impact through innovative and responsible approaches to technology. He strives to uphold the obligations in the Treaty of Waitangi in Aotearoa New Zealand.

References

Agid, S., & Akama, Y. (2020). Reflexive account-giving through ‘practice notations’: plural dimensions and dynamics of infrastructuring. Proceedings of the 16th Participatory Design Conference 2020-Participation (s) Otherwise-Volume 2, Ahmed, S. (2019). What's the Use?: On the Uses of Use. Duke University Press.

Beck, J., & Stolterman, E. (2016). Examining the types of knowledge claims made in design research. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 2(3), 199-214.

de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: justice against epistemicide. Paradigm Publishers.

Esparza, A. (2020). Entrepreneurship With Additive Manufacturing: Implications of Complexity Freedom in Product and Firm Ideation AUT University]. Auckland. http://hdl.handle.net/10292/13125

Finke, R. A. (1996, 1996/09/01/). Imagery, Creativity, and Emergent Structure. Consciousness and Cognition, 5(3), 381-393. https://doi.org/10.1006/ccog.1996.0024

Frayling, C. (1994). Research in art and design (Royal College of Art Research Papers, Issue.

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Continuum.

Gold, R. (2007). The plenitude: Creativity, innovation, and making stuff. Mit Press.

Goodman, N. (1976). Languages of Art, an Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Hackett.

Gray, C., & Malins, J. (2016). Visualizing research: A guide to the research process in art and design. Routledge. Hanington, B. (2003). Methods in the making: A perspective on the state of human research in design. Design Issues, 19(4), 9-18.

Haseman, B. (2007). Rupture and recognition: Identifying the performative research paradigm. In E. Barrett & B. Bolt (Eds.), Practice as research: Approaches to creative arts enquiry (pp. 147-157). Tauris, I.B.

Kara, H. (2015). Creative Research Methods in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Policy Press.

Kitcher, P. (2000). A priori knowledge revisited. In P. Boghossian & C. Peacocke (Eds.), New Essays on the A Priori (pp. 65-91). Clarendon Press.

Kocienda, K. (2018). Creative Selection: Inside Apple's design process. Macmillan.

Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, Ill. : University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Kumar, V. (2013). 101 Design Methods: A Structured Approach for Driving Innovation in your Organization. Wiley.

Laurel, B. (2003). Design research: Methods and perspectives. MIT press.

Law, J. (2004). After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. Routledge.

Montiel, M., Sosa Medina, R., & Hocking, D. (2020). Activity Scenario Modelling: an emerging method for examining human-artefact interaction. Synergy - DRS International Conference 2020, Online.

Moradi, P., Hunting, A., & Sosa Medina, R. (2019, 2019/11/21/). A UX Pedagogy on Multimodal Aspects of Emotions. Fifth International Conference for Design Education Researchers, Ankara.

Pei, E., Campbell, I., & Evans, M. (2011). A taxonomic classification of visual design representations used by industrial designers and engineering designers. The Design Journal, 14(1), 64-91.

Senge, P. M., Smith, B., Kruschwitz, N., Laur, J., & Schley, S. (2008). The necessary revolution: How individuals and organizations are working together to create a sustainable world. Currency.

Slocum, N. (2003). Participatory Methods Toolkit: A Practitioner’s Manual. United Nations University.

Sosa, R., & Grocott, L. (2020). The creative translation of design methods into social research contexts. In H. Kara & S. Khoo (Eds.), Researching in the Age of COVID-19 Vol 3: Volume III: Creativity and Ethics (Vol. 3, pp. 9-19). Policy Press.

St. Pierre, E. A. (2021). Post qualitative inquiry, the refusal of method, and the risk of the new. Qualitative Inquiry, 27(1), 3-9.

Stappers, P. J. (2007). Doing design as a part of doing research. In Design research now (pp. 81-91). Springer.

Telenko, C., Sosa, R., & Wood, K. L. (2016). Changing conversations and perceptions: The research and practice of design science. In C. A. & L. U. (Eds.), Impact of Design Research on Industrial Practice (pp. 281-309). Springer. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19449-3_19

Vaughan, L. (2017). Practice-based Design Research. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Verswijvelen, M., Sosa, R., & Martini, N. (2020, August 2020). Designing game-inspired narratives for learning. Synergy - DRS International Conference 2020, Online.

Walker, S. (2013). Imagination’s promise: Practice-based design research for sustainability. In The handbook of design for sustainability (pp. 446-465). Bloomsbury Academic.

Yee, J. (2017). The researcherly designer/the designerly researcher. In L. Vaughan (Ed.), Practice-based Design Research (pp. 155). Bloomsbury Academic.

Zimmerman, J., & Forlizzi, J. (2008). The role of design artifacts in design theory construction. Artifact: Journal of Design Practice, 2(1), 41-45.

How to Cite
Sosa, R. (2021). Designerly research and researcherly design skills, mindsets, and methods for revolutionary practices. DAT Journal, 6(2), 386-402. https://doi.org/10.29147/dat.v6i2.408
Section
Dossiê Simpósio LINK