Paradigmatic Clusters in Design Research

Dear friends and colleagues,
this contribution is aiming at initializing a discussion about paradigmatic clusters in design research today:
Is there something like identifiable sub-communities or clusters within the whole community, grouping around (for example) epistemological assumptions, research concepts, research questions, people or networks of people, journals, etc.?
Attempts to do this are numerous, but do not deliver coherent results so far. Does it make sense to tackle this question?

Just in order to show what I mean: There are recent attempts by Buchanan, Chow, and Sanders:

- Buchanan, Richard (2001) "Children of the Moving Present The Ecology of Culture and the Search for Causes in Design." Design Issues 17(1):67-84.

Buchanan introduces a 4-section scheme to explain the various ways of theorizing about designing. According to Buchanan, there are four generative principles on which design theorizing stands:
- "Experience and environment",
- "Agent”,
- "Underlying forces" and
- "Transcendent Ideas".
The first two are toward phenomenal processes and the last two are toward ontic conditions.

---

- Chow, Rosan (2003) "Shop around: design theories for design education", ICSID 2nd Educational Conference. Critical Motivations and New Dimensions, Hannover: iF International Forum Design GmbH, 2003
http://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/files/Chow_Shop%20around.pdf

Chow distinguishes 5 approaches:
- The Cognitive Problem Solving (Design Studies, Simon, Schön, Cross, …)
- The Knowledge Processing (Bertola, Cooper, Reinmoeller and Tellefsen, …)
- The Communication Interaction (Broadbent, Jonas, Findeli and Pizzacaro, …)
- The Philosophic Intellectual (Buchanan, Sless, Nelson & Stolterman, …)
- The Radical Democratic (Fry, Jones, Manzini, and Margolin, …)

---

- Sanders, Liz (2006) "Design research in 2006" DesignResearchQuarterly V.I:1 September 2006: 1-8
http://www.designresearchnetwork.org/drn/files/Sanders-Cluster.jpg

---

I have copied Liz' answer + Rosan's comment from the other track in order to keep the discussion in one track. See below.
Jonas

December 1st, 2007 by LizSanders
Thanks, Jonas, for letting me know about the DesignResearchNetwork. Here I will describe what the “topography of design research” is about. Since I spend most of my time in practice, this map is about the practice of design research in the design development process. It is about design research for the design of products, systems, spaces, buildings, etc. And it is even more about the new ways that we will be researching and designing for experiencing, serving, transforming, etc. in the future. I see the map changing over time (and it is already starting to do that).
I have three objectives:
1. I think you are right in that there are many communities of design research. I hope that this map will expose the connections between the communities so they will talk more with one another in constructive ways.
2. My aim is for the map to help people understand that all the clusters provide useful, relevant information and/or inspiration to the design development process. What we need to learn more about is how to take the best paths though the landscape throughout the design development process.
3. Looking at it from an historical perspective reveals forces of change over time and space. Looking at it with an anticipatory perspective can reveal opportunities.
So the map was not created for “theorizing about designing” not is it a “design theory for education”. If it is useful for those purposes, that is good.
I welcome comments, questions and suggestions. Keep in mind that the map will look different depending on where you are “standing”. Feel free to draw the landscape as you see it.
Thanks, Liz Sanders

Liz's topography of design research and beyond
On December 1st, 2007 Rosan says:
welcome to the network, Liz! i can see the 'logic' of your topography, given that it is created for design research for design development process. but then again, i am curious about what you think of the design research that i have described as 'cognitive problem solving', 'knowledge processing', communication interaction', 'philosophic intellectual', 'radical democratic'. do you see little relevance of these lines of research to what you practice?