Design research methodologies correspond to the various points of view that design as a domain has established, whether the studied aspect(s) design process or the design artefact. The various points of view reflect either design practice or design education. In that respect, Reymen (2001) separates the
“world of designing” fields of attention in to three separate fields: design research, design practice and design education. Moreover, she claims that interaction between the three fields is important in producing design knowledge that links each field of the designing world. Through this interaction, (Figure 4.1) design knowledge is generated and applied through design practice and “design practice applies and generates design knowledge, design education transfers this knowledge, and design research produces this knowledge (together with design practice).” (Reymen 2001).
Figure 4-1 Interactions between the three fields of attention in the design world (adapted from Reymen 2001).
However, reviewing CAAD status in both design practice and design education (Chapter 2) indicated that the interaction of the two knowledge bases is still problematic. One example in this thesis has been identified in chapter three: the
education. Achieving a better interaction would arguably change the status of the applicability of CAAD from one domain to the other. As knowledge and praxis are evolving separately (Andia 2002), design practice and design education are the context in which design research is taking place to generate and contribute to design knowledge. Thus design research should direct the emergent knowledge back to both contexts as shown in Figure 4-2. As a result, design education and design practice would be informed through design research’s emergent knowledge. Building on each other would help bridge the identified gap, by strategic means of research interaction.
Thus the investigative (physical) setting is a significant factor in the overall research approach to design processes and mediums which affect the research methods used. For example, the studio setting provides a reliable indication of the relation between studio practice, education and design medium.
Figure 4-2 The transferred knowledge between the designing world fields of attention with perspectives on Artefact, Process and Medium.
What makes design research rich in terms of method and opportunity is the nature and characteristics of the “design process.” Variation in design research comes from its studies on design process, design medium (including CAAD research), design artefacts and design thinking, whether the investigated setting is practice or education. CAAD research, for example, “has extended and developed design research...” (Tweed 2001 p.618), which was informed by design process and CAAD development studies. Thus, looking at design activity through CAAD, in turn would inform not only CAAD research, but also design research. Thus, the research methodology of this thesis would support the
“process” point of view of design research as an investigative methodology, in that it is interlinked with design theories, mediums and thinking.
Equally important to design research is knowledge transfer, by which design knowledge is best educed in a domain-independent way (Reymen 2001; Reymen
et al 2006). The theoretical and practical similarities that design disciplines have pertain to design methodology concepts and common terminology, for example, process, situation, frame and methods. As such, building on other design disciplines knowledge can be useful in two ways: (1) the anticipated increase in comparative / relative research and results with other disciplines' design processes and terminology, and (2) the potential complement of the weaknesses of other disciplines by knowledge transfer, which otherwise cannot be completed or augmented. Thus, this thesis has cited design domain independent studies that pertain to the following design concepts: problem solving, reflection, situation, conceptual design and abstract drawings.
Considering CAAD research in architectural design, a research weakness lies in the discontinuity of present and past efforts in CAAD-oriented design research, in that the present efforts of research do not build on what has gone before (Maver 1995; Reffat 2006; Kalay 2004). Therefore, many emerging new ideas pertaining to early work, were almost forgotten (Maver 1995; Reffat 2006). The other aspect of this discontinuity is seen in the distinctiveness of architectural design and such previously made efforts are seen as diverted intellectual effort. For example, Maver (1995 p.22) considers “importing concepts and procedures from other disciplines” as “obsession” that “has diverted intellectual effort from the central task of identifying and understanding what lies at the heart of architectural design itself.” This “obsession” clearly had targeted CAAD research efforts at the level of inventing and developing new CAAD systems, rather than utilizing current CAAD (professional) systems in architectural education that other design disciplines have advanced in by exploration and acceptance. In responding to Maver’s point, Koutamanis (2004) claimed that CAAD research should be established through
“a core research discipline based on the substance and true nature of architectural designing.” That could, to a degree, be true but research must also address other facets of CAAD that are accepted and dealt with accordingly in other design disciplines. For instance, the status of CAD research in mechanical design, product design and engineering design. The difference between CAAD status in architectural design and other design disciplines pertains mostly to designers’ attitude (mindset) towards CAAD in the first place; acceptance versus rejection. However, Schmidt (2004) agrees, “design research brought much needed knowledge into the nature of design” (Schmidt (2004) cited in Reffat 2006 p. 659).