… theory into the process and final delivery. Dilnot states that in order for knowledge through design to become knowledge there needs to be a translation. An exegesis. Does it really? I’ve seen projects at a final examination that “speak for themselves” and demonstrate the knowledge acquired.
More later..
It’s now later. Dilnot’s statement of how we “read” research through design and there is a need of an exegesis in order for this knowledge to become knowledge could be interpreted in a different manner. Design research educator Sharron Helmer has stated once that the knowledge acquired through a research degree must be made accessible to the public in some way in order to validate the process and contribute the information in a broader context. Possibly Dilnot’s statement is more directed towards the dissemination rather than the process and equation. Acquired knowledge through the process of designing seems to need a limit, that is, the knowledge acquired should be reflected on and placed in context of the research questions and the overall objectives in order to help direct the process of research. Once the knowledge gained through a research is done, I don’t think it really matters “what” method(s) of knowledge formation was used but what the content of the information is. Basically, it’s going back to what methods are good for the process of your project. In the end, this knowledge seems to turn into knowledge about design because its being placed in the academic mould of information acquired.
I’m confusing myself. More later. I’m going to run this article dry until something clicks.
