For the next 12 weeks, I’m assigned to co-teach research methodology module with another colleague who has more than 20 years of teaching experience in scientific disciplines. The process of preparation, teaching and learning with her had not only given me new understanding of methodology, the afterthoughts about “research” often make my journey home seems shorter than usual. Often enough, quite a few constructive learning points vividly sit on my mind, and I have decided to blog down, hoping this knowledge sharing could be a beneficial one for many like-minded readers who are into research in art and design.
The basic definition of “R/research” was listed in the Oxford English Dictionary:
As far as I can remember, this definition confused my social science background especially being a design centric learner, visualizing the outcome or how the prototype should look like is far easier than absorbing the definition. It took me long enough to decode until the recent class of research methodology; this colleague decrypted “R/research” such effortlessly.
This undemanding definition of “R/research” also brought me back to an article I recently read – Research in Art and Design (by Peter D. and Christopher F.). An article I was told is an essential reading for many design researchers. There seem to be a lot of common ground for “R/research” pertaining to art and design and science, yet there is also a lot of private territory within the research of art and design that define what they actually do. And this kind of research may not be the most known practices to science researchers per se. Here is a little summary derived from the article.
I’m always looking forward to her lecture every Tuesday. Not only she makes uncommonly good explanation for theory, most importantly, getting to understand the way a scientist designs the information in slides to conduct the lesson can be immensely interesting.