Researchers go through lengths to convey technical information to both fellow academics and the public. Many struggle with the tools and technologies to effectively make this happen, and others seem to get the hang of creating compelling visualizations. I am a strong advocate of good design and of the opinion that it could go a long way in changing the way we gather, analyze and convey technical information. So, I would like to find out how you apply design thinking (the iterative process of obtaining good design) in your academic work. If you do, how so.
Yes of course, dear Emmanuel Chigozie Ani , cause I am a mechanical engineer. As a lecturer and researcher, I always try to look ahead for inventions, generally to find the new design or design improvements. All I did was based on research...
Thank you Nazaruddin. It's great to be able to identify and recognize good innovations in the tools you use. However, being able to uniquely solve a design problem using an iterative, user-centric approach is the main aim of design thinking. Design thinking is essentially a team effort, and involves finding what works best using feedback loops from users, adding creative efforts tailored to meet domain specific standards. As a geoscientist, research work primarily involves being able to render geological information analytically and cartographically. This takes a measure of creative effort and this is why I strive to improve on my designs as I believe it is pivotal to the content of my work. Can you give examples of how you take this into consideration in your publications? Cheers.
There should be no difference. However, spending your whole life in a research environment may often lead to the detachment of practical realities and limitations, even in the field of engineering. The opposite is also true. Not keeping up with new development and technologies often lead to stagnation of professional engineers not open to new ideas and forcing old ideas into new entrants into the field (I have seen that stubborn approach, often associated with the argument of "it has worked in the past - why should I change" while carrying a laptop and cell-phone). The introduction of a "Continuous Development" point system for re-registration is an excellent idea, but unfortunately, do little else but supporting the course organisation business.
Not everybody can be in practice as well as a part-time researcher or vice-versa (although considered important). However, at the post-graduate level, the need to keep up with research developments could be installed by adapting courses to emphasise the importance of scientific developments (and statistical approaches) and the influence thereof on macro infrastructure projects for the benefits in all designs - similar to the introduction and use of cell-phones and the field of electronics over the last few decades.
Absolutely! We call our studies "research designs" for a reason. Doing research requires the critical thinking skills, divergent thinking skills, convergent thinking skills, resistance to premature closure, and inquisitiveness indicative of creativity. On the one hand, there are some researchers who are more adept at graphic communication than others... but on the other hand, there are some researchers who are more adept at written communication than others, so I think it balances out. I tend to gravitate towards visual communication in my domain of architectural design, but I also appreciate skilled wordsmiths too. We designers are notoriously bad at writing, which is why we sometimes rely too heavily on graphic communication- it comes easy for us. However, as a researcher and scholar, I look for quality and rigor and well-written work much more than visuals. After all, writing can be creative (producing something original and effective), even writing purely technical reports. The connection between creativity and high mathematics and science has been long established (Einstein). Therefore, my answer is yes, I do consider myself as both a researcher and a designer, because for me they are one and the same.
As for me, absolutely not. We should view us as reporter or news finder, then as a designer. We can use our imagination to create a world for ourself, but we can not guess others‘ inner world. Thus, it is a matter of finding and researching. In conclusion, I prefer to trust fact.
En pocas palabras ..la investigación es un diagnóstico o descripción de la situación o la problemática mientras que el diseñador crea, propone soluciones al problema planteado.
Design is a problem solving activity using structures, mechanisms and components. Research and design share many common features; establishing constraints, understanding context, gathering raw data/information, deploying resources, synthesising prototypes, testing outcomes or conclusions, and identifying future potentialities. They are sister disciplines, each different but related to the same intellectual parent.
Sin duda están relacionadas....sin una buena "investigación" el resultado del "diseño" no será bueno.
El tema es conceptual y de la elucidación de las palabras, casi podemos decir que todo se realciona con todo, por ello debemos ser concretos y sintéticos si queremos responder a una pregunta básica: investigación es diseño? no, que se relacionan sí.
Más aún el diseño requiere investigación y creación , la investigación puede considerarse un estudio "frio" de las variables posibles, que implica apertura o claridad mental para "ver" ...claro pero no llega a disponer de la inventiva como parte de las ramas del arte
Todos los ámbitos de la ciencia e investigaciones científicas van a tener que explorar el diseño y la imagen en el momento que vivimos
Sin ciencia no hay investigación, y sin diseño no llega a los demás
Most definitely -- I am both a researcher and a designer. I use both set of skills in my job. I did not start off as a designer to be sure -- but I have walked the walk, talked the talk for 2 decades now and feel equally comfortable in both houses. If anything, I really hate being shoehorned into just one role or the other, as it sells my skills short -- and makes the other role jealous.
Shouldn't be the opposite? The design -when original and/or disruptive- an exercise of driven-to-practice research? Without development the research stays inoperative. The aim of research being the feed of a theoretical basis from where to launch any development crashing the common knowledge. Research and learning are critical to identify lacks, needs, and put the first stone to build something useful to society.
As a researcher, do you consider yourself a designer? Yes, of course becouse you need to do an experimental design; this allows to identify and quantify the causes of an effect within an experimental study. In the design, one or more variables can be transformed to measure the effect they have on another variable of interest. If your experimental designs give good results they can be applied in industry, agriculture, medicine, ecology, etc.
I think that a design is a process of mental prefiguration, it is a creative planning to obtain a solution to a specific problem .
Indeed i am, before becoming a researcher i was already a designer. Researching simple became a logic step forward of my profesional practice.
insisto depende como se tome la acepción de la palabra o cómo se aplicque..por ejemplo puedo diseñar una investigación y entonces soy diseñador e investigador , pero para diseñar una casa o un producto es necesario realizar una investigación previa , pero por otro lado puedo hacer una investigación pura sin diseñar un producto o una respuesta a la investigación, creo que generalmente el investigador es un diseñador.
The clear answer is yes.
We are first humans before researchers. And as humans, we design. We design academic research, we design lab equipment to be used in research and we design our collaborative infrastructure. To get a new broad perspective on design, check https://www.amazon.com/dp/026204336X/ .
To be more specific, using design tools or methods is critical for those practicing design research. Read more about it in a paper I wrote a few years ago titled:Article The principle of reflexive practicehttps://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/design-science/article/principle-of-reflexive-practice/FEB06C7AB5CEC0FEAC8164361C676FB9
If researchers practiced better design in their work, I anticipate that their research would be more successful, would cost less, and end sooner than now.
As soon as I start imagining and wondering what happens if...
I'm both. For example what happens if these two things come together ?
It could be patterns, sounds or chemicals.
When I was 12 I attached copper to a battery and left in a glass of water for a week. Each day I'd add something and wait to see what happened.
L.A.C.
Dear Emmanuel Chigozie Ani especially for chemists the answer is clearly yes! We work in the area of synthetic inorganic chemistry. As chemists we design new molecules. In this context please see this interesting link entitled
How do chemists design new molecules?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/articles/questions/how-do-chemists-design-new-molecules
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication