基于設計的研究作為知識生產的新模式
——以“基于設計的博士項目”為例

著：（奧地利）于根·瓦丁格爾 譯：李然 校：孔洞一

1 基于設計的博士項目的設立初衷

筆者所討論的設計學科為風景園林學和建筑學。其主要涉及將空間作為開放場地和建筑物的相互作用，并以具體而精確的方式改變這些空間。我們將風景園林和建筑設計中的核心領域稱為“狹義設計”。

那么，如何在設計學科的核心領域創新？顯而易見，在新的設計和實施項目中會產生創新[1]。那么，風景園林學和建筑學在高校研究中又扮演了什么角色？哪些方法對于“狹義設計”領域的研究具有意義？

作為設計學科的風景園林學和建筑學在德國的工業大學中有著悠久的學術傳統，尤以柏林工業大學（TU Berlin）為甚。在建筑學和風景園林學中，對高校學位體系的第3個階段（博士階段）進行的研究加以檢驗，僅有少數的博士研究項目涉及狹義設計。總體而言，多數建筑學和風景園林學的博士研究關注的領域是為設計過程提供信息的學科，如結構工程、建筑物理、歷史、經濟、社會或生物等。這些有益于設計過程的科學只能被描述為設計學科“know what”的內容。而對于許多從事風景園林和建筑教學及研究的院系，設計過程本身并不是方法論應用的一部分。這些院系關注其他方向和方法，如技術科學、社會科學和自然科學等。

我們必須認識到：風景園林學和建筑學作為設計學科的自我認知與前文所提及的“know what”的學科大相徑庭。“know how”，即設計技能的知識，卻少有研究。而將“know what”轉化成“know how”的研究更是鳳毛麟角。這個事實揭示了上文觀察中的一個矛盾：風景園林和建筑學科的創新產生并發展于新的設計和實施項目。可見，高校對于“know what”的研究與通過設計和項目的創新成果背道而馳[2]25。

為解決這個問題，柏林工業大學于2016年設立了基于設計的博士項目（德文Programm entwurfsbasierte Promotion，英文Program for Design-Based Doctorats，簡稱PEP）。建立者分別為柏林工業大學的伊格納西奧·博雷戈（Dr.Ignacio Borrego）教授、拉爾夫·帕塞爾（Ralf Pasel）教授和于根·瓦丁格爾教授以及杜塞爾多夫藝術學院（Kunstakademie Düsseldorf）的多娜泰拉·菲奧雷蒂（Donatella Fioretti）教授、漢堡海港城大學（Hafen City University Hamburg）的馬賽厄斯·巴勒施特雷姆（Dr.Matthias Ballestrem）教授。

PEP被認為是“know what”式博士的必要補充，同時是設計學科知識更新的形式。這個項目的目標是以科學的方式為設計類學科，比如風景園林學和建筑學，提供創新性的知識貢獻，并清晰流暢地加以描述和展示。個性化成果包括關于設計的獨立策劃或美學途徑、個人獨立設計方法或個性化的設計語言。這些成果基于設計師先前的項目并在研究期間積極融合到新設計中來檢驗。這些研究項目的成果會與其他相關研究進行比較探討，最終成果在設計師聯盟（實踐聯盟）公開，并通過出版論文執行高校程序，還將予以展覽。

PEP 融入歐洲和國際“基于設計的博士項目”網絡，并實現博士候選人和導師的交流。PEP官方語言是德語和英語，聯絡人是柏林工業大學的拉爾夫·帕塞爾教授和于根·瓦丁格爾教授。

2“狹義設計”的定義

PEP是為設計學科的博士候選人量身定做的。博士候選人的工作可以被描述為“狹義設計”。

在PEP中，狹義設計被理解為以空間“設計”（Gestalt）為目標的設計過程，這個空間由某些特征定義（如今，Gestalt成為英語語匯。設計理論證明，設計是由多個部分組成并且大于或異于各部分之和）。設計的狹義含義是具體地表現一個整體作為空間的存在，并且呈現復雜的，涉及美學、倫理學、程序性與技術性等各個層面的特點。這些設計不能單單通過語言、數據表示，也就是說那些“know what”的科學的方法和衡量系統是不足的。在設計過程中，這些設計必須通過圖表媒介傳達或以模型表現，從而使其具有可描述性。狹義設計通常是設計的反復、深入和優化。提純的過程是作為狹義設計的條件，并可以在預見的設計結果中體現。相反，并未經歷這種深化提純過程的設計成果易被看作只是將設計概念快速地進行可視化表達。因此，PEP是針對風景園林和建筑學科的具體、精準的空間設計。

如今，我們可以觀察到entwerfen內涵的缺失。entwerfen狹義和廣義定義的模糊是由于英文design的統治性地位。design包括了一系列的行為并且被越發頻繁地使用。而實際上，狹義設計必須要區別于廣義設計。德語語境中，planen用于描述廣義設計，而entwerfen與gestalten①用來定義狹義設計。

廣義設計的首要工作包括如分析、組織、協調和總體抽象的規劃概念。事實上，這些工作僅指概念層面，而更加深入的設計層面的工作，如定義材料、比例等則并無必要。因為規劃（廣義設計）是用于投資準備或建立規劃原則，為未來的設計方案設立條件。廣義設計可以是用于城市設計和風景規劃的二維土地規劃，或用于交流或協商的組織策略和概念。總體而言，廣義設計的內容包括通過文字、量化數據、圖解、地圖、二維規劃和快速的試驗性可視化成果②進行呈現。這些廣義設計的相關內容不會在PEP中涉及，而是由許多其他的規劃學科和“know what”的學科的博士授予機構進行研究。

3 當前認知理論方法為基于設計的研究指明新路徑

狹義設計聚焦在設計實踐能夠挖掘那些其他科學無法完整描述或者被忽略的成果。人們往往從與設計相關科學的單一角度，對設計的空間進行描述。過分強調學科內容，而缺乏對設計過程的了解，從而造成許多設計問題。這是由于其他科學的興趣和方法的發展與設計偏差較大，從而無法完整描述相對于那些“know what”的單一科學來說更高層面的設計[2]27。甚至基于“know what”的建筑理論和風景園林理論，同樣面臨科學門類劃分問題。

對新知識探索的認知理論討論范圍廣泛且門類繁雜，為此只能大略梳理基于設計研究的發展歷史。

1972年霍斯特·瑞圖奧（Horst Rittel）[3]提出“棘手問題”（Wicked Problems），指一些形式非常復雜的、無法通過第一代解決方法應對的問題。瑞圖奧將第一代“問題解決方法”理解為：一個研究假設論點（研究問題）及其科學詮釋的實證主義分離。建筑和風景園林設計的問題，是可以被看作棘手問題的，因此無法通過第一代“問題解決方法”來解決。第一代“問題解決方法”要求自然科學或工程科學的研究要細化研究問題。例如，風景園林學的研究通常需要處理防滑路面、植物的生長條件或公園的訪問頻率等問題。這些研究問題和相應的研究方法可以以瑞圖奧的第一代“問題解決方法”來描述。這些基于第一代問題解決方法的知識很有用，但是對于復雜而創新的設計而言還不夠。

如何解決建筑和風景園林中的棘手問題？針對棘手問題，瑞圖奧提出了第二代解決方法，即通過瓦解假設論點的原因語境與詮釋語境之間的這個分離。為了解決棘手問題的復雜性，需要研究者“行動”。在“行動”過程中問題會變得清晰，在“行動”中和“行動”反應中，找到適宜的方法。

在社會科學領域，也會面臨棘手問題，且已經建立了不同的第二代“問題解決方法”的“行動”。一個例子是扎根理論（Grounded Theory）③的方法。這個理論通過在數據收集和反射以及數據分類之間不斷切換，更準確地將理論的形成與正在研究的現象、對象相對應。行動研究（Action Research）④方法的特點是利益相關者的參與以及調查人員和研究人員之間的合作，以實現共同的變革。相應地，變化的情況與觀察、描述和假設交替出現。

另外，最近基于設計研究的比利時理論家約翰·韋貝克（Johan Verbeke）提出了設計扎根理論（Designedly Grounded Theory），并整理了其中各個要素之間的關系。漢斯·約格·羅恩伯格（Hans-Jrg Rheinberger）指出：作為新思想和新理論發展的起因和催化劑，工藝與事物是“認知科學的對象”（Epistemic Objects）[4]。其他理解基于設計研究的著作，比如赫伯特·亞歷山大·西蒙（Herbert Simon）在1969年提出的人工科學（Sciences of the Artificial）的概念；唐納德·順恩（Donald Schn）在1983年提出的反省實踐（Reflective Practitioner）⑤的概念[5]；海爾格·諾沃特尼（Helga Nowotny），皮特·斯科特（Peter Scott）和米迦勒·吉本斯（Michael Gibbons）在1994年提出的模式2（Mode 2）⑥的知識[6]；以及奈杰爾·克羅斯（Nigel Cross）在2001年提出的設計師認知法（Designerly Ways of Knowing）[7]。這些概念可以作為認知科學的實踐轉向。在研究語境下的專業實踐不僅可以理解為先前理論知識的應用，相對地，還應該被理解為獲取知識的工具，有時還應該調整和矯正理論知識。

PEP實現了與實踐結合的想法。基于設計的研究通過設計過程獲取知識（類似扎根理論中的數據獲取）并通過設計結果反映實現的轉變（類似行動研究）。PEP闡釋了設計是認知科學的研究對象。基于設計的研究涵蓋了那些“know what”科學無法提供方法和工具的內容。而這些內容是PEP認知理論的核心。當一個想法在空間上得以實現的時候，我們需要從新的視角來理解，而這個新的視角也是無法回避空間而存在的。

從這個角度來看，建筑和風景園林學需要獲得新的支撐，而這種支撐來自外部，就是站在設計學科的外圍，批判地審視“know what”的科學。

4 基于其他項目發展的PEP方法性結構

PEP建立在墨爾本皇家理工大學（RMIT）的實踐研究研討會（Practice Research Symposia，簡稱PRS）的經驗和方法基礎上。原RMIT的建筑和設計學院副院長馬塞洛·斯坦姆（Marcelo Stamm），現任教于美國弗吉尼亞理工大學（Virginia Tech University），是PRS的倡導者，努力將該研究作為“設計語言能力”，以易于理解的方式描述獨立發現的內容，從而可以與設計學科進行交流。

如同所有柏林工業大學新錄取的博士，PEP在柏林工業大學需要同樣正式的注冊程序。為使基于設計的研究能夠滿足高校對博士的要求，PEP的核心團隊擬定一個流程：由設計實踐把控研究工作的結構，并使之可以理解、評價和描述，實現對博士生的指導。PEP的博士候選人必須展示：他們已經通過一系列的實踐項目和設計擁有了設計能力。候選人的研究成果需要通過新的設計展現。這個實踐和反映的過程需要重復若干次。PEP在此基礎上增加了自己的優先事項和質量保證的補充標準。

PEP與RMIT有重要區別。1）PEP沿襲中歐傳統，參與者是免費的，而RMIT是需要繳費的。類似于盎格魯—撒克遜國家的大學（Anglo-Saxon Universities）⑦，其費用等同于碩士學位的學費。在該體系中，獨立的研究人員、導師與財務費用之間存在根本性沖突，由于財務壓力使得研究難以進行。2）對候選人的要求更嚴格，需要他們基于設計有所發現并與現有知識進行比較。根據筆者審閱PRS的博士論文，可以看出其缺乏個體研究與現存知識比較的步驟。因此，候選人對自己博士論文課題的歷史發展要有一個宏觀的概述。同時，候選人要明確自我立場與其他設計師和研究者最新立場的區別。這可以通過與其他研究者的項目進行比較完成，并且應該考慮其他研究者的言論。

5 PEP的方法論框架

PEP框架中的博士論文選題涵蓋迄今為止在設計實踐方面尚未解決的理論問題。這些問題與當下實踐領域的討論相關，同時也對相關學科未來發展具有意義。研究問題的范圍涵蓋了與設計相關的各個領域。

基于設計的研究目標是對個人作品的評價，從而有助于設計學科的討論，并產生新的價值。PEP要求觀察個人的作品，即觀察設計成果和設計操作，通過批判性研究，帶著相應標準進行明確而深入的論文寫作。另外，作為PEP博士候選人來講，有必要完成和參與一些實際項目。這些作品可以是設計成果或者是建成項目，其中應該包含了自我探索、自我發展、具有自身特色的個性化設計主線。PEP強調保證實踐作品以批判的眼光甚至是設計精英的標準來衡量。設計實踐的特殊性和設計水平由PEP的核心專家組裁定。如果設計師缺乏設計能力，而想在設計中發現一些獨立的或者新的東西是不可能的。因此，那些剛剛碩士畢業的候選人，只有在能證明異常突出的設計能力的前提下才能被PEP錄取。

在博士研究期間將獲得的理論知識進行實踐性轉化，并根據獨立的標準進行評判和優化。另外，PEP要求候選人通過與其他設計學科的認知狀態進行比較，在討論中找到自我特有的貢獻并且表明與現存認知的不同，以體現自身價值。這個工作步驟不僅需要通過文字反映，還要通過新的設計實踐反映。例如，博士研究的課題是公園地形設計的獨特方法。這個獨特的地形設計方法需要被記錄，并且基于現實項目被描述成設計原則。這些獨立的設計原則需要與其他作者或設計師提出的地形設計的方法比較，使得地形設計藝術、理論研究及其他相關想法的研究現狀可以被歸納學習。研究者獨特的地形設計方法和與現存地形設計方法的區別能夠更精準地呈現。在地形設計中運用對地形設計新的、獨立的精準理解，需要將新形成的設計原則在新的設計項目中應用。這一系列的設計、設計原則的形成，與現有知識的比較和在新設計中的運用應該反復實施，從而得到更加深化、基于設計的、獨立的設計方法的理解。

為使這個過程可以被認知和制度化，PEP的候選人須參與6次研討會。這些研討會以候選人的研究為主并且要求發表個人觀點，同時還有可能與其他候選人和教授進行互動。在研討會的框架下，所有報告會通過圓桌討論的形式由設計專家現場指導。這個過程將以交流和互相評判的方式進行。圓桌討論至少有兩位柏林工業大學的教授和其他的專家參與。因此會通過“預審”進行指導。

6次研討會將對候選人提出如下要求：PEP1：設計者作品的興趣點；PEP2：設計者作品的主線和博士研究假設論點的來源；PEP3：通過新的設計和對已有發現的描述來對假設論點進行研究；PEP4：比較個人創新發現和現有的知識狀態；PEP5：通過對自身設計作品的標準和與現有知識狀態的比對進行具體展示；PEP6：學術答辯并進行公開展覽。

博士候選人的個人輔導是在每次討論會之間進行的。在第5次PEP研討會后，博士候選人需要遞交博士論文。而在第6次匯報（相當于最終的學術答辯）后，博士論文需要公開展覽，才能最終畢業。

這里描述的方法框架只代表了一個階段性狀態。我們將以此為基礎，通過對博士生的指導和與其他基于設計研究的關系網交流溝通中積累經驗，從而更加細化和優化PEP的方法框架⑧。

注釋(Notes)：

① 譯者注：entwerfen與gestalten中文直譯均為設計，為動詞，對應的名詞分別為Entwurf和Gestaltung。區別在于前者強調設計師意圖的表達，類似于畫草圖；而后者則強調對形式的推敲。

② 譯者注：例如拼貼、意象圖等。

③ 譯者注：扎根理論是一種定性研究的方式，其主要宗旨是在經驗資料的基礎上建立理論。其創始人為Barney Glaser和 Anselm Strauss。

④ 譯者注：行動研究是指以某些行動對組織系統的影響為主要對象的研究活動。強調實踐者在行動中為解決自身問題而參與進行的，有計劃、有步驟、有反思的研究。其創始人為Kurt Lewin和Jacob Moreno。

⑤ 譯者注：反省實踐是指是在學習的過程中能夠對行動進行反思的能力。

⑥ 譯者注：模式2是來自科學社會學的術語，指的是知識的產生方式。

⑦ 譯者注：指英國的大學。

⑧ 更多信息請查看（Further Information）：https://www.pep.tu-berlin.de/。

（編輯/劉玉霞）

1 Reasons for establishing the PEP

This text deals with the design disciplines of landscape architecture and architecture. The main subject of landscape architecture and architecture involves working with spaces as interplays of open space and buildings and changing these spaces in a concrete and precise manner. We define this core area of design in landscape architecture and architecture as“designing in the narrow sense”.

How does innovation arise in this core area of the design disciplines? It is obvious that innovation is created mostly through new designs and new, completed projects[1]. So what role, then, does university-based research play in the field of landscape architecture and architecture? What methods are useful for research in the area of “design in the narrow sense”?

The design disciplines of landscape architecture and architecture have a long academic tradition at German universities of technology in general and the Technische Universit?t Berlin in particular. If one examines the doctoral research that has been undertaken in architecture and landscape architecture in the context of the third cycle of academic training,it turns out that only a few doctoral research projects are awarded in the narrower field of designing. In general, the majority of doctoral research projects in architecture and landscape architecture deal with subject matter related to other sciences which provide information for the design process, such as structural engineering, building physics, history, economics,sociology or botany. This scientific input for the design process can be described as the “know what” for the design disciplines. At numerous university departments involved in the teaching and research of landscape architecture and architecture, the design process itself is not part of the applied methodology. These departments focus on other, e.g. technical-scientific,social-scientific and natural-scientific, orientations and methods.

We must bear in mind that the self-conception of the design disciplines of landscape architecture and architecture differs significantly from that of the aforementioned sciences of the “know what”. The“know how”, i.e. the knowledge of design skills, is rarely the topic of research. It is even rarer that new contributions to the “know what” are developed on the basis of the “know how” of design knowledge.This fact reveals a contradiction to the observation made above, that innovation in the field of landscape architecture and architecture mostly comes into the world and into the discourse through new designs and implemented projects. In this sense, the academic research conducted in the sciences of the “know what” and the innovative findings that are achieved through designs and projects seem to exist in two separate worlds[2]25.

The PEP at the TU Berlin was founded in 2016 with the aim of eliminating this problem. PEP is an abbreviation of the German nameProgramm entwurfsbasierte Promotion. The English version of the name is Programme for Design-Based Doctorates.The founding members of the Programme are Prof.Dr Ignacio Borrego, Prof. Ralf Pasel and Prof. Jürgen Weidinger from the TU Berlin, Prof. Donatella Fioretti from the Kunstakademie Düsseldorf and Prof. Dr Matthias Ballestrem from the Hafen City University Hamburg (HCU).

The PEP sees itself as an essential complement to the doctoral studies of the “know what” disciplines and as a new form of knowledge generation in the design disciplines. The aim of the Programme is to describe and present the innovative knowledge contributed by the design disciplines in landscape architecture and architecture in a scientific manner, i.e.so that this knowledge is coherent and comprehensible for others. In this Programme, the individual findings of designers are the subject matter of research.Individual findings can range from individual programmatic or aesthetic approaches to design,individual design methods or individual formal design languages. These findings are examined on the basis of the designers’ previous projects and during the research with the active integration of the designers’new designs. The results of these research projects are discussed within the discourse and compared with related findings of others. In the end the results are made available to the community of designers(“community of practise”) and to the academic discourse in the form of a published dissertation and a public exhibition.

The PEP is integrated into European and international networks for design-based doctoral studies and cultivates exchange between the doctoral candidates and supervisors. The languages used in the PEP are German and English. The spokespersons of the PEP are Prof. Ralf Pasel and Prof. Jürgen Weidinger, both from the TU Berlin.

2 Definition of “designing in the narrow sense”

The PEP was designed for doctoral candidates in the design disciplines whose work can be described as “designing in the narrow sense”.

In the PEP “designing in the narrow sense”is understood as the design processes that aim for a spatial “Gestalt”, which are defined by certain characteristics. (Today, Gestalt is part of the English language, after Gestalt theory proved that a Gestalt is something that is made of many parts and yet is somehow more than or different from the combination of its parts.) Designs in the narrow sense embody a holistic spatial presence and represent a complex and inextricable penetration of aesthetic, ethical, programmatic and technical aspects. These designs cannot be depicted through language or numerical values alone, in other words through the methods and measurement systems of the “know what” sciences. During the design process, these designs must be depicted through the medium of graphical representations or three-dimensional models in order to make them sufficiently describable. Designs in the narrow sense are always the result of a repetitive and progressive deepening and optimisation of the design. This refinement is a condition for designing in the narrow sense and can be seen in the respective design result. Contrastingly, design outcomes that have not received this deepening refinement process are easy to recognise as quickly made visualisations of a conceptual idea. In this sense, the PEP is about the concrete and precise spatial designs of landscape architecture and architecture.

Today in the German language, a loss of clarity in the meaning of the termentwerfen(in English to design) can be observed. This blurring of the narrow and broad definitions ofentwerfenhas something to do with the dominance of the English term to design, which comprises a range of different activities and which is being used more and more frequently, because the global language today is English. The narrower definition of design must be differentiated from the broad definition.In the German language, the termplanen(to plan)is available for describing the broad definition of design, and the termsentwerfenandgestaltencan be used for the narrow definition.

The broad definition of design primarily also covers activities like analysing, organising,moderating and generating abstract planning concepts. Indeed, these activities consist of conceptual stages, but a progressive deepening of the design all the way to the determination of all proportions and materials is not necessary in planning. This is not necessary because planning (= broader sense of design) is about preparatory investigations or planning principles aimed at framing the conditions for future design solutions in a narrower sense. Examples of the broad definition of design are two-dimensional land-use plans for urban design and landscape planning or organisational strategies and concepts for communication and moderation. In general,the content of designs in the broad sense is communicated through texts, quantitative numerical values, diagrams, maps, two-dimensional blueprints and quickly drawn test visualisations.This broad definition of design is not dealt with in the PEP. There are already numerous PhD programmes for these broader planning disciplines and the sciences of the “know what”.

3 The current approaches of epistemology that are opening new avenues for design-based research

The focus on the subject area of the narrow definition of design is based on the assumption that practical design experience allows for findings that previously, through the use of methods from other sciences, could not be adequately described or could be overlooked. Designed spaces are generally described from the perspective of the sciences of the “know what” in a one-sided manner. These sciences tend to overemphasise their own discipline,and they lack an understanding of the design process, which is to solve uncountable problems with a suitable spatial composition (= Gestalt).This is due to the fact that interests and methods from other sciences were developed at a distance to designing and therefore are not qualified to adequately describe the higher-level role of Gestalt in relation to the perspective of individual sciences of the “know what”[2]27. Even architectural theory and landscape architectural theory, which are based on the concepts of sciences of the “know what”have the same categorical problem in investigating designed spaces.

The discussion in epistemology surrounding the various points of access to new knowledge is extensive and ramified. This is why the development of the foundations of design-based research will only be described somewhat simplistically in this text.

It was in 1972 that Horst Rittel[3]coined the term wicked problems for issues that are so complex that they cannot be dealt with using problem-solving methods of the first generation. Rittel describes the problem-solving methods of the first generation as the strict positivist separation between the research hypotheses (research question) and the scientific justification of the hypotheses. The problems associated with design in architecture and landscape architecture are wicked problems, so follwing Rittel,so those problems in architecture and landscape and can not be solved by problem-solving methods of the first generation. Problem-solving methods of the first generation, e.g. natural sciences or the engineering sciences request to narrow the research question very closely. For example research in landscape architecture often deals with e.g. slip resistance of paths or growing conditions for plants or visit frequency in parks. Those research questions and the corresponding research methods can be described with Rittel’s term of a problemsolving setting of the first generation. This specialist knowledge based on problem solving settings of the first generation can be helpful knowledge for design but is by far not enough to create new and sophisticated design solutions in architecture and landscape architecture.

How to solve wicked problems in architecture and landscape architecture? For dealing with wicked problems, Rittel therefore suggests secondgeneration methods that are characterised by the removal of the separation between the context of origin and the context of justification of a hypothesis. To tackle the complexity of the wicked problem demands the researcher to act. In process of acting the understanding of the problem becomes clearer and suitable methods can be found in the acting and in the reflection of acting.

Wicked problems are also dealt with in the social sciences, where various second-generation problem-solving methods “of acting” have already become established. One example is the method ofGrounded Theory(founders: Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss), which strives to tailor the theory formation perfectly to the researched phenomenon/subject through a continuous alternation between data collection and reflection and categorisation of the data. The method ofAction Research(founders:Kurt Lewin and Jacob Moreno) is characterised by the incorporation of relevant stakeholders and cooperation between the researchers and the research participants with the aim of bringing about a mutual change. Accordingly, phases of the change of the situation alternate with the phases of observation, description and hypothesis formation.

Additionally, in recent years, the Belgian Johan Verbeke, one of the theorists of design-based research in Europe, put forth the concept ofDesignerly Grounded Theory, which deals with these relationships. Hans-J?rg Rheinberger described artefacts and things that are the reason and catalyst for new ways of thinking and the development of new theories asEpistemic Objects[4].Other milestones on the way to the understanding of design-based research include the concept of theSciences of the Artificialby Herbert Simon 1969, the concept of theReflective Practitionerby Donald Sch?n 1983[5], the concept ofMode 2Knowledge by Helga Nowotny, Peter Scott and Michael Gibbons 1994[6]and the concept ofDesignerly Ways of Knowingby Nigel Cross 2001[7]. Overall, these concepts can be described as a practice turn in epistemology. From the perspective of the practice turn, professional practices in the context of research are not only understood as applications of previously developed theoretical knowledge, but in complete contrast to this, practices are regarded as tools for gaining new knowledge, as an addition and sometimes an adjustment or even correction to the theoretical knowledge.

TThe PEP subscribes to these ideas of the practice turn. Design-based research gains insights from the process of designing (as with the data collection of the method of grounded theory) and reflects on the achieved change through the design outcomes (as with the method of action research).For the PEP, designs and projects represent epistemic objects. Design-based research is able to cover areas where the instruments and methods offered by the sciences of the “know what” are insufficient. This represents the epistemological core of the PEP. If an idea is embodied as a spatial artefact, we understand new aspects that we would not have been able to recognise through reflection without making this artefact.

From this perspective, new contributions to the science of architecture and landscape architecture should arise that critically examine the contributions of the external sciences of the “know what” (from outside of the design disciplines).

4 The development of methodological structures of the PEP based on the work of other programmes

The PEP builds on the experience gained from and methods developed by the Practice Research Symposia (PRS) of the RMIT Melbourne. Marcelo Stamm, former Deputy Dean of the School of Architecture and Design at RMIT and today at Virginia Tech University USA and one of the pioneers of the PRS, describes this process as an endeavour to achieve a linguistic ability to describe independently identified subject matter in a comprehensible manner so that an exchange with the discourse of the design disciplines can occur. This methodological approach provides a proven and helpful basis for the development of new design-based programmes.

As with all new doctoral studies at the TU Berlin, doctoral research undertaken in the context of the PEP is also subject to the doctoral research guidelines of the TU Berlin, which specify the formal procedures to be followed. In order to make designbased research possible in the context of the doctoral research guidelines, the core committee of the PEP has developed a procedure that makes the acquisition of knowledge from design practice structured,comprehensible and assessable, pioneering a new approach in the supervision of doctoral research.PhD candidates in the PEP must demonstrate that they have developed a mastery of design through a progressive series of projects and designs. The findings in the candidates’ own work are reached through the investigation of new design practice. This process of practice and reflection is repeated several times. The PEP has added its own priorities and supplementary criteria of quality assurance to this foundation.

One important difference to the RMIT Programme is the fact that, following Central European traditions, no fees are charged for participation in the PEP. By contrast, the RMIT charges a semester fee. The amount is the same as the tuition fees that are charged for master’s degree courses, which are common in Anglo-Saxon universities. We feel that this system poses a fundamental conflict between the independence of the researchers/reviewers and financial duties.

A second important adaptation is the decision to require all candidates to more intensively compare their own design-based findings with the current state of knowledge. In the PRS dissertations that have been read by the author, this step of positioning one’s work in relation to existing knowledge comes up short.This is why the PEP requires its doctoral candidates to prepare an introductory overview summarising the history of the development of the individual dissertation topic. Another essential requirement is the identification of the differences between the candidate’s own position and the most recent positions of other designers and authors. This comparison can be made with projects from other authors and should also take into consideration texts from other authors.

5 Methodological framework of the PEP

Dissertation topics in the PEP deal with an aspect of design practice that has yet to be covered, are considered in the context of the current discourse of the community of practise and are of importance to the future of the disciplines involved. The field of research questions covers all areas related to design.

The aim of design-based research is to evaluate one’s own work in order to contribute new ideas to the discourse of the design disciplines. The PEP requires that the observation of one’s own work,i.e. the observation of design outcomes and also design actions, is expressed in words through critical investigations, and thereby made explicit and further developed into a thesis with the corresponding criteria.In addition, it is necessary that the doctoral students have already produced a practical work that comprises several design outcomes or completed projects and is characterised by recurring and developing lines in the work. The PEP places strong emphasis on ensuring that this practical work is characterised by a critical level of design skill, or even design mastery. The special individuality and quality of the design practice are assessed by the core committee of professors of the PEP. Without mature design skill, it is unlikely to find something independent or new through the design process. This is why candidates who have recently finished their master’s degree can only be accepted into the PEP if exceptional design skills can be demonstrated.

During the process of doctoral research, further designerly implementations of the thesis are prepared on this basis and then evaluated and optimised based on independently developed criteria. In addition, the PEP requires that the doctoral students position their own contribution in the discourse through comparison with other knowledge of the design disciplines, identify the differences to existing knowledge and, in this way,make their own contribution distinguishable from the current field of knowledge. These steps are taken both through textual reflection of the candidate’s own design practice and through practical design reflection through new designs. For example: if the topic of a doctorate research is an individual approach to create topographies in parks, this individual way of topography making has to be recorded and described by design principles on the bases on hitherto existing individual projects. These individual design principles have to be compared with design principles of topography making of other authors and other designers. Therefore the state of the art of topography making, in theoretical studies as well as in related projects of others, has to be scanned and studied. By this, the individual peculiarity of the researcher’s way of designing topography and the difference to the existing ways of making topography can be distinguished and formulated more precisely. Using this new and more precise understanding about the individual approach in designing topography the researcher needs to apply the newly formulated design principles in new design projects successfully. This sequence of designing,formulation of design principles, comparing them with the body of knowledge and to exert them in new designs should be repeated several times to get a deepened and design based understanding of the individual design approach.

In order to guide and structure this process, the candidates are invited to take part in six symposia.The symposia support the individual work of the candidates, challenge them to get to the heart of their own subject matter and offer the opportunity to exchange ideas and experience with other candidates and professors. All presentations in the context of the symposia are attended and evaluated by a panel of design experts. Comments and interim evaluations are written. The panel consists of at least two professors from the TU Berlin and additional external experts. In this manner, the current state of the work is evaluated through a “peer review” process.

The candidates must fulfil the following requirements for the six symposia: PEP 1: Interests in the work of the designer; PEP 2: Lines in the work of the designer and derivation of the hypothesis of the doctoral research; PEP 3: Investigation of the hypothesis through the creation of new designs and the description of findings; PEP 4: Comparison of one’s own findings with existing related fields of knowledge;PEP 5: Concretisation of the findings through criteria from the candidate’s own design work and from the comparison with related fields of knowledge; PEP 6:Defence of the doctoral thesis and exhibition.

Individual supervision of the doctoral candidates’ work is provided between the symposia.After the doctoral students have participated in 5 PEP symposia, the written dissertation is submitted. In the context of the 6th presentation, which corresponds to the defence of the doctoral thesis, the doctoral students make the designs and artefacts produced in the process of the doctoral research publicly accessible through an exhibition.

The methodological framework described here represents an intermediate stage. We assume that the experience to be gained over the coming years in the supervision of doctoral students and the exchange with other networks for design-based research will lead to the refinement and optimisation of the PEP’s methodological framework.