The rhetoric of the academy and the limits of communication

In areas of design practice, the paradigm of knowledge has not been clearly articulated, but some of its characteristics appear to include a valorisation of subjectivity; plurality of interpretation; objects that embody meanings; and that which cannot be expressed through language. These values run counter to traditional models of knowledge and research which, through the logic of its special language, value objectivity; singularity of interpretation; experiments that embody theoretical explanations; and concepts that can be coherently argued in words. Thus there is a problem in accounting for research in these areas in ways that will be recognised and valued by the academy. This article presents a sub-group of academic research that is specific to areas of design practice – Practice-based Research – as being problematic, and presents some current debates on the best way of dealing with some results that are considered, in academia, to be non-traditional.