John James Marshall thesis.pdf - OpenAIR @ RGU - Robert Gordon ...

From the responses received slightly more practitioners indicated they were
engaged with more than one discipline than had been expected by the
researcher. This might indicate they think of themselves to have a crossdisciplinary
practice. However, the nature of how this may manifest is not
answered definitively by the data gathered in this survey. This indicates an
opportunity for more rigorous analysis through future research.
Rapid prototyping, 3D modelling and 3D printing were indicated as the most
commonly used computer-based design and fabrication technologies. Nearly all
the practitioners pointed out that when it came to using these technologies they
were self-taught. Their experience had come through task-related or projectbased
engagement with the technologies. For these practitioners computerbased
design and fabrication tools represent an enhancement of traditional
methods and should not be viewed as a total replacement for them. The survey
indicates there is no alternative to ‘hands on’, iterative experience when
approaching these technologies. This has widespread implications (particularly
within education) when it is considered the primary limitations regarding the
use of these technologies were identified as resource issues. The implications
for student designers are as prescient as they are for educators facing the
challenge of how to integrate these technologies into the curriculum. Access to
equipment, constant software and hardware upgrades and the availability of
qualified technicians were all mentioned as impediments with cost
repercussions.
Future work is necessary to explore the nature of audiences for these types of
objects. The primary means of engagement were indicated as being through
exhibitions, education and as research papers and presentations. However, it
was clear from the responses from practitioners that not much else is known
about this. Also, it would seem that although many practitioners consider
themselves to be involved in cross-disciplinary forms of practice the
communities they engage with actually have a narrower, more disciplinary
focus. This indicates a series of ‘ghettoised’ communities that recognise the
potential to communicate with each other but that do not.
- 282 -