Hi Chris,
Welcome back!
Whoa! - I'm not doing so much as you think! It was more a biological
approach of categorising very roughly on the basis of simple growth
features, rather than trying to fit everyone into neat boxes.
When identifying the scope of design sub-fields, I was interested in how
newer design fields were coming into being and I noticed that there was sort
of a progression that appeared much the same looking back over the last 100
years (which I was also reviewing in terms of literature that has 'design'
in its title).
In trying to make some sense of this, I noticed three obvious groups: those
just emerging; those well established; and those negotiating a place
between established disciplines. Nothing terribly complicated.
Then, I came across a research paper which suggested that in Germany,
Architecture was disappearing because architects work was being replaced
piecemeal by other sub-disciplines (space syntaxers, space managers,
structural engineers, building brand designers, interior designers,
environmental services designers, civil engineers, project managers,
quantity surveyors, lighting designers, ecodesign specialists, safety
engineers, building standards specialists etc etc). This left architects
with not much of the cake. Thinking about it, it seemed many other well
established design disciplines fitted the same picture. They also had two
other characteristics: the discipline name was used as a sort of generic
family name, and they were so generic that no individual could be reasonably
expected to be competent across the whole of what they encompassed. It made
sense to have a fourth category for this group.
I agree with you that it's a tough call trying to second guess which
emerging new sub-fields are likely to be the next big hot area, and exactly
which disciplines are in (1) or (2) - I'm not trying to do that - or rather
not to do it precisely.
To roughly identify design sub-disciplines in the (1) and (2) areas I used
three 'rules': Is there a clearly defined community of professional practice
that regard themselves as different from other disciplines?; Do they use
'design' as part of what they call themselves or their work?; Do they fit
within Simon's definition?. Some, such as the homilecticists or homilists or
whatever they are called(!), fall through the cracks. Others, such as
'environmental funding program designers' fit all three rules (and yes, I
was surprised when I found a significant community of professional practice
doing this).
The overall idea of the four types seems to be useful partly because it is
so loose and partly because it opens up the idea that there is quite a mush
of design sub-disciplines that change over time and that the progression is
sort of "baby"; 'young and troublesome'; 'autonomous' and 'elder'.
Overarching fields such as Design or Design Research would expect to be in
the 'elder' class?
Thoughts?
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
Rust
Sent: Saturday, 11 August 2007 5:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Definitions (2)
Terence wrote:
> I found you can easily divide design sub-fields into four groups:
>
> 1. New sub-disciplines that are emerging 2. New sub-disciplines that
> are in existence and stabilised 3. Established sub-disciplines 4. Aged
> meta sub-disciplines that are mainly reference structures and on the
> pathway to becoming irrelevant
>
This all looks stately and reasonable and may well be true. However the
devil is in the problem of identifying these sub-disciplines at stage 1 and
even in stage 2. It's the essence of emergence that we cannot predict which
ideas or visions will have staying power. If we try to hard to define a
development before it has worked through we are not likely to be successful
but still we have to try if we want to have something to work with so I
would prefer to talk about tentative developments and leave the rigidity of
sub-disciplines for future taxonomists. If they wish to have such structures
(as some of our colleagues today quite clearly do) they would be wise to
avoid the "emerging" category just as a biologist should be very careful
about speculating whether an interesting mutation signals a distinct future
breed.
best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
*********************
Professor Chris Rust
Head of Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK
+44 114 225 2706
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
|