Hi Rosan,
I feel that much of the difficulty in your question is associated with the
problem that the term 'design' is and has been used rather loosely over the
last 30 years. There is no problem with the noun version of 'a design'
meaning ' a specification for constructing something'. There is also no
difficulty with the verb 'to design' as in 'the individual was designing a
widget'. Similarly, there is no problem with the noun 'designer' meaning
someone who has been or will be 'designing'.
Significant problems arise, however, with some of the other meanings of
'design' that give it agency or intrinsic value. These problems emerge in
statements such as 'design operates. . .' or 'this is good design'. These
uses of the term 'design' appear to have come into existence because it is
much harder work to use only the epistemologically straightforward meanings.
It is mentally and verbally easy, but philosophically problematic, to slide
from the idea of designing as an activity (the individual _designed_ the
solution)to the idea of 'design' as an attribute (this solution _is_
'designed'). The latter suggesting that the solution has some
pseudo-physical property of 'design'. Is is but a short step to the idea of
a 'design solution' as something done 'by "design"'. It takes much
linguistic care to avoid such very convenient but conceptually shaky
language.
No-one (as far as I have been able to ascertain) has justifiably defined
these latter meanings of 'design' as 'something that does activities all by
itself' or 'design' as a property that an artefact possesses or doesn't
possess(and this is neglecting yet another epistemological problem - when
the object itself is referred to as the 'design'.)
The issue that must be resolved before your question is the meaning of
'design' in 'design knowledge'. If it refers to 'knowledge about the
activity of designing', 'knowledge about 'designs'', or knowledge used by
designers', your question can be answered in a fairly straightforward
fashion. If by 'design' you are including the idea that there exists some
kind of entity called 'design' that has agency that enables itself to
'operate', then it would appear to be necessary to define this entity and
its properties in more detail (along with the attributes of the 'can be'
space) before your question can be adequately addressed. Similarly, if your
meaning of 'design' refers to some property that something possesses.
In other words, I feel that the problem is not around issues of knowledge or
knowing.
Best wishes
Terry
________________________________________
Dr. Terence Love
Love Design and Research
GPO Box 226
Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030
[log in to unmask] +61 (0)8 9305 7629
________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Rosan Chow
Sent: Wednesday, 27 September 2000 10:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Design Knowledge
(Disclaimer: all questions are asked to aid understanding and they are
mainly
a reflection of Rosan's cognitive disequilibrium).
Hi members of the list:
I am struggling over the nature of design knowledge and would like to get
some help.
I have learned that the epistemological traditions of the (social) sciences
can roughly be categorized as Objectivism, Subjectivism, and
Constructionism.
May I say that the scientific view on the world is that it is knowable
through either discovery, invention or construction?
Now, my question is if design is different from science in that design
operates in the space of 'can be' - something that is still to be happened,
how can design knowledge be known and can it be known?
Sincerely yours
Rosan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|