|
Dear Ken,
Your email perplexed me in some ways, although I well enough
understand where you were coming from (as a biologist in a design
school I should do!).
Design is essentially an holistic activity, it must be to succeed. Yet
most design professions have only known an intellectual world
dominated by reductionist science. It seem that this reductionist
environment has heavily influenced the thinking of many in the
design community, I believe to the latter's substantial detriment.
The emergence of the sciences of complexity, or the 'holistic'
sciences, through much of the 20th century provided, I believe, a
far sounder basis for design practice. Soft systems thinking, for
example, seems much more consonant with design practice than
the hard systems thinking that preceded it and epitomised the
reductionist worldview.
Yet many in the design community seem strangely unaware of
the 'sciences of complexity', or unwilling to engage with them in any
real sense. Is it that most designers see anything labelled 'science'
as antithetical to design and proceed no further? Or are the
reasons elsewhere?
This indifference is thankfully changing now, and it was a great
personal pleasure to meet with Wolfgang Jonas, Kari-Hans
Kommonen, and John Langrish at 'Common Ground', and to
discuss our shared interests. I much look forward to working with
them in the future to explore the exciting world that opens up when
you juxtapose design with the holistic sciences.
By the way, we are in the early stages of establishing an interfaculty
research group grounded in the sciences of complexity - across
Design, Architecture & Building(my own faculty), Engineering and
Information Technology. It responds to a University desire for
interfaculty research initiatives. It should be an exciting journey for
us all, doubtless with some bumps along the way!!
Kind regards,
John Broadbent,
Senior Lecturer,
Faculty of Design, Architecture & Building,
University of Technology, Sydney,
Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2002 5:35 am
Subject: Building Research Communities
> Dear Friends,
>
> Erik's note and Lorraine's comment on the membership activity of
the
> past two days suggest a quick thought.
>
> Building a research community takes time. We may not have
common
> ground, but we do share common interests in four main themes:
> philosophies and theories of design; foundations and methods of
> design research; form and structure for the doctorate in design;
and
> the relationship between practice and research in design. We
explore
> a wide range of issues.
>
> While common interests bring us together, powerful forces push us
> apart. Our many disciplines and professions tend to separate us
> despite interest in a common field.
>
> Consider the case of a software engineer, a machine engineer, a
> medical technology product manager, a product designer, a
fashion
> designer, an architect, a researcher in electronic markets, a
> typographer, and an interaction communications designer.
>
> In the old world of guild training and single-discipline professional
> practice, they would have had little to say to each other. In the
> knowledge economy, a single product may involve software,
medical
> technology, fashion, and architecture. Its makers, sellers, buyers,
> and users may be linked in electronic markets. A well-conceived
and
> readable service manual explains the product and its uses. The
> product is controlled by an interactive computer system and
supported
> by a Web-based Intranet. If we change the rubric "medical
technology"
> to any of a thousand products and services, we describe products
and
> markets that employ tens of millions of people around the world.
>
> Most of us are involved in the knowledge economy as
professionals,
> researchers, educators, or all three. As conscientious citizens,
many
> of us seek ways to extend participation in the knowledge to those
who
> are excluded from it benefits. As concerned citizens, we also ask
> what aspects of this economy we should change.
>
> In this world, we have everything to say to each other and we have
> much to learn from each other precisely because of our
differences.
> Unfortunately, this is where centrifugal forces come into play.
>
> The nature of disciplinary and professional life keeps us from
> crossing the boundaries of work teams and academic
departments. Even
> when we do speak with each other across boundaries, the flow of
works
> means that we may not speak with each other as often as we
should.
> The pressures and schedule of daily life means we often do not
have
> the time that dialogue requires, let alone the time to study and
> learn.
>
> This is why this list is so promising. The time we spend here gives
> us an opportunity to learn from colleagues. Reading is also a form
of
> participation, and many list members save threads for study and
> reflection. I certainly do! The diverse exchange that sometimes
seems
> to challenge our concentration is also a benefit. It would take much
> more work to discover the ideas and information that a
subscription
> to PhD-Design brings us in a day's reading.
>
> The time we spend learning from each other on this list is an
> investment in professional practice and in our skills as educators
> and researchers. In a world that demands broad scope and scale
of
> knowledge, this is a great advantage. In many places, you would
> expect to pay a great deal to attend a seminar with experts in so
> many fields. Here, the price we pay is time and attention.
>
> At Common Ground, Dick pointed out that our community is
subject to
> centripetal and centrifugal forces. He said that his hope is a
> community that overcomes the forces that pull us apart to focus on
> common concerns. Many of us share this hope.
>
> If our field is to be holistic and interdisciplinary rather than a
> series of reductionist enterprises divided by intellectual boundaries
> and job functions, we require a forum for dialogue and interaction.
> There are few forums as holistic and interdisciplinary as PhD-
Design.
> That very fact makes participating in this list a more demanding
> challenge than we meet elsewhere. One aspect of the challenge
is the
> time and attention it demands.
>
> Every time we work together to identify concerns, solve problems,
and
> address challenges we grow. This community first came together
in
> Ohio. Soon after, we began to debate research issues and
doctoral
> education on the DRS list. We met in La Clusaz, and renewed our
> dialogue on PhD-Design. Now, following the Brunel meeting, we
have a
> chance to interact in the larger global community made possible by
> the JISCMAIL system.
>
> It seems to me our dialogues open important issues, in part by
> developing differences, in part by seeking similarity, in part by
> pursuing multiple threads. Inquiry requires care. Building
community
> requires care. Over the past two days, we lost only twelve
> subscribers. This is a better figure than Lubomir estimated. Today,
> we gained two. Now we total 904 subscribers. I offer these figures
by
> way of noting the continued interest in our community.
>
> I join Erik and Lorraine in encouraging whatever kind of
> participation suits you best. There are times when I cannot keep
up,
> and there are times when I cannot keep away. PhD-Design is an
> outstanding forum for our community. The demands of such a
forum are
> a benefit rather than a cost. The time this forum requires is an
> investment in an important and growing field.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
> --
>
> Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> Department of Leadership and Organization
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> Visiting Professor
> Advanced Research Institute
> School of Art and Design
> Staffordshire University
>
>
UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER
=======================================================================
This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, do not
read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or attachments.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete this message. Any views expressed in this message
are those of the individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
and with authority, states them to be the views the University of
Technology Sydney. Before opening any attachments, please check them for
viruses and defects.
=======================================================================
|
