Dear Rosan,

I also like definitions. My objection to "officially certified
definitions" stems from the conflict I have seen so many times
emerging because a definition made in a context is being applied in
another without proper judgement.

This is the same reason why systems which are designed by people
often treat some people in some situations badly, often against the
intention of the designer: because they rely on definitions which
were thought to be universally valid but are not. Most often the
problem is not even identified to be the one I describe. Often it is
seen as a fault of the people involved.

In systems where humans play the part of intelligent processor, they
may be able to inject the necessary judgement and solve the problem
by adjusting the process locally. In computer systems, where
processing is performed by a computer according to a software program
designed by a person in a formal language which requires unambiguous,
clear definitions, the problem usually can't be solved without
circumventing the whole system.


I believe that for any higher level concepts, a good definition will
never be enough. It will always have to be complemented by humans
making good judgements. Just like you say, to make your own
judgements.

But in the case of the design institution, assuming the intention of
the definer is X, will the definer have the skill to write the
definition so that it will properly communicate X so you as the judge
will perceive it right? Will the institution properly understand what
the intention of the definer was, when the test approaches? Will the
person continue to be present explaining the definition to the rest
and guiding the students through? Or is it actually better that she
leaves and someone else explains and applies the definition in a
better way?

So a lot of judgement will also be required and applied on the other sides.


While the definition is useful as a point of departure, it will be
always hard to completely rely on it. Any part of it can be
questioned.

People on this list will probably not be able to get into a consensus
on the definitions of the two simple words "design" and "research".
If you make a definition that has about 20 words, will that make it
easier? Don't you need to agree on 20 more words, some of which
represent yet more complex concepts, with even more opportunity for
disagreement?


So in the end, definitions will always need to be interpreted and
tied to a context - and a surprising context may yield a surprising
but excellent, valid and enlightening interpretation.


But I completely agree with you that the issue you bring up is
important. It is important for the institutions to make the
definitions, and it is important to make them available to the
students. But how can we keep them dynamic, and guarantee the
employment of good human judgement, so that the definitions will not
aqcuire too much bureaucratic rigidity which may stand in the way of
new and important ideas?

This is one of the reasons why I have exhibited some concern over
making design a very academic field, if that means adopting rigid
definitions from other academic disciplines without proper design
oriented judgement. And what is that? I can't define it, and I don't
know if anyone has an idea convincing enough to persuade all others.
Therefore, and for the moment, I keep advocating more dynamic and
judgement based definitionmaking - rather a process than a book.

Maybe a community like this can help, by identifying and keeping
alive strands of beliefs, understandings or perceptions that some
subcommunities here find to make sense. Instead of striving for
complete consensus, to strive for organized diversity.


cheers, kh

...
At 10:05 -0700 8.3.2002, Rosan Chow wrote:
>Dear Liz, David, Kari-Hans, Keith and others
>
>thank you very much for the interesting discussion on search and
>research. as a phd candidate, I never get tired of the discussion of
>research in general and phd design research in particular.
>
>i hate definitions and i love definitions.
>
>i hate definitions because they tend to set boundaries, limit our
>thinking and marginalize people. e.g. race, intelligence.... science and
>research.
>
>i love definitions because at their best, they imply understanding.
>
>i personally welcome 'a' definition of design research from 'an'
>institution who claims to be engaged in design research  so that i can
>evaluate in what way the institution sets boundaries, limits thinking
>and marginalizes people; and how people in the institution understand
>what they are doing.
>
>i think that it will be beneficial to phd candidates if these
>definitions are available so that we can compare, contrast and make our
>own judgement.