The objective, at least the way I understood it, was to find a way to get out
of the "Babel tower" we are presently locked in, in order to communicate
better within the same field of Design research and practice. So, to me, the
issue is not at all about policing. Rather, even if I just learn what does
"Design Management" really means, and if I can relate that meaning to what I
am working on in Industrial Design, I would certainly have improved a little
bit my own knowledge of the "Design" field, and I would certainly have find a
"common ground" for communication with you and others in the same field.
For such a plus, I will definitely buy any other better method or approach
you may suggest for us to exchange further.
Francois-X. N.I. NSENGA
Montreal
> Dear All,
>
> Am I the lone voice who is saying please, oh, please do not spend time
> compiling defintions of words/phrases! I can not see what use is served
> defining things that already have definitions.
>
> Are you going to create definitions that are different from the rest of
> the world - how then do we communicate with others? How do you police
> this. Do you mean that I am only going to be allowed to use YOUR
> definiton of design when I write to this list. What happens if people
> do not adhere to your definitons and use the word design in a new way
> (horror!)? I suppose you could always burn persistant offenders at the
> stake!
>
> You will toil and sweat to come up with definitons that not everyone
> will buy into anyway - if they are so mutually aceptable they will be
> so unspecifc as to be meaningless.
>
> I well remember the torment some of us went through in the early days
> of design management where we sat earnestly round tables agonising
> about the nuances between the terms 'design management' and 'managing
> design'. Useful 'teambuilding' perhaps but workable defintions - no.
> Design management is still quite an ill defined area and no bad thing
> for that.
>
> Apart from anything else I have been fairly staggered by the way many
> writers to this list play fast and loose with a wide range of words and
> terms from other academic diciplines. Would we find it acceptable if
> say Peter Checkland said we were no longer allowed to use 'soft
> systems' in the context of design because it did not fit with his
> definition of the term? Pots, kettles and black come to mind!
>
> I feel some of you are chaamping at the bit to get hold of this
> project. OK do it for your own interest if you have the time, but
> please don't fool yourselves that this is making a contribution to the
> functioning of this discussion group or the furtherance of design
> research.
>
> Philippa Ashton
> Staffordshire University
>
|