Dear David,


Many thanks for your reply "Re: Focus: ..." [Nov. 19] to my post "Focus:
..." [Nov. 19]. I appreciate very much you the time and effort you put
into clarifying those views of yours that I commented on.

I think I owe you some clarification in return, for it now seems to me
that I commented on something I read into your original message, but
which you did not intend to say. I'm sorry. Basically I don't think we
disagree much, if at all.


(1) Distinctive features of design(ing):

I have no intentions to start the debate about how to define design(ing)
all over again. [Like you, I have already had my say on the matter
(Galle, 1999).] I doubt that the design research community will ever
converge on any single canonical definition, but as long as we agree
that the ones we use contribute something important to our understanding
(and as long as those definitions are not blatantly contradicting each
other!), we can probably live with that. I have no problems with your
terse and elegant definition in that respect; nor indeed with Ken's /
Simon's, although personally I prefer to narrow down the concept a
little -- but let's not quibble about that. I believe we can agree that
one distinctive feature of design(ing) is that it involves making or
preparing a change of some sort, unlike science of the 'languidly'
descriptive variety.

When in your original post (on Taylor's keynote) you said that
"designing is something different" to science and engineering, I thought
you had in mind the **artistic** element of design in such professions
as architecture, furniture, ceramics etc. -- as opposed to other design
professions like engineering and software design. (To be sure, the
members of the latter professions may have a well developed sense of
aesthetics, but they do not usually speak of themselves as **artists**.)
In his keynote address, Richard -- very rightly -- said "The one thing
that we should never do is hide unnecessarily behind art and
creativity." I must confess that I was suspecting you of tying to hide
in this way, when you emphasized designing as "something different". I'm
sorry to have misread your post. But that was what induced me to suggest
(what I still believe) that it remains for open-minded design research
to find out just how much design might be differing from science and
engineering. What worries me (not in anything you said, but in general)
is that conventional opinions about the irreducibly artistic nature of
design that some designers may hold, can become a stumbling block to the
the realization of the visions of a cross disciplinary science of design
so well described in the UCI DS proposal. (See my post "Nightmare" for
further clarification.)


(2) Humility:

I can hardly disagree with anything you say in your reply to me about
humility. Again, I may have misread your comments on Taylor about other
disciplines "crossing a major threshold" into design. What I meant is
that design science, still being in a rather embryonic state, is
probably not yet in a position to offer great insights to other
disciplines about themselves. Presumably we don't disagree on that.


(3) Building a respectable academic discipline:

In your reply to me you say:

"Building a respectable academic discipline is, of course, important.
But such an academic discipline cannot be based entirely on aping others
in the academy."

I wholeheartedly agree, and I don't think I said anything to the
contrary. You also say, just after that:

"In the case of design, it has to be built on solid respectable practice
in the world. In this respect, the academy comes second. Now, that may
be regarded as controversial within this community."

Indeed it may. But I think I will leave that matter for you to settle
with the community!


All the best,
Per




Reference
* Galle P (1999) Design as intentional action: a conceptual analysis,
Design Studies 20 pp 57-81.

--

*  Per Galle
*
* Mosevangen 18
*  DK-3460 Birkerød, Denmark
*
*  (+45) 45 82 81 05