Per
Thanks for your observations on my little contribution. Perhaps I was
being a little too cryptic. I'm engaging in this dialogue at the same
time as doing lots of other stuff. Shorthand and conflation of
arguments is one of my weaknesses. I will try to make amends.
The issue of what designing is, and what are the distinctive
characteristics of doing design, has been the subject of long debate. I
made a contribution to that that debate in 1978, in the final issue of
*Design Methods and Theories* before it became *Design Studies*. The
paper was an extract of a thesis I had completed in 1975 on Visual
Communication/information design in which I considered some of the
issues of defining design, as a prelude to the the practical work
reported in the thesis.
In the DMT paper I suggested that a useful definition of design (in
general) might be 'originating useful systems'. Having followed some of
the debate on the issue over the last 20 odd years (some of them very
odd--both the years and the debate!), I've come to the view
contemporary writers on the subject have come to much the same view.
For example, Ken Freedman, in his Common Ground paper defines design,
following Simons as "Design involves creating something new or
transforming a less desirable situation to a preferred
situation." While there are differences in nuance and vocabulary. I
discern no major differences in the intervening years. Though I should
add that I disagree profoundly with some of the the young Sless's
assumptions.
The central idea that is useful for us in this context is the idea of
'originating' or 'creating something new'. This is an important marker
of the difference between doing science and doing design, though a weak
marker at times between design and some important aspects of
engineering
We do science in order to find things out, to discover what already
exists. We do designing in order to create something that doesn't
currently exist. I'm talking here about the activity, not the person.
Scientists do both designing and scientific research, and the same is
true of some designers.
So, in that sense I was suggesting in my remarks that:
"designing is something different, and it does not get its distinctive
nature from being like science and engineering"
I don't think I'm saying anything that would be regarded as
controversial within this community. If I am then doubtless someone
will tell me.
My subsequent remarks were based on observations of what is already
happening, most of it outside universities. We live in a world that we
have constructed. We travel through it, on it, live in it, eat it,
engage with it, we remake it, and destroy it.
As an example of ordinary thinking on the subject, consider the
following from Harpers Magazine on the subject of genetic engineering:
"Biology once was regarded as a languid, largely descriptive
discipline, a passive science that was content, for much of its
history, merely to observe the natural world rather than change it. No
longer. Today biology, armed with the power of genetics, has replaced
physics as the activist Science of the Century, and it stands poised to
assume godlike powers of creation, calling forth artificial forms of
life."
I have used this quote before (Sless 2002) and use it again here to
illustrate how in one specific topical context, we are seeing a
traditional discipline moving from science to design. THIS IS HAPPENING
NOW IN MANY FIELDS! All the normative, social, environmental, stake
holder and business issues that designers have been grappling with for
a long time are now being faced by people with a science background.
Whether they realise it or not, they need our help.
I don't subscribe to the view that we stand with our hand out saying
"when the big projects are being funded, please include us". Rather, we
should be saying "Ignore us at your peril!"
I don't think this is a matter of 'humility' on our part, as you
suggest:
"A little more humility on our part might be well advised. But even if
those disciplines might eventually learn from design, to suggest that
they cross the threshold and attach themselves to us, does not really
help us find out how to pursue **design research**, how to build up
design as a respectable academic discipline."
Humility is in order when it comes to the subject matter of design
teaching. I, along with others are concerned that the enthusiasm for
the now, may not be giving due attention to the accumulated wisdom and
knowledge of the past. A little humility there might be in order.
Humility is also in order when it comes to facing the responsibility of
inflicting something new on the world, coming ready or not!
Building a respectable academic discipline is, of course, important.
But such an academic discipline cannot be based entirely on aping
others in the academy. 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.
References
Commoner B 2002
Unravelling the DNA myth
Reprinted from Harpers Magazine
The Australian Financial Review, Review Friday 1 March pp 1-9
Sless D 1978
DeŽnition of design: originating useful systems
Design Methods and Theories 12 (2) 123Š130
Sless D 2001
Philosophy as design: a project for our times
Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference of the
Design Education Association, Cardiff March 14 2002.
http://www.communication.org.au/html/paper_33.html
--
Professor David Sless
BA MSc FRSA
Co-Chair Information Design Association
Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
Director
Communication Research Institute of Australia
** helping people communicate with people **
PO Box 1008
Hawksburn, Melbourne
VIC 3142, Australia
UK phone: +44 (0)17 8284 8744
UK Mobile:+44 (0)79 9072 8465
fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
web: http://www.communication.org.au
|
