Following Harold's response to David's query regarding "systems" and 
systemic approach applied to Design, (that is the approach many have 
perceived as underlying the proposed UCI School of Design), I take  
the opportunity to address as well related semantics that have also 
been referred to in several posts in the conference, but apparently 
without a shared understanding. Those semantics have been conveyed 
through the terms of "discipline", "cross-disciplinary", "inter-
disciplinary", "multi-disciplinary", "trans-disciplinary".

Under the heading "discipline", in the Webster's New Collegiate 
Dictionary, one of the meanings refers to " a field of study."  
Assuming that Design is one among many fields of study, it can 
therefore be one discipline, eventually interacting with many other 
disciplines. And in that sense, the Design field has to be precisely 
defined as such, as an autonomous unit that may, on specific 
occasions, be cross-, inter-or simply multi-related to other fields 
of study. That distinctive aspect of the Design field is the precise 
object of present debates among designers from all horizons and 
practices. Is Design, or should it be one single field? many fields? 
or a range of sub fields of one single discipline? And then, back to 
square one, what should be this latter (mega) discipline?

Some other assumptions propose Design to be viewed in "systems 
approach" as reported by Harold G. Nelson in his today's post. "Every 
design is a composition—a system— (...) ", he says. In that sense, 
necessarily,  "composition" requires elements with which to design 
the intended system. And many in the conference have highlighted in 
this perspective what is perceived as the intended ultimate objective 
of the UCI School of Design curriculum. Apparently, the innovative 
curriculum has been designed with the intended aim to instill into 
students mental reflexes and intellectual abilities to draw from all 
disciplines available on one of the few major research University 
campuses in the US and in the world, the elements that are needed to 
learn how to design artifacts of any kind. Those reflexes and 
abilities have been metaphorically referred to as intellectual forays 
into "gray areas" between disciplines, eventually allowing 
Design "compositions" of lasagna like layers.

The interest of the lasagna layers model (compared to, for instance, 
the also mentioned burger model) strikes out in the evocation that 
lasagna is usually eaten not in peeling off layers (as Pradeep 
suggested), but in cutting vertically across layers, so that each 
mouthful chunk is a complete portion of the whole, containing all the 
elements and ingredients of the whole. 

Any designed artifact would thus be a result of purposely and 
differentially blended data obtained from various disciplinary fields 
of study. The Designer-cook's work would thus no longer be viewed as 
an involvement in a specific discipline, neither as a mega-
discipline, nor as a cross-, multi-, inter-disciplinary activity. It 
would neither be considered as mere systematic blending and piling of 
layers of knowledge. Rather, such a designing process, if properly 
done, would be run as a trans-disciplinary endeavor, in the sense 
given to the term by members of the Paris based CIRET (Centre 
International de Recherches et d'Études sur la Transdisciplinarité). 

According to the acting Director and instigator of the CIRET, 
Professor Basarab Nicolescu (See reference below), 
transdisicplinarity is an approach different from that of a single 
discipline, this concentrating only on one area of knowledge, with 
own specific subject matter, specific goal(s) and specific method(s). 
Transdisciplinarity is also different from multi-disciplinarity, that 
is a study of one topic from concurrent and eventually collaborative 
different disciplines. Transdisiciplinarity is neither a mere 
transfer of methods from one discipline to another. Transdisciplinary 
is an intellectual approach by the way of disciplines, but also 
between, across and beyond those disciplines. The ultimate goal being 
to understand, as much as one humanly can, from various points of 
view and perspectives, the dynamics of the complexity of each earthly 
manifestations in and around, as in our designerly concern, manmade 
artifacts.

Thus defined, transdisciplinarity would be another way of envisaging 
the systems  (not systemic!) approach as evoked by Harold, in the 
sense of the following three "pillars" of the approach as I here 
freely interpret them from Professor Nicolescu's Manifesto of 
Transdisciplinarity: 

- consideration of "multiple levels of Reality": a designed entity 
not being an isolated entity

- application of the "logic of the included middle": that is, in our 
Design concern, taking into account the raison d'être of an artifact, 
in relation to its existence or availability, and the effects or 
eventual consequences of its non availability.

- constant awareness that one is working with and in "complex" 
("fuzzy" ) systems: any given artifact is part of a complex web of 
micro and macro Universe phenomena; hence the importance of knowing 
as much as possible of the elements affecting the artifact, at what 
time and in which context, and how the artifact does or might behave 
under all those different world constraints.

Quite obviously, the above considerations can be taken into account 
only in a research orientation context and institution like the 
proposed UCI "School" of Design, and not in a technical application 
institution. Perhaps, again, the often witnessed confusion and 
misunderstandings are embedded in the term "school". The meaning of 
this term also needs to be clarified.


François-X. N.I. NSENGA
Independent Scholar

 Ref: 
NICOLESCU, Basarab (2002)Trans.: Karen-Claire Voss. Albany: State 
University of New York Press.