Rosan,
For me, the best reason to do the PhD in Design is that it makes me happy.
If it didn't make me happy, then there would be nothing to sustain me
through this chaos.
Robotics is interesting and at times fun for me.
I chose design because it makes me happier than any of the other fields of
study. My goal in the end is to educate and create. Design is the field
above others I am most passionate about.
My passion does not justify blindness to other fields.
I'm am sure you have heard of the story of the many blind scientist
gathered around an elephant, trying to describe the one small area of the
animal they have direct contact with. I believe the design view is a
unique but the power of application of this view lies in understanding how
it relates to the field around it. We are all looking at different parts
of the elephant. The more we work with others, the more we will understand
not only what we are really trying to do but also succeed in illustrating
the value and unique of the design point of view.
I have heard the PhD described as digging a deep trench in your particular
field.
I despise this analogy. At the bottom of a trench, you cannot see anything
but your hand in front of your face. When you shout in exhilaration of
what you've discovered, you are met only with the echoes of your own lonely
voice.
I prefer to view the PhD as the building of a strong foundation and then a
tall tower. This tower represents our contribution to the field. From our
tower we can see where we stand among the rest of the knowledge base of
humanity. From this vantage point as well, we can also more readily share
our results with others.
I believe that design does share views with others. We have to, otherwise
we could not communicate with the other fields so critical to furthering
our own. What would design be without engineering and business? Do not
these fields provide rich colors for our palette as we create the next new
thing?
Though there is a balance to be struck here. I have seen designers that
define design by how it differs from everything else. They end up lonely
in the corner, speaking with themselves because they have reduced their
field to just one. At the other end of the spectrum are the designers that
define their field with regard to the overlap with other domains. People
from the other domains view this as design trying to overtake the
world. Soon this designer finds hordes of disgruntled peers from other
domains pounding on his door late at night, bent on his destruction.
So I feel we need to find a balance between recognizing the uniqueness of
design while being cognizant and respectful of the views of other domains.
I'm not in the field because of the uniqueness. I do this because I enjoy it!
Thanks for your comments!
John Feland
Doctoral Candidate
Center for Design Research
Stanford University
[log in to unmask]
At 05:06 PM 3/24/03 +0100, Rosan Chow wrote:
>Dear Ricardo
>
>thanks for your reply. you said:
>
> "As I said, I think that 'the design point of view' is not unique
> and does
> share many elements with 'the robotics point of view', 'the artificial
> societies point of view', and in general with 'the emergence point of
> view'".
>
>I am quite willing to entertain the idea that a design point of view is
>not unique.
> But if it is the case, then why bother examining designing? Or for that
> matter,
>why Ph.D. in design? I recognize the benefits of learning from other
>fields of
>inquiry and overlapping among fields but if design as a field has nothing
>unique
>to offer others, how do we stand as a field?
>
>Or as Jonas asked once "How can design achieve autonomy?"
>
>Best Regards
>Rosan
>
>Jonas, Wolfgang. 2001. "A Scenario for Design." Design Issues 17(2):64-80.
>
>
>
>______________________________________________________________________________
>Viren? Wir wissen nicht was Ihr Arzt empfiehlt. Wir empfehlen den
>Virencheck für Ihre E-Mail-Anhänge! http://freemail.web.de/features/?mc=021159
|