unlike Cameron (Tonkinwise) and Marcella (Eaton), I am NOT at all disturbed
by what Pradeep (Yammiyavar) has said. but i must confess, my reading of
Pradeep is colored by the fact that I have read his article
(Yammiyavar, Pardeep. "Is Industrial Design Research Really Different From
Other Research?" Design Plus Research 2000 (Milano, 18 May-20 May)Tomas
Maldonado, Ezio Manzini, and Victor MargolinDesign Plus Research E-Journal
).downloadable here:
http://pcsiwa12.rett.polimi.it/~phddi/uk/home.htm
although i don't think Pradeep addresses the question he rasied in the above
article convincingly, but i do think he is onto something fundamental, the
core, as he said in his message.
it is often heard that design is multi-disciplinary, but what does that
mean? as a student of design, i am yet to find an articulation of this
concept satisfising (to use herbert simon's term) for the purpose of
grounding design as a distinct discipline different from but complimentary
to sciences and humanities. lest that i miss great literature out there on
the subject, please send me the references, i would be grateful to read them
and adjust my view then.
what is missing in the proposal (for me), as mentioned by David (Sless), and
hinted in the messages of Keith (Russell), Harold (Nelson) and now Pradeep,
(if i read them correctly) is (an) intellectual driver(s).
incidentally, this design community has been looking for, and attempting to
construct the core of design knowledge, be it as 'letness',
'communication/interaction', 'service', 'swamps', 'placement', 'evolution'.
these are the fulcums around which we can turn, spin, and dance
meaningfully. without which, movements are incoherent.
best rosan
p.s. thanks to Jan, ken and M P (Ranjan) for their comments on my three
questions.
|