Rosan,
Whether that criticism is correct must depend on specifics.
I do not see any intrinsic problem in this kind of work - it may or may
not be general or generalizeable. For example, scientific theories
typically are or contain "models, plans, specifications evaluation of
options and strategies for implementation".
Not to mention that science is also designed (Latour: Science in
Action).
I think the key is that designers do not always want to design
knowledge, they often are satisfied with the making of artifacts of
various sorts. Design itself lends means to both.
kh
...
On 21.12.2004, at 19:33, Rosan Chow wrote:
> produces knowledge in
> the form of models, plans, specifications, evaluation of options and
> strategies for implementation that add up a legitimated vision of
> future
> material conditions".
>
> the most interesting for me in the above is the last 26 words. one of
> the criticisms that i have heard of on this last 26 words is that this
> type of knowledge is not general or generalizeable. if the criticism is
> correct, then how might 'designerly enquiry' be in the centre rather
> than at the bottom of knowledge production?
|