> Seems to me that you have come across the "treason of logic" syndrome
> that some of us talked about some time ago.
Was the discussion on this list? Unfortunately a quick Google search
for "treason logic phd-design" came up blank and this sounds pretty
interesting.
> The engineers mistrust of "design" and its environs seems to be
> harboured within the mindset that design cannot be deigned to be
> within the control of a paradigm of logic.
I will have to stare at this for a while to really grok it. However it
does *seem* to lead to the question:
Can you research something that does not involve a logical system?
This isn't quite what you are saying (I think) but it something easily
leapt to.
> However - merely look toward the likes of Jenny Preece et al who write
> within the parameters of design from a Human Computer Interaction
> background. Preece lays out the rules to follow and by so doing offers
> engineers the logic they wish to adhere to.
The computer folks have really come on strong with respect to
re-discovering engineering design as it was originally (pre-Sputnik)
conceived. The Agile Development crowd has identified software design
as (paraphrasing):
A game with limited resources where the only moves are invention
and communication
They have gone further to say that this definition is essentially that
of (pre-Sputnik) engineering design.
> Having said that, as a designer I think those rules are there to be
> broken. But don't tell the engineers.
I've been trying to, actually :) I was permitted to teach design to a
class of 3rd year students and, perhaps to excess, focused on
communication and meaning more than rules. Some students, especially
those with industrial experience, found this appropriate choice; others
thought it was a complete waste of time.
Jason
|