Dear Rosan,

Almost all of these problems relating to theorising about dissapear if one conceptual distinction is made: between designing and design process. 
What is necessary is to conceptiually separate the internal human phnysiological processes from the external activities of which these are a part. 

One way of doing this is  the following definitions:

'designing'  - a non-routine human physiologically based imagogenic process leading to the creation of a 'design'
'design process' - an activity involving one or more people that includes at least one act of designing alongside other associated activities such as calculating, reading, discussion, drawing, sweeping the floor, invoicing the customer etc.

In this it is assumed that a 'design' is a specification for actualisation or operationalisation, i.e. the 'design' tells someone 'what to do'. This also, usefully, differentiates  'Design' and 'Art'.

Best regards,

Terry


-----Original Message-----
From: Rosan Chow
Sent: 19/05/2004 12:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: generic design cognition Re: some questions on design cognition


Dear Ken, Chuck, Ranjan, Fil, Terry, Eduardo and others

thanks for posts and the references which i will look up when i have a
chance.
in the mean time, just to keep the dialogue going...

i have a feeling of disonnance when i read "John Warfield (in Francois
1997:100)
describes the generic aspect of design as "that part of the process of
design that is
indifferent to what is being designed, being applicable whatever the
target may be."
and maybe you and others can help me more.

1:  what i have learned (admittedly limited) from cognitive psychology
is that thinking
is social in the sense that when one thinks, one must be thinking of
something.
that implies, thinking is (domain) specific - if not domain dependent.

2:  and also it is known that the more knowledgable a person is about a
domain/subject,
the more creative, the more competent (effective/efficient) a person
deals with problems/issues related
to that domain. in short, domain knowledge affects how a person thinks.
and thinking doesn't
exist independent of the something that is being thought.

point 1 and point 2 make me ask that

while it is possible to have a theory of design cognition that is domain
independent,
but it is not possible to have a 'process of design that is indifferent
to what is
being designed', is it?

if the answer is no, then how might a domain independent theory of
design cognition
help direct research, eduation and practice in design in way that is
different from
a doman independent theory of general cognition ? (this question is yet
another way to
ask if there is such a thing as 'design cognition' that is different
from general cognition?

sorry for being greedy about questioning. and thanks again for your
help. -  rosan




Ken Friedman wrote:

> It is possible to inquire into question 2 without answering question
> 1. That is, there may be a domain-independent theory of design
> cognition to the degree that there exist issues in design independent
> of the specific fields and domains of design practice.
>
> John Warfield (in Francois 1997:100) describes the generic aspect of
> design as "that part of the process of design that is indifferent to
> what is being designed, being applicable whatever the target may be."
> He contrasts this with the specific aspect of design, "that part of
> the design process that is particular to the target class." Warfield
> (1990, 1994) identifies thirty-two basic postulates of the generic
> design process, which he groups under six categories: the human
> being, language, reasoning through relationships, archival
> representation, the design situation, and the design process.