dear terry,
you are right in saying that design is what i would call a dynamic
discourse. areas that did not use the word design before appropriate it for
some specific purpose, like experimental design in psychology, without
calling themselves designers. some activity that wasn't called design
historically now is. new technologies emerge, some are appropriated by
people who call themselves designers, some do not. why doesn't a chef (in a
kitchen) call herself a designer? why doesn't a manager who invents new
business practices call himself a designer? in a way theorists are always
trying to catch up with explanations of how people apply the word design to
themselves. ken goes to the dictionary, you examine the literature, others
push for a particular definition.
yes, we are mostly both, practitioners and conceptualizers of what we do,
and what we propose may or may not have an impact on what our students will
do or not do, how they do it, and also how they identify themselves
vis-à-vis nondesigners. this self-identification by
practitioner/conceptualizers of designers creates a community, draws an
operational boundary around what they chose to consider design. i myself
have an interest in clarifying this boundary to the benefit of my community,
but if it does not gel with how that community sees itself, there will be
other conceptualizers who may do be better job.
true, not every designer is equally interested in conceptualizing their
field. some like to merely fit in how others define it. but i would not
call these designers parochial. i would argue that at some point or
another, every designer is put into the position to explain to a nondesigner
what a designer is, whether at a job interview, in conversations with a
potential client, where to show or publish their designs, etc. at this very
point boundaries are drawn, redrawn, negotiated, and enacted. you did a
good job in listing these many uses of the word design.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Terence Love
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:40 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: a specific proposal that fits?
Dear Klaus,
you wrote, <snip> i like to keep that decision [defining design] out of the
hand of theorists and in the hand of those who are practice design.<endsnip>
A quick historical review shows that the identity of being a 'designer' is a
transitional process in design sub-fields. I.e. initially the same tasks
were being done in the same ways and were not called 'design' until later.
It is relatively easy to identify fields and communities of practice that
are in the three stages of this transition and in that sense, it is easy to
see which fields are becoming design fields. This includes design sub-fields
that use design in their name yet are not yet regarded fully as 'design'
subfields from some traditional perspectives - communication design being
one of these.
From this viewpoint, a detached view (typical of theorists) seems to give a
much better and fuller picture than the parochial perspective of design
practice.
Also, many of us are both designers and researchers.
Best wishes,
Terry
|