Rosan is once again pointing out that there is a cultural bias in this
discussion related to the design subcultures of this group's participants.
There are those who design artifacts, those who design systems, those who
design meta-artifacts and those who design meta-systems. (In reality, most
designers do a combination of all four, but maximize certain areas more than
others) One concept it is important to teach students who want to be
designers is that we must all be careful not to fall into the habits of
non-designers and focus only on what we know about (a house painter tends to
ignore faulty brickwork, while the mason tends to ignore the inside of a
building).
Perhaps Rosan is suggesting that the group focus on designing a meta-system
for inquiry into the field of design and establish a framework that can be
used to integrate the systems and artifacts generated by other aspects of
the discussion. This is what other disciplines have, and what design lacks;
what I see is frameworks that work at the system level but do not make a
transition to the meta-system level because they break down when applied
beyond a narrow subculture of design.
An automobile tire or perhaps even a transmission might be examples of
artifacts. The automobile itself, as well as a building, might by
considered meta-artifacts (and sometimes urban design fits this category as
well). Ergonomic designers often engage in design at the system level.
Process designs would be examples of meta-systems, and to a certain extent
an urban design can be a pure meta-system.
The traditions of academic discourse tend to use the design characteristics
of meta-systems, where ideas from many different thinkers (universalizing
"designers" to include all those in academia) are synthesized into a
meta-system of thought. However, most of this discussion seems to focus on
the smaller elements of the meta-system of design research, without having a
larger meta-system to plug into.
<<A. engage in solving problems (problem defining implied).
<<B. seek new opportunities (experiment with new technology, for example) C.
<<create alternatives to what exists (quite restlessly, perhaps just for
<<fun, not necessarily making something better)
In terms of the "Rosan" categories, those who design artifacts are often
paid to do "A", as are designers in the other three categories I have listed
above. However, especially in design subcultures that work at the
meta-level, a great deal of time is actually spent on "B" and "C".
For instance, to use a real world example where designers are getting paid
to do B and C, large building projects are often designed very quickly from
top to bottom, in order to begin the process of construction, which may take
several years. However, a final design may take years to complete. If the
design were finished before the construction began, the time frame might be
doubled. What is done is that the entire building is designed quickly, and
then the design for the utility and foundation work is completed as soon as
possible and construction is started. The rest of the building above the
foundations will change completely, but had to be designed the first time in
order to begin the foundation construction. Then the next few years are
spent looking for alternatives to the original design, often going through
numerous alternatives that will never be built. In the meantime,
construction progresses and a final building gradually takes shape. The
building is a meta-artifact, and the process used to design the building is
a meta-system that is itself constantly being redesigned.
The academic world is the ideal place to actively pursue B and C, because
the traditions of academia focus on developing systems of ideas rather than
artifacts.
Mark
M.S.C. Nelson
Assistant Professor
Environment, Textiles and Design
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Room 235
1300 Linden Drive
Madison, WI 53706
608-261-1003
-----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 Rosan
Chow
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 5:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Let's try again: Chris' call for research approach (Re: It's
still a research question)
David and others
I agree with you and I understand the relations among A, B, C. They are
different "foci in a field". I said that at the beginning, my proposal was
not unfamiliar but desperately needing promotion. I want to give voice to
B and C because there are, as you point out, very good practical reasons
why B and C are on the back burners....and because B and C really should
be on the front burners, especially, I believe, for doctoral research.
You asked what other designers do. I worked for Philips for a while some
time ago. Perhaps things have changed now, I don't know. Then, we spent
half of the time doing B and C.
We have heard comments about the inertia of the car industry, how about
our own design research enterprise? Will financial and other constraints
prevent us from taking B and C as foci of research? This, I leave you all
to reflect and here I end my contribution to this thread.
Best Regards. Rosan.
David Sless wrote:
> As to, the ABC thing. I tend to think of B and C as opportunities
> that can arise at any stage in the process. I may have said something
> about this in an earlier post in relation to Liz Sanders' work. But I
> think it is part of a much broader 'state of readiness', being
> prepared for the unexpected, etc. One of the routine things we do is
> diagnostic testing of our designs-very much a formal, evaluative
> (seemingly) non-creative activity. But when we get together after the
> testing to look at the data, the first question that we ask ourselves
> is 'what struck you?'. Often, when you least expect it something new
> suggests itself and we go off and play with it. The practical reason
> why I tend to see this from within working method A, Rosan, is that I
> can get people to pay me for A, but it's very difficult to find
> people willing to pay for B and C. So, we cross-subsidize (as it
> were) from A to B and C.
>
> But that is just an aside, as I asked in my last post: I'm curious to
> know what other designers might do?
|
