Dear Terry
I agree with you when you say that we need to avoid conflating things
(concepts and domains) when we discuss theory and action in design.
Design is particularly difficult as it is easy to slip from one level of
discourse to another during a single process or moment, from the
particular to the general and back again without quite sensing these
macro-micro shifts of reference. This is at the very heart of the nature
of design as an activity.
We have come across numerous situations when these shifts have been
necessitated as we move from the abstract principles to the specific
cases and as Nelson and Stolterman tell us even to the "Ultimate
Particular", which is the goal or intention of design, to satisfy each
and every stakeholder in unique ways, if possible, called
mass-customisation or just plain customisation as in the crafts and the
creative industries of the exclusive and handmade for you situation.
Design itself, as a human activity, will therefore need to be seen as a
multi-layered multi-level acvtivity which in a paper that I had penned
in 1998 I called the design activity as four level activity named in
that paper the "Tactical Level", the "Elaborative level", the "Creative
Level" and the "Strategic Level". Each level deals with a different set
of requirements and contexts and I now see it as a growing range of
concerns that are brought into the purview of the designers attention,
which is best explained by the "Stone in the Pond" metaphor that I use
with my students to explain this expanding role and scope of design,
from the material to the spiritual if you like.
("Levels of Design Intervention in a Complex Global Scenario", Graphica
98 - II International Congress of Graphics Engineering in Arts and
Design and the 13th National Symposium on Descriptive Geometry and
Technical Design, Feira de Santana, Bahia, Brazil from 13 to 18
September 1998) This paper can be downloaded from my website link below.
<http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/About_Design_Theory/FileSharing83.html>
We understood these issues through our engagement with the industry and
the community level design projects that we undertook over the years
from 1970 onwards at the NID. In one instance in early 1981 we had one
of our then leading car manufacturers came to us for a stated brief,
design of a "new front end and back end aesthetics". The writing was
already on the wall, and it was eveident to the designers that the car
industry itself needed substantial and complete reappraisal and while
the company representatives were talking about new "tail lamps" the
design teams were looking at wasted opportunities to design a whole new
car for India!! better safety, less pollution and a systems approach.
Much confusion and with very little communication taking place across
the table, and we were told that the client is always right. However,
that company has almost ceased to exist today from being one of the
leaders in the country. I offer this story as an example of "conflation"
and the ease with which design discourse can slip onto both the "layer
confusion trap" as well as the "domain confusion trap" and as you
mention the "epistemological confusion trap", if we are not alert to
this possibility in design on a daily and constant basis. We did not
know at that time what we know today about design, so the results and
actions of the design team and the clients could not be set in a
framework that could be explained as we believe we could today. however
design is still far deeper than our current understanding of it and
therefore the need for sustained research.
With warm regards
from my Mac at home on the NID campus
2 May 2007 at 9.20 am IST
_______________________________________________________________________
Prof M P Ranjan
Faculty of Design
Head, Centre for Bamboo Initiatives at NID (CFBI-NID)
Chairman, GeoVisualisation Task Group (DST, Govt. of India) (2006-2008)
Faculty Member on Governing Council (2003 - 2005)
National Institute of Design
Paldi
Ahmedabad 380 007 India
Tel: (off) 91 79 26623692 ext 1090 (changed in January 2006)
Tel: (res) 91 79 26610054
Fax: 91 79 26605242
email: [log in to unmask]
web site: http://homepage.mac.com/ranjanmp/
web domain: http://www.ranjanmp.in
_______________________________________________________________________
Terence Love wrote:
>
> Hi Chris, Chuck, Fil, Ken and all,
>
> I've found there is some benefit in avoiding conflating things that are
> epistemologically distinct e.g.:
>
> Design - the human activity
> Research into design
> Theories about design
> Epistemological analyses about factors that justify theories about design
> The factors that influence theories about design
> The factors that influence designers
> Designs (as in drawings and specifications)
> real things created from a design
> Individuals reflecting about their designing
> Individuals and their internal behaviours
> Individually specific external behaviours
> Defining groups of individuals
> Behaviours 'en masse' of defined groups of individuals
> Problems (as a concept)
> Specific problems that individuals conceptualise situations
> Problems as an epistemological perspective for making theory
> Etc
>
> I feel that avoiding confusing different items on this layered multiplicity
> of theory things is what makes design research more difficult and
> interesting than research in simpler disciplines.
> Separating out epistemologically inconsistent ideas is complicated but not
> complex and its useful cos' it shows up lots of the errors of muddy
> thinking.
>
> I think there is some confusion on this because many of us are both
> designers and design researchers. _Avoiding conflation_ is absolutely
> essential for theorists and researchers. On the other hand, conflation of
> things is an essential skill for designers so its important to avoid
> confusing the hats (or trying to wear both at the same time!)
>
> A blast from the past from Simaqi, a member of the Naqsbandi (Masters of the
> Design), in the Middle ages,
>
> "If you take what is relative to be what is absolute, you may be lost. Take
> nothing, rather than risk this."
>
> Simaqi (in Shah, I. 1979, The Way of the Sufi, Penguin Books Ltd, England.,
> p. 166)
>
> As a corollary, I've found it helpful to remember that the primary role of
> design researchers is making theory and making definitions of concepts. This
> suggests its better to avoid asking questions as if knowing the 'word'
> provides the answer. I've found it theoretically more productive to ask
> 'What is the best use we can make of a definition of the term (say)
> 'design'? Than to ask 'What is design?'. The second is like someone who
> thinks they are rich because they know how to spell the word 'gold'
> (probably something else from Shah or maybe Terry Pratchett).
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----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 Charles
> Burnette
> Sent: Wednesday, 2 May 2007 7:57 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: needs, desires and problems
>
> Chris
>
> Thanks a bunch for referencing my thoughts to those of Margaret Thatcher!
>
> The goals couldn't be more different.
>
> On 5/1/07 6:56 PM, "Chris Rust" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > If that approach works what becomes important is not people's needs
> > and desires, which are elusive, but their responses to propositions,
> > their behaviours, which are observable. So the second art is to put
> > people together with (materialised) propositions in fruitful ways, and
> > the third is to "read" their behaviours and see new possibilities in
> > what you observe.
>
> Unfortunately this is often how we get the lousy answers many accept. We
> often don't (even try to) read behaviors any better than we (even try to)
> read needs. I'd a lot rather look at needs and misunderstand them perhaps
> than look at behaviors responding to propositions based on who knows what.
> Designers need to talk to users before they "proposition" them. This doesn't
> stand in the way of making things physical fast and getting feedback.
>
> Best regards,
> Chuck
|
