lubomir, you say:
"Design is not research, although it might utilize research activities and
products. (Our society is created with this purposes in mind, and I
personally work towards that goal.) The logic of the design method is
different. As I mentioned, the closest thing to design in the area of
research is the creation of research plan (research design) and theory
construction/building. However, scholars do that in their own way and they
even do not realize that they engage in design. may be because they not care
-- otherwise they are bright enough to see it and they have actually seen it
-- they call it research design or
plan. However, it has a different status in the larger activity (research)
-- it is like the planning component in every human activity.
i agree. but doesn't this statement throw a wrench in the loose but
celebratory talk about design research?
i have the feeling that those who talk about design research are either no
designers or don't know what research is -- and i mean this as a challenge
to reflect
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 Lubomir
S. Popov
Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: SV: Mythologies of anthropology and design
It is interesting how many myths we eschew about design and science.
I will share just a few ideas, venting some frustration and hoping to find
resonance and spur further development.
About science myths. The US system of conceptualizing science is very
different from the Central and East European systems. In that part of the
world the US usage of the concepts of science and the scientific are
considered improper and restricting. Americans restrict the use of the
concept of science only to natural sciences. They also consider humanitarian
sciences as non-sciences and separate them as a completely different
phenomenon -- the humanities. Americans also tacitly equate science with
Positivism. When they talk about Science, they see Positivism. However,
Positivism is only one paradigm and can not stand for the whole variety of
paradigms. Science is a social institution, just like Religion, and it
should not be delineated along the boundaries of Positivism. It is like
describing religion only with the traits of Christianity. Then, Buddhism
might not qualify for a religion.
About design myths. These range from the notions that everything is design
and everybody designs, to the saying that everybody is a designer, to the
concept of design as a separate class of activity (my view). The design and
planning thinking and approaches are very different from science/research
aproaches. Just do not tell me that in research, we engage in design when we
do research designs. I agree that this is a design activity within the
research activity, but nevertheless, this would not make research activity a
design activity. Design is about creating new things/artifacts, research is
about studying existing objects. Actually theory construction is a kind of
design activity, but as a whole we lump it in science. In each of these
classes of activities there are pockets or islands of the another class of
activity. The explanation is very simple -- when we do something, we need to
plan, and when we plan, we engage in design and planning. Period. In
everyday life, we design and plan, but we are not professionalized designers
and planners. Both science and design emerge from the professionalization of
everyday activities. That is one more reason for the overlaps we see and for
the confusions that emerge in our analyses.
Design is also different from the crafts. Design (as a class of activities
in its present form) emerges after the industrial revolution. It is a
product of Modernity and caries the specifics of Modernity with its
particularization and utilization of science.
Craft is a product of completely different historic circumstances and has
different logic and scope, although it also results in creating new
products. However, in craft, the process of innovation is slower and based
on different premises, principles, and methods. I will stop short of
discussing this topic because it is major topic for us and needs years of
discussion.
Design is not research, although it might utilize research activities and
products. (Our society is created with this purposes in mind, and I
personally work towards that goal.) The logic of the design method is
different. As I mentioned, the closest thing to design in the area of
research is the creation of research plan (research design) and theory
construction/building. However, scholars do that in their own way and they
even do not realize that they engage in design. may be because they not care
-- otherwise they are bright enough to see it and they have actually seen it
-- they call it research design or
plan. However, it has a different status in the larger activity
(research) -- it is like the planning component in every human activity. In
principle, informal of formal design/planning is a phase of every human
activity. However, in many cases this phase is truncated. That is why we do
not experience it and do not realize it.
But engaging in designing our daily activity do not makes us designers in
the professional sense of the word.
Art is considered separately from design mostly because of its teleology and
some features of its methodology. For me it is a projective type of activity
and I can accept an argument that art is design, but I also see a value to
separate art from design because of a number of reasons. This provides more
flexibility and ability to satisfy social demands/needs/functions.
The relations of design and art can be conceptualized in/at several
different planes and levels. In some why, in regard to the fuzzy method of
art; in some way, to the aesthetic teleology of art; and so forth.
Science and design partner very well because both of them are products of
Modernity and stem from the shattering of the craft model and rearranging
the shards as separate domain. They are integrated by the principles of
Modernity.
Craft is a product of another Age and have reached its peak potential and
reason for existence at the time of Modernity. During the Modernity, Craft
have became not only obsolete, but also a handicap for developing the new
modes of production and new phenomena. What we see today as crafts is a tiny
part of what was once the main mode of production and reproduction of
society. This can be seen very clearly through the lenses of Historical
Materialism.
I understand that I am going into the major debate of our list and will stop
short of detailing my ideas. I have also posted them numerous times in the
last 10 years. My major concern is that if we start this debate again, we
should do it in a more "designed" way instead of by brainstorming and trial
and error. I will appreciate such a discussion and will gladly listen to it.
Kind regards,
Lubomir
At 09:36 AM 7/26/2007, Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
>Design is not 'other'. it is just practice or craft, which is part of
>the whole of everyday life through what aristotle terms practical
>wisdom. It can be made artistic, it can be made scientific, it can
>be made any 'istic' or 'ismic'. The only 'otherness' that you get
>is when you train or habituate people to be 'other' and to feel they
>are 'other' through professionalization as artists, scientists, or
>otherwise.... look back at the history of design, there are at least
>two or three movements in recent history including the DIY movement
>today that attempts to wrest control of design from professional
>designers and put it back into the hands of the polity. In short, I
>think that the drive for the new 'discipline' is a false tonic for a
>fictional illness, what design needs is the capacity to move its
>centers of capital(social capital, knowledge capital, monetary capital,
>etc.) away from 'othering' of professionalization, scientization, and
>back into elementary schools, secondary schools, back into the
>population's everyday lives and away from those things that may be
>thought of as being parasitic on those lives.
|
