JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  August 2007

PHD-DESIGN August 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: a question -- Outcomes and Results of Design Process

From:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 4 Aug 2007 23:35:54 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (219 lines)

Dear Juris,

Thanks for your question. While I generally agree with the kind of
inquiry you propose, I hope it doesn't seem that I've posed this as a
dichotomy

To say that "analyses of the outcomes of designing are to be found
largely 'under different labels'" also includes several labels within
design research. I simply stated that design research shows up in
several places. (For the sake of clarity, I'll say that I would not
using the phrase "analyses of the outcomes of designing," but for the
sake of simplicity, I'll accept it here. I used the term design as a
verb, and the verb design describes a process with outcomes and
results.)

The classic definition of design as I use it is Herbert Simon's:
"[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations
into preferred ones" (Simon 1982: 129).

Not only do people analyze the outcomes and results of design from
many different perspective, but people practice design in many
fields. People who design laws, for example, are called legislators
or legislative aids, and people who study the outcomes of their work
include political scientists, historians, lawyers, jurists, judges,
and legal scholars. Physicians, nurses, anesthesiologists, and others
like them design different kinds of medical processes and surgical
procedures. A wide range of researchers study the outcomes of their
work.

In Simon's terms, all kinds of people work as designers, and all
professional practices are design fields. Management, for example,
fits Simon's definition of design and management study is a design
science as Simon saw it.

There are many kinds of design research that study the design process
and its outcomes. One kind studies design and the design process as a
generic field or activity without regard to the target field of the
design process. This is the sense in which Warfield (1994) writes
about a science of generic design. Another studies design processes
and outcomes situated within a specific design practice. This, for
example, is the case of those who study managing as designing (Boland
and Collopy 2004; see also: Managing as Designing 2002).

If I were to expand your definition slightly from "design design as a
social and cultural system of classification" to "design as a range
of professional practices aimed at changing existing situations into
preferred ones," then it would be possible to answer the rest of your
question about who studies "[design as a range of professional
practices aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones
... ] functioning within, through, and separately from its
profession(s) - as a contributor to or creator of enduring structures
of social order. In other words, how is the concept of design (no
matter the field in which it is deployed) shaping political realities
(which are inherently cultural and social), such as relationships of
power, public policy, behavior, identity, taxonomies of value,
philosophical questions, the human condition, and so on..."

The answer is that many people do, again under a variety of labels,
from many perspectives, and within different fields. This is a
necessary corollary to the fact that people practice design from many
perspectives and within many fields, and their inquiries generally
draw on the backgrounds from which they come.

This is also related to a range of the kinds of issues that are
coming to be described -- in the words of Nigel Cross's (2006) recent
book -- as "designerly ways of knowing." In this sense, design is not
a set of technical skills, but a process, and designerly ways of
knowing involve ways of thinking and knowing that form part of the
process. From this perspective, there are three broad ways of knowing
the world. Science examines the natural world including human beings
in their role as natural creatures. Science seeks objective truth.
The humanities examine the world of human experience. The humanities
seek subjective understanding. Design in this larger sense examines
and works with the artificial world. Design works through practice
and examines the realm of the appropriate.

One key aspect of design problems is that fact that they are situated
in a context and constrained by conditions that arise from the
contingent nature of most design problems. Science ultimately seeks
truth and humanities seek increasingly deeper undemanding against a
perpetually unfolding background of time that allows for renewed and
extended research. Design solves problems embedded in the world of
human action, where limits on time, resources, and information
constrain every design process as solution-oriented but imperfect.
Every solution must - in Herbert Simon's (1956) term - satisfice by
selecting among constraints. Meeting one constraint more fully means
accepting lower values on others. Understanding design as a general
human phenomenon therefore requires us to understand the nature,
conditions, and consequence of successful design process.

It is this last issue that involves the kinds of question that Victor
asked and that you extended.

Cross (2006: 12) , to stay with this example, identifies five aspects
of designerly ways of knowing. Designers struggle with ill-defined
problems. They attempt to solve these problems by proposing and
trying solutions rather than by seeking all possible information.
They think in constructive ways, developing proposals and building on
them in practice. They use professional codes to translate abstract
solutions into working objects. Using codes enables them to read and
write the object languages of design. So much for the process in
Cross's model. But this process is anchored in a contingent world,
and the process shapes results that change the world -- therefore
changing the context in which the future iterations of a problem may
be embedded, and changing the next cycle of contingencies.

Cross (2006: 101) proposes a field of design research with three
major branches: a field in which "design epistemology (studies)
designerly ways of knowing, design praxiology (studies) the practices
and processes of design, and design phenomenology (studies) the form
and configuration of objects." If I were to propose something more
expansive, I'd probably add branches to cover the kinds of issues you
propose.

If fact, I have been working on this problem in several ways. In one
presentation (Friedman 2000, full text at URL below), I proposed a
taxonomy that includes many of the issues in your note. I haven't
really been satisfied with that attempt, and I've been working on an
extended inventory and taxonomy together with Terry Love, M P Ranjan,
and Fil Salustri. We're slowly picking away at it -- one reason this
is so challenging is that we've managed so far to identify some 750
fields and subfields, disciplines and subdisciplines in design and
design research.

One way to make some progress in seeing how many ways people are at
work on this -- and in what fields -- would be to undertake a
bibliography of articles, books, and published reports on "[design as
a range of professional practices aimed at changing existing
situations into preferred ones ... ] functioning within, through, and
separately from its profession(s) - as a contributor to or creator of
enduring structures of social order. In other words, how is the
concept of design (no matter the field in which it is deployed)
shaping political realities (which are inherently cultural and
social), such as relationships of power, public policy, behavior,
identity, taxonomies of value, philosophical questions, the human
condition, and so on..."

If someone were to do this or edit it with the help of colleagues, I
can most likely arrange to get it published in a good journal or --
if it is too large for a journal -- as a book from a good publisher.

Any takers?

Yours,

Ken


Reference

Boland, Richard and Fred Collopy, editors. 2004. Managing as
Designing. Palo Alto, California: Stanford University Press.

Cross, Nigel. 2006. Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer Verlag.

Friedman, Ken. 2000. "Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice." In IDATER 2000: International Conference on Design and
Technology Educational Research and Development. P. H. Roberts and E.
W. L. Norman, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and
Technology, Loughborough University, 5-32. Available from:
https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace/handle/2134/1360

Simon, Herbert. 1956. Rational Choice and the Structure of the
Environment." Psychological Review, 63, 129-138.

Simon, Herbert. 1982. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press.

Managing as Designing. 2002. Managing as Designing: Creating a
vocabulary for management education and research. Case Western
Reserve University, June 14-15, 2002.
URL: http://design.case.edu/2002workshop/index.html#

Warfield, John N. 1994. A science of generic design: managing
complexity through systems design. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press.

--

Juris Milestone wrote:

--snip--

If analyses of the outcomes of designing are to be found largely
'under different labels' (as Ken Friedman explains), and an
understanding of design processes (internal to design, primarily) is
to be found largely within design research, then what I mean to
suggest is the need to recognize the value of research into the
broader functioning of design as a social and cultural system of
classification - functioning within, through, and separately from its
profession(s) - as a contributor to or creator of
enduring structures of social order. In other words, how is the
concept of design (no matter the field in which it is deployed)
shaping political realities (which are inherently cultural and
social), such as relationships of power, public policy, behavior,
identity, taxonomies of value, philosophical questions, the human
condition, and so on? I would think that as the influence and
presence of design grows, these questions would grow in importance.
Does anyone know where this kind of enquiry is taking place?

--snip--


--

Prof. Ken Friedman
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo

Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen

+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat

email: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager