I was discussing Ken's definition of design with Aboriginal students and we came to the conclusion that one of the best designers we know in this locality is the scrub turkey ... apologies have meetings...get back to you on this later today.

Norm

-----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
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2007 11:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Defining design? was: the joy of making...

Dear Ben,

I think you miss the target. The confusion in much of this discourse arises
from failing to distinguish between 'a design' and 'a design as
actualised'. These are very different topics of discussion and theory (if
you paid for a nice new Toyota and got a set of drawing instead there might
be some grief!)

Simon's focus is on 'devising "ways"' - ie on creating a specification of
how to do something - rather than the doing of it. Designing (except in a
very small number of design subfields) is associated with creation of a
'design' to do something. The use of that design increating an outcomes is a
different activity.

This also offers a good distinction between 'design' and 'art'.

Thoughts?

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 Ben
Matthews
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2007 3:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Defining design? was: the joy of making...

It seems the issue of defining design, and disputes over definitions, rears
up on this list with some regularity; Herb Simon often playing a central
role.

The problem with definitions like Simon's (as I see it), is not for the
cases of design that do not fit within his definition-as many have noted,
his definition is quite broad. The problem is that while the definition of
design as 'changing existing situations into preferred ones' happily
accounts for most (maybe even all, depending on big an umbrella you conceive
a 'preferred situation' to be) things we would ordinarily call design, it
also happily accounts for many things we would patently NOT call design.
Switching on my reading light is, on this definiton, a design process, as is
putting clothes on in the morning, phoning my mother, my persistent yet
largely unsuccessful attempts to learn Danish, and many more besides. The
trick with this definition is to try to find a field of human action which
design is not. Simon appeared to grasp an aspect of this when he claimed
that the science of man is the science of design, but that there is
precisely the problem. The net is cast so wide, in fact, that it offers
little help in clarifying what design is; i.e. what features of practices
and processes we pick out as designerly when we ordinarily use such a term.
What makes anything design is obscured by defining (nearly all!) human
activity as design.

Part of the resistance to definitions (I include myself in this
'resistance') is not their heredity. It is only natural that the OED is
compiled by reference to the way that language is actually used (what else
could be ITS reference for correctness?). The issue is (I think) that many
of the concepts that are dear to design research are (to sound all too
Wittgensteinian again) family resemblance concepts, and their ordinary use
is not predicated on a set of aspects or characteristics "common to all".
Even if we do find some property that is common to each and every ordinary
use of the word 'game', for instance, it is not on account of that property
that we learned, or correctly used, the word prior to this discovery (how
could it be since we could use the word before giving an account of our use
of it?). Our correct use of the term 'design' in ordinarily picking out
features of things relating to the natural and artificial worlds is not
based on our grasp of some common property to each and every one of these
things, and certainly not on account of seeing that existing situations have
been changed into preferred ones. I personally doubt that Simon's definition
has been particularly helpful to researchers to do what definitions are
supposed to do-to help people pick out correct from incorrect, appropriate
from inappropriate, genuine from counterfeit etc. uses of a term in its
application to a present case. I'd be happy to hear others' views, of
course.

The point is one about the indexicality of language, on the dependence on
circumstance to see what is meant on this occasion by the use of a word just
here. I would argue that if we're interested in what design 'is' (an
interest that is more metaphysical than I am typically comfortable with),
this is the way we would need to go about it-by clarifying what design
means. Neither theoretical stipulations nor empirical generalisations (nor
accumulating a wealth of experience of
design) do the trick. What will no doubt be unsatisfactory to some about my
position is that what we are left with is not something that is particularly
amenable to theory or its construction, but a collection of descriptions of
partly overlapping, partly unique, practical purposes (forms of life) in
which our labels like 'design'
are variously tied to phenomena.

Kind regards on a sunny morning in Sønderborg.

Ben

On 15 Aug 2007, at 21:43, Ken Friedman wrote:
--snip--
> The fact that Simon's definition is common place -- common to all
> design -- gives it high-level, comprehensive covering power. This is a
> virtue.
>
> It never seemed to me that Simon's definition sprang from a void. It
> sprang from his experience of design and his interest in understanding
> design. Simon's great skill was to bring a strong conceptual ability
> to bear on design process, abstracting from hundreds of instances that
> which is common to all design.
>
> Ken
>
>

Ben Matthews
Assistant Professor, PhD
Mads Clausen Institute
University of Southern Denmark
Alsion 2
Sønderborg 6400 Denmark
[log in to unmask]