Dear Ken,
I don't understand the point of your long post. It seems like you are
talking to the list through me and not to me.
It is good to see the initial reaction to Victor's question turn now in a
more productive direction--and with diverse participation.
With warmest wishes :)
Dick
Richard Buchanan
Carnegie Mellon University
On 8/7/07 5:31 AM, "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Dick,
>
> While I understand and agree with the kinds of issues you raise, it
> seems odd to label the replies in this interesting conversation as
> weak.
>
> Conversation grows slowly and thinking takes time. Victor put forward
> an important question - a series of questions, really, and his latest
> post on fields of thick discourse enriches it further. Responding
> thoughtfully takes time, especially if we are to do as you propose by
> discussing what Victor's question may mean and how to pursue it from
> a design perspective, examining the value of such inquiries for
> design.
>
> This kind of inquiry unfolds in time as people listen to each other,
> taking on new thoughts, and seeing where they might think more
> deeply. You often recommend that pedagogical approach. Patient
> inquiry and development allows us to learn from each other and to
> grow here. As an occasionally impatient interlocutor myself, I have
> been trying to cultivate a broader range of virtues. This includes
> allowing the conversation to unfold at its own pace.
>
> There are probably several reasons that the conversation has not in
> every instance taken the turn you would like to see. One is the
> natural interest or predilection of each author. The other is a sense
> of limits. On a list like PhD-Design, it is impossible to address
> every aspect of each question without extraordinarily long replies.
>
> However, there is one more reason. The way Victor asked the question
> that launched the thread made a difference to the early answers that
> came back.
>
> Most people tried to answer the specific question that Victor asked:
> "Why is so much research attention given to the process of design and
> so little to its results - the products that are the outcomes of
> designing, their value and social consequences?"
>
> Some answered why and some suggested - as I did - that such studies
> do take place. In doing so, I thought I did discuss what Victor's
> question might mean by explicitly approaching it from another view.
> Others did so as well. As I see it, most of the contributions to the
> thread offered useful perspectives.
>
> In my reply, I tried first to answer Victor's "Why do we find this
> gap in design research," and second to state that this research does,
> indeed, take place. However, I did not say it takes place in "other
> disciplines." I said that this kind of inquiry takes place "under
> different labels." I see these all as legitimate sectors of design
> research. (I took that issue forward in another post.)
>
> Victor asked two questions, really. One had to do with what is
> missing in our field. The other had to do with the consequences of
> designed artifacts. As we all know from survey design, the order of
> the questions often influences the answers. Many of us focused on
> Victor's first and most prominent question: "Why is so much research
> attention given to the process of design and so little to its results
> - the products that are the outcomes of designing, their value and
> social consequences?"
>
> The other question also interests many of us.
>
> Victor's latest post expands and reframes his earlier notes in a
> useful way. Most everyone who has answered so far seems to feel that
> this offers value to the field of design research.
>
> This is true for design practice as well. To quote an earlier reply,
> "understanding more deeply 'the outcomes of designing, their value
> and social consequences' will also help us to design better. By
> helping us better understand the relation of parts to wholes in
> dynamic systems, this constitutes one among several important areas
> of design research."
>
> Elsewhere, I've considered the question of what Buckminster Fuller
> labeled "teleology." Fuller means the end, goal, or purpose toward
> which we design in any given instance of design activity.
>
> As you say this, "could be read as going to the heart of the field:
> why are we designing? It is a question of purposes and ends--with
> 'consequences' as a means of discussing the various purposes that
> designers have proposed and how well or poorly they have reached
> their ends in individual products. Comparison of ends and outcomes
> seems like the beginning of a serious debate that could be of value
> to the design community--and perhaps even to the design studies
> community."
>
> For my part, I would be curious about how you would answer Victor's question.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> --
>
> Dick Buchanan wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> I am surprised by how weak the responses have been to your question.
> Instead of discussing what your question may mean, how it may be
> pursued from a design perspective, and what the value of such
> inquiries may be for design, most of the posts seem rather quick and
> content to turn to other disciplines for information. For a list
> devoted to research, inquiring minds do not seem to be doing much
> inquiring.
>
> I don't believe your question should be dismissed so lightly. "Little
> questions" like yours can turn into important new lines of
> inquiry--lines with refreshing relevancy to the value and practice of
> design.
>
> For example, your question could be read as going to the heart of the
> field: why are we designing? It is a question of purposes and
> ends--with "consequences" as a means of discussing the various
> purposes that designers have proposed and how well or poorly they
> have reached their ends in individual products. Comparison of ends
> and outcomes seems like the beginning of a serious debate that could
> be of value to the design community--and perhaps even to the design
> studies community. This is certainly not another dry methodological
> question. That horse is tired and needs a rest.
>
> Most people in the field are well aware of the work in other
> disciplines that bear on the consequences of technology and broad
> product types. Such work tends to be either very narrow--as in
> behavioral studies of specific features or practices--or very broad
> and vague--as in huge social and cultural trends or patterns. The
> narrow studies are sometimes useful in design, but in a rather narrow
> way. The broad studies are not very actionable. The middle ground,
> which is where designers work, seems not much studied from a design
> perspective.
>
> I have no idea where your question may lead in the mind of a creative
> and ingenious doctoral student, but part of doctoral education should
> deal with opening up questions for investigation.
>
> It would be interesting to see a list of the "little questions" asked
> by design researchers in the past. This would probably be more useful
> to the research community than encyclopedic lists of answers.
>
> -snip-
>
|