Dear Friends and especially after Terry's post with the Spenglerian four
steps of disciplines decay. :-]
Isn't it a bit dangerous to confuse scientific disciplines with design
disciplines.
I gather that the words Transdisciplinary, Multidisciplinary and
Interdisciplinary refer mostly to research disciplines and not to
professional disciplines even if some use research methods.
I guess that all these Trans, Multi and Inter refer not to professional
methods but to research methods, or in the limit to diferent world views
that some would overcome, accept as diferent, or interconnect.
Am I right?
Cheers,
Eduardo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Friedman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 11:14 AM
Subject: Re: Interdisciplinary Discourse and Knowledge Ecologies
> Dear Karel,
>
> Thanks for your thoughtful and lucid reply. I agree with you. You
> summarized the issue so well that I will repost your reply below.
>
> You ask, "Can you tell me how we can combine 'consider the possible harm
> that any intervention might do' with 'devise courses of action aimed at
> changing existing situations into preferred ones' if 'evaluating effects,
> results, consequences' is not a matter of design?"
>
> Evaluation is part of the design process.
>
> In contrast with a position that would place something outside the design
> process, I see this exchange as more a matter of trying to clarify where
> in the process one might place a specific activity.
>
> Part of the challenge of writing a post here is finding our way to a
> vocabulary that describes what it should, either what we intend to
> describe, or the case in a world external to ourselves, or both. I failed
> to describe the issue as well as I might have done. Your post does.
>
> Buckminster Fuller (1969: 319) describes the design process as an event
> flow. He divides the process into two steps. The first is a subjective
> process of search and research. The second is a generalizable process that
> moves from prototype to practice.
>
> The subjective process of search and research, Fuller outlines a series of
> steps:
>
> Teleology -- >
> Intuition -- >
> Conception -- >
> Apprehension -- >
> Comprehension -- >
> Experiment -- >
> Feedback -- >
>
> Under generalization and objective development leading to practice, he
> lists:
>
> Prototyping #1 -- >
> Prototyping #2 -- >
> Prototyping #3 -- >
> Production design -- >
> Production modification -- >
> Tooling -- >
> Production -- >
> Distribution -- >
> Installation -- >
> Maintenance -- >
> Service -- >
> Reinstallation -- >
> Replacement -- >
> Removal -- >
> Scrapping -- >
> Recirculation
>
> Of course, experiment and feedback involve evaluating effects, results,
> and consequences. This occurs in a large second cycle in the iterative
> stages of prototyping, production design, and production modification. In
> many effective organizations, this cycle occurs in yet a third large cycle
> as service issues reveal flaws in the designed product or service. In
> describing the design process elsewhere, I have discussed Fuller's cycle
> (Friedman 2002, 2003). In this thread, I placed evaluating effects,
> results, and consequences outside the design act. I can only say that I
> should have been clearer.
>
> Thanks for catching this. We agree completely here.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
> --
>
> References
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2002. "Theory Construction in Design Research. Criteria,
> Approaches, and Methods." In Common Ground. Proceedings of the Design
> Research Society International Conference at Brunel University, September
> 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton, Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK:
> Staffordshire University Press, 388-414.
>
> Friedman, Ken. 2003. "Theory construction in design research: criteria:
> approaches, and methods." Design Studies, 24 (2003), 507-522.
>
> Fuller, Buckminster. 1969. Utopia or Oblivion. The Prospects for Humanity.
> New York: Bantam Books.
>
> --
>
> Karel van der Waarde wrote:
>
> Dear Ken,
>
> Thanks for your reaction. Simon's definition is certainly the most
> preferable at the moment. It states exactly what design is.
>
> Fortunately, Simon states that medical practice is a design profession. I
> agree. Every day of my working life, I have enjoyable contacts with
> medical and pharmaceutical practitioners.
>
> When I'm talking at medical and pharmaceutical conferences, such as:
>
> http://www.iir-events.com/IIR-conf/LifeSciences/EventView.aspx?EventID=1150
>
> or
>
> http://www.visiongainconferences.com/conferenceInfo.aspx?confID=1079
>
> , than most participants do not see themselves as 'designers'.
>
> Although they are usually very bright people, they have only a minimal -
> if any - notion of design as it is discussed on this list. However, in
> their presentations, they show that their work exactly follows Simon's
> definition.
>
> Their work is guided by other principles. One of the main ones is 'do no
> harm'. It is always essential to consider the possible harm that any
> intervention might do.
>
> When I'm introducing some design related issues to pharmacists or doctors,
> such as ('Patient must be able to read the text on leaflets', or
> 'packaging should be easily distinguishable so that pharmacists are
> unlikely to be confused'), they want to know what the benefits and the
> risks are. I've got to provide the arguments and evidence to show that
> 'changing existing situations' does not do any harm to:
>
> - the commissioner,
> - the designer,
> - the patient,
> - professionals (pharmacists, doctors, nurses),
> - carers (family, neighbours),
> - society,
> - environment,
> - ...
>
> You state:
>
> [KF excerpt starts]
>
> "The next question -- evaluating effects, results, consequences -- is not
> a matter of design, but analysis and axiology. Design is the doing of it.
> Analysis evaluates what we do. Axiology offers us a way to study the
> values and qualities we seek."
>
> [KF excerpt ends]
>
> How can I provide the arguments that design 'does no harm', if you
> position the evaluation and analysis outside the design area?
>
> To stay in the medical area: if we only focus on the operation itself (=
> changing existing situations into preferred ones), and choose to position
> the diagnosis (= problem definition) and the effects (patient experience,
> financial consequences, anxiety, ...) as separate activities, then I'll
> have a very hard time explaining to pharma/medics why Simon's definition
> is the best we have.
>
> The medical/pharmaceutical profession is continuously moving towards a
> more integrated approach to support patients in all possible situations.
> To distinguish between 'analysis and axiology' and 'design' would be seen
> as separating the activity from the risk/benefit decisions.
>
> Can you tell me how we can combine 'consider the possible harm that any
> intervention might do' with 'devise courses of action aimed at changing
> existing situations into preferred ones' if 'evaluating effects, results,
> consequences' is not a matter of design?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Karel
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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]
|