Hi Gunnar,

I see several interesting things in your post, if I interpret you correctly.

Specialities in professions are still professions, sub-professions, 
or whatever we call them. The specialization inside professions in 
most cases do not changes our case.

You also provide an interesting example with the graphic design 
person. I was going to provide such an example with the architect. 
And you put it very nicely, although with different words: skill set. 
That is method, methodology.

Designers are a step (or many steps?) ahead of scientists in their 
focus on method rather than product (knowledge in science). Designers 
will assimilate the idea about organizing science as a problem 
solving activity much easier than the scientists themselves. The 
reason is their personal experience in design.

(As a scientist I will disagree with a previous statement that 
science is superior to design because it penetrates design. On the 
contrary, it might be in a subservient position.)

The concept of developing practice methodologists and 
methodologization of science emerged in the minds of philosophers of 
science who worked on a general theory of design. You can see the 
connections. It didn't happen accasionaly, by accident. When a 
philosopher of science sees how successfully designers jump from task 
to task and how they fulfill the tasks, they don't have any 
difficulty to see this model as a model for developing postmodern 
science. You just need to be in the right time, in the right place. 
That is luck.

Traditional disciplinarians have hard time thinking outside the box. 
There are societal pressures and rewards to keep them think inside 
their shell. We can not expect that disciplinarians will work to make 
a change. As I mentioned before, the change will happen under 
pressure from society (customers of professional services) and the 
professions in particular.

The idea for a new organization of science will not look very 
extravagant or shocking if we look at science and professions as 
social institutions. Another principle is to look at these 
institutions in social context. A third principle is to review the 
nature, structure, and function of these institutions. And so on.

Now, I want to make it clear that there is a long way from an idea to 
implementation. Designers should know that best. You know from 
history of technology that this period might take from several 
centuries to a few decades and only recently a few years. But in 
general, thousands of ideas float in the air and wait for somebody to 
pick them and make them into reality. As I said before, it is about 
Zeitgeist. The right people in the right time. You know the history 
of the typewriter. If memory serves, it was conceived by a 
journalist. A man who didn't know much about technology, but had 
needs and could see a general mechanical principle for fulfilling 
these needs. He worked on the typewriter for 20 years (if memory 
serves), unsuccessfully. No one was interested in his idea and no one 
picked it to develop it. At one point of his searches, the guy 
contacted a gun/rifle manufacturer. His engineers were very busy at 
that time, but promised to look at the idea as soon as they get free. 
After six months they called the journalist and show him a successful 
prototype. The journalist was battling the problem with a knife and 
wood sticks. Woodwork. That's what he could do. At home. He was bound 
by the instruments/methods that dictated the material. Because of the 
nature of the material, the mechanisms didn't work. Once the 
metalsmiths/engineers took the idea and the mechanical principle that 
the journalist proposed, it was so easy for them to make a prototype, 
using metal. They had the machines for working with metal. The nature 
of metal allowed for the main principle to be realized pretty easy.

We are somewhere there. Making typewriters of wood, because that is 
what we need and what we can. If we can see beyond that, we might see 
the implementation. And the solution might be pretty near, around us. 
I mentioned several times in the last years, when we discussed 
similar issues, the word "philosopher of science." It was not by 
chance. It was based on experience and knowledge about sciences and 
professions, as well as history of science and technology. We are 
waiting for our metalsmith. Until then, we can talk for hours. This 
is not a new topic for us. We revisit it every now and then.

I expect that in the next decade there will be new developments 
regarding interdisciplinarity. There is a lot of talk about it in 
various circles. This indicates that very soon there will be a 
critical mass of demand. Demand is crucial for bringing change.

Kind regards,

Lubomir

At 11:03 AM 8/13/2007, Swanson, Gunnar wrote:
>Lubomir wrote:
> > but regarding professions I would rather use fields, areas, domains.
> >
> > Professions are multi/inter/transdisciplinary by their nature.
>
>Specialties have been formalized in some areas (medicine and law 
>come to mind) but in many design areas the nature of one person's 
>contribution has a lot to do with that one person's skill set. Is a 
>graphic designer also an information designer (or vice versa)? Is 
>she also an illustrator? An interface designer? An information 
>architect? Is the information architect an interface designer? It 
>depend on the people and the project.
>
>If anyone knows who originated one of my favorite quotes, let me 
>know. I'd love to be able to give credit--
>
>A prayer to Saint Venn:
>Please let me be the center of the org chart.
>
>Gunnar
>----------
>Gunnar Swanson Design Office
>1910 East 6th Street
>Greenville, North Carolina 27858
>USA
>
>[log in to unmask]
>+1 252 258 7006
>
>http://www.gunnarswanson.com
>
>at East Carolina University:
>[log in to unmask]
>+1 252 328 2839