Juris,

There are real practical urgent reasons for doing this basic work - however
apparently naïve it might seem in anthropological terms. 

Part of the urgency in  trying to develop some coherency in design theory is
the reality that design research is in much the same place as it was 50
years ago and with many times the amount of muddled theory - with perhaps
the exception of technical design domains.

It is clear that the choice to follow a pluralistic perspective on design
theory has not produced significant benefits and instead has increased the
theory mess and increased parochialism between design sub-fields.

Small gains developed in individual areas have not propagated across the
design research domain. In parallel, much of the design theory literature
does not stand up to critical review on the basic tenets of making sense and
of authors using concepts and terms in ways that enable simple  reasoning of
the sort required to underpin research.

A big  criticism is that the core theory concepts are so badly defined in
most of the literature that they don't even make sense in the texts in which
they are used.

This is starting a long way back in developing a body of theory and
literature to build design research. Parallels that come to mind are
education before the Greeks and physics pre 1400s.

Politically, the tension is between many hundreds of mostly very small
sub-fields of design each trying to define design as if it is only them that
does it, and an attempt by a small number of design researchers that work
across multiple design domains to unify research across design fields.

The 'pulling in different directions' approach over the last 50 years hasn't
worked. Developing a unified basis for theory has worked successfully in
many other research fields. It offers a way out of the theory muddle for
Design Research.

Thoughts? 

Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love
Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group
School of BEAD
Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence
Institute
Research Associate,  Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council 
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University,Lancaster, UK,
[log in to unmask]
____________________
 


-----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 Juris
Sent: Friday, 17 August 2007 9:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Defining design? was: the joy of making...

I want to simply support the points made by Ben and Andrew, and perhaps add
to that outline.  I can claim no expertise regarding Simon's work, but
Andrew's point about 'boundary condition failure', which even the most
carefully explicated of definitions is prone to, is important to always
remember.  Definitions which attempt to 'uncover' universals will always be
confronted with the unruly particularities of any given reality
on-the-ground (a fact that anthropologists, like myself, are always
championing and struggling with).  Some notes: universalizing definitions
often fail to account for change over time (another fundamental concern
within anthropology).  And if we utilize yet a third key strength of
anthropology (though not exclusive to it) we have to consider the  
comparative power of any explanation of behavior or understanding.   
That is, if Simon's definition succeeds in describing what it is "to design"
but fails to distinguish among the many possible variations (planning or
action, human or dog, prehistory or tomorrow, pre capitalistic or
neoliberal, revolutionary or hegemonic) then, again, it misses the
opportunity to understand the complexities of historical, economic,
symbolic, political and all the other myriad facets of socio-cultural
context.

But perhaps this is actually its intention.  Perhaps what is more important
is to ask what is accomplished by the effort to find a universal or
essential quality and then describe it.  What professional and political
needs spurred Simon to attempt to find a universal?  What are the current
conditions that spur debate about the usefulness of the definition?  What is
being accomplished through the careful explication of those definitions,
other than defining something?  The need for universals is a kind of
fetishization in itself, one that often justifies or fuels
professionalization, and an aversion to the messy, inaccurate, 'anecdotal',
or fluctuating particularities of lived experience (ie the social contexts
and origins that Andrew mentions) is another kind of boundary maintenance,
as is the tendency to remain in the realm of the neurological or
technological to the detriment of the political- economic, cultural or
social.  That is, definitions that ignore the fact that the category of
design is and continues to be socially constructed, and is therefore a
political-economic domain of position taking and discourse shaping, are in
fact themselves productive, in a socio-political-economic way - but this is
perhaps not meant to be noticed.  I am thinking here of Foucault's
"author-function" and I would submit that, along side the very useful
conceptualization of scale in Ken's last post, there is value in
understanding the "design- function" as well.


Juris Milestone, Ph.D.
Department of Anthropology
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA