Dear Klaus,

Sorry, I see that what I wrote is somewhat ambiguous. I did not mean 
that you suggested it, but that in my view, the issues you point to 
suggest that "designers are not "undisciplined" and to say that as a 
community they cannot be undisciplined."

This is my view, and I know you disagree. I do not attribute this 
view to you, and I see that my sentence can be interpreted in a way 
that I did not intend.

I hold this view because designers have a strong common culture. This 
common culture translates into the same behaviors and conventions 
that restrict other professions.

Reading this, I see we disagree on something. You seem to believe 
that designers think outside the box because this is what your view 
of design is. I agree that design thinking requires this. 
Nevertheless, I assert that many designers do not think outside the 
box, but rather fall prey to the same professional structures and 
behaviors that limit other professions.

Where I intended to suggest agreement is on some issues where I 
thought we agreed and where our language may not differ, but I meant 
this in limited cases such as user-centeredness.

But Klaus, I suggest that you, too, spend a lot of time telling 
others that we are mistaken in our views, models, and language. You 
state things in positive language using verbs such as "is" and "are" 
to state your views, and your language seems to shift from one set of 
standards when describing your models as you see them to another set 
when critiquing our models.

That's OK with me. That's the nature of a list such as this. I enjoy 
your work and find that the views that others post here challenge me, 
introducing me to new ideas and pushing (or pulling me) to a new 
position. Lately, for example, Danny Butt's comments encouraged me to 
re-read a book that I found better than I had previously thought it 
to be, while in the same thread, Norm Sheehan introduced me to ideas 
and authors I had not known.

But I seem to work my way stubbornly through these issues, and I want 
to think things through for myself. On the other hand, if I recall 
your encounters with Chuck Burnette and others, you're as stubborn as 
I am -- and as willing to tell others (myself among them) that we are 
wrong.

On the confusion, I apologize. It seems to me that the implication of 
how designers work in practice is that they are disciplined. As I 
read your views, believe that your views lead in this direction 
whether or not you believe that designers are disciplined. I believe 
that there is a difference between your vision of design practice and 
the way that I observe many designers and design firms conduct their 
practice in firms and in schools. Perhaps this is changing. It is 
changing in many excellent firms and schools, but it is not yet the 
majority practice among all designers. Since you vehemently disagree, 
I won't explain why I thought this followed from what you said: I 
simply apologize if anyone thought that you suggested it. You did 
not. I did.

As it is, one of the virtues of the list is that we enrich our 
perspectives by comparing views and positions. These conversations 
seem calm, friendly, and respectful. You are correct in stating that 
I have sometimes been sharp in the way I state me views.  No one here 
demands or has the right to demand that anyone else be "correct." 
There is still room for occasional sharp debates, f.ex., Krippendorff 
vs. Burnette.

If design really is to become a third way to knowledge for the 21st 
century, these kinds of conversations and the developments they yield 
are vital. Even when we disagree. Perhaps especially when we 
disagree. And occasionally when we think we agree and others tell us 
we are wrong.

Warm wishes,

Ken


>dear ken,
>i want to be sure not to be misunderstood:
>
>you interpret me as suggesting "that designers are not "undisciplined" and
>add "that as a community they cannot be undisciplined."  i said just the
>opposite
>
>to me, designers as a group are committed to innovate, consider futures not
>yet existing, suggest changes that people have not thought of, think out of
>the box of any discipline.  If designers are disciplined, they can do their
>job only in the confines of a particular discipline which is a limitation
>that designers should not accept.  i made one important provision to the
>necessary undiscipline of designers and that is their accountability to
>stake holders, which is enough of a constraint on their creativity not to be
>unethical, immoral, or ruinous to people who will have to live in the
>futures that designers propose for realization.  i maintain this is all that
>is needed. accountability to stakeholders may well be adopted as a
>definition of the community of designers, but not a particular method,
>style, academic discipline, or approach.  you seem to agree with that but
>want to add discipline into the design profession.
>
>i do make a distinction between abstractions such as those i mentioned and a
>concern for people grounded in giving people the ability to object, oppose,
>support, encourage, insert, rearticulate, which denote rater concrete
>actions that stakeholders can take - unlike the abstractions you are using.
>my notion of human-centeredness, for example, is so grounded (see my book
>"the semantic turn"), yours seem to float in what volosinov called
>abstract-objectivist language.
>
>you say that we substantially agree but use different language.  you are
>right about using different language, but i cannot or will not separate the
>language i am using (dialoging with) from what it means, what it entails,
>what it brings forth and the concepts it gives rise to.  i am convinced and
>share that convictions with many philosophers of language and social
>constructivists that we live and understand in language and if this is so,
>we should not use grammars and linguistic constructions that contradict
>one's concern.  for example, human-centeredness. to me this is a conception
>in which one grants other human beings the ability to enter and enact their
>own conceptions into the phenomena you are describing.  sorry, ken, i do not
>see you do that as evident in the frequent statements that contributors to
>this list are wrong and that the sources you cite can provide the truth that
>others should accept as you state them, without qualifying that these are
>just your own conceptions  (... speaking of discipline ... )
>
>klaus


-- 

Ken Friedman
Professor
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]