chuck,
since you ask: my operational definition of design is what a group of
professed designers are satisfied with as accounting for their practices (in
social networks). if their articulations are con-sensually practiced
indeed, not coming from an outsider, disembodied, abstract, and supposedly
general, then it is sufficient as a living theory of design -- perhaps not
yours but for those who use the word in con-sensual coordination of their
practices.
we know that the use of the word design is widespread and i do not want to
claim that none of them who use it know what they are talking about.
ethnographic research might shed some light on what they do when talking of
design or saying they are designers.
this does not prevent me or anyone else to participate in the deliberations
and suggest redrawing the distinctions in which the word design can be used
more productively for those doing it. but the criteria for these
deliberations are not truths but coordination of practices.
in saying "it is your view of how language identifies the design component
in a consensus seeking social network" you seem to be not happy with my
observation that others talk of design and define it in their way. you do
that, or don't you? personally i think it is an epistemological mistake of
abstract objectivists (volosinov) or positivists to say that language
identifies design. it is people who speak and in that process identify
themselves and design. Let's respect them and not withdraw into a god's eye
view of others.
klaus
-----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 Charles
Burnette
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2009 10:08 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On design - again?
Klaus: Nicely stated. But it is your view of how language identifies the
design component in a consensus seeking social network. You acknowledge
rightly that each stakeholder negotiates their concept of what this means in
the context in which they work, conceptions "not necessarily shared by all
but sufficiently coordinated con-sensually so that they can work together."
This avoids altogether any theory of how this working together occurs. I
simply mean to point out that without operational definition the term
designer becomes a role label for one or more members of a group working
together presumably with some goals in mind (that are not necessarily
shared). It isn't a theory of what they do. Without articulating their ways
of working there are likely to be misunderstandings among those seeking
consensual outcomes.
My "please pay attention" remark was a note of dismay regarding your summary
judgment of the views of other stakeholder's in your conversation. They
deserve more reasoned responses if you theorize that a consensus seeking
social network is necessary to languaging.
chuck
|