Klaus,
A couple of points.
1. To say that engineering designers are not concerned with
human-centredness is naive and out of date. Sure, this was certainly the
case in the past. And sure, to this day, not every engineering designer
works in a human-centred way. But there are more and more of us moving
toward the recognition that our products are used by people and that
engineers have A LOT to contribute to that interface, and that to do this
well, we MUST become human centred in our ways.
2. I don't mind if you take design as being fundamentally human-centred.
But I also expect you to accept that I take design to be centred in whatever
way is best suited to the situation.
3. While I agree we should not be side-tracked by other "professions" use of
the word design, I would wager that most of the terms used in Terry's list
came from people who would be pretty well qualified to call themselves
designers (by my sense of designing). I can see that if you think design
excludes things not human-centred, then that would have implications on who
you'd say was a designer and therefore entitled to use the word. But the
boundary between what is clearly designing and what isn't is rather thick,
and we really should make allowances for that thick boundary layer (nice
engineering analogy there) so long as there are so many disparate yet
equally reasonable views on the matter.
Cheers.
Fil
2009/9/12 Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]>
> about terry's long list of design research.
>
> superficially, such a list seems overwhelming. it gives the impression that
> most of us have no clue what is going on outside of our particular
> interests. this might well be true, but not particularly helpful.
>
> i would suggest his list is more about the use of the two WORDS "design"
> and
> "research," not about the practices we seek to inform by inquiries. to
> narrow our area down to what professional designers -- not engineers (who
> design technically functioning mechanisms), not scientist (who design
> experiments and questionnaires), not economists (who design mathematical
> equations and financial products) -- do, i would say that design is and
> should be fundamentally human-centered, be concerned with all kinds of
> (individual and cultural) interfaces between humans and their artifacts, be
> they informative/appreciative (graphic, and artistic), interactively
> manipulable (usable), consumable, or organizational (like pursuing a design
> project).
>
> we should not let us be sidetracked by other professions' use of the word
> design. we don't own that word, but we will not advance our practices by
> thinking we can embrace everyone who uses it.
>
> 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 Eduardo
> Corte Real
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 10:56 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: current Trends in Design Research, where are we going ?
>
> Hi Terry,
>
> My note to you was off-list, but thank you anyway for the acknowledgment of
> one of wonderground's hardiest task: to map the field(or territory) trying
> to make a "geography" of design research without leaving any deserts
> behind.
> Since I read recently that from the four DRS "modern"
> international conferences only Wonderground was not "influential" I must
> thank you for the reference.
>
> Anyway, for programme purposes we had to group papers in categories. As I
> wrote in the abstract book the groups were: "Theory and Philosophy, Users
> Studies, Identity Studies and Architecture (from Interiors to
> Landscape) corresponding, in total, to almost two thirds of the conference.
> Three medium sized groups: Strategic Design, Digital Design and
> Sustainability Studies corresponding to less than one fourth of the
> conference; finally, the exquisite small groups of History and Engineering,
> corresponding roughly to ten per cent. We decided to dilute a track of
> Design Education in the others since, in the end, all is related with
> education." (I hope that this helps, Alireza. I must add that both Design
> History and Engineering Design have their own forums so you shouldn't think
> that they are weak trends).
>
>
>
>
>
> As for your book survey, Terry, may I suggest that you should concentrate
> on
> books not written in English. That would give you a clearer picture of what
> design is (globally understood) without the "noise" of other meanings for
> design in English.
>
> I give you an example: In Portuguese a book about "intelligent design"
> would
> never have in its title the word "Design".
>
>
>
> Also I've collected "Shakespeare and Design", "Swift and Design" and "Jane
> Austen and Design" in which is evident the use of design in English with
> other meanings other that a projectual activity.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Eduardo
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON
M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|