Harold: Thank you for the references. Some familiar some not. They are now in my to-read file (next to my guilt and the Arc of the Covenant).
Stefanie: I think I need to be clear on two points. The first concerns humility. I meant something specific by that, which my "PS" joke may have complicated. I didn't meant designers are, or are not, humble. What I meant was, an inherent part of engaging in the act of design — and therefore a natural tendency of designers as professionals — is to embrace the state of not knowing the solution to a problem on setting out.
The overall task may be good or bad, wise or unwise, benevolent or malicious. One may also approach that task with personal humility or arrogance. But whether designing a chair, a missile, or a slaughterhouse, the state of questioning remains. This should be contrasted with other processes where the state of not knowing is absent or neglected. For example, all ritual — by definition — is scripted, and therefore is not an act of design, but rote performance.
Also, in going from "problem to planning" (as we explain it), design junctures are generally overlooked or papered over with best practices, or standard operating procedures. Design is therefore absent, and one indicator (if one accepts the theory as a foundation here) is the possibility but procedural neglect of a design process.
If you do not face a moment when you don't know the answer, embrace that, and then start working through that moment, you cannot be engaged in an act of design. You can, however, be involved in many other acts.
On "design thinking," this harkens back to a point I was arguing earlier about the need to build theory if design is indeed committed (as a profession) to earning its place in the academy (or maintaining it, etc.) Metaphor is not theory. Design thinking, per se, is — in my view — a metaphor. So is "blue sky thinking" and "groupthink." Until I can empirically differentiate it from another phenomenon, it can be nothing but. It is a rhetorical devise to communicate a cluster of related ideas absent a theory to unify them.
If we are serious about theorizing about design (and I think we should be!) then we need to break through into the hard work of empirical analysis, and people who choose to theorize on design need to be trained to grapple with theory and reasearch.
One last thing: Design is not unlike political science, in that in order to build a research design, one need to draw from numerous disciplines but remain responsive to the standards of proper analysis. You may be committed to asking questions about design (as political scientists are committed to asking questions about politics or political systems), but the real methods training does NOT necessarily come from reading political scientists. If design is to raise its own game, it needs to stop just reading design theory because its too new. It need to "dig deep" and hit the good stuff so it can come wisely back to its thematic concerns.
So by all means, research and theorize on design, because — leaning on Gertrude Stein here — there really is a "there there.". But I'm unconvinced that "design thinking" is the vehicle for it. For example, how do you know design thinking when you see it? How do you falsify that claim? How do you measure it? When is generative about embracing it? That is, what is the theory that give it distinctive form?
But beware, again from Stein, that there may be no there there. One needs to be judicious in choosing the elephants we chase…
_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director
The Policy Lab
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America
Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org
On Thursday, March 31, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Stefanie Di Russo wrote:
> Re: Derek
>
> Ouch.
>
> As a (skeptical) student in design thinking, I approach my research on this topic with great humility. Coming from a scientific background, I do not condone the ideology that design thinking is a brand-spanking, innovative practice that is exclusive to designers and their (privileged) creative minds. Hence I have found it of interest to contradict myself and my belief in design thinking, by questioning most of the hot air hype that is blown around by key innovators. This is done not to "trash" the discipline (as others may wish to hear) but rather advance it. If I didnt believe there was anything to gain from 'design thinking' (as you admitted), I would not devote my time in research. I too am "openly exploring what that is" and also do not know.
>
> "Be humble, a lot was accomplished before you were born." To me this reflects the practice of design thinking, for most of it lies in the hands of collaborators (outside of the field) who know better and can contribute insightful solutions based on their experience and knowledge.
>
> Regards,
>
> Stefanie Di Russo
>
|