On May 13, 2011, at 7:04 AM, Tulia Moss wrote:
> Thank you very much Ken
> On 13/05/2011, at 11:23 AM, Ken Friedman wrote:
>
> Dear Tulia,
>
> This paragraph comes from Jeffrey Chan's response to Don Norman's essay
> "Why design education must change." Copied below.
>
> Ken
>
>
> Subject: Re: Why design education must change
>
> From: jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]>
>
> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:50:54 -0800
>
> Dear Don and List,
>
> I read the article, 'Why design education must change' with mixed
> feelings. But let me first say thank you for making this available for
> me before it appears on Core77.
>
> There are more than a handful of ideas that demand slow digestion. But
> I pick up two points for a start: two points that also recurred
> repeatedly through the article.
>
> (1) on experimentationsDon, beyond the reasons you cited for more in
> depth and scientifically rigorous experimentations for design, I cannot
> help but think that there is a further need to distinguish qualitatively
> between experimentations done in cognitive science and experimentations
> (to be) done in design. The basic purpose of the former is to falsify
> (and hence clarify) and to describe. But the overall purpose of the
> latter is to create and to prescribe. Insofar as the inquiry process is
> concerned the structure is similar; but insofar as the teleology is
> concerned, they are dissimilar. For these reasons, to subject subjects
> to failure for the 101th experiment in cognitive science may be
> permissible by the teleology of science. But to subject subjects for the
> 101th experiment just to see how our designs may fail on these subjects
> are less permissible by the teleology of design.
>
> Hence if designers must perform rigorous experimentations approaching
> the level of rigor in cognitive psychology and the social sciences, I
> imagine that a whole new way of experimental inquiry that commensurates
> with design must also emerge alongside. To build on your suggestion that
> design needs experimental designs that are "simple and quick", I suppose
> these new experimental inquiry must be humanistically sensitive as well.
> (2) on ignorance It is hard to argue for ignorance. But I am going to
> try. On this, I think there is a need to make another distinction: to
> distinguish between heroic ignorance and modest ignorance. I suppose in
> your article, you were arguing for the former at the expense of the
> latter, which has merit and also happens to be a significant goal of
> Socratic teaching. To practice heroic ignorance the designer expresses
> 'I know best'; but to practice modest ignorance -- or self-conscious
> ignorance of 'I know not'--it is in fact quite compatible with the
> nature of design, especially participatory design within complex
> systems. Unless we accept this human condition of ignorance, and strive
> to attain the virtues of modest ignorance, we cannot learn. If we cannot
> learn, then we also cannot design as well -- because it is impractical
> to design without accepting that learning is highly probable and
> desirable within the design process.
>
> I am an architect by training, and so while I dabble in some product
> design on the side and think I understand the arguments for a science of
> design, I am not a trained industrial designer. Even so, it seems that
> the existing curriculums for many design programs (as I observe) still
> have their merits because they nonetheless avail students to the
> possibility of (1) and (2) above.
>
> Jeffrey
>
>
>>>> PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]>
> 5/13/2011 9:04 AM >>>
>
> From: Tulia Moss <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Why design education must change
>
>> Can someone confirm the author of this quote is please?
>>
>> ‘To practice heroic ignorance the designer expresses 'I know best';
>
>> but to practice modest ignorance--or self-conscious ignorance of 'I
>
>> know not'--it is in fact quite compatible with the nature of design,
>
>> especially participatory design within complex systems. Unless we
>> accept this human condition of ignorance, and strive to attain the
>> virtues of modest ignorance, we cannot learn. If we cannot learn,
>> then we also cannot design as well--because it is impractical to
>> design without accepting that learning is highly probable and
>> desirable within the design process.’
|