I'd like to reframe this discussion. Instead of discussing if Design
Thinking is alive or not, I think it could be more fruitful if we discuss
why people became so interested on Design at some (or many) point in
history. What Design had that was relevant to the culture of that particular
moment? In other words, culturalizing the notion of Design Thinking could
enable us to understand the particular way of thinking, doing, or whatever
that people were talking about.
I find this mesmerizing because the business Design Thinking discourse
sometimes refer to itself as a new organizational culture. But, cultural
change happens in a tradition/transcendence dynamic, as I understood from
Pelle Ehn. So, what is uncomfortably traditional in Design Thinking and what
is in fact transcendental? Do people expect from Design the change that Erik
emphasized or do they expect new fashionable ways of the same?
I came across a paper from Latour through the link that Peter Jones sent us:
A Cautious Prometheus
http://www.bruno-latour.fr/articles/article/112-DESIGN-CORNWALL.pdf
He addressed some of this issues, but he is an outsider on Design Research.
If we pay the effort to distance ourselves enough I hope we could go further
than discourse analysis.
I remember seeing a paper from the Design Research Society conference that
took this perspective, but I couldn't find it...
2011/7/18 Erik Stolterman <[log in to unmask]>
> hi all
> I have just published a blogpost related to the ongoing discussion if
> "design thinking" is dead...
>
> http://transground.blogspot.com/
>
> Best
> Erik
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Erik Stolterman
> http://transground.blogspot.com/
>
--
.
.{ Frederick van Amstel }.
http://fredvanamstel.com
Faber-Ludens Interaction Design Institute
http://www.faberludens.com
|