Dear Jerry,
The reason I have avoided entering into the substance of this thread is
simple. If we are discussing philosophy and design, there is a serious
and significant literature to review.
If we are moving beyond this to describe a theory of design or a
“design theory that ‘is responsive to wants and needs, is goal
oriented, and guided by preferences and experiences’,” one that is
“explicitly centered in purposeful thinking and that helps explain
the intentional wholeness of {preferences and their embodied actions and
expressions}” my argument would be that there is an even larger
literature on which to draw.
Because authors write with a purpose in mind, not all relevant
contributions focus singly or specifically on this range of issues, but
this occurs in the literature nevertheless.
With respect to a holistic account of design process, Klaus
Krippendorff’s The Semantic Turn - A New Foundation for Design offers
one excellent account. Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman offer another
in The Design Way.
With respect to larger philosophies of design, I mentioned some key
contributions the other day.
No one offers a comprehensive account, yet there is good work being
done
Once you add the issue of how it is that we can make a theoretical
account of design, a new range of issues comes into play. A theory is
not a philosophy, but rather a model, and there is also good work on
theory and theory construction in general and in relation to design.
With respect to theory and theory construction in design, and accounts
of design, I’ll offer a few pieces of my own that deal with these
issues in full or part. All are accessible for online download via the
Swinburne Research Bank.
Before closing with that list, I do have a serious question: are you
asking us to address these issues here, on this list? In other words,
are you asking for a well structured, rigorous thread that will actually
further conversation? If so, it could be interesting, but you’re also
asking people to come together around a literature that people on the
list often seem to ignore. Even the paper – with its admittedly
interesting perspective – neglects key prior contributions on the very
topics that it seems to explore.
If you’re really asking people to read, here’s my half-dozen papers
and book chapters on relevant issues. Some of these focus directly on
theory and philosophy of design. Others address key aspects of these
issues, if only on the way to addressing other issues.
[1]
Friedman, Ken. 2009. “Provocation: Designing Solutions to Wicked
Problems.” Designing Solutions to Wicked Problems: A Manifesto for
Transdisciplinary Research and Design. Terry Cutler, Editor. Melbourne:
Design Research Institute, RMIT University Press, pp. 118-122.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/154443
[2]
Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Design Curriculum Challenges for Today’s
University.” [Keynote conference lecture.] Enhancing the Curricula:
Exploring Effective Curricula Practices in Art, Design and Communication
in Higher Education. Center for Learning and Teaching in Art and Design.
First International Conference at the Royal Institute of British
Architects (RIBA) London, UK, 10th - 12th April 2002. Co-sponsored by
ELIA (European League of Institutes of Arts) and ADC-LTSN (The Art,
Design and Communication - Learning and Teaching Support Network).
London: CLTAD, The London Institute, 29-63.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/47336
[3]
Friedman, Ken. 2003. “Theory construction in design research:
criteria: approaches, and methods.” Design Studies, 24 (2003),
507–522.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/25614
Or
DOI: doi:10.1016/S0142-694X(03)00039-5
[4]
Friedman, Ken. 2002. “Theory Construction in Design Research.
Criteria, Approaches, and Methods.” In Common Ground. Proceedings of
the Design Research Society International Conference at Brunel
University, September 5-7, 2002. David Durling and John Shackleton,
Editors. Stoke on Trent, UK: Staffordshire University Press, 388-414.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41967
[5]
Friedman, Ken. 2001. “Creating Design Knowledge: From Research into
Practice.” In Design and Technology Educational Research and
Development: The Emerging International Research Agenda. E. W. L. Norman
and P. H. Roberts, eds. Loughborough, UK: Department of Design and
Technology, Loughborough University, 31-69.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/2134/1360
Or
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/41897
[6]
Friedman, Ken. 1997. “Design Science and Design Education.” In The
Challenge of Complexity. Peter McGrory, ed. Helsinki: University of Art
and Design Helsinki, 54-72.
URL: http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/189707
For the record, I have not yet read the new book by Pieter Vermaas and
colleagues, and the old one is a mammoth volume that requires careful
review. I’d also want to read Krippendorff again, along with Nelson
and Stolterman, to offer a serious account. That said, I have not posted
a paper on philosophy of design for which these form crucial background
reading.
If we genuinely plan to engage in serious discourse on this list,
we’ve got to demand more of ourselves with respect to our own
literature. In my view, it would – or should – have been enough to
offer private comments on the paper. If we’re moving to a public
thread, it is inaccurate to suggest that nothing has been written on
philosophy of design or design theory over the past decade.
Yours,
Ken
Professor Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished
Professor | Dean, Faculty of Design | Swinburne University of Technology
| Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Ph: +61 3
9214 6078 | Faculty www.swinburne.edu.au/design
Jerry Diethelm wrote:
--snip--
Yes, I do agree that we need a design theory that “is responsive to
wants and needs, is goal oriented, and guided by preferences and
experiences.” And perhaps not just “guided by” but explicitly
centered in purposeful thinking and that helps explain the intentional
wholeness of {preferences and their embodied actions and expressions}.
I think Chuck’s is a fair description of our present situation and my
preference would be to try to explore with him the structure and
function of purposeful thought and its flip-side transformation into
formative expression. Attempting to build a systematic vocabulary
seems like a good start. So I take this as a proposal, not a
conclusion. What other examples are there out there with which to
compare?
--snip--
|