Dear Gunnar
Thank you for your answer to my previous question on ' teaching design
students how to think ' while learning how to make designs.
In my understanding, this shouldn't be neither difficult nor a "struggle".
But it appears that it is, perhaps because we, as design professionals, do
not as yet have a specific, agreed upon, and proven ' method ' to ( a way
to go after) conceiving artefacts. Without such a method, each of us, as an
individual or in group, we instead indulge in personal or group
'reflection', 'imagination', and 'conversations on various issues', without
any systematic - teachable - rigor.
Towards a certain rigor in design thinking, thank you for directing us at
Dana Cuff's thoughts and publications that I am going to dig out and
consult further. For your information, in addition to Cuff's, there is also
systematic design thinking being carried on at David Sless's Communication
Research Institute, and the interrupted move in the late 70s at Beaubourg,
Paris, that I report on in Design Issues, Vol. 26, No. 4, Autumn 2010, pp.
57-70. I do hope you interpreted my initial question as simply a curiosity
to learn if there are some other remarkable cases of systematization in
thinking artefacts that I am not aware of.
To all list members, please notify me of any other case you may know of, or
currently using, on systematic thinking method (s), i.e. concepts and
tools, actually used or recommended in your sub-field.
Best regards
Francois
Montreal
|