Hi Tim

I am not a fan of the commercial use of Design Thinking, however this is
the focus of my research. I much rather like to refer to it as *'a
designerly approach'*  as i feel it eloquently signifies both the thinking
and the doing (although design thinking is snappy and to the point).

 Much of the criticism over design thinking is fair for it has been
promoted as a profit-making technique and with that bandwagon many hop to
make a buck via various books, methods and toolkits. Some are genuinely
useful. But the point i would like to make is design thinking is as much
about *doing *as it is about thinking.

When researchers and designers describe the designerly approach,* or 'the
designerly way of knowing' *(thanks, Cross!) they do so with techniques
that are provided as vehicles for this particular way of approaching and
thinking about problems. As many on this list may already know, a large
period of design research was devoted to translating tacit, designerly ways
of knowing into tangible methods. Some techniques are common to typical
design doing: prototyping/mock ups, sketching, etc, and others aim at
exercising the designerly mentality through analogical and abductive
brainstorming methods. All combine to achieve a 'designed' (thinking)
outcome.

The other point i would like to make is that it is a misconception that
design thinking is something new. The way it has been packaged and marketed
is new. Being under the assumption most subscribers to the design list are
from a design background, they would perhaps be already aware of this.
Design thinking has always been discussed in design research, just not
always explicitly by that name. The references i have included in my own
research are not favorites of mine (when i began, i did not know what would
be worthwhile to investigate) but are relevant for their description of a
designerly approach, design process, design thinking and design doing. All
of the investigations into the magical process of design and the designerly
approach has compounded into what we understand today as (often simplified
for selling) Design Thinking.

Similar to the problem i mentioned earlier in this thread on refining
wicked problems, is that to refine design thinking into a sort of highly
specific or substantial formula robs individual agency, tacit knowledge,
intuition and all of those nice things that make the designerly approach a
designerly approach (as opposed to a scientific approach). The best one can
do is assemble general methods to achieve this in ways that is appropriate
for the 'wicked' context. This is also why i feel (in echoing Lawson) that
design thinking needs practise, *“We are less ready to recognize that
thinking might need similar attention. The book as a whole is devoted to
developing the idea that design thinking is a skill” *(Lawson, B 2006, ‘How
designers think: the design process demystified’ p.15)*.*
*
*
I used to think that the open and often vague ambiguity behind design
thinking was a cop out, until i 'dug deeper' into research on the topic and
realised it is counter intuitive to refine the process into a substantial
formula. Perhaps there is more room for refinement, but i wouldnt suspect
much. (Please share your thoughts and opinions otherwise!) I am more
interested in how this framework can be applied in different contexts than
on reducing and transforming design thinking into something thats not a
designerly approach.

Side note: im starting to believe Terry is a robot

regards,

-- 
*Stefanie Di Russo*

PhD Student
Faculty of Design
Swinburne University
*twitter:* @stefdirusso <https://twitter.com/#!/stefdirusso>
*linkedin: public
*profile<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------