Dear Chuck and All,

The reason Chuck included me in his response is that I dropped him an
off-list note to say that he made an important distinction in his earlier
note that was lost in his later response.

The interesting distinction for me was not simply about design, but a
distinction between all instances of design -- purposeful thought -- and
design thinking, the kinds of improvement that Chris Argyris and Donald
Schon might cover under their concept of double-loop learning. This is
both doing something and reflecting in how to do it better.

Earlier, Chuck wrote, "There is a distinction between purposeful thought -
tying your shoelace, and design thinking - seeking improvement to how
shoes are secured on a foot. Purposeful thought is more limited in its
possibilities (problem solving) - than design thinking (problem seeking,
exploration, analysis, and expressive resolution)."

Tying a shoelace may be a case of "design" in the sense of "creating a
preferred situation" without any improvement to the art or way of tying
the shoelace. Tying a shoelace is a preferred state. Many kinds of design
are quite modest attempts to seek a preferred state. Many involve habitual
learning or action from instructions.

In examples of design involving habitual behaviour, we employ learned
skills to create preferred situations. This may involve simple behaviours
whether tying a shoelace or brewing a cup of tea, and they may also
involved complex learned behaviours, such as executing a corporate
identity program according to the design manual. The reason I wrote to
Chuck was to note that implementing a corporate identity program involves
using only what is given, yet it remains a case of design.

I've been enjoying all the contributions, but I haven't dipped in much.

Best wishes,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html
<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design>    Academia Page
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page
http://about.me/ken_friedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
Shanghai, China 

--

Chuck Burnette wrote:

Yoad is right! My quick response was not what it should have been.
Designing is not defined by what is given - shoe laces that need tying to
hold a shoe to a foot, rocks on a beach, or the circumstances of any
situation that becomes the focus of a need or a desire to change them or
their expression. Designing is, instead, based on the intentional stance
one takes toward the circumstances of interest.  A design stance includes
the desire to improve the expression of the focal circumstances as they
are or as they may develop. In this case a designer is one who approaches
tying a shoe as an opportunity to tie it in a better, more pleasing, more
satisfying way (as a fashion designer might do, although probably by
changing materials, patterns, and technology as well as the actions
involved.)



>


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------