Toni: I will take your post as an opportunity to restate/readvocate something that I have previously suggested here and that is the importance of senior, knowledgeable design school educated folks who have invested in design education at one point or another to not only engage on this question here on this limited participation list group but also in the larger dialogue going on in the marketplace.
Not everyone seems to understand that there is a horse that has already left the barn so there needs to be a kind of get out the vote energy around this particular subject. If that energy fails to materialize that horse will disappear over the horizon…she is presently well on her way there.
Just talking about this important subject here is not enough if part of your aim is to also have impact on public perception of this issue. Public perception and business leader perception is going to play a significant role in who (what communities of practice) get asked to do what professionally in the next 5-8 years. Design education leaders have a role to play in the public perception around such issues as do practice leaders.
Its not going to be enough for half a dozen or so ready to retire folks on this list to agree on one historically grounded definition next week while 24,000 social media active business folks have already determined an opposite point of view and have been communicating that message everyday into the marketplace globally for several years.
While some among us love and have a natural tendency to debate/resolve issues through fine-tuning definitions it is important to appreciate that no historical or contemporary definition will explain what is already underway in the marketplace.
A key to understanding that picture is to move beyond the noble and useful pursuit of historical definitions. As useful as nailing down those definitions might be lets be aware that there is more in play here.
I invite you Toni to set aside your definitions hat for a moment and put on your strategic thinking, competitive marketplace hat for a few minutes.
A key to understanding the present picture around this terminology is to understand that what you are looking at on that 24,000-member design thinking list is a competitive strategy and not a community struggle for definitions.
Unless you have been completely asleep for the last 2-4 years or so you will know that it's a divisive strategy that has been designed to deliberately communicate that design and design thinking are not interconnected…as in the community expertise of design is not the expertise of the now highly popular design thinking subject. Are you starting to get the drift? Now why would someone create such a divisive strategy? Who would benefit from that in the marketplace?
Unlike other lists on the same topic that list even has posted “Rules” that the topic to be discussed is design thinking not design. The moderator who is not surprisingly, not from a design education background will often weigh in to remind posters that the subject is not design. This has been going on there for years with barely a peep from the design education community while membership grew to 24,000. That sustained absence has had considerable consequences.
Once you understand that picture as a strategy in play it is not that difficult to see why that strategy has been set in place and who benefits. Ask many of those 24,000 people and they will tell you that design thinking is not connected to design, i.e. their casual arrival into the space supersedes any form of current design education. Far beyond the enabling of public participation in design this is a strategy that long ago veered into quite a different beast. The design education community leaders unfortunately have a marketplace reputation for not showing up for important online discussions and others move to take advantage. What is going down on that particular list is a great example of that phenomenon playing out everyday in real time while the various more academically focused conversations continue on over here. It is rather like a car jacking underway where the car owners seem to be completely oblivious as they remain focused on discussing the fine points of windshield wiper fluid options.
Anyone who thinks social media groups of that size don't matter does not understand the shifts underway in the marketplace today.
Having said all that it does seem highly likely that many of us with design education backgrounds would disagree on what lenses are most useful to make sense of design today and on how we are using such lenses to make sense of what is and is not being taught in graduate/postgraduate design schools. Regardless of such differences surely it might at least be possible to find some ground for agreement around the advocacy of linkage between design & design thinking rather than blindly subscribing to division.
What makes what is going on particularly complex is the added dimension that many organizational leaders are seeking to utilize various forms of design thinking in organizational and societal change contexts (not products, service and experience creation). Critics of design-design thinking linkage point out that this has not historically been the focus or the strengths of design education and due to slow adaptation there this is not the widespread focus or strength even today. The design education community has been slow to digest the implications and to formulate a meaningful, believable response. More honesty and less spin is required there but the linkage can still be made. (A difficult story for another day.)
As a non-typical example practice we continue to believe that making a case for linkage is important but we cannot do it all by ourselves.
This issue that has the potential to have significant impact could use some timely support.
You might wonder: How can what amounts to a form of anti-design community strategy exist front and center inside a most popular design thinking list? Welcome to the complexities and contradictions in play in the marketplace today. If you don't speak up and out don't complain about the outcomes.
It is late in this game but it remains a condition that requires the attention of anyone who cares about the survival of and perceived relevance of design education and the professional community of design.
Good luck to everyone and have a good week all.
...
GK VanPatter
Co-Founder
Humantific
SenseMaking for ChangeMaking
NEW YORK / MADRID
6 West 18th Street, 9th Floor
New York City, NY 10011
T: 212-660-2577
http://www.humantific.com
NEWSLETTER:
Subscribe to Humantific Quarterly
Follow Humantific on twitter: http://twitter.com/humantific
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
