Dear Terry,
Sorry if I have not been clear. I thought I was.
Design serves human beings. Design should be human-centered. When I write about design and design thinking, I am normally describing a human-centered process.
Research seeks to explain how things are or why things work as they do. Research is universe-centered.
Some research involves the study of human beings, seeks to determine human preferences, or interprets the human life world. Other kinds of research may involve ways to engage in design thinking or ways to meet human needs, and so on. In those cases, human beings are part of a larger universe.
In describing research about the human world, language may sound human centered when it involves an attempt to describe that part of the universe that involves human beings. Since language also functions through metaphor, and since language is always a bit imprecise, it is also the case that any attempt to focus on one aspect of an issue draws attention toward the aspect under discussion and away from other issues.
Finally, writing for a discussion list is not the same as writing for publication. No matter how carefully I write, it’s different when I send a manuscript to colleagues for suggestions – or when reviewers explain what they find unclear. While I write carefully, this is still a discussion list, and I can’t always perfect my comments in the time frame of a list discussion. It is also the case that the pace of list discussion often means that people may not read as carefully as they read in a different format.
In my note yesterday, I discussed the need for research at design schools. This is a call for universe-centered research, even when that research is about human beings. And I ALSO discussed the value of projects such as the Design Factory or Stanford d.school. These are human-centered design programs. There should have been no confusion between these two approaches.
One is a research approach that explains how things work and why. The other is a learning process of immersion in the working design process to serve human needs.
If I seem to jump between the two, it is because we discuss both on a list dedicated to research and research training in the design field.
Two issues in your note suggest important distinctions. The first involves the subjects and objects of inquiry. Mechanical engineers who design the mechanical parts and engines of a submarine, and airliner, or a race car deal with universe-centered research about machine performance. The engineers and others who design those parts of a submarine, a jet, or a race car that human beings use and those parts that form a human interface for machine control deal with universe-centered research about human-centered needs.
The second involves the difference between research and aspirations. When you write about a difference between a universe-centered approach, and a human-centered approach, my understanding was that you were attempting to describe research paradigms. While I think you may have misinterpreted some of us – me, at least – I accept that you may perceive a difference in research paradigms where some of us perceive differences in the approach required for different kinds of research questions. To me, all research questions must be universe-centered if they answer questions on how things are and why. When those research questions involve human beings, then they are centered on the human part of the universe – and this involves issues that cannot always be easily quantified or transformed into the numerical and mathematical descriptions with which you are most comfortable.
At the same time, I find that there is a legitimate disagreement between us on just how much can be done with mathematical models. In my view, you have not yet published an example of the kinds of models you advocate, and you certainly have not published them in a peer-reviewed forum.
We agree on the need for universe-centered research. If a kind of research exists purely as a proposition, however, we do not agree that this is universe-centered research. To me, universe-centered research involves demonstrating that something is the case and that it works.
For the same reason, I must disagree with you on the proposition that Jinan is engaged in human-centered research. I believe that Jinan is engaged in some kind of teaching and social process, and I believe that he aspires to a humane and human-centered educational process. Nevertheless, he does not engage with research in the many human-centered disciplines that offer a way to examine his claims.
So I’m not sure that it is correct to say that Jinan uses a human-centered approach – unless you are suggesting that anyone interested in human beings is human centered, while those who use mathematics are universe-centered. But that would not a description of research approaches. Rather, it would be a description of worldviews.
In this respect, I think your post is unclear. If you are describing approaches to research and the philosophy of science, I take your meaning, but feel your examples are unclear.
That aside, it’s an interesting set of thoughts. I have read Terry Pratchett’s fiction, and the writings of Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen on complexity and emergence. I look forward to reading what they write together.
Warm wishes,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | University email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Private email [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman
Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Adjunct Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville, Australia
--
Terry Love wrote:
—snip—
Last week travelling to the UK to an IMechE conference I got a chance to chat with some great designers - racing cars, nuclear submarines, next generation airliners, rail systems, Olympic bicycles and all sorts of other interesting stuff. While I was there, I got to read the new ‘Science of Discworld IV’. It describes the differences between universe-centred and human-centred perspectives, what it means to ‘know’, the different meanings of what is a ‘theory’ (and the implications of choosing them) amongst a whole other lot of interesting things. It addresses lot of issues that are core to research about design. Written by Terry Pratchett, Ian Stewart and Jack Cohen the book describes the detail of the issues in an unbelievably easy to read manner.
I recommend it - $20. It would make a wonderful course text on these research and theory issues in design schools.
Thinking about posts on this list and elsewhere in terms of the discussions in SoD IV, it seems to me:
Don takes a human-centred perspective and then layers a universe-centred perspective around it and is mostly clear about which one he is writing about
I tend to almost exclusively use a universe-centred perspective and apply it to situations that others use a human-centred perspective.
Ken jumps between a human-centred perspective and a universe-centred perspective in ways that are hard to keep track of.
Jinan describes every almost exclusively from a human-centred perspective.
Recognising the differences in the two perspectives and how people use them seems like it might be useful in avoiding misunderstandings.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|