Hi Ken,
Thanks for your message.
I used the term 'perspective' not 'research' deliberately (as do the authors
of SoD IV). It enables a different and larger discussion of which research
is a part.
Some research is human-centred. For example, Don earlier posted that he
regards thoughts in the mind and subjective impressions as real. This is
seeing those phenomena from a human-centred perspective. Don then applies
the reasoning about them within a universe-centred perspective. In contrast,
I argue thoughts and subjective impressions are secondary artefacts and
that the sense of decision-making using them is an illusion (and that the
actual decision-making processes are elsewhere and not conscious) and this
is universe centred as it pays no heed to what we refer to as our human
experiences.
In SoD IV, Terry, Ian and Jack describe a richer picture of human-centred
perspective than you described that along with their main focus includes
what you described. Their picture emphasises the effects of seeing the world
through human eyes with all its limitations. They describe some of the
problems, which relate very much to the benefits and limitations for design
theory making of using such a human-centred perspective on the world.
Jinan's position is interesting because he uses a human-centred perspective
as described by in SoD IV by Terry, Ian and Jack and then after drilling
down to what might be called a subjective scientific position, uses
analytical approaches within that purely human centred perspective. Jinan
is writing within is a long tradition of the same approach from Patanjali
to, and including, Freud and Jung. It is also paralleled by a range of
traditions within the humanities and arts viewed as analytical.
The relevant sections in SoD IV are too much to retype. I'll dig out my OCR
scanner and see if I can ocr the bits about the main issues and post them.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Monday, 14 April 2014 10:13 AM
To: PHD-DESIGN PHD-DESIGN
Subject: Re: Human-centred and universe-centred perspectives in discussions
about design
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|