Wow. Are there any more grants available to study this topic? Can I help? :)
P.
PhD Anthropologist, Independent Ethnographic Researcher
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:31 AM, stefanie di russo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Hi, Pedro,
I am going to elaborate on your points made in reference to Ken's comments:
1.4 Tim Brown's/IDEO as a popular representation (in social psychology
terms, a 'social representation') of what "design" stands for to a much
broader audience, namely what it stands for to the many non-designers who
make pragmatic use of an idea of "design thinking", along with the kind of
basic ideas and native semantic links used in its ordering; looking at this
as a language in itself rather than mostly through a distance, expressed in
correction or in-correction, to its original sources;
- I agree with the statement that the term design thinking is a 'social
representation' of what 'design' stands for to a much broader audience. If
we boil this down, design thinking is simply the placeholder for (the
puzzling process within) design practice. The over simplified process model
from Tim Brown, coupled with digestible definitions, made design practice
less mysterious to the wider community and in turn, available for personal
use. For the wider audience, design thinking is understood as
representative of both the rationalisation in design practice (the
thinking), and design practice itself (the thinking and doing). and Lets
agree that Pedro's point 1.4 and 1.5 are valid research subjects. The point
i would like to add to this list is the following:
1.6) Research involving how non designers utilise a design process (the
doing), in turn, develop and apply design thinking.
Also, as a side point, you could analyse and contrast the above subject
with:
1.7) Research analysing experienced designers, inexperienced designers and
non designers (looking at both doing and thinking behind the doing)
The above point would aim to gain a deeper understanding of what it means
to be a designer or design thinker; whether this thinking is tied to
methods, or whether a designerly way of knowing or attitude can be
harnessed without ever interacting with a design process (the doing).
If the process and/or methods are not vital towards developing design
thinking, we then need to reassess:
1.8) What distinguishes the thought process of designers as representative
of design thinking, and how is this type of thinking unique to design (as
opposed to any other kind of thinking)
My assumption based on my research thus far is that if you want to subtract
design process and methods (prototyping/sketching/etc) from a definition of
design thinking, you begin to lose what makes this thinking "designerly".
At the same time, *experienced* designers (and sometimes talented non
designers) can often understand design thinking without ever interacting
with the process (hence point 1.6 and 1.7). What does this mean for design
thinking?
My original post was brief, understanding that Stephane is writing an
introduction to a chapter and not a thesis on the topic. But this thread is
becoming much more engaging. I hope i have made sense in my response
Best,
-Stefanie
--
*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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|