> On Aug 20, 2014, at 16:14, Klaus Krippendorff <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> if "design thinking" becomes a phrase we adopt to distinguish us (designers) from non-designers, we are stuck with a non-descript designation. what would be added to a conception of physicists if they were to claim that their uniqueness comes from thinking physically; or what would we learn about lawyers when we are told they think legally. these are self-satisfying and subjectifying tautologies that work only where and as long as these attributes are fashionable social constructions.
Klaus, Ken, and all
Some of us see more than " self satisfying and subjectifying tautologies" that depend on fashion. We recognize the need for a descriptive designation that others can understand and use in the same sense that lawyers benefit when people grasp, more or less, the scope of their enterprise. Since the scope for designing is vast we must find its definition in the form of a generative metaphor that works in the mind of all thinkers. I believe Herbert Simon nailed the essential nature of design thinking when he distinguished it as thought that seeks to improve the subject or situation it addresses. How "designers" seek this improvement remains open to definition, belief, skill, and all the other personal attributes and social norms that pertain to individual and social acts. People need to acknowledge the core value motivating practice before they can distinguish what it is or should be.
Or, so I believe,
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|