This
thread is now officially thirty-two messages long (thirty-three counting this
one). It’s probably one of the longest threads I have ever seen in this list. I
wonder if the conceptual confusion around the term ‘design thinking’ and the
need for subsequent clarification fully account for the thread’s extension.
Surely, part of its length is explained by differences in point of view by some
members in this list that happen more or less irrespective of the themes in
hand. A part of its length is also likely explained by the conceptual confusion
around the term ‘design thinking’, of which I am to blame as much as anyone
else (and probably more at some point, as I used the initial question to ask a
semi-related question around representations of design). 
Practical
thinking often collapses in practice, particular classes of distinctions that
academic thinking must reiterate, if anything more, as part of what
characterizes the academic practice of producing distinctions. This is not to
take validity out of the practice of collapsing distinctions for matters of
practice or re-installing distinctions as a function of academia. But it is
also to wish that a better bridge could happen between the two. With that
bridge in mind, I dare ask: 
-       What is about this thread that we can’t seem to let
go of? 
Gaston
Bachelard once suggested that the best way out of an epistemological impasse
was a psychoanalysis of knowledge. Gregory Bateson used to speak of meta-communication
as a way of problem-solving. In my view, a great part of what we are trying to do
in this thread is to separate ‘design thinking’ from common sense. This may
strike you as obvious. The struggle around it, in other ways expressed by the
extension of this thread, is far from obvious. Looking at the thread from a slightly
different perspective, some us seem to think that the best way of separating
the two (design thinking and common sense) happens through an historical
account and related conceptual clarification. Some of us are less persuaded by
the historical argument. We are not in full agreement on the nature of the differentiations made between them. We are not in full agreement on who holds the authority to
make them. In this as much as everything, some of us think that there are
different versions of history around the term ‘design thinking’. One of us has
already characterized this thread as akin to pointless abstraction. Is there a
different way of talking about this thread? 
If
you believe that conceptual clarifications around the term design thinking is
the best possible solution to the impasse at hand, I suspect, you will likely
feel that this message is bringing the conversation back. If you don’t fully
subscribe to that, I suspect, you will see this message as trying to start a
new conversation and/or trying to move the conversation further. I am
suggesting that current attempts of separating design from common sensical
appropriations of the term (of which ‘design thinking’ strikes me as the most
obvious appropriation) generate anxiety and that the length of this thread is
the embodied expression of that anxiety. Others may disagree and have different
explanations for the length of this thread, beyond the conceptual confusion
pointed by Ken, of which I fully assume my joint responsibility. Nonetheless, if
there are different explanations our there, I am suggesting that it could be
interesting to hear them: why do you think that we’re still here, after
thirty-three messages exchanged?  Why do you think we can't let go of this thread? 
Maybe
(just maybe), trying to answer these two questions, could move the conversation a bit further,
in Bachelard’s or Bateson’s sense of moving a conversation further. Or maybe
not, in which case, I rest my case.
To
paraphrase you, Chuck   
Or
so I believe, 
Pedro 
 
PhD Anthropologist, Independent Ethnographic Researcher 


On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 4:53 PM, stefanie di russo <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
 


I would hate to add fuel to the confusion, but i would just like to add
that when i discuss design thinking i am definitely *referring* to the
above mentioned:

"1) the general design act (“design”),

2) ways of describing how designers think (“designerly ways of knowing”),

3) social science descriptions of that form of thinking that takes place
when engaging in the design process (“design cognition”).

In addition, the term has been confused in this thread with

5) activities that study design (“design research”), and

6) terms that describe other approaches to design processes (f.ex., “design
methods”)."

But i am not saying that any one of the above points is a definition for or
representative of design thinking. I do not want to imply that "all design
is design thinking" but it is difficult (for me, at least) to identify
design thinking as (historically) independent from design practice (even
though i acknowledge that it is marketed in this way and it has evolved
into what appears to be a new kind of practice)

To make matters worse, i agree that:

1) “design-led innovation,”

2) “integrative thinking,”

3) “design integration,”

4) “strategic design,”

5) “frame creation,”

6) “interaction method,” and

7) “design science event flow.”

are terms that are often used to *describe *design thinking. This perhaps
stems from my understanding that design thinking is not a term that aims to
depict a specific type of design process or practice, but label to describe
the mindset and approach that underpins the various orders of design
practice.

But that is just my opinion. I hope i haven't confused anyone further...

Best,

-Stefanie


On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 1:27 AM, Ken Friedman <[log in to unmask]
> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Much of the confusion in this thread arises from confused language.
>
> The confusion involves the conflation of a specific term used to describes
> a specific approach to design process with terms that describe other forms
> of design process. The term is “design thinking.”
>
> This is rendered more confusing because there are other terms that roughly
> describe the same process. These terms include several rough synonyms for
> the specific term.
>
> These terms include:
>
> 1) “design-led innovation,”
>
> 2) “integrative thinking,”
>
> 3) “design integration,”
>
> 4) “strategic design,”
>
> 5) “frame creation,”
>
> 6) “interaction method,” and
>
> 7) “design science event flow.”
>
> At different points, the term “design thinking” has also been confused
> with several kinds of process that do NOT constitute a specific design
> process. That is, the term “design thinking” has been repeatedly confused
> with terms that are NOT synonyms for “design thinking,” not even roughly.
>
> Over the course of this thread, the term “design thinking” has been
> confused with terms that mean something else entirely:
>
> 1) the general design act (“design”),
>
> 2) ways of describing how designers think (“designerly ways of knowing”),
>
> 3) social science descriptions of that form of thinking that takes place
> when engaging in the design process (“design cognition”).
>
> In addition, the term has been confused in this thread with
>
> 5) activities that study design (“design research”), and
>
> 6) terms that describe other approaches to design processes (f.ex.,
> “design methods”).
>
> This confusion is visible in the title of the thread and the first few
> posts: “How ‘Design Thinking Research’ and ‘Design Thinking’ are related
> (or not)?” These suggested that all design research is “design thinking
> research,” and in this way, it confused all design with “design thinking."
>
> This note describes the confusions in language I have seen over the
> duration of this thread.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
> Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The
> Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Elsevier in
> Cooperation with Tongji University | Launching in 2015
>
> Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and
> Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University
> Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology ||| Adjunct
> Professor | School of Creative Arts | James Cook University | Townsville,
> Australia ||| Visiting Professor | UTS Business School | University of
> Technology Sydney University | Sydney, Australia
>
> Email [log in to unmask] | Academia
> http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
>
> Telephone: International +46 727 003 218 — In Sweden (0) 727 003 218
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
*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
-----------------------------------------------------------------