Thanks, Terry. I am not enough expert in design history studies but, in my
view, 'is a way of popularizing' (as I said) did not mean 'is the first way
of popularizing' (as you suggest). I would say it is just 'the most
common/popular way' nowadays. By the way, you are right, it would be
interesting to study the history of all design popularization attempts.
Best,
--
*Stéphane Vial*
Maître de conférences en sciences du design à l'Université de Nîmes
Responsable de la licence Arts Appliqués
Membre permanent de l’équipe « Sémiotique des Arts et du Design »
à l'Institut ACTE (UMR 8218, CNRS/Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
Co-responsable du groupe de recherches PROJEKT
uni.stephane-vial.net
--
PhD Philosophy (Paris Descartes University)
Associate Professor of Design Studies at the University of Nîmes (France)
Head of the Bachelor of Applied Arts Program
Researcher at the ACTE Institute, Sorbonne Paris 1 University
Co-head of the research group PROJEKT <http://projekt.unimes.fr/>.
2014-08-21 11:26 GMT+02:00 Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>:
> Hi Stephane,
> I'm puzzled by your comment that ' IDEO's Design Thinking is a way of
> popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers....'.
> As I understand it, it was amongst engineers (engineering designers) the
> term 'design thinking' first came into common use. I suggest,
> historically, it was more that engineering designers encouraged designers
> from other fields into the practice and concepts of design thinking.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> --
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. 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 St éphane Vial
> Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: St éphane Vial
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for breathing life into this thread and providing rich matter of
> reflection. I do agree so much with Ken on that there is too much "unclear
> language" around the world on this topic. This is EXACTLY WHY I posted my
> first message and all your replies seem to confirm this issue. Therefore,
> because "people seek what their existing knowledge and interests incline
> them to find" (said Charles), I will try to provide here a bit of
> clarification of what I had in mind and which problem I am currently trying
> to address while writing a short introduction book on design for the large
> French audience.
>
> It is based on this observation: on the one hand, for a few years,
> everybody hears about "design thinking" all the time, mostly (but most
> probably not only) in the sense of Tim Brown, mostly (but most probably not
> only) in professional agencies (and schools). On the other hand, there is a
> long academic research tradition on design processes (including thinking)
> and this tradition not only uses the term "design thinking" but seems the
> first to have used it. Furthermore, this term as used by researchers covers
> itself various meanings (said Ken), which adds difficulty.
>
> 1. The problem I am trying to address and for which I was requesting help
> from PHD-design list is double :
>
> 1.1. WIDE AUDIENCE ISSUE. What are the differences between those 2
> approaches of "design thinking"? Are there differences? Can we clearly
> define and distinguish those 2 concepts of design thinking with a
> popularizing approach? I am writing an introduction book to design for
> French people (students, beginners, non-experts, etc.): they need to
> understand something about this messy "unclear language". They need to
> understand the difference between the wide and strong discourse of
> researchers and the new-trendy discourse on design in companies and
> d-schools. As truly said by Stefanie, I am "writing an introduction to a
> chapter and not a thesis on the topic", so I need to simplify in order to
> popularize. But, actually, let me tell here that, most of time, while we
> try popularizing an idea, we are led to move aside many not so important
> details in order to keep the true real idea. I am educated in philosophy,
> so, as Plato or Hegel or Wittgenstein, I believe that strong concepts can
> be clearly and simply defined, in a few words, otherwise they are not
> concepts :)
>
> 1.2. RESTRICT AUDIENCE ISSUE. Does "design thinking" in the sense of Tim
> Brown can be considered as an inheritor of the works of design thinking
> researchers? As far as you all know, has Tim Brown ever said something like
> that? Has design thinking research ever been an inspiration for IDEO or
> others? Can we reconstruct it? If yes, in which sense? This is not a matter
> of popularization but a matter of (epistemological) research, that seems to
> me essential nowadays. I am sure that you will provide me many ideas on
> that and I would like to have more time in order to go deeper in it, but
> keep in mind it is not my first concern in this post :) Furthermore, with a
> focus on research, the first problem (1.1) about the differences between
> those 2 approaches of "design thinking" can be a strong research question
> too.
>
> 2. I really appreciate all your comments on those 2 problems but let me
> share a kind of solution to the problem 1.1.
>
> 2.1. Yesterday, I came across this paper by Wolfgang Jonas: 'A Sense of
> Vertigo: Design Thinking as General Problem Solver?', full text online
> here:
> http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf.
> I will not discuss here about the main idea of this paper, which is perhaps
> not exactly my concern. I will only focus on page 3 (check the table),
> where Wolfgang fixes the point 1.1, by making a clear distinction between
> "the domain of research into the cognitive and social processes of
> designing (design thinking, lower case) and the new and massively
> propagated normative strategic concept (Design Thinking, upper case)." For
> him, "design thinking" is descriptive (Nigel Cross, Norbert Roozenburg,
> Kees Dorst, Ömer Akin...) whereas "Design Thinking" is normative (Larry
> Leifer, Terry Winograd, David Kelley, Tim Brown...). I think this is a very
> good way of making things clearer for a large (but perhaps not only?)
> audience, and I will now use this distinction in my book and with my
> students.
>
> 2.2. Because of typography rules, I would personally complete this
> approach by saying that "design thinking" (lower case) refers to what Ken
> called "the method labeled design thinking" in design firms (Design
> Thinking as a Method) whereas as "Design Thinking" (upper case) refers to
> the wide field of academic research in design thinking and processes
> (design thinking as a field of Research), without regarding here on the
> various meanings of the concept of design in this field (at least "three
> different meanings", said Ken). Nigel Cross seems to use himself the term
> "design thinking research" in order to subsume various approaches of
> "design thinking research" ('Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline
> Versus Design Science', Design Issues: Volume 17, Number 3 Summer 2001, p.
> 54). Design Thinking method versus design thinking research, which includes
> the study of (all) methods.
>
> 3. I personally appreciate the idea that IDEO's Design Thinking is a way
> of popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers, marketers, mass
> media, etc. It is sometimes frustrating since design should not need
> another word to be identified as himself and since, as said by Klaus, it
> would surprising to speak about Physics Thinking or Law Thinking. However,
> as said by Don Norman a few years ago (design thinking as a 'useful myth'),
> before he changed his idea, I would say it is definitely useful to speak
> about design as a thinking, not because others fields (physics, law...) are
> not thinking too, but just because it helps people stopping seeing design
> as decoration. And it works. Then, perhaps Pedro is right when he argues on
> that Design Thinking is becoming a "social representation" of design in the
> sense of social psychology. A strong study on that would be appreciated
> some day.
>
> My pleasure,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
