Dear Carlos,
Bunge (2003) defines a method as "A well-specified repeatable procedure for doing something: an ordered sequence of goal-directed operations" (p. 180). In my experience of teaching into undergraduate design programmes, formal design methods, in the sense of Bunge's definition, are not taught to a great extent.
I think there are perhaps three clues that may shed light on why formal design methods are not included in undergraduate design curricula. Briefly, the first is that some research has indicated that formal methods do not necessarily produce innovation any more readily or efficiently than other approaches (e.g. Rittel, Schön), second undergraduate design curricula have limited resources and other aspects of design education are probably be more important (i.e critical thinking, creativity, ethnography, CoDesign, user experience, interaction design, usability, social responsibility etc.), and third since formal methods are not used to a great extent in the profession of design then there is little demand for undergraduate design programmes to educate students with knowledge of formal design methods.
Like Gunnar, I'd be curious to know whether you (or anyone) can give an example where the use of formal design methods has produced a building, vehicle, visual communication etc. that is discernibly better than one done in a conventional way.
Best
Luke
Luke Feast, PhD
Postdoctoral Researcher in Design
Aalto yliopisto / Aalto University
Taiteiden ja suunnittelun korkeakoulu / School of Arts, Design and Architecture
Muotoilun laitos / Department of design
Helsinki, Finland
Bunge, M. (2003). Philosophical dictionary. Amherst, New York.: Prometheus Books.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|