Dear Carlos,
I applaud your post, but with one small exception. There is design thinking. If we call it design approach, it becomes much more visible. If we call it design methodology, it is visible. And if we call it design methods, no one will dispute it.
The problem is not that there is no design thinking. The problem is when material design thinking is juxtaposed on social situations. The morphology of the artifact is very important and drives the values, believes, theories, epistemologies, and design methods. All design specialties share a common philosophy, but after that they diverge. In this aspect, I beg to differ with many colleagues on this list who believe in the common ground. The common ground is only at philosophical level. After that, the divergence starts and the differences grow so big that there is nothing left to compare. Besides philosophy and way of thinking.
Ken provided a good example, and your also are ready to provide a myriad of examples.
Best wishes,
Lubomir
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Carlos Pires
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2015 7:44 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Expertise in Design and the Risk Backlash for Gaps in Knowledge
On 02/07/2015, at 11:35, Ken Friedman wrote:
-- snip --
> Dear Erik,
>
> Your reply to Don Norman hits a problematic nail on the head.
-- snip --
> What astonished me was that no one at his university apparently understood this. His thesis supervisor and the people at the graduate school seemed to think of this as a bold, significant research project demonstrating the power of design. The methodological flaws and gaps in knowledge would have failed this project as an undergraduate paper in any of the disciplines on which it touched - social or cultural anthropology, social psychology, international relations, or political science. It was exactly the kind of project that causes others to question the professional skills of many designers who are moving into systems design, designing solutions to wicked problems, or designing solutions for social challenges.
-- snip --
Dear Ken,
I myself cringe at the words "design thinking" (though not as much as I do when I read "found footage" on a movie synopsis).
As for the story you recounted, I have seen many similar instances, all of which lay bare that this kind of "design thinking" is nothing more than idle speculation with a dash of wishful thinking.
Designers who talk about "design thinking" in such manner (showing lack of domain knowledge, etc) resort to the buzzword in an effort to obscure their own ignorance and incompetence, just like an incompetent film-maker resorts to "found footage".
The real problem is that this is common currency in some academic ecosystems. I think it is dishonest at best, fraud really. But it seems that the fauna and the flora in those ecosystems is afraid for its own homeostasis, so they perpetuate the deceit, all the while feeding the pejorative interpretation of the adjective "academic". I bet that person got glowing remarks from his peers about the "social relevancy" of the project, etc...
Best regards,
==================================
Carlos Pires
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Design & New Media MFA // Communication Design PhD Student @ FBA-UL
Check the project blog:
http://thegolemproject.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|