Dear Erik,
The way in which you tarnished the concept of "design thinking" in your response to Don’s remarks was unfortunate. Of course inappropriate goals, inadequate methods, and unsatisfying outcomes from the thinking of a design team or designer are worth noting as Don rightly did. But I fear that your response denigrates and will harm a still emerging understanding of what goes on in a designer’s mind as they attempt to understand and improve a problematic situation, or respond with imagination and creativity to a need of desire of interest or concern. It seemed to me to invite diminished attention, research, and exploration regarding designing and its role in human affairs, an interpretation I am sure you did not want to convey.
It reminded me of Bruce Nussbaum’s 2013 attempt to replace the term design thinking with "Creative Intelligence”,doing so without defining either concept or how they might work together. Frustrated with the approach to “Design Thinking” at the time, he cited references and examples of creative intelligence, and repackaged them into components that he thought indicated the way toward "a new economics of creativity.” In my view Creative intelligence is simply another way of labeling and looking at Design Thinking.
Everyone wants design to be purposeful, forward looking, aware, and effective. We must be careful to define design thinking in a way that anyone can access it and learn through it. Each person's designerly thought should be made more understandable and effective, not diminished.
Or so I believe,
Chuck
of the goals and
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:25 AM, Erik Stolterman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> If we understand designing or a designerly approach similarly as a broad
> approach to inquiry and change then we can see why todays simplistic
> understanding of 'design thinking' will lead to the kind of results that
> you (Don) comment on in your post. And it will lead to a backlash when
> people will argue that they
> tried it' but it does not work. No one would argue that 'I tried the
> scientific method but it doesn't work' or 'I tried an artistic approach but
> it did not work' so there must be something wrong with the approach. I
> think there will be a serious negative development around 'design thinking'
> in the next few years, hopefully this will make it possible for us to
> develop a more stable and deeply rooted understanding and philosophy of a
> 'true' designerly approach.
Charles Burnette
[log in to unmask]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|