Dear Birger and Friends

I find myself nodding in full agreement with all your statements here on the issue of Evidence Based Design. There is a strong current across the world in the fields of management, technology as well as business that is trying to establish that "Design" and indeed "Design Thinking" is still quite primitive but that all this would change once we learn more about its nature and adopt good practices from a variety of science fields and rigorous research practices.

 For me design is about "what could be" based on our imagination and that situation is always in the future and to realise this "dream, imagination or vision" we will need to make and try before it gets manifested in the world as a "proposal" at first and then as a mor concrete offering. Prof Klaus Krippendorff tells us that design is about the making of these proposals and taking this forward with dialogue and cooperation and this view is i deed a very compelling one for me. 

For me these new design proposals are about change of meaning through structural or formal manipulations that bring new imaginations to the situation where past evidence gets sidelined if the offering is a radical one but this will certainly need to go through a rigorous process of evaluation in the marketplace and this kind of testing is just not possible in a laboratory due to the complexity that needs to be addressed. Conflicts are resolved through change of context and not diplomacy or good smart negotiation. Old conflicts are rendered impotent when these new offerings redefine the context itself.

My question is, how does Evidence Based Design deal with these kinds of situations where there is no prior art? The prehuman use of fire 2 million years ago is still my case in point. This was an act of design. What will be our next breakthroughs? Will we even recognise these when we are presented with these offerings by long haired and strangely behaving "designers" sitting and working at the periphery of our society. I now understand why design is so undervalued in terms of funding here in India. There is no evidence that it us truly useful or even critical!

What do you think?

With warm regards

M P Ranjan
15 July 2015 at 11.30 pm IST
from my iPad at home on the NID Ahmedabad campus 

Prof M P Ranjan
Independent Academic, Ahmedabad
Adjunct Professor (Design) Ahmedabad University
Author of blog : http://www.designforindia.com
Archive of papers : https://ahduni.academia.edu/RanjanMP
Sent from my iPad

> On 15-Jul-2015, at 3:31 pm, Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the informative replies.
> I think they are exciting but I also have some worries. There are many arguments and good points made and i am only able to repond to a few.
> 
> Luke thanks for pointing to the fact that evidence needs argument. I would go even further and say there is no evidence without interpretation and argument. 
> 
> Peter, thanks for the elaborative reply. I acknowledge the results form evidence based design in health care. I am not very knowledgable about EBD but from what I read I have the impression that its main body of research is a quite narrow application in interior design in a setting where it is possible to measure effects over time (hospitals). It seems to me that there are big challenges in generalizing these findings to other fields of design. 
> 
> Don thanks for your note. It points towards something that maybe could form a common ground. Maybe there is no sharp dichotomy between evidence based practice and lived experience as it is portrayed in the article from social work practice I mentioned in my original note. Maybe in design most of us have always been looking at knowledge production as something composed of many modes, approaches and components. So if this is a common realization in our community this could form a common ground. 
> 
> But I am not sure if there are still serious contradictions within what could be this common ground. I am not sure we would agree what to include and how to frame it. The causes for my worry is based on for example the former discussions on the need for design education to change. As I recall the arguments they are mainly about turning the design education towards a more scientific orientation, e.g. evidence based design. In other discussions designerly approaches are portrayed as less substantial and rigorous and hence less worth despite that the notion of rigor is inadequate when discussing the core notions of design as I will try to show.
> 
> Don, looking at your eight levels I am glad you make a point that the leveling is not about quality or goodness but the levels are about increasing degree of rigor. That is fine and I agree that all of those levels are relevant. But I would suggest that level 2 to 8 are only supportive to the core of design. This discussion triggered me to produce another list where rigor is of none or little relevance. This is a list of the core notions of design. It is a very foggy, difficult and hard to discuss list exactly because it escapes totally or partly issues of rigor and evidence. It is sorted from design-specific to more general notions. Some of these escape the realm of evidence and rigor totally because it is just a different dimension; others could be underpinned and supported but not replaced by e.g. evidence based design. The list maybe unfolds your level 1.
> 
> The core notions and the “jewels in the crown” of design are to my mind the following:
> 
> •    The notion of composition. Composition of space (like in a painting or an object or building) or time (like an interaction, a service, an experience). The composition of a process, a co-design workshop, an organization, a policy etc. Composition is relating and arranging things in a way that goes far beyond sheer assembly. I suggest this to be the most important notion of design.
> •    The notions of visual thinking, reflexive practice and design thinking
> •    The notion of creativity. To imagine and envisioning what could be.
> •    The notion of wholeness or Gestalt. To understand whole systems as figures rather than rigorous models. 
> •    The notion of wholeness across systems or the notion of the Gesamtkunstwerk
> •    The notion of expression or the poetic dimension of design. Symbols metaphors, analogies, semantics.
> •    The notion of thrownness (Geworfenheit). Being thrown into a situation where one cannot oversee the consequences of one’s action. Not acting has also its consequences.
> •    The notion of Fronesis, the experience and intellectual capacity acquired over time, how to judge and react and practice in relation to unique real life situations.
> •    The notion of the wicked problem
> •    The notion of dynamics, the moving target. While we plan, things change.
> •    The notion of adaptive expertise
> •    The notion of expert intuition (Dreyfus model)
> •    The notions of ethics, empathy, dialogue, values and politics
> 
> (disclaimer: Please criticize and massacre, subtract and add. I am not well informed on Heidegger nor Aristoteles, maybe others who know more could critique this?)
> 
> What worries me is that this flimsy and incomplete list is a list of notions off which many rarely are made explicit (with exceptions, e.g. The Design Way). I have the impression that composition is taught silently and tacitly at most design schools. It is the implicit result of the design studio model. (is this true? Maybe others have other impressions?) 
> Anyway, We tend to gravitate away from things that are tacit, hard to grasp, that one needs to practice and experience over time to understand and towards things that are seemingly logic, clear, undisputable and hard facts. This means we are constantly gravitating away from the core of design!
> 
> My list is hard to sell to clients, but when we work with them they will experience composition skills, visual thinking etc and this is highly appreciated.
> 
> I agree design needs to change, but I am wondering which sub-domain of design needs to change in what way? Personally in our common ground I would like to put more emphasis on the above list, leaning on EBD and others through collaborating with those design researchers who are experts,  while others might emphasize developing e.g. EBD. 
> 
> If this degree of inclusiveness, acknowledgment, interaction and appraisal of pluralism is embedded in our conception of our common ground I think we are making real progress. Is there reason for my worry or am i trying to break down open doors?
> 
> What does the list think?
> 
> 
> Birger Sevaldson (PhD)
> Professor at Institute of Design
> Oslo School of Architecture and Design
> Norway
> Phone (0047) 9118 9544
> www.birger-sevaldson.no
> www.systemsorienteddesign.net
> www.ocean-designresearch.net
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------