Hi Carlos,
E-mail and the written word a quire rigid and might contribute to miscommunication. I completely agree with you after you provided the context of your statement.
I agree that the concept of design thinking is bustardized in business and popular media. Actully, very often I am infuriated by that. At the same time, I am not sure how bad or good is this phenomenon. On the one hand, this compromises the concept of design; on the other hand, the general population is getting accustomed to the idea of designing everything. This can bring us closer business design, organizational design, and eventually to social design. I am not sure what to say, at this time. This is an issue that deserves research because it can be at the foundation of promulgating a design attitude and approach in all areas of social life.
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 10:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Expertise in Design and the Risk Backlash for Gaps in Knowledge
Dear Lubomir,
Of course I acknowledge there is "design thinking."
But the semantic network that forms in my mind when I think of "design thinking" has to do with what has been written about it by Bryan Lawson, or by Richard Buchanan, for instance.
Today, "design thinking" is mostly just another buzzword, a red-herring for guys in suits looking for new ways to take money from their customers... the same guys that think "creativity" is that thing you use to come up with the idea of doubling the size of the hole in toothpaste containers in order to sell more toothpaste.
Bruce Nussbaum himself has this to say:
"Design consultancies that promoted Design Thinking were, in effect, hoping that a process trick would produce significant cultural and organizational change. From the beginning, the process of Design Thinking was a scaffolding for the real deliverable: creativity. But in order to appeal to the business culture of process, it was denuded of the mess, the conflict, failure, emotions, and looping circularity that is part and parcel of the creative process. "
Read the whole article here:
http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663558/design-thinking-is-a-failed-experiment-so-whats-next
Apparently, the next snake oil is "Creative Intelligence".
It is quite interesting to notice that he acknowledges the rhetorical and marketing values of these buzzwords:
"(...) In my experience, when you say the word 'design' to people across a table, they tend to smile politely and think "fashion." Say 'design thinking,' and they stop smiling and tend to lean away from you. But say ?creativity" and people light up and lean in toward you."
That kind of put things in perspective.
PS:
Three years ago, when I decided that I would be focusing my PhD on creativity, one of the things I did was a Google image search. Guess what was the top hit? "Business people meeting around a table looking creative".
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
On 02/07/2015, at 14:41, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote:
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|