Personally I quite like what Nigel Cross once suggested - which is that rather than speak of Design Science (which may suggest that design ought to be governed by the cultures of science, or a kind of scientistic study of design), we can speak of a "Science of Design" where science here means more broadly some form of rigorous study. I think this is a good way to proceed -- remember that science has never always meant what it means now (assuming it does mean something stably positivist, even though this is not always uncontroversial). Until just before the enlightenment there was still the notion of a science, a scientia, which was governed by deductive, inferential logic (rather than by abduction/induction). Hence even theology could be a science (you can read Aquinas' Catena Aurena, his commentaries on scripture or his commentary on the book of Job and you'll see him making syllogistic inferences on passages of scripture - not the usual way you would read the bible!), or say proofs of God's existence, these were also scientific demonstrations.
Maybet the way to put it is this - if we are dissatisfied with DT, then the task for DT is for it to develop in the direction of a science of design. But then, as you might expect, what a science of design in turn means would be the subject of some tussle: what should belong to it, and what would count as focal or peripheral etc. But I think it's a very important question to answer, even if not always an easy one. What also is interesting perhaps is the diagnosis of the epistemological cultures that sometimes prevent us from answering that question well.
J
-----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 Filippo Salustri
Sent: Sunday, 22 November, 2015 10:19 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Design Thinking is not design article
Interesting...
On Nov 22, 2015 1:52 AM, "Francois Nsenga" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Klaus, you wrote:
>
> "any science explains how things work. designing means proposing
> something that changes how things work."
>
> Could/should the proposed 'design science' be aiming at explaining how
> 'design' activity proposes things (theories, methods, artifacts) that
> change how things work?
I've thought for decades that that's what design science was, as have many of my colleagues in engineering....
National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any attachments, may contain confidential information.
This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email by fault, please
notify the sender and delete it immediately.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|