My apologies Ken and Krishnesh. I seemed to have overlooked sending these comments earlier.
Ken Friedman wrote "It’s difficult to see how to expect anything to change when the overwhelming majority of 20,000 design programs work on the basis of a relatively common tradition.”
What we are talking about is how the tradition you refer to should change to improve our approach to research, education and practice. I think we are talking about and trying to understand changes already underway in all three domains of design as a result of the current focus on humanistic considerations, user experience, and what cognitive science, evolutionary psychology, modern technology, and the current marketplace bring to the discourse about how we might reformulate what we do.
Ken also wrote "The empirical research required (of a PhD candidate studying what IBM is doing) would take more than three years, making this impossible within the Bologna scheme or at universities in the UK or Australia. It would also require a significant foundation in management studies, organisation theory, and some acquaintance with organisational psychology. Depending on the issues that emerge, it would likely require a serious understanding of micro-economics, innovation studies, and technology. That would make too great a stretch for most PhD students in design, and the lack of familiarity with design would make it a difficult subject for PhD students in other fields.”
This seems to assume that fresh minds are not capable ones, and that the PhD candidate has to meet requirements that prevent them from generating new knowledge, or do critical and constructive thinking, perhaps in concert with others that have more knowledge and expertise on a subject than they do. I will soon post a curriculum for interdisciplinary design from the 90’s that funded Master’s candidates in a way that allowed them to identify and work with outside experts and organizations on issues, knowledge, and methods relevant to their interests and objectives. They learned far more and did better work than if they had to study under faculty members that did not have the knowledge they needed or that did not share their objectives. I learned a lot more too.
> Krishnesh Mehta <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> MBAs/corporate/industry, they say we also do
> this - they say "we also do human centric, study user needs, do it
> iteratively, do iterative prototyping, non linearly....So HOW is Design
> thinking different?" COMMENTS PLEASE….
Design thinking is different because its objectives and values are different. It is an effort to resolve problematic situations in ways that improve our understanding and reformulation of the subject, situation, or object we focus our minds and skills on. Creativity can occur in many ways but can most easily be understood as the highest form of design thinking that creates something new, and significant in our lives and culture. If you want a more developed explanation please begin with my paper " issues, Assumptions and Components in A Theory of Design Thinking" at academia. edu or that can be reached through Googling my name. I’d like to know what you think in response.
Thank you both,
Chuck
Charles Burnette
[log in to unmask] <mailto:[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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|