dear chuck,
i don't want to be picky but i feel that your question needs to be rephrased in order for me to answer them.
i said:
"any science explains how things work. designing means proposing something that changes how things work."
you asked:
" Could/should the proposed 'design science' be aiming at explaining how 'design' activity proposes things (theories, methods, artifacts) that change how things work?
Now please explain how designers propose or do anything without suggesting how purposeful thought occurs in human beings and how values and skills shape thought and action as designers work individually, in groups, or in communities."
my answer:
explanations require facts to be explained, for example in terms of causes, origins, purposes, or consequences. aristotle's causalities come to mind.
designers are faced with the epistemological problem that innovations by definition have no precedent. designs cannot be explained as physicists explain their observations. designers need to justify a design (proposal, plan, or improvement on something already existing) to stakeholders concerning what it will do for them. justifications may employ generalizations of theories from what is known to what is not yet experienced, demonstrations, tests of prototypes, etc..
my challenge to you:
tell me how you think you think (as a designer or ordinary individual) without using words of a language that you and i can understand.
you quoted me as saying:
"designers who work in interdisciplinary development teams are unlikely to be taken seriously when withdrawing into their subjectively convenient design thinking abilities, implicitly denying this ability to team members from other disciplines".
and you continued to talk of the contributions that designers make. you amplified my point: it is not the particular thinking that distinguishes designers from non-designers but the contributions they make to an interdisciplinary project, to which i would like to add, "can be justified whether in terms of preceding research, following a proven design method, demonstrating the improvements they entail, of fitting the project, etc."
having worked in interdisciplinary teams, i've found that proposals which are justified by claiming unique mental abilities, tend to make a difference mainly if not only when the proposer is granted unquestionable authority (being considered the genius, having knowledge that nobody else has, or being in the position of a decision maker). i have heard of many designers that aspire to have such influence but i can't imagine this being an educational goal.
of course designers think, so do all participants in interdisciplinary teams. but they can match statistical data and hard evidence only with valid arguments for the benefits of their contributions, not with talking about how they think differently.
klaus
-----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 Charles Burnette
Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2015 10:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Thinking is not design article
Sure,
Klaus
Apparently 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?
Now please explain how designers propose or do anything without suggesting how purposeful thought occurs in human beings and how values and skills shape thought and action as designers work individually, in groups, or in communities.
Similarly, you wrote:
> designers who work in interdisciplinary development teams are unlikely to be taken seriously when withdrawing into their subjectively convenient design thinking abilities, implicitly denying this ability to team members from other disciplines.
That seems to me to be a subjective valuation based on scanty evidence not a "simple epistemological fact” as you suggest. All members of a team will presumably draw on what they know and do when objectives are shared. Their distinctive contributions will be acknowledged for whatever they are. Thought that is not communicated is not necessarily convenient or implicit in denying anything.
Or, so I believe,
Chuck
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|