terry, ken, and others who have chimed in on the issue of defining design
it is never clear to me what you, terry, want to achieve with your arguments against dictionary definitions which you contrast with the meanings of words without saying what you conceive meanings to be.
first of all dictionaries define words in writing, i.e., in language. both the definiens and the definiendum are in language, usually the same. this makes dictionaries a closed system with common meanings, being the common connections between words and the expressions they stand for.
second, we are free to define terms within our community, for example the readers of a particular mathematical paper. mathematicians usually list their definitions for a particular treaty. there is no right or wrong as long as they are used consistently and understandable to readers, however specialized they may be.
third, at least since wittgenstein, we can define words not necessarily in terms expressions they conveniently abbreviate but in terms of use. so, the meaning of the word "DEPRESSION" is the history of its use within a community its users. there are of course differences among user groups. for therapists it means something different than poets, or for hydraulic engineers.
the dictionary link you, terry, provided fails to include (at least as far as i could discover) two forms of definition that we scientists are heavily rely on:
--- operational definitions, which describe a mechanism or procedure what brings forth the phenomenon defined. for example, in the sciences, time is defined by the design of a clock. in medicine, various diseases are defined by the treatment to which they respond, a meter is defined relative to an agreed upon standard.
--- theoretical constructs, which take an explanatory role in a theory. for example ENERGY does not exist as such except by explaining observations of movements. GRAVITY does not exist as such except in explanations for why masses are attracted to each other.
when it comes to define design, you can opt to define it in terms of use --
what self-identified designers say they do,
as the attribute that salespeople use to claim particular merchandize to be fashionable, or
how i am using the word.
.
you can also define it by spelling out the methods and practices that produce a design. then you limit yourself to articulable methods and practices and talk within a closed system of the methods and practices you are willing to consider legitimate definienda. i guess this is what you are striving for.
i prefer to define design as the discourse of a community of professional designers committed to facilitate the introduction of differences in the world of others (= non-designers). this includes my use of the word.
a discourse is practiced while constructing discourse specific realities.
a design discourse has to be open inasmuch as its concern includes the world of others,
a design discourse has to remain diverse as its differences introduce diversity in the worlds of others, and to be consistent,
a design discourse has to be reflexive by responding to the challenges of the implications of very differences it introduces in the society and culture in which design is practiced.
one can build not one but several theories of how designers cope with the challenges they create as well as respond to.
to me, herbert simon's frequently referred to definition of design as devising courses of actions that improve an existing state
is too limiting, not only because it renders designers to solving problem (that are usually defined as existing or by someone, a client) but mainly because
he is unaware of the role of language in processes of designing,
he does not address the social variables that designing affects -- the life of one communities might be improved at the expense of others. all realized designs have consequences,
he does not recognize that design can be realized only in a network of stakeholders
he does not have a place for unprecedented innovations that can emerge without identification of a problem, without something worthy of improvement
he does not acknowledge the inevitable reflexivity of designing: the experience of the design community being challenged by the differences is has introduced in the very society or culture in which design is practiced.
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 Ken Friedman
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 11:50 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Definitions
Dear Terry,
Your latest post on “definitions” fits together with your earlier comment on the New York Times article by Robert Frodeman and Adam Briggle. Every time you post, you assure us that if only we will begin to define design as a noun, this will straighten out some of the major theoretical difficulties in our field.
This begins to remind me of Cato the Elder. No matter what the topic of any debate in the Roman Senate, Cato ended every speech on every topic with the phrase, “Delenda est Cartago!” — “Carthage must be destroyed.”
No matter what the issue, it seems that you propose a “noun version of the definition of design” as the foundation of a major new design theory that will lead to “usable concepts and theories that are testable and align with the theories of other disciplines.”
As you note, “the alternative is to do the hard work and define practically usable concepts and theories.” Then you’ve got to publish them. So far, you haven’t even presented the actual critique of the two specifically sourced definitions that I offered you in response to your request. I gave you two definitions. Rather than carefully and explicitly demonstrate why they did not function effectively, you simply said, “Nope.” Then you said, “Got to add them to the list.” Except, as you admitted earlier, there is no list.
For the reasons I stated earlier, I prefer not to rejoin this debate. What might lure me back would be for you to post the answer you offered if I were to provide the definitions. I provided Simon and Merriam-Webster, with full sources and proper referencing.
Of course, there is still the issue of publishing the theoretical breakthroughs that follow if only we will define design as a noun. But publishing the theories you claim will follow takes work.
Cato the Elder proclaimed, “Carthage must be destroyed.”
Terry Love wrote, “The alternative is to do the hard work …”
Yours,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
—
Terry Love wrote:
—snip—
The alternative is to do the hard work and define practically usable concepts and theories that are testable and align with the theories of other disciplines.
As an aside and hint, as I've written before... the noun version of the definition of design does this for design researchers… .
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
