Dear Ali --

I am sympathetic to your (perhaps exaggerated) confusion.  Coming from an ethnographic background, I often try to remind myself that the definitions of design that the scholarly design researchers on this list find useful  do not need to match those that professional designers find useful in order to be legitimate.

My own ongoing research in science and technology traces how interaction designers enact definitions of "design" and "not design" in everyday work. I am a professional interaction designer as well. From that I can tell you with confidence that, for many commercial interaction designers at least, politicians are not designers in any way that counts. 

(Unless, of course, those politicians are making wireframes or service blueprints on the side.)

My take is that boundary-expansion on this list is useful to certain positions and approaches because it expands the potential field of inquiry. However, I find my own analytical clarity in bounding definitions through empirical engagement with specific sites and the activities taking place there. Otherwise, as you say, my arguments get entirely too muddy. 

But that's me, coming from a strong tradition of fieldwork-grounded theorizing. I like my conclusions modest. 

Cheers,
Liz 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Ali Ilhan" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: ‎2/‎3/‎2017 12:36 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Are politicians designers?

Dear All,



I would like to add yet another dimension to this debate, a dimension that
oftentimes confuses me, and for which answers –at least for me-seem pretty
elusive. As this post highlights we, as the design research community, have
begun to find design and designing almost everywhere, from governance to
economy. But every profession, every discipline and [every concept] is
almost always an attempt of bracketing. There is always “boundary work”
involved and there are always things that are left beyond that boundary. By
pushing that boundary infinitely outwards, it seems to me that we are
creating an inherent danger to make design –as a professional act-,
irrelevant. If there is nothing beyond the bracket, there is no need for
that bracket: the concept looses analytical clarity.  Or to put it more
bluntly, if design is everywhere, who really needs designers? (Ok, I am
exaggerating). This is why I found Simon’s classical definition both
liberating and dangerous. His definition is so wide that even sitting on a
chair becomes designing (the existing situation was me standing next to my
desk with a dull ache in my knee)-I exaggerated again.



I am no expert in these matters (I quantitatively study how
fields/disciplines grow or die), so please note that I do not have a
definitive standpoint on this issue, but I am, more than anything, very
confused.



Warm wishes,



Ali o. Ilhan, PhD


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------