Dear All
Upon reflection on this thread maybe it is important to make a distinction
between "design thinking" and "designing as an act of practice".
If I remember correctly, John Chris Jones in his seminal work of Design
Methods does point out that ability to draw is fundamental to design
practice, in fact *design-by-drawing* is a traditional design process model
as discussed by him. He further suggests that practicing designers follow a
structured thinking process broken into phases when approaching a
"project": *incubation, insight, transformation.*
Having said that, Bill Buxton (sketching user experiences) points out the
ability to think creatively (incubation) doesn't make you any more a
designer than ability to add numbers on a shopping receipt makes you a
qualified mathematician. The ability to achieve an insight (aha!
moment) followed by an elegant transformation (simplifying the complex
challenge into a simple solution) is essential to qualify in being called a
"designer". Maybe its why politicians decline the title.
Maybe this is what distinguishes us practicing designers from so many other
creative thinkers in society »»» politicians, parliamentarians »»» who no
doubt apply an ability to incubate a thought in their mind with an
intention to solve a problem (social, political) but due to their lack of
ability to develop an insight and ultimately transform often ends up in
half-hearted measures causing a mess in society, leaving it to specialists
(bureaucrats, judiciary, law enforcement) to do the part of interpreting
(insight) laws, policies and transform the half-baked
measures (implementation) into acceptable interventions for the benefit of
the citizenry at large. From my experience in India I can say, Of course,
often times such a process model fails completely.
I will paraphrase what has already been said above in the sense that yes,
politicians don't actually immerse themselves in designing as a
practice, to the extent of outputting a tangible "product" which human
beings can interface with, but the laws they birth in parliaments and
resulting political debates have tangible impact on citizenry, shaping
lives.
The argument above can at least be seen in motion in a country like India,
currently in the throes of a great transformation itself (from policies set
out in the 90's). Since a few years a *"National Design Policy"* is in
effect and officially enacted by the Indian Parliament. Design has been
cited as a strategic tool for upward mobilization of the masses and
industrialization of the nation (again what the politicians really mean
here is design thinking, but who dare argue with them). Uptil a few years
back, there was even a discussion on forming a* "Ministry of Design"*
to inject design thinking into managing wicked problems like rapid
urbanisation, disease eradication (HIV, polio, etc), and social upliftment
of half a billion citizens as India marches towards GDP parity with EU and
USA by 2025-30.
Finally sometimes even designers (Indian context) are asked to act as
politicians and immerse themselves into policy planning. Famously Charles
and Ray Eames were invited to India in the 50's to formulate a
design-enabled strategy for the upliftment of India (my Indian colleagues
on this list will be much better informed than me). They formulated the*
"Eames **India **Report" *which cited designerly thinking, creativity,
design thinking as tools for training and harnessing the grassroots
craftsmenship/ artistry skills of India for her development. As they were
practicing designers, they endowed the report with also insights and an
elegant actionable transformative solution »» a design school to act as a
guiding light for a *"Design Enabled India".* The National Institute of
Design (NID) was thus born in the 60's, and to this day different
ministries of India (Railways, Defence, Space Research, Health, Human
Resources Development) hand off projects of national importance to them
(often times wicked problems) to solve and point a design enabled solution
when politicians, bureaucrats, judiciary have failed.
On a side note»»»
I incubated on this mail for couple days (disparate thoughts), gained an
insight (pattern of arguments), and transformed it (synthetic text
body). Is it Design? No, though design thinking perhaps (thought process).
Politicians do this as well, on a much grander scale, when they present
election manifestos (which becomes their identity). Political parties in
India are even required to "choose" a party symbol (hand, bicycle, broom,
flower, each must be very distinct and easily "recognisable" etc.) so that
illiterate citizens can recall a manifesto by linking it to a promissory
symbol. Like a brand.
I wish you all a Good Sunday Morning.
Thank You all for this informative debate.
Shujoy
On 4 February 2017 at 21:16, Lubomir Savov Popov <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I regret I could not enter the discussion earlier. At this time, I see a
> couple of interesting issues emerging from a discussion that started with
> focused questions on politicians' work as designers or something like that.
>
> When I went over all mails, I was amazed how quickly the discussion spun
> from the original focused question to the phenomenon of design.
>
> The very nature of the original question spun the discussion in
> methodological turn to a fundamental category that is crucial for
> qualifying activities or phenomena as design. However, what impressed me
> even more, is that the design field still lacks a common interpretation and
> understanding of design and still lacks accepted definitions.
>
> Our colleagues mentioned several complimentary approaches to understanding
> and defining design, but with a hint of exclusivity. All this indicates
> that the design research community needs to invest more in the
> methodological foundations and the conceptual groundwork of the field.
> There is a huge field for study and a lot of dissertations and books to be
> written.
>
> Now on a different note, more closely related to the original question. I
> personally would have approach the phenomenon of design from several sides:
> with an activity theory approach (design as an activity); with a
> cultural-historical approach, searching for the origins of design activity
> and design; with a "substantive" approach, investigating design via its
> product; a functional approach, inscribing design in the social system; a
> sociology of professions approach; and so forth. I talked above about books
> and dissertations. I am not sure the phenomenon of design can be analyzed
> within the limits of a journal article. Such an article will sound as an
> executive summary.
>
> Many of our discussions spill slowly in several directions because of the
> disciplinary biases that we carry. These biases are products of the
> disciplinary traditions that we follow and in which we are immersed. I
> personally am aware of most of my disciplinary biases, and prefer to talk
> and refer mostly for environmental design, in particular buildings and
> interiors. I am aware that the industrial design and graphic design realms
> are quite different.
>
> In the build environment realm, we have an well-established profession
> like architecture. It is institutionalized. Are architects designers? Of
> course! But at a close look, we can see that the architectural profession
> is segmented into several different work/job positions. When the primary
> job of architects is to design, they are designer. As a junior architect, I
> had to sign my design drawings as a Designer. The Head Designer was
> inspecting and signing, then--the Team Leader (first level manager) was
> signing, then the Department Manager (clearly not on a design position);
> and after that--the inspecting architect or corporate controller (not a
> design position). All these people had architectural education and
> practical experience, but many of them were not designing on the job.
> Rather, they had management, supervisory, and inspection responsibilities.
>
> It is a matter of developing further design theory in order to make a
> decision which of them are designers, and which are not. Besides, when my
> Department Manager was working at night at his private one-person
> operation, he was working as a designer. He was the boss and the designer.
> He had to draw.
>
> A complimentary example. My Department Manager had to spend a lot of time
> on managerial issues. But at the same time his pleasure was to
> conceptualize each project of his subordinates. No one could decline his
> design imposition. So, although design was not specified as a major part of
> his job description, he was still designing. I mention this just to
> illustrate the complexity of the phenomena related to the design as a
> profession and activity.
>
> Are politicians designers? I would humbly mention that we need a better
> design theory in order to handle this question. As a caveat, I will say
> that in a quick listserv discussion there is no time for getting in depth,
> no time to avoid some typos or small errors, or some inconsistencies.
> However, I find such discussions very useful because at the end of the day,
> they bring new perspectives and insights, new ideas, change of mind, and so
> forth. What I learned from this discussion up to now is that it is too much
> for me. I can't go deeper and I cannot bring an ultimate answer, at least
> at this time and probably in the near future.
>
> Just a few ideas.
>
> Thank you for attention,
>
> Lubo
>
> -----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 João
> DeSouzaLeite
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2017 11:49 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Are politicians designers?
>
> Dear Ken, hi Mauricio, hello all of you.
>
> This is my first time here, and I am speaking from Brazil.
> But even if I was an Englishman or from Australia, I would say that.
> I do understand there is different ways to deal with any kind of project,
> if it is a product, if it is a service or even a public policy. Besides
> that, politicians are not a general category. Their actions have to do with
> their social and cultural context and historical background, I can say “at
> least”.
>
> As John Thackara once put, design is all about priority and decision, and
> I can say this was a political statement. Because everything one designs
> has to deal with that kind of logic.
> You can see that on Rittel's papers, on Buchanan's papers and so on.
> If one treats design as a discipline, we have to differ this from the
> profession category.
> So, Klaus, if you ask someone if he considers himself a designer, most
> probably the answer is no.
> But if you try to develop an understanding on how things get to be done in
> real life, considering all aspects involved, certainly there will be a
> common ground of understanding.
>
> As Ken said, Herbert Simon pointed out, long time ago, this kind of thing.
> And from that time till now, many other reflectioners on our field have
> pointed the same thing.
>
> In my country, for instance, and I believe that in many others, we have a
> very special circumstance.
> We do not praise logic. I mean, the long tradition of Western thinking. We
> are more emotional, people really believe in a kind of magic thought, so if
> you desire something, it doesn't matter how, it is going to happen. No, it
> doesn't. It doesn't work like that.
>
> So, if you, Mauricio, asks me if politicians are designers, I would say
> they can be. In an infinite number of levels, or layers. Public services
> have to be concrete, tangible, they have to be informed to different groups
> in society, and that demands a whole apparatus of defining procedures and
> things, of all kind.
>
> That is the way I understand it. Public policies and governance can be,
> right now, object of design reflection. Liz Moor and Guy Julier have been
> pointing this out. There are people working in that direction in Germany.
> That is why I understand we must try to be more aware of the *designing*
> issues rather than the fortification of a fellowship.
>
> My best regards to you all!
> João
>
>
>
>
> João de Souza Leite | PhD, Professor/Post Doctoral Researcher |
> ESDI/Uerj School of Design/ State University of Rio de Janeiro/ Brazil
>
> Rua General Artigas 361 #903 Leblon 22441-140 Rio de Janeiro, RJ Brasil
> Telefones: 55 21 2294.3775 / 55 21 9.9768.8608
>
> http://uerj.academia.edu/JoãodeSouzaLeite
>
> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Ken Friedman <
> [log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi, Klaus,
> >
> > You wrote,
> >
> > —snip—
> >
> > if you ask a politician whether he or she is a designer, the answer is
> > a clear NO if you ask an engineer whether he or she is a designer, the
> > answer is NO as well even if you ask an architect whether he or she is
> > a designer, the answer is most likely NO
> >
> > i read that designers design products, politicians don't terry wrote
> > that designers write specifications, politicians don't ken said once a
> > politician is elected he becomes a designer, i wouldn't call a
> > politician a designer unless he or she agrees to this designation,
> > which i doubt any politician will.
> >
> > —snip—
> >
> > I’ve got to agree with you in one respect, yet I’ve also got to disagree.
> >
> > If all responsible designations must be self-designations, it would be
> > difficult to discuss the world around us. I recall the well-known
> > politician Richard Nixon announcing, “The president is not a crook.”
> > Many of us would see key parts of the Nixon career in a different
> > light, but the fact remains that he was neither impeached nor
> > convicted. Of course, we don’t accept self-designation as the only
> measure of some cases.
> >
> > In a more reasonable light, I’d say that there are many people who do
> > not self-designate as designers, yet who nevertheless design. That’s
> > the core of Herbert Simon’s definition of the activity of design:
> > “Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing
> > existing situations into preferred ones.”
> >
> > There are several more issues. One is the question of those who
> > self-designate as design professionals, people who are paid to
> > undertake design as professional designers. Another is the question of
> > people who do not self-designate as designers, yet are nevertheless
> > paid as professional actors to “[devise] courses of action aimed at
> > changing existing situations into preferred ones.”
> >
> > I agree with several points of view, including — but not limited to —
> > my own. I have been interested for many reasons in comments by Mitch
> > Sipus, Liz Goodman, and Ali Ilhan. Now you’ve raised an idea that I
> > have not considered.
> >
> > Is it is possible to recognize and designate someone as a member of
> > any profession when they do not declare themselves to be such? Does
> > their own self-designation matter if they do what self-designating
> > professionals do when someone pays them to do so?
> >
> > Simon’s definition includes almost all practicing professions and most
> > professional practices. That virtue may also be a flaw.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > Email [log in to unmask] | Academia
> > http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I
> > http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
*Com os Melhores Cumprimentos,*
*----------------*
Best Regards,
Shujoy Chakraborty (Ph.D)
Asst. Professor - Interaction Design + Product Design
Faculty of Arts and Humanities (FAH) | University of Madeira (UMa)
email: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
www.uma.pt
-----------
Adjunct Faculty
National Institute of Design (NID)
Faculty of Industrial 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
