Dear Ken,
Adding the purpose to a definition of design to clarify is , well - clarifying, and offering improved precision.
Implicit in it, is that many people like loose terminology because it offers more status: and more precision cuts that down.
For example, I could claim to be an environmental designer (wow), but doing only the environmental design related to crime prevention is somehow lesser - though more accurate
The second half of my post was humour... illustrating both the benefits in precision of that path of defining design, and the way it chops away status.
Example:
The design activity of 'Helping clients to make lots of money by creating for them psychologically-manipulative visual designs'
is a pretty accurate description of what a 'graphic designer' does.
Yet somehow, for some (e.g. in a university course manual) it might seem a little uncomfortable for one's teaching or professional activities to be accurately described in that way. The public status moves away from design hero to something a bit not so nice.
If you remember the discussions you were involved in on 'demolish the business school' a couple of months ago. This fits with it. It all depends how you define design and how the public see it...
Warm regards,
Terry
==
Dr Terence Love
MICA, PMACM, MAISA, FDRS, AMIMechE
Director
Design Out Crime & CPTED Centre
Perth, Western Australia
[log in to unmask]
www.designoutcrime.org
+61 (0)4 3497 5848
==
ORCID 0000-0002-2436-7566
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2018 9:17 PM
To: PhD-Design <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Clarifying my request about the word "Design." (Once again
Dear Terry,
This seems to suggest that every phrase designating design or attempting to define a kind of design should be a gerund phrase of 9, 10, even 12 words.
The first thought that came to me on reading this was that this is an attempt to build a model of the design field that resembles the Ptolemaic model of the solar system.
There was a time during which Ptolemaic astronomy made more accurate predictions than Copernican astronomy. It did so at the price of a suite of Rube Goldberg mechanisms with deferrents and epicycles, wheels turning on wheels.
The Ptolemaic model was superficially accurate in the sense that it enabled correct astronomical predictions of planetary motion in the solar system. It was also inaccurate because it offered a misleading picture of the solar system and gave an utterly incorrect idea of the larger universe. The shift to the Copernican model allowed astronomers and physicists to conceive an understanding of the universe that ultimately became accurate and far richer. The Copernican model led to modern astronomy and modern physics. The price was thinking through and overcoming several centuries of challenges from Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton to Annie Cannon, Henrietta Leavitt, and Edwin Hubble … up through the discoveries we still make today. None of this would have been possible if we had remained mired in the epicycles of Ptolemaic astronomy.
Occam’s Razor suggests that there is reasoned simplicity as well as inaccurate oversimplification. 10-word-gerund phrase constitute a form of needless overcomplexification: “using a ten-word phrase when a two-word phrase will do.”
While Occam’s Razor is not a perfect guide to accuracy, it is a good heuristic. In this case, natural language works better that long gerund phrases. And I’d hate to imagine writing a paragraph that attempts to convert some of these phrases into descriptions. Fortunately, I don’t have to. We have plenty of usable words that do the job.
Yours,
Ken
—
Terry Love wrote:
—snip—
The same approach could be used to clearly identify to the public the purposes and activities associated with creating other kinds of design, such as,
'Making lots of money through psychologically-manipulative visual designs', or;
'Taking control of a country by fact-ignoring media campaign designs', or;
'Building false personal status through social media promotional designs'...
—snip—
Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (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 ||| 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|