Dear All,

Despite the changing headers, these recent threads circle around a common problem. On one hand, the problem involves boundary work. On the other, it involves definitions and defining what we mean by the word “design.” To the degree that these threads involve definition, nearly no one has actually presented a definition, not in the posts and not in the referenced articles.

Merriam-Webster’s defines the word definition in this way: “a : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol (example: dictionary definitions); b : a statement expressing the essential nature of something, c : a product of defining, 2: the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group.”

In a loose, folksy way, some of the attempt to define the word “design” might be seen as statements expressing what their authors view as the nature of design. But they have not been developed well. This is not what I’d expect on a research list dealing with doctoral education.

One list member wrote me a private comment off-list. The comment was private, so I will not name him. I quote him without permission: “Much of the discussion seems to be the prayer to St. Venn: ‘Please make me the center of the diagram’.”

Much of the material put forward as definitions has in fact been statements of boundary work. That’s OK. Establishing boundaries is a way of saying, “I do design because I do [x]. The rest of you folks are lovely people, but you don't really do design. You do [y].”

These are not definitions. They are opinions and claims to the term design based on personal criteria.

To establish definitions researchers, scholars, and scientists engage in careful work. I have sometimes been told off-list that I’m too fussy about these things, asking for careful conversation when a discussion list is best suited to sharing opinions. Perhaps this is so. Since people assert their opinions, often suggesting that their opinions are — for want of the exact words — “true”, “valid”, or “correct”, it seems to me that one must distinguish between expert opinion and simple belief.

If all we require is belief, then anyone’s beliefs are on equal footing. After all, everyone believes something. Every design students believes something about design. If all beliefs are equally valid, the newest design student has as much to say about design as a lecturer. Every lecturer believes something about design. If all beliefs are equal, a newly-appointed lecturer must be as great an expert as a professor who has wrestled with a problem for many years, checking facts, testing hypotheses, and probably rejecting most hypotheses. In that conception of the world, of course, someone who owns a mining operation based on dirty coal has as much to say about climate change as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

If people wish to state their opinions about design, that’s their privilege. Once we begin to use terms such as “definition,” I think we need a higher standard.

There have been some interesting reflective contributions to these threads that discuss the issues without offering definitions — for example, Ali Ilhan, Sabine Junginger, Gjoko Muratovski, or Lubomir Popov. Other people have asked interesting questions — and questions are obviously open-ended, as contrasted with assertions or definitions. But nearly all the definitions offered have been significantly problematic. And it’s not a matter of writing good English or not — one can state elegant concepts in clumsy English.

In responding to Sandra Bermudez, Richard Herriott wrote, “If I am going to be strict in my definition of design I’d call your current work planning or management.”

In my view, Richard *cannot* be strict in his definition of design. He has not yet offered a clear definition to which he can strictly adhere. Rather, he has presented an opinion. Richard’s opinions is that people who deal with something visual and aesthetic are designers. All the rest of us are doing something else.

In one of his notes, Richard rejected Herbert Simon’s definition as too broad. Simon includes such fields as management and medicine in his definitions of design. I tend to agree with Simon, and I’d argue that Sandra is engaged in design practice.

But Richard Herriott also reject Richard Buchanan’s four orders of design. He writes, “I seem to recall concluding Buchanan over-reached a bit with what design was when it got to the fourth order.” This may be so — but then, I’d like to know how Richard came to this conclusion. Why does Buchanan over-reach? I don’t see it. Perhaps I’m missing something. If I am missing something, it would help to know exactly what it is that I’ve overlooked.

It may well be the case that all the rest of us are doing something other than design. If so, I’d like to see a clear, careful definition of design that marks out why Richard Herriott does design and we don’t.

In my view, design is a necessarily interdisciplinary field. This naturally leads to ambiguities in any definition powerful enough to cover all instances of design. For me, dictionary definitions and Herbert Simon’s admittedly broad definition have this covering power.

If we want to play word games by saying that Sandra Bermudez is engaged in planning or management, then I’d want to see the definition to which one can strictly adhere in excluding her work.

If Sandra is to be excluded, of course, then we might consider taking all those courses and degree programs in such fields as strategic design and service design out of design schools. To be clear: I am not suggesting this. I say that this kind of thing follows logically from the claim that Sandra is engaged in planning or management but not in design. (I am also not asserting that any specific course belongs in a specific school — these fields require expertise, just as industrial design or graphic design require expertise. A school that offers a master’s degree in service design taught by people who have never worked in the field would be as problematic as a school that hired mathematicians and chemists to teach graphic design simply because they use computers and graphic designers use computers.)

At any rate, I have been struggling with these overlapping threads. Everyone has the right to state an opinion. All opinions are permissible. Not all opinions are equal in merit. When we begin to use terms such as “definition,” one expects more than mere opinion. When the opinion attempts to establish boundaries between practices that constitute design as contrasted with other practices that are not to be granted the label of design, one expects a better explanation.

Yours,

Ken

--

Richard Herriott wrote:

—snip—

If I am going to be strict in my definition of design I´d call your current work planning or management.

—snip—

Sandra Bermudez wrote:

—snip—

I was trained as graphic designer and started working as web designer, by the beginning more on the making: drawing interfaces and coding them. As long as the projects were more complex I had to focus more on the definition of the requirements, then on the problem, finally on the people.
That's more UX. When UX was more complex and I had to be accountable to the business, I became Product Manager and then Head of Product. Now I'm also working with my city government in the definition of public policies for AI development.

And I wonder myself: is this still design?

Now I constantly invoke sociology, psychology and humanities principles to face the concerns of my day to day practice. Recently I attended a symposium of techno-sociology and now I feel tempted to address the way I do design as applied sociology.

And yet, we still need "traditional" design.

So, is "strategic" design the evolution of "traditional" design? An opposition? A displacement?

—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
-----------------------------------------------------------------