Terry,
A quick note to support you: I am doing a mid scale bibliometric analysis
of product design literature, between 2000-2015. There are more than 15000
articles in the database I created, and as you said only a small portion
comes from non-engineering designers, proportionately. Again not saying
anything about the importance or impact. And you will be suprised about the
variance.
My two cents,
Ali
On Tue, Jun 26, 2018 at 11:31 Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> If you look at the history of the design research movement you will find
> that it was started by engineering designers and to date the majority of
> design research (by a very large proportion) is undertaken in engineering
> design.
>
> Other design fields started to be included in design research after about
> 20 years (by the early 1980s). For the first 10 years, this mainly
> involved architecture and planning, later (in the 1990s) the other Art and
> Design fields began to be included more.
>
> The Art and Design fields, particularly the visual arts (as taught in Art
> and Design courses in universities and in Art and Design schools) remain
> the minor parties in design research as a whole.
>
> What you are seeing is that if you do not look beyond the publications and
> organisations of the art and design fields, you do not see the massive
> amount of work that happens in design research in other fields (and my much
> of which visual art designers benefit).
>
> This is not to say that design research does not happen in art and design
> fields, only to say that it is a very small part of design research as a
> whole.
>
> Regards,
> Terry
>
> ==
> Dr Terence Love
> MICA, PMACM, MAISA, FDRS, AMIMechE
> CEO
> 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 Richard Herriott
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2018 4:02 PM
> To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: Help! Our field needs a new name:
>
> Dear Ken:
>
> (I have attached the original message so others can follow the argument)
>
> Thanks for your message. As always, you ask good questions which I shall
> try to do justice to.
>
> Dealing with the "invisible" things: they are the result of engineering
> and problem solving. At best some of the apparent bits like the medical
> equipment you mentioned involve shaping and the doing of what David Pye
> calls useless work. This satisfies my very lowest criteria of design (in my
> strict usage) of eliminating visual noise. An engineer who lays out a tidy
> engine bay or an okay-looking electric plug does this sort of thing out of
> what one might call courtesy to the user even if it doesn´t affect
> performance. A waiter in a restaurant puts down the service quietly in
> front of the guest for the same reason even if it won´t affect the
> nutritional content of the food.
>
> " Is it necessary that designers engage with the visual to design
> invisible processes or system that work well?", you asked. I am trying to
> argue that designers are the ones who engage with the visible. Others are
> planners or engineers though a designer can do some of that too. If
> designers worked with planners our infrastructure and city layouts would
> not be so horrible. They don´t often do this though. This is because in the
> allocation of work such tasks go to professionals who see the aesthetic as
> outside their purview, as somehow extraneous. Their work lacks the
> courtesy of the waiter.
>
> "What do you mean by the aesthetic dimension?" By this I mean the sensory,
> chiefly visible and tactile but extending to sound and haptics. A tax
> systems might be easy to engage with and efficient. It is a bit of a
> stretch to call it beautiful unless one is referring to the elegance of the
> system (a maths sense of elegant) of the moral acceptability of the
> outcome. I would not call that design work but planning with courtesy and
> ethics.
>
> When I was talking of the engineer regarding the breeze block wall and the
> Baroque façade, I was thinking that they are seen as functionally
> equivalent. I didn´t mean the engineer as a person would not see differencs
> (though to judge by the monstrous crudity of Irish civil engineering - I am
> Irish - one might wonder) but only that both objects hold up the roof and
> keep the rain out. From that engineering point of view a lump of concrete
> and a fine church are equivalent.
>
> I have indeed read Buchanan´s article and have lectured upon its contents.
> If people haven´t read it, it´s worth a close read. Influential as it is, I
> seem to recall concluding Buchanan over-reached a bit with what design was
> when it got to the fourth order.
>
> There isn´t a mysterious quality to designers in my view - it´s that they
> want to make things that would look noticeably appealing when drawn. That
> brings me to the visual. The designer draws a shape that is aesthetically
> rich and then tries to make a physical thing that reflects that design
> intent. "Would I draw it that way?" is the test of the 3D artefact from an
> aesthetic point of view. I have expanded on this in my essay " What is
> like to see a bat?"
>
> http://www.svid.se/en/Research/Design-Research-Journal/Research-articles/Research-articles-2017/What-is-it-like-to-see-a-bat/
> where this visual sense is discussed.
>
> Design research deals with what these designers do.
>
> I hope this goes some way to answering your questions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard
>
> -----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: Monday, June 25, 2018 10:34 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Help! Our field needs a new name:
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> You wrote, “However, from within design we should be alert to what design
> is and is not. Simon’s famous definition is way too broad. If we add the
> visual and aesthetic to it we arrive at a reasonably defensible
> definition.”
>
> This leaves me with two questions. The first question involves the visual.
> Many of things that we now design are invisible. They constitute processes,
> services, or hidden structures that enable other things to work. Other
> things that we design involve visible parts — but we do not measure the
> success of the visible parts based on visual qualities.
>
> Last month, I spent ten days in the hospital, with a week in an isolation.
> I found myself thinking often of how many of the processes that I required
> were purposefully and carefully designed, often quite well, despite the
> fact that I only saw a tiny part of the process where it specifically
> affected me. I only learned about some aspects of the systems inadvertently
> when physicians explained to me how they arrived at one decision or another.
>
> Other things were quite important and entirely visible, but the qualities
> they represented had little to do with how they looked. For example, for
> blood tests, many systems now permit medical specialists to use only one
> needle and a special device rather than multiple needles: the device is
> such that the person taking blood uses a series of different devices
> resembling test tubes with a rubber seal on one end, placing one after the
> next within the single device and its one needle. When you are being tested
> for blood four or five times a day, you don’t care how the thing looks: if
> it works so you are only pierced once each time, you are grateful for the
> change from earlier systems.
>
> Is it necessary that designers engage with the visual to design invisible
> processes or system that work well?
>
> The second question involves the word “aesthetic.” This word makes sense
> in one way, but it remains quite vague. What do you mean by the aesthetic
> dimension? Depending on the definitions you use, a tax system may have
> aesthetic dimensions — or it may not. The same applies to many of the kinds
> of things that meet Simon’s admittedly broad definition.
>
> Much of the problem in these recurring debates involves attempting to
> demarcate boundaries that may not exist in the real world. If we want to
> argue that people are not designers who design systems, artifacts, and
> processes without visual or aesthetic dimensions, then we’re excluding from
> the practice of design many people who we might otherwise think of as
> designers.
>
> People really do design breeze block walls. Some of those people are
> engineers, some are architects, some are construction managers. These
> artifacts are definitely different from a Baroque church exterior. I’ve
> never met anyone who designs a blunt functional wall who would say that
> this wall is the same to them as a Baroque church exterior. People
> recognize the differences between different kinds of designed things.
> People who design functional things all day may appreciate the beauty of
> something designed for prayer and glorification just as much as you or I
> might do.
>
> Again, I recommend Richard Buchanan’s article, "Design Research and the
> New Learning.” The four orders of design offers a useful way to think about
> design.
>
>
> https://www.ida.liu.se/divisions/hcs/ixs/material/DesResMeth09/Theory/01-buchanan.pdf
>
> It seems to me odd to say that one may fulfill Simon’s definition yet not
> be a designer — perhaps I am wrong, but then it would help to have better
> and more clear definitions of design and designers. Without that, there
> would have to be some mysterious quality that designers possess, a quality
> that others do not possess, that renders them “designers” as contrasted
> with people who would otherwise be designers.
>
> This may be the case. If it is, defining and explaining it clearly is the
> purpose of research on these issues.
>
> I’d be interested in a clear answer to my two questions.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|