Richard,
Perhaps true today, but this is the origin story for most fields of design. The methods and mindsets from an existing design discipline are applied increasingly to a new domain, communities of practice emerge, degree programs are formed, etc.
Indeed, this is already happening. Designers are designing strategy, policy, social change, organizational transformation, etc. The program I’m in at Parsons teaches students strategic design, which we see as design as an alternative to management consulting.
If you remain committed to the primacy of aesthetics (or artifacts, or other traditional traits of design), then perhaps you are prioritizing the boundary more than the thing the boundary is meant to demarcate. There are growing communities of designers who describe what they are doing as design, with little to no involvement of aesthetics or artifacts. There’s scholarly literature on the topic. There are degree programs at respected design schools. This all seems to be evidence of design that the traditional artifact-centric and aesthetic-centric definitions would exclude.
I suppose you could double down on the exclusion, but I think you’d just be begging the question.
I get the utility you mention of having a boundary. I suggest there is a better, more accurate, more useful boundary we can draw.
-a
> On May 31, 2019, at 3:55 AM, Richard Herriott <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Designers found more ways than pencils to solve design problems; some of those methods are useful outside design; the deployment of those
> new methods does not make what is done with them "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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|