Dear Klaus Krippendorff,
Yes, that's me -Krishnesh Mehta...my new email id is [log in to unmask]
I would sure love to hear your solution.
thanks,
krishnesh mehta
On Tue, Sep 3, 2019 at 5:59 AM Krippendorff, Klaus <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I am curious: are you the Mehta who a couple of years ago posed an
> interesting problem of how to calculate reliability, a problem which I
> solved. I wanted to give credit to the one who posed the problem but didn’t
> keep the full name and email address.
> Klaus Krippendorff
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 23, 2015, at 3:59 PM, Krishnesh Mehta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > DEAR MARCIO and All,
> >
> >
> > I guess I had raised this question on DT in an earlier recent thread
> > flagged by Mr. Charles.
> >
> > Well, I guess the designers and design professionals, educators..do
> > think...so how do they think...is there a unique way (for
> > example:...scientists have a way of thinking....observe/experiment/deduct
> > -or cause and effect thinking, Doctors have another way...diagnostics). I
> > am sure Design has some unique way (and I do NOT think it to be the
> design
> > process -esp because that process is not always linear and it is a
> process
> > not thinking...what/how do you think at each step of the process is
> missing)
> > It also does not help to say that it is difficult to define..such things
> > have made and kept design a mystery even after official 100 odd years.
> > Besides if we feel design can and should really be embraced by one and
> all
> > because of its power to change (and not just explain how) how things work
> > ( as mentioned by Klaus and here I take to mean both the tangibles and
> the
> > intangibles) and thereby dignify and improve lives (as we believe design
> to
> > do), then I am sure it has to have some way of thinking unique to itself.
> > Shying away from it by the community of designers (who are supposed to
> know
> > better) lets the space open for anyone and everyone to use it to mean
> > whatever suits them best creating probably the commercialization of
> design
> > and making design capitalistic. One may see no harm there except that it
> > will make design even more mysterious (or too subjective to have mass
> > impact) and hence less accessible to all the real needy -the danger can
> be
> > that design will then just become synonymous with high life, 'artsy' and
> a
> > page 3 discipline rather than one that can make as much (if not more)
> > contribution as the 'mainstream' like science, engineering, etc. If
> anyone
> > can, it is this group that needs to put their heads together for finding
> > what and how do designers think and how is it unique from other
> disciplines
> > so that it can lay a claim of being a separate discipline.
> >
> > Besides, I do not quite agree with Marcio "I believe that design thinking
> > is only valid if you have a designer from
> > start to end, otherwise it is just a "refined brainstorming" with no
> > "design validity" and probably poor results no achieving the miraculous
> and
> > marvelous results that the company expected."
> > I am sorry but that is too narcissistic and dare I say many designers
> > suffer from it...and further it shows the lack of understanding of what
> > design is (for who is not a designer just as who is not a scientist
> -though
> > one can be an amateur/professional about it). For, in science, whoever
> > follows the scientific thinking is a scientist then so must anyone doing
> > design thinking (and not just designing) is a designer and not just the
> one
> > who designs. I guess designers have long been beating about the bush
> about
> > such clarifications and it is high time, in the interest of the
> discipline,
> > that there be such defining factors else the most vocal but
> > dumb/capitalists will start calling the shots.
> >
> > To me design in brief as a discipline 'integrates', synthesizes,
> optimizes,
> > synergizes the best of the contextually relevant knowhow (for the lack of
> > a better word) from all the various domains of knowledge to arrive
> > at/ evolve to the most apt outcomes that are not only functional but also
> > aesthetic and sustainable -dignifying life/ves and hence DT has to be (no
> > matter how incomplete -it is always possible to redefine as our
> > understanding evolves further -that's how science does it) about how to
> > think to achieve this integrative problem solving thinking ability.
> >
> > krishnesh
> > national institute of design
> > india
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:36 PM, O'Toole, Robert <
> > [log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all
> >>
> >> Apologies, I haven’t read all the messages in this thread, but I do have
> >> an alternative perspective on the question of Design Thinking, and I
> think
> >> it gets closer to its real value.
> >>
> >> Think of Design Thinking as an event as much as a concept, but certainly
> >> not as a business process or magic bullet.
> >>
> >> I argue that Design Thinking marks a “designerly turn” in how
> >> organisations work. And the historical phenomena of Design Thinking
> being
> >> an encouragement to think in a designerly way - but of course designers
> >> think with all their senses and instruments of agency, especially their
> >> hands. Design Thinking as a designerly turn is much closer to Tim
> Brown’s
> >> arguments in Change by Design. He is very clear about that. And he is
> very
> >> clear about why he wants to illustrate how his design teams work. The
> aim
> >> is unclog the messy, unproductive habits that many organisations have
> >> become stuck with. The aim is to rebalance openness and clarity (often
> >> enemies) in the ways in which we collectively decide on what we do,
> make,
> >> service etc - and most importantly, why we do those things. The
> designerly
> >> turn should at the very least encourage us to think through our design
> >> values, strive for better values and ways of implementing them in
> practice.
> >>
> >> In that way Design Thinking is not design. But it is a lot more than
> just
> >> a fad. And it is deeply rooted in the practices of real designers. As
> the
> >> world becomes ever more designable, and as we come across the
> imperative to
> >> design more often in everyday life, our habits need to be suited to
> >> designing effectively. If Design Thinking helps to spread those habits
> >> further and wider, as Brown hopes (but that doesn’t mean replacing
> >> professional designers), then we have a good chance of achieving a
> better
> >> world through design.
> >>
> >> Personally, and this is the reason why I struggle to keep up with the
> >> great conversations on this list, I work in an organisation that hasn’t
> >> made the designerly turn, that is clogged up with bad meetings that lead
> >> nowhere. We desperately need to get things in hand (literally) with the
> >> hands of a designer. We urgently need senior managers to stop thinking
> they
> >> can deploy slogans and Powerpoint shows to change the place for the
> better.
> >> We need to make the designerly turn. And if I can deploy the concept of
> >> Design Thinking to encourage that, I will.
> >>
> >> Those ideas are taken from my recent PhD thesis.
> >>
> >> You can read more about my research at: http://www.inspireslearning.com
> -
> >> there are links to my thesis on that site (which includes much more
> detail
> >> on this reading of Brown et al.
> >>
> >> Thanks for listening!
> >>
> >> Robert
> >> _________________________________
> >>
> >> Dr Robert O’Toole NTF
> >> Senior Academic Technologist
> >> University of Warwick
> >>
> >> BA Philosophy Warwick, MSc Knowledge Based Systems Sussex, PGCE ICT
> Warwick
> >> PhD “Fit, Stick, Spread & Grow: Transdisciplinary Studies of Design
> >> Thinking for the Remaking of Higher Education”
> >> QTS, WATE, NTF, FHEA, MoOoJ
> >>
> >> http://www.warwick.ac.uk/extendedclassroom
> >> http://www.inspireslearning.com
> >>
> >> 07876 876960
> >>
> >> ________________________________________
> >> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
> related
> >> research in Design <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of CHUA Soo
> Meng
> >> Jude (GPL, PLS) <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Sent: 23 November 2015 07:00
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: Design Thinking is not design article
> >>
> >> Personally I quite like what Nigel Cross once suggested - which is that
> >> rather than speak of Design Science (which may suggest that design
> ought to
> >> be governed by the cultures of science, or a kind of scientistic study
> of
> >> design), we can speak of a "Science of Design" where science here means
> >> more broadly some form of rigorous study. I think this is a good way to
> >> proceed -- remember that science has never always meant what it means
> now
> >> (assuming it does mean something stably positivist, even though this is
> not
> >> always uncontroversial). Until just before the enlightenment there was
> >> still the notion of a science, a scientia, which was governed by
> deductive,
> >> inferential logic (rather than by abduction/induction). Hence even
> >> theology could be a science (you can read Aquinas' Catena Aurena, his
> >> commentaries on scripture or his commentary on the book of Job and
> you'll
> >> see him making syllogistic inferences on passages of scripture - not the
> >> usual way you would read the bible!), or say proofs of God's existence,
> >> these were also scientific demonstrations.
> >> Maybet the way to put it is this - if we are dissatisfied with DT, then
> >> the task for DT is for it to develop in the direction of a science of
> >> design. But then, as you might expect, what a science of design in turn
> >> means would be the subject of some tussle: what should belong to it, and
> >> what would count as focal or peripheral etc. But I think it's a very
> >> important question to answer, even if not always an easy one. What also
> is
> >> interesting perhaps is the diagnosis of the epistemological cultures
> that
> >> sometimes prevent us from answering that question well.
> >> J
> >>
> >>
> >> -----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
> >> Filippo Salustri
> >> Sent: Sunday, 22 November, 2015 10:19 PM
> >> To: [log in to unmask]
> >> Subject: Re: ***SPAM*** Re: Design Thinking is not design article
> >>
> >> Interesting...
> >>
> >>> On Nov 22, 2015 1:52 AM, "Francois Nsenga" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Klaus, you wrote:
> >>>
> >>> "any science explains how things work. designing means proposing
> >>> something that changes how things work."
> >>>
> >>> Could/should the proposed 'design science' be aiming at explaining how
> >>> 'design' activity proposes things (theories, methods, artifacts) that
> >>> change how things work?
> >>
> >> I've thought for decades that that's what design science was, as have
> many
> >> of my colleagues in engineering....
> >>
> >>
> >> National Institute of Education (Singapore) http://www.nie.edu.sg
> >>
> >> DISCLAIMER : The information contained in this email, including any
> >> attachments, may contain confidential information.
> >> This email is intended only for the use of the addressee(s) listed
> above.
> >> Unauthorised sight, dissemination or any other
> >> use of the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited.
> If
> >> you have received this email by fault, please
> >> notify the sender and delete it immediately.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|