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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
