Hi, Terence,
Just a few ideas, to second your motion.
I am glad you put forward this topic, to look broader at design. Design
as a mode of human existence. However, as you mention,
"There are some qualitative differences between researching in these
'other' areas of design, and 'normal' design research,..." However, the
differences in design methodology among these various fields of design are
much greater than the differences in researching in these "other" (as you
say) areas. Doing social design is much different than electrical
engineering. The differences between them are grater than the differences
between researching these types of design.
The interest in these other areas of design may lead to a general theory
of design. However, it may be possible only if it is abstract, and I dare
say, so abstract, that it may be of little use to everybody. There were a
few attempts to make a general theory of design, but they could
not become popular because of their abstractness.
Design as a human activity requires object specific methodologies,
performance patterns, and skills rather than abstract conceptualizations.
The attempt to make a general theory of design might be one of
the bravest human endeavours. Lets think about the general theory of
action authored by T. Parsons.
I am personally interested in such a project and will participate with
However, I would like to express some caution about the feasibility of
this endeavour. When the objects of design have different material nature,
the nature of design changes so dramatically, that it usually is labeled
with another word. Should we make a theory of the whole human existence?
Another question is about the skills necessary of researching such
heterogeneous objects as the objects of the different design activities.
Regards,
Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Dr. Terence Love wrote:
> In the late 1960s and early 1970s a broad view of design and design research
> was held by john chris jones and other DRS members. At present, however,
> the design research literature seems focussed around technical design
> (e.g. engineering, architecture, computer assisted design, town planning),
> and design in the 'Art and Design' tradition. More and more, I find myself
> researching designing in those areas that fit within the early broad
> definitions of design, but lie outside much of the current tradition.
> For example, the design of government policy, creating models of distant
> 'futures', devising organisational structures . . .
>
> There are some qualitative differences between researching in these 'other'
> areas of design, and 'normal' design research, and these are especially
> obvious in relation to 'context' and 'universal' design. I wonder whether
> it is now time to encourage these other sides of design research back
> into the design debate.
>
> I look forward to comments, and especially any contact from researchers
> involved in the 'other' side.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Terry
>
> ______________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love
> Praxis Education
> GPO Box 226
> Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel & Fax +61 8 9305 7629
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> ______________________
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|