i enjoyed your comments, tim,
and i agree that the distinction between observing design and doing design
while observing it is very important. this is why i think history of
design, design studies and design surveys etc. add little to knowing to
design. and not making the distinction very clear each time we speak of
design can be dangerously confusing and add to the muddleheadedness that
pervades our inquiries.
along the same line, but perhaps more dangerous, is our culturally
inherited celebration of science, which has reached a point of having
blinded us to see what we do when we are designing, to understand what it
means to know design as an active engagement, to teach design. science
aims to describe the observable world in a coherent manner. a theory is
always a generalization from a spectator's perspective. spectators are not
acting on what is in front of them. their understanding is limited to
getting something out for themselves or others and they either deny or make
sure that their presence does not influence, change or alter what exists
(what the theory clams to describe).
nothing against science or scientific knowledge, but using theories
(finding ways to build something with them, exploring apparent gaps, or
bypassing if not undoing the constraints they theorize) is not complying
with what they say. design resists being theorized. there is nothing
wrong with searching a library to find a suitable technology or surveying a
population to gauge preferences, but what designers make of these
"findings" is something altogether different. in fact, design must always
question research, overcome the determinism of its findings, bypass,
overcome or violate scientific theories of the past -- in order to usher in
a future that would not come without design.
design derives its justification not from re-search but from its being an
anti-discipline!
klaus
At 01:51 PM 10/16/00 +0200, Tim Smithers wrote:
>Dear Sid,
>
>Here I will respond to the second part of your post of
>[Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:06:39: Subject: Re: Bicycle Knowledge
>(coffee topic?)]. I will deal with matters relating to
>the first part in a (latter) response to Terry's recent
>post [Sat, 14 Oct 2000 19:58:05: Subject: Roots of theories
>about designing]
>
>First, thanks for your thoughtful and considered reply to
>my questions.
>
>You said:
>
> "I dispute your classification of first-person
> understanding as being soft, if this suggests that
> first-person understanding is somehow secondary to
> (not as good as) the explicit knowledge I presume
> you would class as hard understanding. I subscribe
> to the view that our primary form of understanding
> is the first-person, embodied understanding gained
> through doing."
>
>I must have written something I did not mean to say. I did
>not want to suggest that I think first-person understanding
>(knowing) is soft, and certainly I do not think it is
>somehow secondary to explicit knowledge. I subscribe,
>like you, to the view that first-person understanding
>(knowing) gained by doing is the primary form of knowing.
>
>No. What worries me is that second-order first person
>understanding of designing, gained by watching, is a kind
>of understanding, but not an understanding of designing.
>At least, it is not a kind of understanding of designing that
>is easily related to a first-person understanding (knowing) of
>designing.
>
>I am being quite strong and provocative here. I quite
>deliberately want to challenge the Dogma of Design
>Research; that the way to understand designing is to
>observe designers designing. This dogma would be
>relatively harmless if designers still trained and learned
>how to do designing by doing, but more and more we try to
>teach students how to do designing by telling and showing
>them things based up on the results of our design research.
>In other words, based upon an understanding gained by
>watching people do designing. It is a less costly kind of
>teaching!
>
>This is why I think Klaus's question is so important:
>
> "... we can talk about design without knowing
> whether we can do it. but what is it that
> one is then describing?"
>
>In challenging the Dogma of Design Research, I do
>now want to say that I think that there is no relationship
>between an understanding (knowing) gained form
>watching designers designing and an understanding
>(knowing) gained by doing designing. What I want to
>say is that I think this relationship is a lot more
>complicated and difficult to use than it generally
>understood (known). I think that good observation-based
>understanding of designing, if carefully used, may be
>good for preparing students to learn how to do designing
>(by doing), but I don't think it can ever be used to
>successfully teach them to be designers.
>
>Designing, is by the way, not unique in this. Lots of
>other things people can get good at doing are the same.
>Computer programming is another good example. You
>cannot simply teach people to be good programmers,
>they need to do programming---they need to become
>good programmers by doing. You can teach them things
>which help them become good programmers as a result
>of programming, but the teaching has an enabling role
>here, not a (more traditional) primary forming role.
>
>So, my position is perhaps even stronger than yours.
>First-person understanding (gained by doing) is not just
>primary, it is exclusive; it is the only kind of
>understanding that there is sufficient to enable the doing.
>No amount of second-order first person understanding
>of designing, no matter how good, will form designers.
>
>You teach design. What do you have to say to this?
>
>Best regards,
>
>Tim
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson professor for
cybernetics, language, and communication
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104-6220
telephone: 215.898.7051 (office); 215.545.9356 (home)
fax: 215.898.2024 (office); 215.545.9357 (home)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/krippendorff/index.html
