 |
 |
At 08:50 PM 9/19/2002 +0100, David Durling wrote: "As nobody seems to have picked up the point made by Kristina, I will make a comment on it." You are right David -- this is a major idea that deserves more discussion time than many of the previous. One of the reasons might be a burn out at that time. Some treads are so time-consuming that they very quickly burn out the audience. However, this is also indicative about the current level of discourse in design theory. I idea that Kristina brings forward is in the core of creating a common ground. The aspect that she looks at is usually studied by philosophers of design. She is right that the idea is not new and she is also right that the idea is not widely disseminated, at least at this level of abstraction. I can recall a major monograph of Gerald Nadler, The planning and design approach (1981) where the focus is on the general characteristics of design as a universal human activity. We can recall also other books and articles written by members of this society. However, scholarly work on this topic is not widely published and disseminated for a number of reasons. It is too abstract for designers and at the same time not enough privileged for philosophers of science. If you are a philosopher and work on this topic, you don't have many outlets to publish and you can't find a doctoral program with such focus to house your body and research. One other person that works in a similar way is Wojciech Gasparski (philosophy of design and action theory, praxiologist like Kotarbinski), who works very closely with Nadler, and sometimes they publish in the same outlets. I presume the community will add to this information and probably we might look for a common ground through the eyes of the philosophers rather than the designers. By the way, I was pushing periodically to look for philosophers on the list -- this was one of the reasons. Regards, Lubomir >On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 11:51:45 +0100 Kristina Niedderer ><[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > > What i want to propose is to understand design > > generally as a creative process of manipulation > > that is principally devoid of its own content. Its > > content is the thing or idea to which it is > > applied. Two things arise from this. Firstly, the > > nature of the process is what all design activity > > seems to have in common. Secondly, the framework > > for the application, I suggest, should then evolve > > from the subject I am involved with, i.e. to which > > I am applying the design process at a specific > > moment or project. Which means, if I am looking > > at a particular social service, I will probably > > best be looking at relevant information from > > social sciences/ anthropology in terms of theory > > and processes (e.g. ethnographic studies to > > understand peoples behaviour) to enable me to > > develop an adequate design solution. > > > > I don't think this is a particularly new thing as > > such, since it is already widely practiced, but it > > does not seem to be understood in this way and it > > is definitely not taught!! I think this idea could > > be developed as a general methodological framework > > to find and develop appropriate methods for each > > specific subject approached. > > > >As nobody seems to have picked up the point made by Kristina, I >will make a comment on it. > >I agree with the view that one should dig in the annals of >appropriate fields to discover information about the design task >in hand. It is a revelation to many undergraduates that >information helpful to the design task might come from studies >well outside mainstream design. One often sees this with, for >example, multimedia students who take little notice of scientific >findings and guidance about screen legibility, colours, >navigational cues etc. It seems to me that courses, and >individual tutors vary considerably in the way they expose >students to the rich diversity of information in the world. >Perhaps the willingness to search for it will improve as the >internet matures? > >A recent study (Powell & Newland 1994) (are either of you on this >list I wonder??) looked at the information needs of architects, >and demonstrated the difficulties of providing both general and >specific understanding by the designers about a certain technical >aspect of what they were doing (fire safety in this case). >Search was characterised by a last minute scramble to find >information arising from established research. It is in this >that the quick-fix needs of designers are shown (and I do not >mean 'quick-fix' in any derogatory sense, just as is). It may >well be that under the pressures of commercial life, the richer >picture of available research findings may not be apparent to the >practitioner. Maybe there is something that researchers can do >to change that situation? (the Powell/Newland paper offers some >advice about adapting the form of information to suit the >learning preferences of the designer). > >However, bending Kristina's proposition back to the research >itself rather than design practice, it should be that research >degree students are exposed to comparative methods. A reputable >generic research methodology course should do this. There is >however evidence of many researchers working either within a very >narrow understanding of available methods, or using no systematic >methods at all. This comment is not restricted to students. It >is a general problem in a young and developing field such as >art/design, but also a problem in some other and more established >subject areas where tradition dictates that a narrow range of >applications of (usually scientific method) are sufficient to >solve the problem under examination - and where an understanding >of methods from other fields might be desirable, but are not >considered. > >--- > >Powell, James & Paul Newland (1994) Informing multimedia: a >sensitive interface to data for construction design >professionals. In: Design Studies, Vol.15, No.3, 285-316. > >--- > > >David > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > __ > Dr David Durling / \ | | ) > Advanced Research Institute ____ \ __ / > School of Art & Design / \ | \ | > Staffordshire University _/ _\ _| _\ _| > Stoke on Trent, ST4 2XN, UK > voice: +44 (0) 1782 294556 email: [log in to unmask] > >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^