dear terry,
just when i thought we are inching towards a consensus, you seem to think we
differ more.
i am less worried about words like plans, specifications, instructions,
exemplars, or proposals. but since each carries different meanings, they
are not the same and i have written about that using the less specific
"proposal."
i do not see participatory design as a mere information gathering exercise.
although i admit that many actual design projects end up relying on users
being asked questions whose answers a designer is to consider, i have been
in situations in which groups worked together and in the end nobody clearly
knew who contributed what to a particular design. this is my image of
collaboration.
i agree that defining the process of designing as creating something that
others can act upon avoids mentalistic terminology and focuses on the social
reality of design (both verb and noun). this is why i wholeheartedly go
along with looking at what designers leave behind as opposed to intend.
klaus
-----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 Terence
Love
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 2:23 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design and intention
Hi Klaus,
Ah, we differ more and more! Collaborative design can be regarded like
most design methods as an information _gathering_ process, in that
individuals design parts of an overall design, communicate them to others,
gather feedback and then themselves or others design and redesign different
aspects, repeating the process until each gathers the information that all
agree. From my perspective, at that point there is then some collaborative
agreement on the general features of a plan to go forward. At that point it
is _then_possible to create a design - an unambiguous
representation/specification of what is to be made and done.
Defining design (verb) as 'creating a specification' avoids much of the
woollyness of other definitions. It retains all the characteristics of
social interaction involved with participatory and collaborative design
processes - and has the advantage of addressing them in an integrated manner
with other 'design methods'. There are a range of other advantages also -
mainly that it helps resolve many epistemological conflicts when other
definitions are used across design disciplines.
Cheers,
Terry
-----Original Message-----
From: Klaus Krippendorff
Sent: 11/01/2005 1:49 PM
To: Terence Love; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design and intention
terry,
on the whole, i have not much to add to what you wrote. let me make one
point clearer.
i had said: 'explanations aside, there is no way for any outside
observer to ever know what someone thinks or feels, ...and to say whether i
see, read, think, or feel the same way as an other human being'
you replied: "I feel this is relatively irrelevant to understanding how
designers design, and how users understand and use designed outcomes,
because it is only a tiny part of the situation - and rarely the most
dominant aspect."
you are quite right that the inability to read the mind of others is not
too important how designers design. my statement was against theories that
purport to describe the designers' mentality.
but there is one respect in which i would deviate from your approach and
that is in the recognition that designers always design (propose something)
for others to do something with. an important design consideration
therefore is to construct who these others are. unable to get into "the
user's" mind, as i continue to suggest, the best way to acknowledge the
concern for others is not to write specifications, but to enroll these
others into the project that the designer is proposing. specifications are
monological instructions akin to computer programs that can be inserted into
a machine and produce what the specifications say.
my model of participatory design is conversation, in which participants
contribute whatever they judge as relevant, and they leave something behind
that satisfies the multitude of the participants' perspectives. there is no
need then to theorize other's mentality, participants enact what the know,
what they feel, and their visions of future worlds.
i think if we get to much further into associating design (noun) with
specification, we loose the collaborative process.
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Terence Love [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:01 PM
To: Klaus Krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Design and intention
Dear Klaus,
Design researchers may be mistaken in placing so much emphasis on the
'thinking and feeling' of designers and users. Before you get me wrong on
this, I'm suggesting improvement on this partial view and comes from
focusing on us humans in a more holistic way, rather than using mechanistic
or bio-deterministic approaches.
We humans are complex organisms that interact with our environments.
Our sense of self, conscious thinking and feeling are a very minor and
frequently flawed part of our functioning in these interactions. In spite
of it hurting our personal vanity and ego to accept it as so, our thoughts
and actions predominately result from our physiological functioning that is
substantially outside our consciousness
You say: 'explanations aside, there is no way for any outside
observer to ever know what someone thinks or feels, ...and to say whether i
see, read, think, or feel the same way as an other human being'
I feel this is relatively irrelevant to understanding how designers
design, and how users understand and use designed outcomes, because it is
only a tiny part of the situation - and rarely the most dominant aspect.
Individuals' self reports of internal states (their 'movie in the
brain' and associated feelings) are relatively superficial pictures of what
we are and what is going on for us - and there is substantial evidence that
self reports are frequently inaccurate (although they might be consistent!).
In the main, the central aspects of our interactions with environment,
and this includes issues of judgement, desire, intention, emotion, agency,
motivation, feeling, creativity and design are mostly driven by processes
outside the 'dreamworld' 'movie in the brain' that we play in in our heads
and which provides us with the nebulous basis of a 'sense of self' - and
gives us the illusion that the 'me' seen in this 'movie in the brain' is a
self that decides, does, designs etc.
To go behind this illusion and superficial picture primarily requires
understanding the actuality of our human existence as expressed in the
physicality of our bodies and our interactions with our environments.
This is not new stuff.
I'm suggesting as design researchers exploring the ways designers
design and users use, it is important for us to recognise that focusing on
thinking and feeling gives only a superficial understanding of how we
interact with our environments. In research terms, I feel self reports (self
reflection etc) can be particularly problematic and misleading. In part,
because they reinforce this illusion of self-determiniation via thinking and
feeling.
It is at this point that studies of the human physiology are useful.
There is no humunculus in the brain. How we function, including all our
learning and culturally shaped mental imagery, is actualised through our
bodies and physiologies. Understanding this actualisation gives a more
direct foundation for research into higher level human skills.
I agree with you that human designers can be regarded as autopoietic
systems and that simplistic approaches to the role of ‘thinking and feeling’
are unhelpful. Autopoiesis doesn’t however mean that such a system is not
understandable or explainable. It requires addressing the system at a more
abstract level than it functions. For us humans, this is rendered easier
because the autopoiesis of the illusionary ‘movies in the mind’ are a minor
aspect of, and actualised by, a complex physical system – our bodies -
that is more amenable to conventional research approaches.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love
Curtin Research Fellow
Design-focused Research Group
Dept of Design, Curtin University
PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Tel/Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629 (home office)
+61 (0)8 9266 4018 (university office)
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Visiting Research Fellow
Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Management School, Lancaster University
Lancaster, UK
[log in to unmask]
____________________
Conselho Cientifico
UNIDCOM
IADE, Lisboa
Portugal
____________________
