 |
 |
Victor's question is a good one and I support the impetus that motivates it, but I think the answer is simple enough. It's hard enough to bracket out and describe the design component at the production side, as anyone who has tried to foster design awareness within technology/engineering or marketing/product development in companies in the pre-ipod days will know. But doesn't it become even harder to identify exactly how design inputs are present in the "effects" of this work and to differentiate them from the effects of technology, marketing, social policy, subjectivities developed through education, media, etc.? I'm not saying that I don't agree that the imbalance should be shifted, I'm just saying that its harder to get a fix on what is "design" at the consumption end, because (as we've found on the list recently) one has to make complex methodological decisions about how you would find out this information, and the kinds of methodologies available in a novel field such as "design research" will come from different intellectual histories as Ken suggested. And I think few of us are as capable as him in such broad sweeps across the humanities, social sciences and applied fields such as management that would be necessary to confidently approach this:). So it's simply easier to keep something squarely in "design" at the process side, with all its limitations. One place a lead would need to be taken from is cultural studies, and also (as Johann mentioned) science and technology studies. Is there anything like du Gay's "Doing Cultural Studies: The Story of the Sony Walkman" from a more design-informed perspective? This would be a way of testing how such consumption-side (or "results-side") research might work. New media studies perhaps brings in this approach. Juris' question is very interesting. My sense is that the economic development policies around in the "creative industries" in the former british empire are where design is being given such classificatory power. In NZ for example, <http://www.nzte.govt.nz/ section/13680.aspx>. Does someone like Ross King's work on space and urban design provide a useful example? Regards, Danny ps - Against my better judgement, a shot back at Lubomir and Ken for distinguishing "politics" from "process" or even "the pleasure of finding things out". Isn't the actual implementation of design (in product development or anything else) a process which involves not "materials" or "knowledge" but people? And where there are people, there are politics. Why lament its incursion into "design" when it is already there in the beginning? (And when it is fun and useful to talk about ;)?) As an educator, I am consistently trying to get students to understand the politics of the contexts where they have to make design decisions, as this allows them to achieve success. "Those who don't do politics, get done in by politics".... -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 4/08/2007, at 5:08 AM, Victor Margolin wrote: > Dear colleagues: > I have a question for the list. Why is so much research attention > given to the process of design and so little to its results - the > products that are the outcomes of designing, their value and social > consequences. It seems to me that one result of design research > should be to serve as a critical lens for evaluating the results of > designing. Of course, research into sustainable products is a > promising direction but there are so many more things that are > designed about which we don't know much. What about the way that > new digital products like cell phones and ipods are changing > socialization values. What about the changing ideas about the > design of public space.We seem to leave all those and other > questions related to the social consequences of designing to other > disciplines. > -- > Victor Margolin > Professor Emeritus of Design History > Department of Art History > University of Illinois at Chicago > 935 W. Harrison St. > Chicago, IL 60607-7039 > Tel. 1-312-583-0608 > Fax 1-312-413-2460 > website: www.uic.edu/~victor