 |
 |
Hello, Trying to invent/design a successful way of 'doing interdisciplinarity' in terms of the 'creation of a discipline of design' looks like making a mountain out of a mole hill. We already have a huge amount of information and experience on this activity. A couple of years ago, I reviewed the design fields and sub-fields and did a quantitative review of the design literatures over the last hundred years. I found you can easily divide design sub-fields into four groups: 1. New sub-disciplines that are emerging 2. New sub-disciplines that are in existence and stabilised 3. Established sub-disciplines 4. Aged meta sub-disciplines that are mainly reference structures and on the pathway to becoming irrelevant For any sub-discipline there is a steady transition from 1 to 4. In category (1) the primary focus is hands-on on new practices, knowledge and discourse that doesn't fit into an existing sub-discipline. At the category (4) end of things the primary focus is on institutional issues. This four part structure appears to apply in any field. To understand the interdisciplinary aspects of new sub-disciplines of design, take a sub-discipline in any of the four categories and review its historic pathway. For example, a decade ago, multi-media design was in (1) and now is on the border of (2) and (3). Aged sub-disciplines such as Architecture, Engineering, Fashion and Graphic Design are in category (4). As sub-disciplines move from (1) towards (4) they become increasingly divided up into more and more sub-disciplines such that there is no longer a role for someone with the generic skills of that specific sub-discipline. The primary role of category (4) sub-disciplines seems to be as convenient labels and categories for organisations to harvest the specific economic benefits of economy of scale. For example, it is more possible to successfully create and manage a professional accreditation body if the economic scale is larger than a single sub-field. Also competition between disciplines is shaped by scale. The institutions of engineering, architecture, graphic design, and computing illustrate both points. These dynamics are most likely shaped by Coasian transaction costs. The use of virtual organisations impacts heavily on transaction cost - on one hand tending towards giving advantage to even larger organisations through moving the point of 'dis-economy of scale' ever higher, and on the other, through reducing the cost of competition. (for example see the fast rise of ACM compared to say IMechE). The implication for supporting the increased establishment of a 'discipline of Design' is to create a category (4) institution. This proposal for Design as a category (4) institution contrasts with current discourse that focuses on seeing design from the practitioner's point of view, which is essentially typical of a categories (1) and (2). Thoughts Best wishes, Terry ____________________ Dr. Terence Love Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Research Group Faculty of BEAD Associate Researcher at Digital Ecosystems and Business Intelligence Institute Research Associate, Planning and Transport Research Centre Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845 Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask] Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development Management School, Lancaster University,Lancaster, UK, [log in to unmask] ____________________