 |
 |
Sorry folks, I don't usually do this but Terry has asked a detailed and big question and I can't respond to just a fragment of it so here's the whole message with my responses. Terence Love wrote: > Dear Chris, > > You seem to be confusing or attempting to misleadingly confound (you > wouldn't do that would you :-) !)four similar, parallel, but essentially > different issues. Quite possibly, none of us are perfect. > I asked you HOW seeing design in terms of 'passion' will make design more > useful, profitable, faster to market, reduce failures and all the other > things that design research helps with? > > That is an epistemological question about the specific use of a concept in > theory and how it can be used in theoretical reasoning in ways that would > predict specific concrete outcomes. > > You answered that 'how design can be seen as passion' seemed to be worth > understanding (that's a different issue) and that it might help you design > effective aids to learning and understand how crafts people learn to do good > work (another different issue) I responded that it seemed worth understanding for its own sake but that it "might help us" to do the sort of practical things that you were looking for. Incidentally I don't believe that I said that 'how design can be seen as passion' seemed to be worth understanding. I don't think design can be seen as passion. As Ken has said it goes well beyond that. I also learned from you several years ago that it's probably best to avoid the word "design" such that it could be read as a noun, when you might say "designing" My last proposition - "Understand how craftspeople and designers, insofar as many designers are craftspeople in their different ways, learn to do good work." is completely in line with your question about functional value. Helping designers to do good work is central to all of the issues that you pointed to, and many others. Understanding how they learn to do good work is an important step towards helping them to learn, especially if that's your job. I really didn't think I needed to spell that out. > I responded by asking the same question I'd asked originally but to be > helpful asked it concretely in line with the two specific concrete issues > you had raised about designing effective aids to learning and how > craftpeople learn to o good work. (same epistemological issue as I raised > first time) > > You responded that if you knew 'that' you would not need to do the research. > This is a different issue again. Knowing the answers to the question I asked > ( an epistemological issue to do with the status of forms of knowledge about > concepts) will not answer your practical question about helping you use > knowledge about passion to design effective aids to learning and understand > how crafts people learn to do good work. That's a different issue again. I happen to believe, with the justification that it's worked for me and others before, that it's perfectly valid to put aside the practical problem until we understand the issues more clearly but that will not stop me doing some practical speculation (try some things out) as I go along. Meanwhile I'm grateful to everybody here, including you, for helping to bring out into the open some of the issues, ideas and materials that might help us clarify our understanding. > I also didn't ask about the meaning you give to the concept of 'passion' - > another different research issue (and one that although everything else > depends on is clearly unresolved). Of course it is unresolved. very best Chris