 |
 |
Hi Ken, Thank you for your message. My apologies for the delay in replying With the subject line of 'More on Design Thinking', the discussion had rightly begun to include the role of research in the essential processes of design thinking. In many areas of design, there is a tight interdependent linking of research and the design thinking necessary to create a design. These include the various domains of engineering design, social policy and program design, complex systems design and management, building design, environmental systems design, IT & IS, security and crime reduction, and document design,as well as the traditional Art and Design fields. Politically, there appears to be a tension, as you drew attention to, between the design thinking and research activities undertaken in universities and those undertaken in industry and business. My previous post proffered some evidence it might be worth reconsidering the assumption outlined in your post, that universities appeared to be 'better' at research, or had some kind of privileged status in understanding or theorising about design related issues. The post wasn't intended to fill out every detail that would map the situation completely, only to point to several issues that challenged any assumption that 'universities are obviously best at research'. To develop the argument further on either side requires some care with the logic and detail of reasoning, meaning and epistemology as well as evidence and rhetoric. For example, I carefully pointed to a comparison between an idealised research form and ways such an ambition might be *compromised*. This offers a measure of comparison between 'best theoretically possible' and 'what is practically achieved', i.e 'compromises' on 'ideal' possibilities . You, however, recoined this comparison in terms of whether research is 'flawed' or not. Seeing research as 'flawed' or not. Is a different kind of measure. There is no single absolute standard by which one can judge that research is not flawed. A core issue in the above discussion of the relative merits of 'university' versus 'industry' research linked to design thinking is the judgement of 'quality for purpose' of research. In terms of 'design thinking', I suggested it's worth considering the position that industry might offer less compromised research than universities. The extent to which the reasoning I presented and its support in evidence applies across policies relating to government, industry, business and education requires the filling out of detail across each area. The basic premise, however, seems unchallenged that there is a difference between the directly motivated and honest interests of industry/business in research outcomes to inform their design activities, and the secondarily motivated research activities undertaken via players in the education industry which has its own self-interests that differ in essence and fact from those undertaking design activity commercially. To undertake a more detailed analysis, it is likely to be important to carefully identify the framing and analysis by the conscious or unconscious self-interested assumptions of education institutions and avoid shaping the analysis by such framing. For example, the role of a 'literature review of existing literature in a journal article to build the field' is primarily to reinforce the status of academics and scholars. Even the idea of 'building the field' is centred on increasing the status of scholars. The primary role of the idea of a 'discipline' can be seen as a power mechanism to access some of the power of unionisation in negotiation of pay, status and conditions. The idea of a 'field' can be seen somewhat allegorically as the equivalent of a 'land grab' of mental territory, and the associated privileges of 'land' ownership. The problems of the 'educationalisation' framing of analysis was identified in 1971 by Illich (Deschooling Society http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html ) and (Disabling Professions - http://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/Ivan_Illich/Ivan_Illich_Disabling_Professions.pd f ) . A similar analysis is illustrated by Phil Agre in his essay on 'Conservatism' (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html) in which many of the features Phil Agre describes about conservatism can be seen paralleled in the activities of scholars with the analysis of the behaviour of scholars and the problems therein following much the same reasoning. Thanks Phil, if you are reading this. The idea of the scholarly 'literature review to shape the field' can be seen in terms of the above analyses as a strategy to shape thinking, to reinforce the status and ways of working of scholars and academics. This is not necessarily in the best interests of the world outside educational institutions. A Foucauldian analysis of the discourse would likely follow a similar path. There is an emerging need for a change in perspective and assumptions about the roles and use-values of universities in everyday life. The last 50 years has seen the role of universities change from being elite, high-level education for the wealthy to mass-education programs for adults alongside the traditional adult education programs. At the same time, there has been increasing pressure on universities to demonstrate value-add by research outcomes for tax-payer derived government funding support. The last 20 years has seen a reduction in government support and a linking of such support to performance metrics in outputs, particularly of knowledge creation. The response in many universities has been to move towards a business model involving the additional employment of highly paid professional managers and administrators. All three have resulted in increased economic and other pressures that in turn have shaped educational and research processes to achieve particular outcomes. The consequence is the functioning and use-values offered by universities are now very different to the previous elite and the mass-education models of higher education. An example is that it is now easier to conceptualise universities as businesses run by managers whose workers are temporary replaceable academics purchased at the lowest cost with undergraduate and postgraduate students as customers paying for services and outcomes. This kind of commercial university education market with profitability as a key driver implies that we cannot project off previous roles and values of university research for understanding the contributions of university and industry-based research to design thinking. It requires rethinking from scratch in ways evidenced by current and likely future university values and processes. When you are free again, I suggest this has to be the basis of any future discussion, and will require dropping and deliberately ignoring reflections, assumptions, perspectives and evidence from the past about universities. Best wishes , Terry --- Dr Terence Love PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI Director, Love Services Pty Ltd PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks Western Australia 6030 Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848 Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629 [log in to unmask] -- -----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 Ken Friedman Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:10 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: More on Design Thinking Dear Terry, Your earlier post asked whether my comment on rent-seeking and self-serving behavior described researchers and scholars. I answered that it did, and that researchers and scholars are as guilty of these vices as consultants and professional practitioners are. I gave the post a new subject header to indicate that this was not a question about design thinking. Despite returning to the original subject header, your question was not about design thinking. You discuss university research as contrasted with research in industry. Your note suggests that you aren't sure whether you've interpreted my position correctly. In my view, you have not done so. I don't hold the views stated in paragraph two of your last post, and I feel no need to defend those views. The substantive argument in items 1-6 of your post raises important issues dealing with different aspects of research, research systems, and research policy for the government, industry, and education sectors. You raise seventeen distinct issues. While I agree with you on some points and disagree on others, this is complicated by what seem to be questionable conclusions from correct claims and distinctions that you don't appear consider. To respond to these seventeen issues would take an extremely long post. Both the correct assertions and the incorrect ones require careful framing and consideration. This is not about design thinking. This is about research in universities and industry, as well as the systems that generate research problems, set research policy, and fund research. I don't have the time to write a proper reply on issues this nuanced and complex. Yours, Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<h ttp://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------