 |
 |
Dear Chuck and All, The reason Chuck included me in his response is that I dropped him an off-list note to say that he made an important distinction in his earlier note that was lost in his later response. The interesting distinction for me was not simply about design, but a distinction between all instances of design -- purposeful thought -- and design thinking, the kinds of improvement that Chris Argyris and Donald Schon might cover under their concept of double-loop learning. This is both doing something and reflecting in how to do it better. Earlier, Chuck wrote, "There is a distinction between purposeful thought - tying your shoelace, and design thinking - seeking improvement to how shoes are secured on a foot. Purposeful thought is more limited in its possibilities (problem solving) - than design thinking (problem seeking, exploration, analysis, and expressive resolution)." Tying a shoelace may be a case of "design" in the sense of "creating a preferred situation" without any improvement to the art or way of tying the shoelace. Tying a shoelace is a preferred state. Many kinds of design are quite modest attempts to seek a preferred state. Many involve habitual learning or action from instructions. In examples of design involving habitual behaviour, we employ learned skills to create preferred situations. This may involve simple behaviours whether tying a shoelace or brewing a cup of tea, and they may also involved complex learned behaviours, such as executing a corporate identity program according to the design manual. The reason I wrote to Chuck was to note that implementing a corporate identity program involves using only what is given, yet it remains a case of design. I've been enjoying all the contributions, but I haven't dipped in much. Best wishes, Ken Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask] | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html <http://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 -- Chuck Burnette wrote: Yoad is right! My quick response was not what it should have been. Designing is not defined by what is given - shoe laces that need tying to hold a shoe to a foot, rocks on a beach, or the circumstances of any situation that becomes the focus of a need or a desire to change them or their expression. Designing is, instead, based on the intentional stance one takes toward the circumstances of interest. A design stance includes the desire to improve the expression of the focal circumstances as they are or as they may develop. In this case a designer is one who approaches tying a shoe as an opportunity to tie it in a better, more pleasing, more satisfying way (as a fashion designer might do, although probably by changing materials, patterns, and technology as well as the actions involved.) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------