 |
 |
Dear Francois Yes, evidence of non existence in the first case may be in order. However, even there we have a problem since design is conducted in a space that is devoid of information leave alone evidence and at the early stages it is based on a mere hunch that strikes the designer or one of the stakeholders who bring in the designer to explore that area in some cursory manner at first and layer in some depth when the promise of some opportunity becomes visible. In many cases even this comfort is not available to the designer due to paucity of funds, or time afforded by the brief or limits set by the sponsors, whichever may be the case. In other cases even preexisting solutions may not be known since the design activity in practice is competitive and disclosures of early breakthroughs are unavailable in published literature. Secondly, designers do not usually use the terminology of evidence in their process of work. The terms that are frequently used are the gathering of information and insights which is a form of scanning of the use environment to discover a gap that could be filled. Remember his gap is not an object nor is it an existing policy but a perception of an absence of a quality, or a whole system of offerings that only get articulated quite some while into the explorations across several spaces an parameters, some not yet connected directly in any way. Yes, there is always the danger of an arrogant response from the designer or team in a 'take it or leave it' mode, which thankfully is being challenged by many new traditions of design research that require responsible "ethical, empathic and sensitive responses" as I have mentioned earlier. Yes, early research that is deep and wide would be great but very few clients, here in India seem to have the patience or conviction to invest in such a research based on my 40 plus years of design practice and we try to induce our students to however believe that this is a necessary condition but we ate then told by our industry friends that we have created unrealistic monsters who are very good at what they are able to do but " unrealistic" in terms of time and budgets, which I do not agree with since they eventually go on to change the very industry in which they struggle to operate in. I called this "The Avalanche Effect" in a paper that I wrote in 2002 which is available on my Academia.edu web archive. I am aware of the work that David has been doing in the labelling of medicines and other critical items of communication. However, all these spaces ate open to disruptive innovation and paradigm shifting applications which cannot be predicted by current regulations but can be imagined by sensitive exploration of new possibilities across a very wide frontier. I am not aware of any French experiments of significance in industrial design that could be particularly useful to this discussion, perhaps since I cannot access knowledge of these in the French language. I will be happy to get references and if anything is available online I may now use Google Translate with all its limitations to try and understand this concept a bit better. Happy journeys in Rwanda. With warm regards M P Ranjan from my iPad at home 20 May 2014 at 12.20 am IST Prof M P Ranjan Independent Academic, Ahmedabad Author of blog : http://www.designforindia.com Archive of papers : http://cept.academia.edu/RanjanMP Sent from my iPad > On 19-May-2014, at 10:02 pm, Francois Nsenga <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Dear Prof. Ranjan and all > > Your close your latest post with the following paragraph: > > "Design is an early stage activity of all human innovation and it deals with the creation of the future in all levels from micro to macro scales. This calls for judgement which is based on a leap of faith and not on prior evidence and cannot be tested unless it is first manifested in the form of models, prototypes as well as use ready policies and artefacts of our culture. At this stage there is NO evidence, however, the designer and his stakeholders have a great responsibility to respond with ethical, empathic, and sensitive responses at all stages. Once the designs are manifested in some tangible form it can be subjected to multivarient tests and that is rightly so, but not before the tangibilising of the offering. Paradoxical but a reality, unfortunately." > > This is true, but can't we conceive the term "evidence" as a term meaning two distinct realities? First, the evidence that something really exists (positive reality??), with testable attributes proving the perceived existence. And if the thing does not exist yet, you are right, of course in this first connotation no testing is possible, and no evidence whatsoever can be provided; except, perhaps, only that of non existence. > The second mode of conceptualizing testing and providing evidence that I wish to submit here is, if allowed to convey it this way, the evidence 'by default'. Because there may be a perceived and tested (negative reality???) of something or some attributes lacking, therefore there is evidence for a needed tangible 'offering', still to be designed. The proposed offering must thus be meant to mitigate or totally fill in the identified lacking, both lacking and design proposal proven with respectively convincing -acceptable - evidence. > Obviously, in this other conception of the term "evidence by default", no 'satisficing' (H. A. Simon's term) design can be derived only from vague personal insights. These, at best, may eventually yield merely "ethical, empathic, and sensitive responses". And at worst, as is generally the case, we are surrounded with deleterious artifacts, or with so many half-baked, often unsuitable and in several aspects inefficient artifacts. > It seems to me that, what ought to be the prior phase of research of 'evidence by default', is often missing in most design process, practitioners being rather in haste to expose and justify the existence of their 'creations', that may eventually be tested a posteriori as you suggest. But the proposed offering, more or less genuinely and intentionally/intuitively meant to mitigate or totally fill in the vaguely known and not sufficiently established and recognized lacking, is thus often unsubstantiated, or very little substantiated with proven and convincing - acceptable - evidence. > David, please correct me if I am wrong, or else confirm my understanding that this latter connotation of 'evidence by default' is what you start with in your undertakings at Communication Research Institute, proving with "useful evidence" that actual communication instruments are faulty; or that the 'good' ones are yet non-existent. > A similar approach in industrial design, grounded on 'evidence by default', was also thoroughly elaborated, proven and proposed by a team of Design researchers in France, whom I had the opportunity to work with as an intern some 40 years ago. Too bad it has never been picked up, explored further, and applied! > > Best wishes to all! > > Francois > Heading back to Kigali, Rwanda > ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------