 |
 |
Dear João, You wrote, ' ...isn't the designer's job to take a chance on something that has yet to be dreamed of? (such as an auto-mobile, an iPhone, or a pencil).' I suggest that this indicates the problem of the human-centric or designer-centric view of design activity. In fact, all the opportunities for the combination of elements that make up all the innovations currently in the world, and many more that haven't yet been perceived, are already in existence and potentially available to us. The problem is that as human designers we are so biologically limited in our abilities that we cannot perceive or conceive of all the potential combinations of possibilities. In contrast, computer systems are much better at reviewing large numbers of combinations of elements that could make up potential designs. The human response to this biological limitation, is somewhat entertaining, the response has been to turn the situation around and pretend there is a lack of combinations and claim the expertise in identifying them - claiming then as innovations or inventions. I suggest this process and the way it has propagated through the design literature over decades without challenge is primarily to protect our vanity and egos. A consequence of viewing design activity in terms of inventions, innovations, creative designs and the like is that we have consciously or unconsciously covered up or hidden from view the reality that our human biological limitations strongly restrict being able to perceive or conceive of all the potential combinations of possibilities that are readily available if we could see them. I suggest it is both more helpful and more honest in research terms to re-envisage design activity in terms of the biologically highly-limited ability of humans to create designs. This opens up many new doors in design theory and research. It of course requires moving away from a human-centric or designer-centric perspective in framing our explanations of design activity. To get closer to an explanation of the reality, of design activity, we can choose to adopt a framing of design theory and research that deliberately exposes and takes account of the current limitations of framing explanations of design activity from human and human designer perspectives, for example, by analysing design activity sociologically, ethologically, or socio-technically. From THAT position we have the opportunity to see more clearly the relative roles of humans and machines in design activity. I suggest what it reveals already is a need for a rethinking of the theoretical and conceptual foundations of design theory as currently propagated in design research, design education and the design literature. Best wishes, Terry -- Dr Terence Love PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, MISI, PMACM 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] -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------