 |
 |
Hi all, Thanks again for all your comments. I am trying to go through them all, organize them and see what insights they bring. My idea is to develop something around the idea of schools of thought. Needs more work. But I think it could become useful in some ways. So, once again thanks. Erik --------------------------------------------------- Erik Stolterman *Professor in Informatics* *School of Informatics and Computing* *Indiana University, Bloomington*http://transground.blogspot.com/ On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Isaac Holeman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Thanks to Erik for starting this thread and to the many others who have > added their thoughts. I have two follow-up questions: > > 1. Would it be fair to use the term "popular design books" to talk about > Erik's 3rd school? I mean this in the sense that we might refer to Erik > Reis' The Lean Startup as a popular business book or Malcolm Gladwell's The > Tipping Point as popular psychology. I'm very happy to acknowledge that > communicating science to a more general public (including researchers in > fields that do not have a tradition of design scholarship) is a meaningful > contribution. I also have worked with many serious, skilled designers who > have read Change By Design but haven't read Schon's or Rittel's > work--that's probably okay for a practitioner. The problem arises when > researchers in fields that don't have a tradition of design (personally I > confront this mainly in public health and medicine) write articles about > design and cite the recent popular design books in lieu of peer-reviewed > primary literature. > > 2. Would anyone care to share citations for peer-reviewed articles that > discuss this problem--that popular design writing is being confused for > primary literature? This comes up so often as corridor-talk among design > researchers that I would think there would be more published opinion on the > matter. While I come across a sentence here and there (see below) I haven't > yet read a peer-reviewed account that argues the point at any length. > > cheers, > Isaac > > > Relevant quotes: "What is striking about this business rhetoric is how so > many of its elements have been foreshadowed in earlier Participatory Design > projects" [1]. "To us this perspective sounds like good old Participatory > Design, although we have to admit it has a better articulated and more > appealing rhetoric" [2]. "As we have now experienced, design thinking > unfortunately devolved into what Ezio Manzini, in his new book, > pejoratively calls “post-it” versions of ideation for ailing corporations > and do-gooders (66). Books were produced, but these were weak, > self-promoting case studies and/or lists of decontextualized methods" [3]. > "Several recent studies (Badke-Schaub et al. 2010; Cross 2010; Dorst 2010; > Tonkinwise 2010) highlight how recent popular accounts of design thinking > ignore the extensive research on designers’ ways of working over previous > decades since the first Design Thinking Research Symposium in 1991 (Cross > et al. 1992), let alone earlier events such as the Conference on Design > Methods of 1962 (Jones and Thornley 1963). Although much of the recent > public presentation of design thinking is tied to one design consultancy, > IDEO (Brown 2008; Brown 2009; Brown and Wyatt 2010), the history of design > thinking is more complex" [4]. > > 1. Liam Bannon and Pelle Ehn. 2013. Design: Design Matters in > Participatory Design. In Jesper Simonsen and Toni Robertson (eds.). > Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design, 37–63. > > 2. Erling Bjögvinsson, Pelle Ehn, and Per-Anders Hillgren. 2012. > Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary ParticipatoryDesign > ChallengesErling Bjögvinsson, Pelle Ehn, Per-Anders Hillgren. Design Issues > 28, 3: 101–116. > > 3. Cameron Tonkinwise. 2016. Committing to the Political Values of > Post-Thing-Centered Designing (Teaching Designers How to Design How to Live > Collaboratively). Design and Culture 8, 1: 139–154. > http://doi.org/10.1080/17547075.2016.1142355 > > 4. Lucy Kimbell. 2011. Rethinking Design Thinking: Part I. Design and > Culture 3, 3: 285–306. http://doi.org/10.2752/175470811X13071166525216 > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------