 |
 |
Dear Ken, Thank you for your message. When I think of Design, Design History, Design Research and Design Education, the defining aspect of these categories is they relate to the activity of designing. So ‘Design History’ is specific and different from the more general ‘History’ because of its focus on the activity of designing. ‘Design Research’ is specific in a similar way that it is research in relation to the activity of designing and that distinguishes it from the broader category of ’Research’ in general, and similarly ‘Design Education’ focuses on education in relation to the activity of designing and hence differs as a subset from more general category of ‘Education’. The context of what I have written in the past and now about activities, theories, processes, analyses and evidence under these categories is specific in that it assumes their focus is about the activity of designing. In view of the nature of this list, I guess that that should be obvious, but for the sake of analysis it needed stating. So, in this context when I wrote ‘The primary purpose of all theoretical aspects relating to design is prediction about outcomes of design decisions’; it is about the activity of designing. Yes, obviously, people can study color theory (or any other design related theory or design history) for many reasons not related to designing. In those cases, the more general categories apply. Yes, obviously, people study the history of ‘plough design’ (your example) for a wide variety of reasons. If their studies are not about the plough in relation to the activity of designing, then I suggest it is better to categorise their studies under the more general ‘History’, rather than ‘Design History’, because it is History (the general version) that focuses on everything relating to human artefacts, activities and environments. Second. There are narrow-thinking perspectives and more open-thinking perspectives. Narrow thinking is typically associated with the situation when individuals have taken on board fixed theories and concepts and insist on adhering to them and trying to suppress any proposals for improvement or change. It’s a form of conservatism. This is a different way to see narrow thinking from what you suggested. An alternative, more open-thinking perspective is, as I have suggested, to recursively ask of any situation, ‘What causes this?’ ‘On what does it depend?’ ‘Can we explain it better?’ ‘What effects does it have?... and other questions that explore dependencies, relationships, causality, consequences, theory structures and the like. It’s a recursive process that eventually leads to an endstate. After asking about the situation in focus, then one then in turn applies the same kinds of questions to the things on which the situation depends, and on its dependencies and so on… From the answers to these kinds of questions, emerges a theoretical version of an Ishikawa diagram (the management systems design ‘fishbone’ tool). The end state of such a process or Ishikawa diagram is the primary or root cause, the purpose or reason for the original situation. There are many methods to use: Ishikawa methods, 5 questions method, elenctic method, 7 hats, causal loop diagrams that are all structurally similar in function. Their typical focus might be different: e.g. Ishikawa is usually used for root failure analysis, the elenctic method is typically used to find presuppositions. However, as all are being used in this, a 1st order analysis, and are epistemologically structurally identical, they can all be used interchangeably, and all used to find the original ‘purposes'. I suggest if you recursively apply all or any of the above processes to any of the situations of design theory that you describe and claim are not to do with prediction of outcomes of design decisions (color theory, design history, history of the plough in the context of designing…) , or whatever theoretical aspect of designing , and follow the situation backwards to the roots using one or more of the above processes, you will find that that the primary purpose of whatever of those design related theory or history situations is the prediction of design outcomes. This seems unsurprising. It is edictally obvious. It is just hat it hasn't been stated in the design theory literature so far. The ability to predict the outcomes from design decisions is the ONLY thing that designers are interested in when designing. If it isn’t obvious to you, I’m not sure what else to suggest. Best wishes, Terry -----Original Message----- From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Ken Friedman Sent: Tuesday, 4 February 2020 2:05 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Design History in Design Research and Design Education Dear Terry, With apologies, I’m not going to answer. You didn’t read carefully what I wrote — you jump too fast to the meanings that suit your purposes, and miss what people say. Sorting this out takes too much time. Trying to unpack all this would have to begin with what you missed, and it’s not important enough to me. No one with the capacity to address broad, domain-independent issues seems to feel it worth the debate. Purposes — goals — are always value-laden. The notion of a primary purpose for any form of research or theory depends on the interests and values of the researcher. Many people who engage in one field or another of design research participate in more than one field. Some people study colour theory to improve design outcomes. Others study colour theory to understand the human mind or the human eye. Still others may study colour theory to learn something about primate evolution or the action of early human beings in different kinds of environments. For those people, different forms of curiosity may be more significant or important than improving design outcomes. Design history is another case. A few days back, you made the untrue claim that design history provides a case of permissible plagiarism for designers. While this is not true, there are many valid purposes for design history other than improving design outcomes in the present. Understanding design history may serve to help designers learn how to design better. But other people have other purposes. Understanding the evolution of form is one. Mapping the spread of sociotechnical innovation is another. Examining the relationship between designed artefacts and economic growth is a third reason. For an example of the relationship between designed artefacts and economic growth, consider the history and development of the plough from 4,000 BCE or so through the modern era is intimately linked with the development of agriculture and the capacity of different civilisations, societies, and nations to feed populations in ever-larger urban areas, encouraging and permitting the growth of non-agricultural industry. The growth of cities and empires, the formation of standing armies and stable governing structures, the slow transition from small-plot farming to massive agribusiness farming all have something to do with the evolution of plough design. The history of plough design is a specific field of design history. It probably doesn’t interest many people, but it is quite lively for those whom it interests. Some people study plough design to make better ploughs. Other study plough design for other reasons. For those others, the history of plough design may be quite different than it might be for you. To my way of thinking, the notion that “The primary role of ALL theoretical aspects of design (including Design History and Design Research) is to provide better prediction of design outcomes resulting from design decisions” is an example of narrow thinking. It resembles the notion that all research must be immediately useful in some direct form of industrial application or some form of business. There are many valuable purposes for research and theory in every discipline and every field, design among them. No single purpose among these is primary. Your insistence that you have stated a scientific truth by announcing your goals and interests makes it difficult to engage in a rich conversation. Design history has many purposes. Perhaps your view is itself limited by a form of domain dependency, flavoured by the notion that everything must contribute to better design outcomes as you define them. At this point, I will leave the conversation. Yours, Ken Ken Friedman, Ph.D., D.Sc. (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/ Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| Eminent Scholar | College of Design, Art, Architecture, and Planning | University of Cincinnati ||| Email [log in to unmask] | Academia https://tongji.academia.edu/KenFriedman | D&I http://tjdi.tongji.edu.cn -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -----------------------------------------------------------------