Dear colleagues,

Please find below a set of discussions about design community (in reply
to Nigel and Victor suggestions).
Richard Buchanan and Ken Friedman suggested to enlarge this discussions
to all phd-deisgn members.
In fact I did not want to bother you and I was not sure that this kind
of discussion could ineterest most of you.


Best regards
Khaldoun

**************************************

Khaldoun ZREIK Wrote

> I believe in a such community, who reprents (for me) the open minded
> scientific world only supported by innovation, creation and new
> concepts.
> A word completely in the time and out of the time (I translated it
> from french, I mean it).
>
>
> Nigel Cross a wrote :
>
>> It seems reasonable that any PhD student in the area of ìDesign
>> Studiesî
>> should have knowledge of a ëcanoní of works that the research
>> community
>> regards as core. But we have seen in suggestions so far that there
>> is
>> little common agreement, because we are still a ëcommunityí of
>> individuals
>> with only some overlapping interests - we need to do some serious
>> community-building, as Victor and others have suggested.
>
>
> This is a fact and not a problem. If there is no "serious" community,
> their will be an explanation.
> Since 1958 lot of thinkers, researchers, designers, etc. have tried to
> build a "serious" community. This has never worked. Why ?
> What is more, even the non "serious" community is being reduced, WHY ?
>
> I can observe that through our experiences in 01design, PhDIT and DST
>
> Paradox:
> Our society (very influenced or attached to the new technology of
> information and telecommunication) seems to be in a non stop design
> process.
> Everybody recongize this fact and confirm that we are missing lot of
> know-how related to open design system. New skills are required.
> Here is an excellent opportunity and a "serious" community will emerge
> if really needed, and I think it is needed.
> New technology of information and telecommunication should not been
> seen as a finality or purpose, it should be seen as a tool or as a
> facility.
> Let's doing PhD in Design through NTIC, enginneering or economic
> projects. These communities need us much more than designers.
> Designers have never been convinced by our scientifical approaches and
> I am afraid they were right.
> Today, and more than ever, our know-how is essential to our shifting,
> unstructural and distributed society and economy.
>
> In sum:
> I beleive that the "serious" community (if it does not exist) is not
> to be built after all those years.
> But I beleive that a new community is rising (will exist naturally)
> and I hope we will not miss it.
> Fianlly, this subject is too complex to be discussed through these
> poor tools of NTIC ;-) (in addition to translation pbs).
>
> Toward a "canon" work :
> If this kind of topics could interest you I will pleased to
> participate to the organisation of a brainstorming round-table or
> workshop.
> We have lot of opportunities this year :
> - in Edinburgh (during DEECE conference, november 2000), in Paris
> (CAPS, december 2000), in Delft (EIA'8, April)
>
> Even, I will be pleased to organise a special meeting in Caen or in
> Paris, or to attend such workshop anywhere in the next year.
>
> Apologize for my "Franglais"
>
> Khaldoun

"Dr. Terence Love" wrote :

> Dear Kaldoun,
>
> If I understand you correctly, you seem to be suggesting that it
> likely to be easier to build a community of design researchers from
> those involved in designing in fields in  the areas of commerce,
> engineering, information systems and computing. I agree.
> Design research has gone through many phases and fashions including
> 'systems based methods', 'dreams of automatic designing', 'sciences of
> design', 'languages of designing', 'artificial intelligence in
> designing' and many others well documented in the drs literature. Each
> of these has now been incorporated in the epistemological patchwork
> that the field of design research has become to date. Over the last
> thirty or so years, many discussions have occurred across a variety of
> domains with architecture being, for a considerable period, the major
> source of theoretical contributions. Over the last couple of years,
> the drs mailbase list and the phd-design mailbase list have been
> dominated by discussion relating to the 'art and design ' and graphic
> design traditions.  Taking a long view, this latter focus is a small
> part of the overall flow of fashion and interest in different aspects
> of design research over the years.With respect to this recent high
> level of discussion focused on 'art and design' research and
> education, you seem to be suggesting that if a coherent design
> research community is to form then it is likely to be around a more
> technical focus? I feel that there are many pointers towards this
> being the case. Technical design and its associated research is by far
> the largest element in the designing arena. It continues to flourish
> and there is increasing demand for more sophistication in technical
> design methods to provide competitive manufacturing advantage. In
> historical terms, the origins of many of the major players in design
> research such as the Design Research Society, the Design Methods
> Group, the WDK group were in the fields of technical (including
> architecture), industrial and system designing. Technologies have
> moved on, designing has become more complex and an increasing number
> of factors must now be taken into consideration. Addressing these
> increases in complexity whether relating to technical factors or
> social, environmental and ethical factors, has necessitated improved
> methods of designing, improved support systems for designers, and
> improvements to designers' education. Electronic and information
> management systems now provide much of the core functionality of
> artefacts and support systems for designers. Designing these
> informatically complex systems requires a substantial commitment to
> socio-cultural-economic contextual factors and these factors are now
> widely viewed as essential aspects of the education of those involved
> in designing,especially in,  for example, new fields such as designing
> e-commerce solutions. Yet, in lots of ways, these factors point to a
> similar underlying approach to designing that spans the many domains
> involved - the basis of a community.
> Taken together, these factors point to  substantial changes  in how
> designing is undertaken, the types of artefacts being designed, and
> the skills required of professional designers to participate in
> designing that involves this range of factors. They imply that the
> core characteristics of the most obvious group to form a coherent
> community of researchers in the field of designing are likely to be
> different from those found in designers and researchers from the 'art
> and design' traditions.
> Best wishes
> Terry
> ________________________________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love
> We-B Centre
> School of Management Information Systems
> Edith Cowan University
> Churchlands, Western Australia 6018
> [log in to unmask]   +61 (0)8 9273 8682
> _______________________________________
>
>
>
>
> Michel Leglise wrote :
>
>> Dear Freinds, dear Khaldoun,
>>
>> Having an accident gives you opportunities to think in a time which
>> changed. You are not in the same flow. And things (not all, but
>> some) become clearer.
>>
>> Answering to K., the most important thing is that we are, most of
>> us, in an academic world. This academic world don't like very much
>> crossing in general, and specially cultural cross-fertilization.
>> Cross-fertilization is a difficult task. If you are a computer
>> scientist, you *must* have a solid background in philosophy when you
>> speak of philosophy.
>> Do you remember the Michel Serres' book called in French "Le passage
>> du Nord-Ouest" ? (I think it has been translated in English).
>> Then, for each of us, what we do demands a lot of time, and this
>> time cannot be considered in our institution.
>> I think we made some sort of a cultural cross-fertilization between
>> us. But what we are doing there is not supposed to be one of our
>> common-sense activities.
>> Unfortunately, NTIC and internet is another source of time waste,
>> even if it's also a fantastic tool for saving time.
>> So, the problem of our community, as it appears to me, is the
>> problem of *human* time (my time, your time). Human time is related
>> to desire. If there is a desire to meet, we will find the time, if
>> not, well..
>>
>> K. said :
>>
>> >Toward a "canon" work :
>> >If this kind of topics could interest you I will pleased to
>> participate to the organisation of a brainstorming round-table or
>> workshop.
>> >We have lot of opportunities this year :
>> >- in Edinburgh (during DEECE conference, november 2000), in Paris
>> (CAPS, december 2000), in Delft (EIA'8, April)
>>
>> My opinion is if you make two things in the same time, it's not good
>> for the "less academic" one.
>>
>> >Even, I will be pleased to organise a special meeting in Caen or in
>> Paris, or to attend such workshop anywhere in the next year.
>>
>> Well, OK,
>> Community-building is necessary, and it's a hard, human
>> time-consuming, work.
>>
>> Michel
>> __________________________________________
>> Prof. Michel Léglise           Laboratoire Li2a
>> Mel : [log in to unmask]            Ecole d'Architecture de Toulouse
>> Tel : (33) _ 562 115 046       83, Rue Aristide Maillol - BP 1329
>> Fax : (33) _ 562 115 049       31106 Toulouse cedex 1 - France
>> __________________________________________
>
>
> Victor Margolin suggested to organise something arround May in Paris.
>
> **********************************************************