Dear Carma,
Since you ask me directly about my "favourite philosophical problems
about design" I can hardly insist on keeping them a secret. [Carma R
Gorman: "Response to Per Galle on philosphy of design, and a query about
staffing", PhD-Design list December 1, 2003.] But I will keep this
rather short, not to sidetrack the discussion.
You also ask me what I think a UCI course on the Philosophy of Design
might look like. A serious answer to that would require more time for
contemplation and more insight into the workings of the UCI than I can
muster. But I think that in answering your first question, I may at
least contrbute some tentative fragments of an answer to the latter.
You seem to perceive the border between Philosophy of Design (PoD) and
design theory as rather fuzzy. I think you are right, mainly because PoD
is itself in its infancy and has not yet found any final or even mature
form. As I said in my introductory paper in the Special Issue of Design
Studies I mentioned earlier (Vol. 23 No 3, May 2002), we should be
careful not to limit the field prematurely. A simple working definition
that I suggested in the paper is the following:
The Philosphy of Design is the pursuit of insights about design by
philosphical means.
These insights about design are the ones we obtain by rational
reflection rather than empirical observation; the ones that can only be
gained by such reflection and not by observation. And, to quote from the
paper: "Rational reflection, and the cultivation of such argumentative
power and conceptual awareness as it takes, is the business of philosphy
as I understand it" (p 216).
The PoD may fall under "Design Studies" if you like, but if so, it is
distinct from, but may work as a supplement to, empirical studies based
on, say, protocol studies of designers in action. The PoD is also
distinct from methodology of design.
This is all very abstract, so let me offer some examples (others may be
found elsewhere, e.g. in the DS Special Issue and the literature
referred to there, and in my previous post on PoD. [See also Note 1
below]). In the call for papers for for the Special Issue I listed the
following 7 examples of "problems which might be addressed". Note that
questions 6 and 7 are borderline cases, tending to move inquiry towards
a meta-level of reflection on the workings and merits of PoD, rather
than its subject matter: design.
====
1. What distinguishes design (architectural, engineering, software,
etc.) from other intellectual endeavours, such as science or technology?
2. How are the concepts of design and artefact related? For example, are
they definable in terms of each other? Is it a necessary, a sufficient,
or necessary and sufficient, condition for something to be an artefact
that it was designed; can there be artefacts without design?
3. Whatever the answer to the latter question may be, it seems clear
that there is always design without artefacts, for at the time a given
artefact was designed, it had not yet been constructed. Yet designers
talk about what they design as if there were artefacts for them to talk
about. How is that to be explained? Are statements of design discourse
true, false, or even meaningful? If so, what makes them so? If not, what
purpose could design discourse possibly serve?
4. What ontological and epistemological assumptions should be made to
explain the apparent fact that designers can know or predict the
properties of an artefact which is not there to have properties?
5. Taking universals to be whatever can be predicated of things, design
might be viewed as the selection (or creation?) of one or more
universals to be predicated of some future artefact. Taking this as an
initial step towards theorising about design, it must be expected that
the traditional distinction between nominalist, conceptualist, and
realist theories of universals carries over to theories of design. What
would design theories of the three types be like, and what would be
their relative strengths and weaknesses?
6. What are the relations between philosophy of design and philosophy at
large? For example, considering the central problems of the philosophy
of design (whatever they may be, apart perhaps from defining ‘design’),
are they special cases of familiar philosophical problems, or are they
new? No doubt the philosophy of design can draw on insights from other
fields of philosophy. Can it also offer them new insights?
7. Can results from the philosophy of design be put to use in design
practice – for example, by leading us towards better artefacts, better
design methods, better ways of utilising computers in design? [Note 2.]
====
Just to avoid misunderstandings, please note that this list is by no
means meant to be exhaustive, but I do think it may serve as a
reasonably representative *sample* of what PoD might be about. At least
it shows what I had in mind, and, to be sure, includes some of my
"favourite philosophical problems about design". Hope this anweres your question(s).
Best wishes,
Per
==== [Note 1]
I just came across a reference to a new book, which I have not yet laid
hands on, but which seems highly relevant in this context:
Nelson H G and Stolterman E (2003) The Design Way. Intentional Change in
an Unpredictable World - Foundations and Fundamentals of Design
Competence. (http://www.advanceddesign.org/book.html)
==== [Note 2]
To elaborate a little on no. 7, I think one potential way to put PoD to
practical use would be important: By examining what it would take to
construct an operational or normative design aesthetics. Is it possible
to clarify what quality in design is, at a level sufficiently general to
afford the foundations for practical method?
==== [end of notes]
--
* Per Galle
*
* Mosevangen 18
* DK-3460 Birkeroed, Denmark
*
* (+45) 45 82 81 05
|
