Dear Terry,

'Thanks for your explanation on the importance of understanding the differences between the discourse of design research and the discourse of design' ... and so could we continue to be rhetorically polite ... However it doesn't seem to be a very productive stance! 

Based on the diversity of responses (on and off list), encourages me to believe that the diversity of standpoints really matter. I also believe that something very crucial in my training to an industrial designer is at stake in many current design discourses. But that isn't based on a belief that training in industrial design automatically make someone to an "expert in design research" or, by the way, that [industrial design] should be the role model of [design]. I just think that the standpoints of traditionally trained designers also are relevant from a design research perspective and that it; compared to other perspectives, currently and urgently need further articulation. 

Terry, it seems from your more recent reply to Rosan that you are arguing from a standpoint in the middle of a slightly different discussion (or "fight") concerning  'design'-based PhD's? I've been there too ... but personally I try to refuse an imposed and simple dichotomy between, on one hand, "theoretical research" and, on the other, "practical design" by coining the concept "designerly theorisation" (or whatever it would be in English?). But that's another story ...

The reason I joined this tread was that I got the impression that the point of departure were somewhere beyond trench warfare and much closer to an eager and curious interest in the topic, per se. Rosan's "plea" seemed to be based on such an interest (11/19 6:38 pm).  Nicola's attempt to understand the implications for [industrial design] and go beyond current dichotomies made me interested to read further (11/20 3:39 pm). Clive's (self)critical stance, where he on one hand talks about that "art-and-design suffers from intellectual emptiness." ... and on the other hand realizing that ... "design in the second sense [i.e. 'the more technocratic-systemic tradition'] suffers from a continual danger of slipping into mere operational-ism" was another example of the kind of inspiring contributions I believe we need more of (11/20 3.54 pm). 

All in all; Clive's provocative call seems to become more and more relevant:

"By implication, there is a major publishing and intellectual project contained in these last posts, I wonder if the field can rise to the challenge?"

Best wishes
Håkan 




>>> Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> 11/21 12:30 pm >>>
Dear Håkan,

Thanks for your explanation on the 
importance of understanding the 
differences between those who 'do design'
and those who have a social role of 'designer'.

You said, <snip>
So the real challenge ... would probably be 
to balance all articulations from external (or new) 
design discourses with some articulations from 
more internal (or traditional) design discourses. 
<endsnip>

I wonder whether this is relevant to design research?
etcetera ....
____________________