Dear  Lubomir Popov

I think that your argument is sound, however I ask one question in a 
world where we as designers are increasingly having to design for 
populations whom have needs that are far from our own experiences and 
perhaps develop solutions which are capable of meeting a wide range of 
user needs then is there not a place for designers to be engaged in 
sociological research (Denzin and Lincon type stuff) in a visual 
manner.  Is not the need for the designer to engage totally with the 
problem statement and therefore create scope and space for creativity 
and solving the real problem not the perceived one.

As a designer and manufacturer of inclusive and adaptive sports 
equipment, and from experience of drafting EN standards on Inclusive 
Equipment design - I feel that there is a case for a strong synergy 
between the researcher and the designer.

I hope that I have continued your thread.  I did want to read something 
before I replied but felt that perhaps a short piece initially would help.

Suresh

Suresh Paul FRGS
Director
Equal Adventure
Glenmore Lodge
Aviemore
Inverness-shire PH22 1QU
Tel: (+44) 1479 861200
Fax: (+44) 1479 861212
Mob: (+44) 07989573784
www.equaladventure.co.uk <http://www.equaladventure.co.uk>



Ken Friedman wrote:
> Friends,
>
> Lubomir Popov is having trouble posting.
>
> He has written a response to Dori.
>
> I'm passing it on at his request.
>
> Yours,
>
> Ken
>
>
> --snip--
>
> OK Dori,
>
> You get the controversy. I got a little bit of time on my hands and 
> will both support you and challenge you.
>
> First, with the support.
>
> As a sociologist, I appreciate the interest for social science 
> disciplines in design. I bank for user research and the scholarly 
> development of design requirements. Designers need to understand the 
> users and need somewhat clear vision for user/design requirements. In 
> this regard, designers need to understand the social world and need 
> exposure to social sciences.
>
> As a designer (architect) I understand the situations in which 
> designers need information for decision making, information about the 
> users. In principle, this happens though out the whole design process, 
> but the need is strongest in the initial phases, and then, there might 
> be a spike at the end, if designers engage in building performance 
> evaluation (sorry, but I will refer mostly to design at building level).
>
> Now the challenge.
>
> I am trying for 25 years to promote the idea for design programming 
> (also known as architectural programming and facility programming in 
> US, briefing in UK). I am not the initiator, I am not the first person 
> to conceptualize programming. I am indebted to a dozens of innovators 
> whose path I try to follow. Other collegues have to be credited with 
> the idea of design programming or pre-design, or as you like to call 
> it. However, I have very strong interest to promote this activity to 
> the level that it is institutionalized and professionalized. I would 
> like to see it as a profession of its own. I have "business" interests 
> if you like to call it that way. I will have a clearer niche and 
> better opportunities for definition and differentiation from the rest 
> of the pack.
>
> If we accept the concept of design programming and situate this 
> activity at the initial stages of the facility development process, a 
> lot of pressure on designers will be relieved. Desigenrs can still be 
> sociologists if they want to, but would not be pressured to make PhDs 
> in Sociology in order to learn how to do user research. Designers will 
> need know about social sciences just enough to understand the program 
> and to interpret it in spatial forms.
>
> I am aware that I generalize. In practice, this clear separation is 
> productive only in the realm of super projects. For smaller and 
> traditional projects that are repetitive in time and space, a dual 
> programmer-designer is more efficient and productive. With repetitive 
> projects, there is a critical mass of trial and error to advance the 
> building type and to do programming by building type (guidebook). It 
> is also possible to apply a participatory design approach and engage, 
> in what I will call it here, design research. This is design research 
> for me. The rest is social science research.
>
> The separation and professionalization of programming and design will 
> allow for programmers to specialize and to do their research work (of 
> course, there is design decision making even in programming), and for 
> designers to concentrate on typical design tasks. The amalgamation of 
> programming and design is often useful, but it is also like the 
> amalgamation of the professions of civil engineer and architect. It is 
> difficult to be an expert in both. That is why these activities are 
> separated and professionalized separately. In some countries, there 
> are architect-engineers, but I doubt if they often venture to design 
> the structure of a skyscraper. Houses and small facilities are just 
> fine for them.
>
> My challenge is about the hybrid profession. In many project 
> situations the hybrid designer-social researcher will work. I envisage 
> small to medium projects, well-known, well-researched project types. 
> In these cases a participatory design approach combined with design 
> guide approach will be very efficient, quick, and low-cost. But in the 
> realm of large and complex facilities this approach would not work. We 
> better specialize in our areas and then communicate with each other, 
> just like in the Urban Planning teams.
>
> I challenged Mr. Nussbaum assault against the design profession on 
> that ground. I wrote directly -- do not blame for design failures poor 
> designers, blame clients who do not want to hire programmers. These 
> clients kill the programming profession and then no one knows that 
> there are such consultants/providers. It is a closed cycle that 
> society is responsible to unwind. There has been absolutely no 
> response to my post. No one even cursed me. I am still ready to 
> challenge Mr. Nussbaum and to tell him that it is not the designers 
> that are failing, it is the society that is not capable to introduce a 
> better organization of the facility development process.
>
> My positions is: Let designers design and do not overload them with 
> research activities. Develop a profession to focus on the product 
> development phases that are loaded with extensive research tasks.
>
> I will stop here because a good and exhaustive argument will take for 
> ever. My objective is to join your quest for discussion and controversy.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor
> Interior Design Program
> School of Family and Consumer Sciences
> 309 Johnston Hall
> Bowling Green State University
> Bowling Green, OH 43403-0059
> phone: (419) 372-7935
> fax: (419) 372-7854
> [log in to unmask]
>
> --snip--
>
>
>