Dear Klaus,

Thanks for your reply. I understood the intention -- when you asked 
that we recall the meaning of the word based on its etymology, I 
wanted to clarify the etymological descent from study and learning.

But this also points to the issue you raise here, in part to suggest 
that designers are not "undisciplined" and to say that as a community 
they cannot be undisciplined.

All human groups establish some form of symbolic community through 
which they establish meaning and create a common culture. This is how 
we transmit information and -- more important -- how we transmit the 
internalized actionable information the constitutes knowledge. It is 
how we share values and build communities. It is how we create and 
sustain the symbolic universe within which each groups creates, 
enacts, and gives voice to (languages) its world.

As you do, I prefer a human-centered approach. I am also aware of the 
social reality of the design profession. All professions that shape 
strong cultures and professional solidarity deal with the problems 
you label as abstractions: disciplines, professionalism, culture, 
governance. Whatever you want to label them -- and whether or not you 
wish to give them any abstract label at all -- the phenomena they 
represent are part of the cultural and behavioral repertoire of 
designers. Becoming undisciplined is a personal choice, and 
individuals often make this choice over and against the social 
pressure of the groups to which they belong. They must frequently 
make this choice over against the sanctions and punitive reactions of 
their communities.

We do not differ on the human-centered approach. We differ in the way 
we talk about it. The concepts of "human-centered approach" and 
"stakeholder" are abstraction in just the same way that concepts such 
as "culture" or "profession" are abstractions. The words we use 
create and give rise to the world through abstraction -- it seems to 
me that you are criticizing my use of words as abstract while suggest 
that the words you use are not abstract. I'd say that all words are 
abstract, since they describe things rather than being the things 
they describe.

Designers should be remain accountable to their stakeholders. Like 
lawyers, physicians, senators, and even professors, they ten to count 
their professional colleagues and social communities among the 
stakeholder groups to which they must account -- the challenge of 
understanding the nature of the stakeholder is as problematic for 
designers as for any other group, and, as with all groups, designers 
can sometimes be more loyal to one group of stakeholders than to 
another.

This is especially the case for social groups with strong cultures -- 
hedge fund financiers with six thousand pound suits are an example of 
such a group, as are lawyers, uniformed military officers, or a 
convocation of black-suited Jesuits. The convocation of black-suited 
designers in my example was no less cohesive than any of these 
others, and my observation of most design studios suggests that most 
design disciples submit themselves to disciplinary thinking, 
demonstrating obedience by putting loyalty to stakeholders within the 
firm above loyalty to outside stakeholders (again, see Byrne and 
Sands 2001).

We agree on what should be. I argue that what should be is the 
abstract here: you describe an ideal situation. The realities on the 
ground are different.

Yours,

Ken

--

Reference

Byrne, Bryan and Ed Sands. 2001. "Designing Collaborative Corporate 
Cultures." In Creating Breakthrough Ideas. Bryan Byrne and Susan E. 
Squires, eds. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, 
47-69.

--

Klaus Krippendorff wrote,

dear ken,
it is late here.
only two points.
(1)  i did not want to develop a complete etymological history of the word
discipline - whether disciple came before discipline and such - to me a
disciple submits him or herself to disciplinary thinking and is no longer
him or herself, has internalized the disciplinary aspect of discipline. 
(2)  i deliberately qualified my preference for design as an undiscipline by
saying that designers remain accountable to their stakeholders.  the latter
avoids the kind of abstractions that you introduce like disciplines,
professionalism, culture, governance.  i prefer a more human-centered
approach as you know.
klaus


-- 

Ken Friedman
Professor
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Oslo

Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
Copenhagen

+47 46.41.06.76    Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95    Tlf Privat

email: [log in to unmask]