Hello Terry,
Alas, my recent post may have created a bit of confusion because it was part
of a discussion focused on graphic design and the level to which software
design is affecting the practice of the profession. My post was meant to
have a broader perspective on a pattern that I have seen developing over the
last six months or so on this particular list serve. The pattern evolves as
follows:
* Someone on the list raises a question that is of interest to many readers;
* This question appears to be broad and innocent enough in that it often
deals with design issues relevant to this group. Chuck¹s recent post on
creativity is a good case in point;
* However, there is perhaps a key word or two in the post that appears to
strike a nerve with one or two readers;
* I easily understand this reaction, visceral as it sometimes appears to be,
because it is coming from scholars who desire ‹ if not demand ‹ clear and
articulate communication and understanding;
* What happens next has now become predictable: a debate ensues about the
exact meaning of this or that key word to the point that the original
question is lost or at least reduced to a secondary issue.
* Two or three contributors pursue the debate until the steam runs out.
* All the while, there is silence from most members of the list.
* In the end, the surgery is successful but the patient dies, to use a well
worn metaphor.
My suggestion to the members of the list was not to be intimidated by some
of the contributions but rather to contribute generously, especially when
the contribution would create a diversity of opinion instead of obsession
with detail.
I fully understand that no one can be forced to contribute but I sense that
many people do not because of a fear of being burned at the stake if they
do. After all, I believe that we have over 1,500 members.
As for my angst, thanks for your concern. However, my feelings were closer
to coitus interruptus.
Jacques Giard, PhD
Professor and Director
MSD/PhD Programs
Herberger Institute for Design and the Arts
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-2105
P Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
On 8/18/09 6:03 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Jacques,
>
> I can understand your angst.
>
> It seems people look for the benefits of design research in the wrong place.
>
> To date, it has been enormously more successful to embed the products of
> design research in the computer systems that designers use than to try to
> teach designers new advances in design knowledge.
>
> That way, design research outcomes have radically and beneficially
> transformed design practices without the effort of having to try to teach
> the new design theory developments and knowledge to either design educators
> or design practitioners.
>
> This has led naïve design professionals to think that there have been no
> useful advances through design research for practice.
>
> The reality is that design professionals now produce around 800% more work
> per day and of much higher quality. It's just that the benefits of the new
> design knowledge and the improvement in the skill that produce the improved
> design output faster reside primarily in the software rather than designers'
> personal design skills. This change has happened across all design fields.
> It is most noticeable in Graphic Design, Product Design, Engineering Design
> and Software Design.
>
> Some of this is a consequence of research funding. It is far more sensible
> to fund research that improves design outcomes automatically for all
> designers than to fund research that will improve design skills of
> individual designers provided you persuade/teach them one by one.
>
> The evidence seems to suggest that in most areas of design, computerized
> automation beats craft apprenticeship/studio teaching hands down.
>
> It would be interesting to, very specifically and with strong evidence-based
> justification, identify those areas of design practice that the above is
> not true and develop design research in those areas. I'm envisaging
> something way on the other side of 'Design as Rhetoric'/'Design as a
> systematic process'/'Design as a collaborative social process'.
>
> If this is possible, it would provide a basis for identifying completely new
> pathways in design education that are beyond being design software jockeys
> (though my feeling is that being a good design software jockey is a sound
> profession) and would help identify which areas of design education to dump
> from out of design education courses (rhetoric?).
>
> Many engineering design courses have faced this problem over the last twenty
> years in that there is now much less need for mathematical understanding in
> engineering than was previously necessary (those dratted successful design
> researchers again!). It has enabled a rethinking of what it means to be a
> professional engineering designer/manager and a radical reworking of
> engineering education.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
|