Hi Eduardo,
> Dear David and Martin,
Has someone called Martin posted recently? - if so I haven't seen it.
> Design History has been written as if the Design
> institutionalization had evolved from arts and crafts (very low
> profile activity)......
I don't concern myself much with the history of why we are at the
position we are at now. It is of more concern to me to understand the
current position, possibly try to change the future for the better.
But then, not being a historian, I can gaze towards the future
unfettered.
I should also add that I do not recognise your description of events
nor of status - at least not as it pertains today in the UK, and
possibly several other countries too.
> So here we arrive to the duality David wrote about. Why not all in
> one? A Designologist both practitioner and researcher?
I suppose by qualification and experience, I fit your description.
However, being both (and having a conventional PhD), I understand how
difficult it is to have sufficient grasp on research as well as
handling the extra complications of, for example, reflecting on one's
own designing, or attempting to control or mitigate the large number
of variables inherent in designing (even for research purposes). One
variable is of course me.
I agree though that there should be people who can do both, though
they may be few. However, this still requires that the 'researcher'
role is trained to a professional standard related to traditions of
research practice, not of designing practice. A designer undertaking a
statistical analysis of some results still has to have an
understanding of statistics commensurate with the intended outcomes.
Significance is significance, whether designing is part of the process
or not.
David
.........................................................................
David Durling FDRS PhD http://durling.tel
.........................................................................
|