Hi Klaus,

Thanks for your message.
You say 'Of Course' [design is an essential element of design activity] -
I'm not so certain.
My feeling is that thinking professionally as a design researcher requires
looking at the situation in a bit more depth.

Before I suggest it could be different, I'd like to raise two issues and do
this through an 'intro' and a 'thinky bit'

---Intro---
Of the two ideas, the first is the matter of how professional bias occurs in
how we view the world. Often this is stated  'To a hammer, everything looks
like a nail'. The underlying idea is that the hammer can only see the world
through the interaction of what a hammer does. In other words, sociologists
look at the world primarily through a lens that focuses on the sociological
aspects of the situation. Linguists focus of the language or discourse
aspects of a situation, Aestheticists focus on the aesthetics of a situation
etc.

The second is the notion that any idea has to have some boundary between it
and everything else. That is,  talking about 'something' assumes it  is
different from things  that are 'not the something'. For example, fish are
not bicycles.

The two ideas combine in ways  one can then look at different aspects of
bias in theory making. So, on one hand,  one can look at the biases in the
way a group of sociologists (or linguists)  look at fish and see in it the
way that their lens of viewing and their theory discourse overemphasizes
social interactions, group identity and other sociological dimensions (or
the communications between fish (fishy talk), e.g.  for linguists) and
simultaneously ignores or plays down other aspects of the situation such as
the aesthetics of fish or the biology of the fish (or views these through
the lens of sociology!).

Similarly, one can look at biases in how these biases shape how sociologists
define what is fish and what is 'not fish' (or bicycles and 'not bicycles').

More interestingly, one can also look at how the one-eyed lens of
sociologists  (or  linguists, aestheticists or other professional group)
results in a  biased view of the idea  of 'being and not being' (i.e. the
_idea_ itself of how something is seen as a something and everything else is
'not that something'). This is in effect the Theory of Knowledge applied to
the Sociology of Ontology. To put it more simply, it is  the study of how
theory is made with the assumption that the academic field one is in shapes
how one sees the beingness of something (for beingness substitute 'how one
defines something').
---

---Thinky bit---
How does this apply to design research?
First, applying this to design research one would expect that sociologists
and linguists would:
1) over emphasis the social aspects of design activity
2) try to claim that other dimensions of design activity were less relevant
than the bits they focus on
3) would define social interactions and discourse as the central and
essential features of design and design research
4) Would identify what is design and what is not design in terms of a social
group (e.g. professional designers) or a particular language or discourse
5) Would shy away from formal definitions in order to place the weight of
definitions in the hands of a social group or of a discourse
6) Would claim that the only way one could define concepts such as design
would be in terms of the underlying ontology and epistemological positions
of sociology and linguistics
7) Would use the power plays and claims of 'authority' that they could
derive from insisting that discussions only focused  around the ideas of
social groups and language

The intended effect is a biased  illusion of an apparently fully-justified
theory picture of design activity and design research that offers benefits
to sociologists and linguists. The behaviour of other professional groups
involved in design and design research follows much the same path. This is
one of the reasons why there is so much parochialism in the design
literature and why the idea of a single view of design activity across all
sub-fields is difficult.

Second, is the issue of what is design activity and what is not design
activity.
A reasonable epistemological position is that 'whatever criteria are used to
identify t the  essential concepts of design theory, then the same criteria
apply to all concepts'. 
By implication , a test of these criteria is how they also include and
exclude other concepts.
The concept of 'discourse' provides an example. The intro above suggests
some questions:
1) Is discourse an activity in it is own right that is essentially distinct
from design activity but is used by designers (like say, thinking, searching
for information, using paper to draw on and using a computer)?  
2) Is 'discourse' a central and essential  component of design activity in
the sense that absolutely NO  design activity can occur without discourse? 
3) Is discourse claimed as being  central due to biases that offer benefits
to one or more  professional academic groups?

One way of thinking about this is to ask whether the same reasons for seeing
'discourse' as central also includes things that would be regarded as silly.
I suggest that the same reasoning that leads to discourse being regarded as
central to design theory and design research if applied to other activities
would also include as central to design theory 'sweeping the design studio',
'making cups of tea', 'taking money to the bank' and all other activities
that designers do and are 'essential' to the activity.

On a slightly different tack, I'm currently designing several eco-houses and
co-housing arrangements for speculative build. The core aspects of the
design work involve national and international standards and data from the
research of others. It's a large-scale design project yet there is
negligible 'design discourse - I rarely talk with myself.

On these grounds, I suggest that 'discourse' is better viewed as an
ancillary parallel activity (more like a tool) along with  a more tightly
identified understanding of design activity that is unlinked in definition
and in conceptualization from the views, interpretations and practices  of
professional groups  of people. 

In other words, I feel the above suggests there are significant benefits for
design research and design activity from  de-sociologising (what a word!)
and de-languaging (another great word!) design.

All the best,
Terry

==
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226
Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: +61 (0)434 975 848
[log in to unmask]
www.love.com.au 
===


-----Original Message-----
Klaus: 
yes, of course.

if you can't translate what a client desires into a language that designers
can use to develop what might satisfy these desires, if you can't talk with
your co-designers in ways that coordinates their contribution to a project,
if you can't explain and justify what you propose to your stakeholders, if
you can't talk to your fellow designers about what, how, and why you did
what you did, then you are not a professional designer -- and certainly not
a design teacher.
...
competence in the use of a design discourse is what you acquire in design
education.  if you don't talk like a designer, can't think like a designer,
can't work with others as a designer, you  are not a designer

-----Original Message-----

Terry:
Is competence in design discourse relevant at all?
It's not obvious to me that it is an essential aspect of design activity.