fellow commentators:
i am afraid terry's rightly stated illogic, escapes me. he said:
"There is a sneaky elision that happens in these discussions. It goes like this.
1. How do we deal with design issues that are beyond the human limitations of a designer?
2. Suggest that this can be resolved if many people contribute
3. Argue that these other extra people are stakeholders and not designers.
4. Infer therefore that ALL design problems are within the human limitations of designers.
This is a fallacious way of arguing that the issue (limitations of designers) doesn't exist."
who argues that way?
re (1) things beyond human limitation are beyond human limitations -- which does not mean being unimaginable in stories. we have metaphysics, religious beliefs, mythologies!
Re (2) suggests that terry makes the distinction between individual designers and those working in teams. fair enough
re (3) terry assumes that designers are not stakeholders. i have not heard anyone claiming that. i suggest designers have a lot of stake in what they are proposing, but so do all design team members and other stakeholders who tend to work creatively and with resources toward the realization of a design. design activity is not the exclusive privilege or professional designers.
re (4), i have no clue as to how this could follow from (1) through (3) for anyone, so terry is right, it is fallacious -- but what is the point?
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Jean Schneider
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 9:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Ways of finding where we are (was: current trends...)
Dear all,
Erik has written :
" It can't be the case that what constitutes the "human limitations
of the
understanding of an individual designer" is something given. I guess
that
all os us have different ways to define what would/could be seen as
"biological human limitations". But, I am not sure it is possible to
conclude that a limit of human understanding can be matched with some
intrinsic qualities of a particular design situation. Such an argument
assumes that we are able to clearly define (i) what the limits of human
understanding are and (ii) what constitutes design situations with a
certain
intrinsic level of complexity and (iii) how these two categories can be
compared. I see no possible way to succeed with this.
Why not instead rephrase the questions to something like ""How can
designers
improve and develop their ability to approach and deal with highly
complex
real world design situations?" It is a question without built-in
ontological
assumptions. One answer might be that designers in some cases need to
better
utilize advanced scientific theories and tools, and I see no problem
with
that."
Though I do understand the epistemological concerns that Erik is
expressing, I believe that what Terry has in mind (or how I interpret
it) is a rather pragmatic question.
And, as I think that it can take most of its value if it is kept on a
pragmatic dimension, I would recommend a small, but in my view
relevant book that indirectly deals (in my view) with the issue :
Creating System Innovation
Creating System Innovation: How Large Scale Transitions Emerge
Hans de Bruijn,
Publisher: Taylor & Francis
ISBN: 9058096726 DDC: 658.4063 Edition: Hardcover; 2004-04-15
It is not written by designers, but by the Policy and Management unit
of the TU Delft. Nevertheless, and as it deals with large scale
problems (3 case studies; probably wicked problems, with various
agents, and the necessity to conclude, whether successful or not, but
the change cannot be reverted), it has something that I believe
echoes Terry's concerns. When I was reading them, I kept wondering
where the contribution of designers competencies (I am talking of
their professional competencies : to create forms that convey
meaning) could have helped in the process.
I like the first case they discuss (water management of the
Everglades national park).
Regards,
Jean
|