Hi folks, this is really a follow on of Derek's post that started with "Does anyone remember: NASA, 1980s, Hazmat,the future?"

Derek wrote:

> My observation has been less eloquent that yours. It's more Austin Powers than Blake, namely, "They'll steal my mojo!"
> 
> The funny thing about scientists is that they don't fear this. Yes, someone else might "get there" first, or worse, a competing theory may win out, and all that bother, but there isn't a sense of being redundant as soon as one becomes proficient. In fact, I'm argue that serious scientists, upon achieving a certain level of expertise, realize how rare indeed they are in the world, and how much value they can offer.
> 
> I hope designers get there too. I don't think all design practice should be elevated to theory, just as I'm not convinced that the art of writing can be taught, whereas the craft indeed can be (I'm thinking of John Gardner here, who was divine at teaching this). But just as one can practice writing or study it as literature, I see a future when design too may need to grow comfortable with its duality, just as the productiion of literature is not, and need not be informed by, the theory of it. And so too can great historians and theorists exist on writing without even trying their hand at the craft.

As you and I have talked about before before, I think you're making assumptions about the way designers work and what they value here in the same way that you would accuse designers of making assumptions about the fields your working in and that design is wanted to tackle (social issues, development, etc.). I can understand why, because I think designers have themselves to blame in this regard – the analytical process of synthesis, moving from research data to insights to concept ideation, is poorly articulated and poorly documented by designers themselves. Yet it's perhaps the most crucial part of design activity, more so than the artefacts – images, diagrams, objects, products – that are most often considered "design".

Designers have also too often bought into the idea of "mojo," of talent and inspiration being their secret ingredient to what they do. It is, I believe, a reaction to the way the arts are positioned in school education versus the STEM - science, technology, engineering and maths - subjects. I don't really want to veer off into that area now, but the key point is that buying into the talent myth not only re-charges the ego, but also gives designers something of worth that they feel they can sell. This is a terrible error on the part of design because it hides the very process (synthesis) that it should be making a point of explicitly stating. It also devalues the experience and practice that goes into making a good designer. (It's also why it is offensive to say a musician who practices 4 hours a day is "lucky" to be so "talented"). 

The key difference between the natural sciences and design synthesis is the difference between inductive and abductive reasoning. That's a comparison that one can intellectually grapple with and each side can state, analyse and value (if they're open enough to it). Normally the science/design difference is stated as reason versus "mojo" – by both designers and non-designers. That's not and apples to apples comparison and it's also one deeply damaging to design. Historians and archeologists, to mention just two areas with established methdologies, both use abductive reasoning to work with incomplete data and draw "best guess" conclusions. In both cases these can also be prototyped and tested, which is what design does, of course.

By failing to articulate this properly, the field of design has set up a false dichotomy between theory and practice (and practice and research) that is less prevalent, if at all, in the natural sciences. A scientist in a lab doing research is doing science and is using and developing theories. Design education has generally failed to integrate these and so design practice is seen as a different thing from design theory or research. This is a huge problem for students and educators, because the practice vs theory rift in institutions is quite prevalent and ultimately destructive. 

Practice is theory and research. At least it should be and most practicing designers do do this even when they don't articulate and thus can't sell, explain or argue the case for it. That leaves it open to the accusations that you make, Derek. I'm going to quote your lecture on design and ethics back to you and others on the list, because (apart from the slightly patronising use of "grown up") it sums up the issue very well:

"These [armed conflict, violence, peace, security and development] are real, grown up issues that need real, grown up attention by people who are committed — professionally – to trying to figure out what is wrong with their own ideas, and not what is right about them. Designers are worryingly not involved in that process. Design is trying to prove itself, rather than disprove itself. It is the latter, though, that will serve the social good."

As you point out, science tries to disprove itself all the time. That's what powers its advance and allows the rather odd combination of simultaneous competition, sharing and collaboration. I think design is well placed to add a powerful set of insights and approaches to science's often too reductive nature, especially with regards to human interactions, issues and needs. Analysing and designing solutions for these is what design has a long history and deep understanding of. The problem isn't a lack of ability or maturity, it's a lack of vocabulary (which, one might argue, maybe comes with maturity). 

Design's adoption and engagement with methods and practices from areas such as sociology (specifically ethnography) and psychology – to name but two – is a positive step, not only because it makes for better design practice based on grounded, human-centred foundations, but also because those fields have more established and better articulated  methodologies that can add to design's vocabulary.

Refs:

Here's the link to Derek's lecture for those who are interested: http://www.unidir.org/bdd/unidir-views-fiche.php?ref_uv=27 

Much of my thinking on synthesis has been inspired and influence by Jon Kolko's writing on the subject: http://www.jonkolko.com/writingAbductiveThinking.php and http://www.jonkolko.com/writingSensemaking.php and his recent book: http://www.methodsofsynthesis.com/

p.s. Derek, I don't agree with the point about not doing a PhD in creative writing, but that's another conversation that turns around the word "in."

Cheers,

Andy
–
Hochschule Luzern
Design & Kunst

Sentimatt 1 | Dammstrasse, CH-6003 Luzern
T +41 41 228 54 64, F +41 41 228 56 99
M +49 151 1964 2581
Skype: apolaine
Twitter: apolaine
http://www.hslu.ch/design-kunst/

Dr. Andy Polaine
Forschungsdozent Service Design
Research Fellow / Lecturer Service Design

T direkt: +41 41 249 92 25
[log in to unmask]

Co-author: http://www.rosenfeldmedia.com/books/service-design/