JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN Archives

PHD-DESIGN Archives


PHD-DESIGN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN Home

PHD-DESIGN  April 2011

PHD-DESIGN April 2011

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in desgin [was:NASA,Hasmat, etc.]

From:

Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 6 Apr 2011 09:51:15 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (139 lines)

Dear Andy,

Thank you for your message, and thank you for the reference to your work. 

You wrote, ' Designers have a method, but because it is poorly articulated
we have problems speaking with, relating to and selling the value of
synthesis to those aforementioned people (not to mention teaching it).'

I'm suggesting, with an overview of the last 50 years of literature on
design and design research,  that the approaches that have been attempted in
de design field to understand and theorise about design activity have
neither been successful in the above, nor in improving design practice
significantly. The exception has been the scientific design research which
has focused, in an engineering research fashion, primarily on the properties
of problems and the characteristics of solutions. This latter has been
successful in improving design activity primarily by taking design
activities out of the hands of designers and automating them via computer
software.

From that perspective on the design literature, I'm suggesting the central
foundations of design research and explaining design practice have not
worked. The result has been a design literature unhelpfully digging a deeper
and deeper hole in the wrong place.

The questions of the moment, therefore, are to ask: 1) which foundational
theory perspectives that are currently used in design research and
descriptions of design are fundamentally unhelpful? 2) Why? And  3) Is there
a foundational theory perspective that offers more potential in rebuilding
from scratch a new body of explanation and theory about how design
activities can be understood and the behaviour of their outcomes can be
better forecasted? 

For such a new theory frame for design research to be successful, the
primary criteria of its comprehensiveness is whether it can explain and
predict mistakes and failures in individuals design activities and in the
development of designs that fail.

For some time now, I've suggested that there is a need to move away from a
'self'-based body of theory-making with its attendant focus on 'emotions',
'psychology and cognition' ,  'design thinking' and the romance of self;
and that Ethology in combination  with other perspectives that focus on
understanding human designing in the way that we would observe the complex
behaviours of a relatively unstudied animal, offers a better starting point
for a rebuilding of  design theory and the literature of design research.

This differs from simply digging a deeper hole by trying to explain a
process that you see is the 'black box' of creativity in the terms of 'our'
(self-focused and interpreted) 'decision making process'.

The problem I've sketched above also applies to the current body of theories
in fields such as business, management, policy-making and engineering. It
is, and these areas face, the same problem. Hence, arguing that design
researchers should address things the same way, which hasn't worked for any,
is not obviously helpful.

An example of the above issues, you already identified on your website in
relation to the concept of 'play'. The above approach offers a way to
resolve the problems you identified with that concept.

Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI 

Senior Lecturer,  Design
Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]

Senior Lecturer, School of Design and Art,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia

Director, Design-based Research Unit and Design Out Crime Research Centre

Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal

Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
____________________


-----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 Andy
Polaine
Sent: Tuesday, 5 April 2011 2:21 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The false dichotomy of theory vs practice in desgin
[was:NASA,Hasmat, etc.]

@Terry - If you're talking of a phenomenological account of our design
processes, then I'm with you. I spent the last few years researching and
writing on this in terms of understanding designing for and interacting with
a range of interactive interfaces, artworks, etc. More here:
http://www.polaine.com/2010/12/28/understanding-interactivity-through-play/

But I'm not sure it helps with regards to the point I was making.

I'm not arguing that designers have to find out *where* their decision
making happens on a cognitive psychological level. It could happen in their
left big toe, entire body, mind or both. I'm arguing that the problem we
have is in articulating our decision making process that moves us on from
the "creative flash" black box. I'm saying the black box where the "magic"
happens is a process that is explicit and externalised, but poorly
articulated.

I don't see business managers, policy makers, politicians, engineers (or
even many scientists outside the fields concerned with these areas)
discussing whether their thinking processes are in the mind, the body, the
mind/body, etc. The external numbers and/or method are entirely what count,
not the internal workings of consciousness. Designers have a method, but
because it is poorly articulated we have problems speaking with, relating to
and selling the value of synthesis to those aforementioned people (not to
mention teaching it).

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/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager