Dear Tulia,
This paragraph comes from Jeffrey Chan's response to Don Norman's essay
"Why design education must change." Copied below.
Ken
Subject: Re: Why design education must change
From: jeffrey chan <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 06:50:54 -0800
Dear Don and List,
I read the article, 'Why design education must change' with mixed
feelings. But let me first say thank you for making this available for
me before it appears on Core77.
There are more than a handful of ideas that demand slow digestion. But
I pick up two points for a start: two points that also recurred
repeatedly through the article.
(1) on experimentationsDon, beyond the reasons you cited for more in
depth and scientifically rigorous experimentations for design, I cannot
help but think that there is a further need to distinguish qualitatively
between experimentations done in cognitive science and experimentations
(to be) done in design. The basic purpose of the former is to falsify
(and hence clarify) and to describe. But the overall purpose of the
latter is to create and to prescribe. Insofar as the inquiry process is
concerned the structure is similar; but insofar as the teleology is
concerned, they are dissimilar. For these reasons, to subject subjects
to failure for the 101th experiment in cognitive science may be
permissible by the teleology of science. But to subject subjects for the
101th experiment just to see how our designs may fail on these subjects
are less permissible by the teleology of design.
Hence if designers must perform rigorous experimentations approaching
the level of rigor in cognitive psychology and the social sciences, I
imagine that a whole new way of experimental inquiry that commensurates
with design must also emerge alongside. To build on your suggestion that
design needs experimental designs that are "simple and quick", I suppose
these new experimental inquiry must be humanistically sensitive as well.
(2) on ignorance It is hard to argue for ignorance. But I am going to
try. On this, I think there is a need to make another distinction: to
distinguish between heroic ignorance and modest ignorance. I suppose in
your article, you were arguing for the former at the expense of the
latter, which has merit and also happens to be a significant goal of
Socratic teaching. To practice heroic ignorance the designer expresses
'I know best'; but to practice modest ignorance -- or self-conscious
ignorance of 'I know not'--it is in fact quite compatible with the
nature of design, especially participatory design within complex
systems. Unless we accept this human condition of ignorance, and strive
to attain the virtues of modest ignorance, we cannot learn. If we cannot
learn, then we also cannot design as well -- because it is impractical
to design without accepting that learning is highly probable and
desirable within the design process.
I am an architect by training, and so while I dabble in some product
design on the side and think I understand the arguments for a science of
design, I am not a trained industrial designer. Even so, it seems that
the existing curriculums for many design programs (as I observe) still
have their merits because they nonetheless avail students to the
possibility of (1) and (2) above.
Jeffrey
>>> PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system <[log in to unmask]>
5/13/2011 9:04 AM >>>
From: Tulia Moss <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Why design education must change
> Can someone confirm the author of this quote is please?
>
> ‘To practice heroic ignorance the designer expresses 'I know best';
> but to practice modest ignorance--or self-conscious ignorance of 'I
> know not'--it is in fact quite compatible with the nature of design,
> especially participatory design within complex systems. Unless we
> accept this human condition of ignorance, and strive to attain the
> virtues of modest ignorance, we cannot learn. If we cannot learn,
> then we also cannot design as well--because it is impractical to
> design without accepting that learning is highly probable and
> desirable within the design process.’
|