Dear Kari,
Great post!
You wrote, "But even the artifact-practice pairs may still be too local and
particular to serve as a foundation for a discipline; we would need the
"transformation of the uppermost crust of earth" of our own. My vote goes
for "dynamics of materially-mediated relationships between humans and world"
(of which supporting a person in a seated position -- corresponding
artifact: a chair -- is one). "
My feeling is your proposal is wonderful and your example points to a
change that is significant and needed.
Since my own PhD, I've been trying to see how the whole of the literature,
theory and concepts of design might evolve across design fields if the
centrality of 'the artefact/process/organisation as the thing that is
specified in a design' is challenged or dropped.
One pathway I've been testing since 1999, is focusing design theory on
'design as specifying an intervention' rather than 'design as specifying a
product/process/organisation'. It naturally requires a dynamic perspective
and aligns almost exactly with your proposal for a "dynamics of
materially-mediated relationships between humans and world". So far, it
appears to offer a clarity that pays more attention to areas (e.g design
outcomes) that have been relatively hard to address via conventional
artifact-centred design theories and makes especial sense in recent areas
of design (strategy, services, social design etc).
There appear to be many other benefits, including simplification of the
design literature, theory, definitions and concepts, and, potentially,
removing the need for many subfields of design research such as the DfX
disciplines. It's a 'banquet' kind of situation. Similar sized banquets
can have different kinds of food and courses. In this case, focusing on
'design as intervention'/'dynamics of materially-mediated relationships'
seems to feed the same number of guests and require a similar number of
chefs whilst offering more nutrition.
Best wishes,
Terry
|