Tim, Ken, Kari-Hans and colleagues
On Apr 7, 2013, at 2:44 PM, Tim Smithers wrote:
"Taking a Design Stance, seeing and treating something as
if it is the outcome of some designing, does not make that
something a design, nor make it an outcome of any kind of
designing. "
Tim, in his distaste for Dennett and his concern for the misapplication of his ideas, apparently fails to note that "Within the context of intentional stances Dennett has defined “Design stance” as behavior in which one predicts that an entity is designed as they suppose it to be and will operate according to that design." 1) The design artifact here is a thought object produced by "design thinking", as such it carries affective meaning of something that can be recognized and processed in thought, either as a construct or, as a plan of action to realize a desired change in that construct - "a design/process in the mind" as it were. With any such objects of thought there are many connections to information not prioritized in the interpretation which occurs in the context of a focal situation,which is subject to needs and desires motivating the intention, the circumstances of the situation, and to the knowledge that can inform the interpretation.
Similarly, Tim wrote:
> Adopting a Design Stance is an observer choice
> that changes nothing of the thing so observed. A thing is a
> thing, and only and no more than the thing, and only a
> realisation of a design if it has in fact resulted from some
> designing and subsequent realisation following well the
> design.
Here, Tim, seems to mistake the design stance for an observed "thing" (whatever he means by that) rather than an interpretation that may or may not represent an abstract, concrete, or phenomenally experienced "thing" . By clinging tightly to a rigid notion of a "thing" and its realization, the richness of design experience is reduced to somebody's definition and procedure. Conceptual blending, adaptive interpretation, metaphor, situated meaning, and insight are denied presence in a "design". Such metaphors as "architecture is frozen music" don't apply to his observed "thing", yet they can be experienced and understood as an aspect of a design, whether in the head, or outside it.
In "A Theory of Design Thinking" I have broadened Dennett's concept of “Design Stance” as one from which an entity is anticipated to behave as designed, to explicitly include the capacity of a designed entity to interact with the situation it is in from the state it is in at the time of interpretation. (For example, one can interpret a sound by knowing that there is an alarm designed to produce such a sound, that it is within hearing distance, and that it could have been set to create the sound.) Artifacts, plans of action, and predictions made from the Design Stance are responsive to change in the situation it addresses. (A designer's) mind set regarding how to respond, what to do, and what to anticipate in a situation (functions) as their “Design Stance” 2)
My theory, I think, avoids misrepresenting the value of the design stance, while enabling the kind of Research with the big R that Tim emphasizes. My theory remains to be validated as do Tim's views.
1. Burnette, C. 2002, Intentionality and design In Durling D. & Shackleton J. (Eds.) Common Ground : Design Research Society International Conference 2002, UK. ISBN 1-904133-11-8 8 Revised 12/17/2009
2. Burnette, C. 2012, Philosopical Modes in Design Thinking at www.independent.academia.edu/charlesburnette
Or, so I believe,
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
