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  August 2013

PHD-DESIGN August 2013

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: More on Design Thinking

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, 7 Aug 2013 04:37:08 +0800

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (206 lines)

Hi Ken,

Thank you  for your message.  My apologies for the delay in replying

With the subject line of   'More on Design Thinking', the  discussion had
rightly begun to include the role of research in the essential processes of
design thinking.

In many areas of design,  there is a tight interdependent linking of
research and the design thinking necessary to create a design. These include
the various domains of engineering design, social policy and program design,
complex systems design and management, building design, environmental
systems design, IT & IS, security and crime reduction, and document
design,as well as the traditional Art and Design fields.  

Politically, there appears to be a tension, as you drew attention to,
between the design thinking and research activities undertaken in
universities and those undertaken in industry and business. 

My previous post  proffered some evidence  it might be worth reconsidering
the assumption outlined in your post, that universities appeared to be
'better' at research, or had some kind of privileged status in understanding
or theorising about design related issues. The post wasn't intended to fill
out every detail that would map the situation completely, only to point to
several issues that challenged any  assumption that 'universities are
obviously best at research'.

To develop the argument further on either side requires some care with the
logic and detail of reasoning, meaning and epistemology as well as evidence
and rhetoric. For example, I carefully pointed to a comparison between an
idealised research form and ways such an ambition might be *compromised*.
This offers a measure of comparison between 'best theoretically possible'
and 'what is practically achieved', i.e 'compromises' on 'ideal'
possibilities .  You, however, recoined this comparison in terms of whether
research is  'flawed' or not.  Seeing research as  'flawed' or not. Is a
different kind of measure. There is no single  absolute standard by which
one can judge that research is not flawed.  

A core issue in the above discussion of the relative merits of 'university'
versus 'industry' research linked to design thinking is the judgement of
'quality for purpose' of research. In terms of 'design thinking', I
suggested it's worth considering the position that industry might offer less
compromised research than universities. The extent to which the reasoning I
presented  and its support in evidence applies across policies relating to
government, industry, business and education requires the filling out of
detail across each area. The basic premise, however, seems unchallenged that
there is a difference between the directly motivated  and honest interests
of industry/business in research outcomes to inform their design activities,
and  the secondarily motivated research activities undertaken via players in
the education industry which has its own self-interests that differ in
essence and fact  from those undertaking design activity commercially. 

To undertake a more detailed analysis, it is likely to be important to
carefully identify the framing and analysis by the conscious or unconscious
self-interested assumptions of  education institutions and avoid shaping the
analysis by such framing.  For example, the role  of a 'literature review of
existing literature in  a journal article to build the field' is primarily
to reinforce the status of academics and scholars. Even the idea of
'building the field' is centred on increasing the status of scholars. The
primary role of the idea of a 'discipline' can  be seen as a power mechanism
to access some of the power of unionisation in negotiation of pay, status
and conditions. The idea of a 'field' can be seen somewhat allegorically as
the equivalent of a 'land grab'  of mental territory, and the associated
privileges of 'land' ownership. The problems of the   'educationalisation'
framing of analysis was  identified in 1971 by Illich (Deschooling Society
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html  )  and
(Disabling Professions -
http://www.uvm.edu/~asnider/Ivan_Illich/Ivan_Illich_Disabling_Professions.pd
f ) . A similar analysis is illustrated by Phil Agre in his essay on
'Conservatism' (http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html)  in
which many of the features Phil Agre describes about conservatism can be
seen paralleled in the activities of scholars with the analysis of the
behaviour of scholars  and the problems therein  following much the same
reasoning. Thanks Phil, if you are reading this. The idea of the scholarly
'literature review to shape the field' can be seen in terms of the above
analyses as a strategy to shape thinking, to reinforce the status and ways
of working of scholars and academics. This is not necessarily in the best
interests of the world outside educational institutions. A Foucauldian
analysis of the discourse would likely follow a similar path.

There is an emerging need for a change in perspective and assumptions about
the roles and use-values of universities in everyday life. The last 50 years
has seen the role of universities change from being elite, high-level
education for the wealthy to mass-education programs for adults alongside
the traditional adult education programs. At the same time, there has been
increasing pressure on universities to demonstrate value-add by research
outcomes for tax-payer derived government funding support. The last 20 years
has seen a reduction in government support and a linking of such support to
performance metrics in outputs, particularly of knowledge creation.  The
response in many universities has been to move towards a business model
involving the additional employment of highly paid professional managers and
administrators. All three have resulted in increased economic and other
pressures that in turn have shaped educational and research processes to
achieve particular outcomes. The consequence is the functioning and
use-values offered by universities are now very different to  the previous
elite and the mass-education models of higher education. An example is that
it is now easier to conceptualise universities as  businesses run by
managers whose workers are temporary replaceable academics purchased at the
lowest cost with undergraduate and postgraduate students as customers paying
for services and outcomes. This kind of commercial university education
market with profitability as a key driver implies that we cannot project off
previous roles and values of university research for understanding the
contributions of university and industry-based research to design thinking.
It requires rethinking from scratch in ways evidenced by current and likely
future university values and processes. 

When you are free again, I suggest this has to be the basis of any future
discussion,  and will require dropping and deliberately ignoring
reflections, assumptions, perspectives and evidence from the past about
universities.

Best wishes ,
Terry

---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE,  MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask] 
--





-----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 Ken
Friedman
Sent: Friday, 2 August 2013 8:10 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: More on Design Thinking

Dear Terry,

Your earlier post asked whether my comment on rent-seeking and self-serving
behavior described researchers and scholars. I answered that it did, and
that researchers and scholars are as guilty of these vices as consultants
and professional practitioners are.

I gave the post a new subject header to indicate that this was not a
question about design thinking.

Despite returning to the original subject header, your question was not
about design thinking. You discuss university research as contrasted with
research in industry.

Your note suggests that you aren't sure whether you've interpreted my
position correctly. In my view, you have not done so. I don't hold the views
stated in paragraph two of your last post, and I feel no need to defend
those views.

The substantive argument in items 1-6 of your post raises important issues
dealing with different aspects of research, research systems, and research
policy for the government, industry, and education sectors. You raise
seventeen distinct issues.

While I agree with you on some points and disagree on others, this is
complicated by what seem to be questionable conclusions from correct claims
and distinctions that you don't appear consider.

To respond to these seventeen issues would take an extremely long post. Both
the correct assertions and the incorrect ones require careful framing and
consideration.

This is not about design thinking. This is about research in universities
and industry, as well as the systems that generate research problems, set
research policy, and fund research. I don't have the time to write a proper
reply on issues this nuanced and complex.


Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor |
Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia |
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830
462 | Home Page
http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<h
ttp://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page
http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page
http://about.me/ken_friedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University |
Shanghai, China


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------

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