Hi Jude,
You wrote,
<snip> 'There are a lot of valid definitions of the word design so we
confuse ourselves by arguing about the word rather than the specific
meaning.'
Drawing attention to multiple apparently 'valid definitions of design' This
suggests two root causes of the lack of agreement and, perhaps more
importantly, suggests we have omitted a step we should have undertaken
prior to creating any definitions of design.
The first is a matter of inadequacy in conceptual terms. The claimed
definitions may not be definitions. In fact most 'definitions' of the word
'design' are not definitions.
A requirement of a definition is it defines a boundary that completely
includes 'everything that must be included' and simultaneously completely
excludes 'everything that must be excluded' (the 'necessary and sufficient'
condition. Most definitions, like that of Simon are partial. There are other
aspects of design activity that some might see as essential that are not
included in Simon's definition. In other cases, there are other activities
that are included that some would argue unhelpfully include overmuch. For
example, 'rem sleep activities' would fit within Simon's definition of
design. As in 'design is everything' the problem then becomes that of lack
of precision and sensitivity: by including everything one defines nothing.
Similarly, Simon's definition does not effectively distinguish between
design and art.
The second root cause is a cause of the first. Different realms of design
and different perspectives on design regard design as including different
activities and knowledge. Its obvious but perhaps needs restating that the
view of design by Engineering designers is very different to that of
designers from the Art and Design traditions. In parallel to those
differences is the newer spectrum of different perspective on design from
the expanding body f design practices that are not in either the Engineering
nor Art and Design traditions. Examples include Educational Program design,
Business Strategy design, Social Program design, Government Policy design,
and Complex Systems design.
These differences in perspective and differences in understanding about what
design activity 'includes' and 'excludes' shape the creation of definitions
of design. More importantly, however, they shape the testing of the validity
of the definitions as definitions. A definition that is intrinsically valid
as a definition in one realm, may be only partial or even completely
incorrect when viewed from a different realm.
For researchers and theorists, I suggest there is a step that needs
undertaking first in this context. First it is necessary to test whether
ANY design definition is possible. That saves a lot of time compared to
blindly creating and testing multiple potential design definitions. The test
is simple: map out the different aspects of incommensurability between and
across the different realms of design. If, for example, there is not
complete overlap of what is regarded as 'essential aspects of design' and
what is 'not design' between the perspectives of Engineering Design and Art
and Design, then creating a definition of design that is acceptable to both
is simply *not possible*.
This then requires a change of tack to address the situation in other ways.
It blows apart the 'design thinking' endeavour. If design is not a unified
field, it destroys any possibility of the idea that 'design thinking'
applies more generally. This is on the basis that if design, and hence
design thinking, is incommensurately different between different realms of
design then there does not exist a single design thinking that applies more
generally outside design.
This issue is something I worked on in the 80s and early 90s. I came to the
conclusion there is a solution. Many, however, do not like it. The
differences about what should be included in design and what should be
excluded relate almost exclusively to *activities*. The one issue for which
there is general agreement across all realms of design is the output is a
'design'. This is not about the content of the design but the design qua
design. That is the concept of a design as a recording of how to produce
the object, service, strategy or whatever that has been designed.
I humbly suggest, at this point, we are in a position where the
incommensurability test indicates there are no possible definitions of
design as an activity that fulfil 'necessary and sufficient' conditions of
validity. There appear to be two ways forward create local parochial
definitions of design specific to particular fields. Alternatively, and I
suggest better, is defining design activity in terms of the production of a
'design'. This latter appears to offer a valid definition of design across
all realms of design.
The implication for design thinking of incommensurability between design
fields is that the different views of 'what is design activity' means
'design thinking' differs between design fields. This leaves the promotion
of design thinking with the requirement to specify in each situation the
*type* of design thinking. For example, 'design thinking as done in graphic
design', 'design thinking as done in human computer interface design',
'design thinking as done in mechanical engineering design' etc.
Best wishes,
Terry
--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Honorary Fellow
Management School
Lancaster University,
Lancaster, UK
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 Gunnar
Swanson
Sent: Monday, 2 September 2013 9:47 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Design Thinking Unique to Design?
On Sep 2, 2013, at 2:16 AM, "CHUA Soo Meng Jude (PLS)"
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> And perhaps it has to do with this skillful doing, rather than primarily
scientistic cognitivism (whether rationalist or empiricist): in that sense a
theoria, (not theoretical thinking), but a kind of unconcealing doing - the
gazing at the gods who gaze back at us (thea harao). It seems to me there a
kind of abductive thinking, a kind of creativity.
See note on thinking through making below.
> I'm still trying to get a more complete sense of why amongst the
professional Design community is this rejection of Simon's thinking and
employment of the word design to cover the things he does.
[snip]
> Also the question whether design thinking is unique to design is important
for another reason (not just for recognition of the specialist knowledge
professional designers have), and is one we have to unpack further.
My problem with this (and so many discussion here) is that there are a lot
of valid definitions of the word design so we confuse ourselves by arguing
about the word rather than the specific meaning. Maybe we need some sort of
code to indicate which we're talking about: "SimonizedDesign," etc.
> One of the exciting things, Simon says, is that design is something
common in various arenas outside of say graphic or furniture design, and so
relevant in ways that graphic designer may not envisage, and THEREFORE a
case may be made for the university to TEACH DESIGN (specially design
focally understood, not design willly nilly) AS part of the Core of the
curriculum, say as part of one's liberal (arts) education in a university.
This seems to me a very exciting idea: not merely design that makes one a
graphic designer, but design that if focal or normatively abstracted, that
is taught and reflected upon, and relevant for students generally. This
helps broaden up the potential and relevance of design as a discipline.
Certain design disciplines and art are two of the few places where thinking
through making is still promoted. It's an important way of understanding
that used to be widespread in our culture and is dying. The nature of our
artifacts and the nature of our manufacturing and distribution conspire to
separate us from the act of making, an act that promotes particular aspects
of thinking.
That sort of thinking is valuable to anyone. I don't know if bicycle repair
and wilderness trail building would be as effective as design but I think
that design (i.e., the sorts of design where you make lots of prototypes)
for people who don't specifically want to be designers (i.e., professionals
in the design field being taught) could be very helpful as part of an effort
to rediscover what "liberal arts" means.
Gunnar
Gunnar Swanson
East Carolina University
graphic design program
http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm
[log in to unmask]
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA
http://www.gunnarswanson.com
[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258-7006
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
