Thanks for your continuing interest in this subject Ken. I read your follow up texts with considerable interest today. I also noticed that you have already posted a round-up summary on your academia.edu page.
The fact is that the rather simple criteria for The OTHER Design Thinking project remains as described earlier. When you create your own initiative you can certainly create your own criteria. As far as I know you are not involved in the creation of the criteria for this project.
We haven’t said anything about “misguided” or “constrained”. Those are not our words.
The rather straight-forward criteria is that we are looking for practices where toolset methodologies do not have built in assumptions that products, services or experiences will be outcomes. These are not claims being made. This is initial participation criteria for this one particular project. We have numerous projects ongoing.
It is certainly possible that some might not like this particular criteria. So be it. Those folks should go and create an initiative with criteria that better suits their interests. There is certainly room for many initiatives.
Our central objective is to try to give voice to a rather unsung story and we remain on course with that goal. If it turns out that we can find no practices with 5 years of experience operating in this particular space without the previously described built-in methodology presumptions we will certainly let others know.
I belong to 60+ discussion groups so am quite familiar with all the power-play tactics that are used including the renaming of threads. I have seen every tactic in the book and then some. I am happy to address any comments directed at me on this subject under this header. As I stated in my earlier post, the political maneuvering that goes on is of no interest. Anyone who would like to submit an expression of interest knows where to find us.
In referring to Swinburne’s importation of the of the Aalto Design Factory program I was not making any reference at all to your background Ken. I was simply pointing out that when the Swinburne design school leadership choose to embark on that importation with you as Dean that placed you, whether you knew it not, whether you like it not in the orbit of cross-over. Many other avenues were possible and Swinburne chose that particular route. Swinburne is not alone. Numerous graduate schools of design are now selling cross-over as social innovation.
As per my previous post we have not made it a strategy to point out there is no common-sense science behind the presumption that product, service and experience creation (Design 2.0) are capable of addressing all organizational and social problems. “Making claims” I think you like to call that. Pointing out that disconnect is not our approach at all. There is lots of room for many kinds of design.
I am delighted if readers choose to compare our ideas and opinions on the challenges facing design education. If you think it is important for them to consider the prestige of the publisher you are welcome to try to make that case. Again I have no interest in that kind of approach.
Apart from the bumps from you on this list the general reaction to The OTHER Design Thinking / call for a participant has been very positive.
One year is closing and a new cycle begins. I wish everyone all the best in the new year!
...
GK VanPatter
Co-Founder
Humantific
SenseMaking for ChangeMaking
NEW YORK / MADRID
6 West 18th Street, 9th Floor
New York City, NY 10011
T: 212-660-2577
http://www.humantific.com
NEWSLETTER:
Subscribe to Humantific Quarterly
Follow Humantific on twitter: http://twitter.com/humantific
...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|