Hello,
Thank you to everyone for what seems to me to be interesting and useful
contributions.
This debate could go on forever as it is. The debate has been ongoing at
least since the design methods conference of 1963.
This situation means there is something not taken account of in the
analysis.
The challenge is to find the criteria to cut the root of the confusion.
Two issues seem to be relevant.
The first is remembering that the focus of identifying the best choice for a
definition is the theory foundation of design research and creating
epistemologically sound foundations for building a coherent body of theories
about design activity. This differs from a wide variety of other points of
view such as teaching design, doing design, study of the history of designs,
writing about design and the many other viewpoints on design.
Second, and perhaps the factor that cuts the root of the confusion, is a
focus on the differences, in epistemological terms, between *descriptions*
about aspects of design as a practice (regardless of how useful and
theoretically sounding, and a *definition* of design in which the definition
and the concept are purely theoretical.
The essential functionality of *descriptions* is as useful tools in
communication. *Descriptions* have several properties. Any *description* of
design is not necessarily complete; each description is intended to be
useful in particular ways and different contexts, for example, design
education, communication between designers, promotion of design activity,
selling designs to clients etc. and each may be different in different
design fields. On this basis there can be many useful parallel and different
descriptions of design; and any such descriptions do not have to be
epistemologically validated against other tightly defined unambiguous
theory. The design literature across all design fields is full of such very
useful *descriptions* of design. For books about design it makes great sense
to use such helpful descriptions of design that are useful in communicating
what design is, educating designers and communications between all the
stakeholders involved in design activity. Descriptions* can use
*definitions* but are rarely definitions themselves. All *descriptions* of
design are primarily in the rhetoric realm.
In contrast, a *definition* of design is very much more restricted. A
*definition* of design is purely in the theoretical realm with all the
epistemological constraints that that implies: relating to validation
against other theoretically validated concepts and theories from other
disciplines. In essence, a *definition* of design must be epistemologically
tightly-bounded, unambiguous and explicitly and exactly define what is to be
contained within that concept and what is excluded. It must apply in exactly
the same sense across all possible uses and contexts, including all fields
of design and the use of theories of design in other disciplines. A
*definition* of design is essentially and fully in the theoretical realm.
Within that theoretical realm the words that are used in the *definition*
must not involve any rhetorical devices (this is a condition of a definition
being purely a matter of theory).
All the above means that a *definition* of design as pure theory concept is
rather different from a *description* of design. In reality, almost all of
what are described as 'definitions of design' are *descriptions* of design
activity. Many of these descriptions are tremendously helpful in
communication of understanding about design activity between stakeholders.
That, however, is a different role from a *definition* of design.
Finally, it is helpful to see a *definition* of design being the smallest
least inclusive purely theoretical construct. That way it can be enlarged
and extended and refined through the use of adjectival and adverbial
clauses. For example, the *definition* of design as a specification might be
used in a particular context as 'design in which the specification is
provided by a physical hand-made prototype', or ' a design in which the
specification is partial and devised and held wholly in mind', or, 'the
meaning of the outcome that should be specified in a design is the result of
negotiation between stakeholders', or, 'design as producing a specification,
can be the result of acts of creativity, planning and making', or 'a book
illustrator can create a design that specifies for the printer the images to
be used, the layout, words, typefaces, type sizes, font metrics, weights,
spot colours, paper sizes and types, cut margins, binding treatments, cover
finishes, embossing etc.'.
Typically and almost exclusively in this thread and in the design literature
in general issues being discussed appear to be matters of *descriptions* of
design, regardless of the fact that some descriptions appear to be
erroneously referred to as 'definitions'.
Resolving the issues seems to require awareness of
1. the epistemological and practical differences between *descriptions*
of design and a *definition* of design
2. the fact that most discussions are about *descriptions* of design
(regardless of being called 'definitions', and
3. That a *definition* of design operates under different criteria of
validity and purpose from *descriptions* of design.
Best wishes,
Terry
--
Dr Terence Love
PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, 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]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|