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 2014

PHD-DESIGN August 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Sustainable Design Brazilian Symposium

From:

Marcio Dupont <[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:

Fri, 22 Aug 2014 10:06:34 -0300

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (1025 lines)

Dear all:

If you are a sustainable designer, visit: 5ospds
<http://5ospds.wix.com/5ospds2014#!inicio/czwt>

CALL FOR PAPERS;

FROM: August 20 to October 12  2014

Best!

*Marcio C. de C. Dupont *
*Industrial Designer*
*Brasil / México / United States / *
*Dupont Foundation - for a better world through GOOD DESIGN*

*| Linkedin <http://www.linkedin.com/in/marciodupont> || Design Portal
<http://designresearchportal.wordpress.com>|*




2014-08-21 20:00 GMT-03:00 PHD-DESIGN automatic digest system <
[log in to unmask]>:

> There are 8 messages totaling 1020 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
>   1. How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are related (or
> not)?
>      (6)
>   2. Emerging cryptocurrency and Design Thinking
>   3. Deadline Extended: Poster and Demo submissions for IndiaHCI 2014 is
> now 26
>      August
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Wed, 20 Aug 2014 17:15:31 -0700
> From:    Jerry Diethelm <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I've been approaching the subject this way:
>
> I find it helps to distinguish between kinds of thinking.  What I mean by
> kinds of thinking is thinking that orients itself toward different ends and
> thereby takes on a character, vocabulary, concepts and processes related to
> those ends.
>
> When I am thinking like a lawyer, I am interested in resolving disputes
> related to maintaining order and certainty in societal relations.  I think
> through concepts such as original intent, precedent, justice, contract,
> problem and stare decisis in order to settle differences that depend on a
> framework of order that is an embodied system of social values.
>
> When I am thinking like a designer, I am oriented toward resolving
> differences, but they are differences of a different kind.  These are
> typically qualitative differences in situations that need "improvement."
> Concepts such as intentions and problems in this kind of thinking take on a
> meaning related to their resolutions as artifacts.  Such artifactual
> embodiments and expressions that are the ends of this thinking can serve
> usefully as both enhancements and disruptions in an evolving culture.
>
> And when I am thinking like a physicist, or more generally like a
> scientist,
> I tend to eschew the interests and values that were the motivators and
> drivers in designing, including the opinions of all the churches and Fox
> News, and focus down on a strategic objectivity whose target is "how things
> are and how they work."
>
> Stepping beyond behaviorism, cognitive science has gathered these
> distinctions under the schema, source->path->goal as a means of identifying
> how thinking is and how it works.
>
> It's my hope that a more careful comparative analysis of the cardinal
> source->path->goal expressions in human thinking will lead to a better
> understanding of the cultural significance and relative status of what we
> are now calling design thinking.
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 8/20/14 2:21 PM, "Charles Burnette" <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> > Dear colleagues,
> >
> > I think I see in the comments on this thread something that happens all
> the
> > time: people seek what their existing knowledge and interests incline
> them to
> > find rather than the essential nature of the subject they want to
> understand.
> > In this case design thinking is the subject but few are seeing it as
> > purposeful thought first to which design adds the intention to improve
> > whatever the thought addresses.Thought happens in individual brains and
> > becomes social only when people express their thoughts to others through
> > language, images, artifacts, or behavior. Once expressed it is these
> > expressions that become objects of interpretation, recognition and
> adaptation.
> > Although design often encourages unusual ways of thinking and expressing
> > things, and designers are often skillful in applying  some of them, the
> ³tools
> > of design²are not necessarily known to everyone, even though the
> components of
> > purposeful  thought are.
> >
> > Or so I believe,
> > Chuck
> >
> > Pedro: I don¹t know if you are familiar with the "Society of Mind"
> metaphor,
> > or "The Folk Theory of Faculty Psychology² in which each faculty
> (capacity) of
> > the mind is conceptualized as a person. See George Lakoff and Mark
> Johnson,
> > ³Philosophy in the Flesh², New York, Basic Books, p420. It offers food
> for
> > thought about how people interpret their experience and how these
> thoughts
> > collaborate and form a ³society of mind². I have a paper at
> www.independent.
> > academia.edu where I ³personalized" the primary modes of purposeful
> thought in
> > ³A Theory of Design Thinking² and we used these animated characters to
> > collaborate in teaching children through demonstration and explanation.
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> Jerry Diethelm
> Architect - Landscape Architect
> Planning & Urban Design Consultant
>
>     Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
>            and Community Service EURO University of Oregon
>     2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
>     EURO   e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>     EURO   web: http://pages.uoregon.edu/diethelm/
>
>     EURO   541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
>     EURO   541-206-2947 work/cell
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 10:26:18 +1000
> From:    Teena Clerke <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Hi Jerry,
> >
> > I find it helps to distinguish between kinds of thinking.  What I mean by
> > kinds of thinking is thinking that orients itself toward different ends
> and
> > thereby takes on a character, vocabulary, concepts and processes related
> to
> > those ends.
> >
> > When I am thinking like a lawyer, I am interested in resolving disputes
> > related to maintaining order and certainty in societal relations.  I
> think
> > through concepts such as original intent, precedent, justice, contract,
> > problem and stare decisis in order to settle differences that depend on a
> > framework of order that is an embodied system of social values.
> >
> > When I am thinking like a designer, I am oriented toward resolving
> > differences, but they are differences of a different kind.  These are
> > typically qualitative differences in situations that need "improvement."
> > Concepts such as intentions and problems in this kind of thinking take
> on a
> > meaning related to their resolutions as artifacts.  Such artifactual
> > embodiments and expressions that are the ends of this thinking can serve
> > usefully as both enhancements and disruptions in an evolving culture.
> >
> > And when I am thinking like a physicist, or more generally like a
> scientist,
> > I tend to eschew the interests and values that were the motivators and
> > drivers in designing, including the opinions of all the churches and Fox
> > News, and focus down on a strategic objectivity whose target is "how
> things
> > are and how they work."
>
> I like the way you explain the differences in thinking in terms of
> vocabulary, concepts and processes. As a feminist, I think through concepts
> like gendered practices and vocabulary that defaults to the masculine, and
> how can this be oriented to women-centred considerations.
> cheers, teena
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:22:31 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Emerging cryptocurrency and Design Thinking
>
> Dear Stephen and Andre and all,
> There may be benefit in looking at the legal and not so legal precursor
> local currencies outside the nationally approved banking systems that many
> on this list have been involved with over the last 30 years including all
> the LETS and LETS-like paper and digital currencies.
> See, for example,
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_community_currencies_in_the_United_Stat
> es
> Similar locally initiated currencies are found throughout the world. There
> is a body of legal expertise on them, and a body of literature on the
> design
> and use of alternative currencies and the design of communities using them.
> See, for example, http://www.communitycurrencieslaw.org/ and 'Sustainable
> Communities: Lessons from Aspiring Eco-Villages at www.praxiseducation.com
> Some alterative currency arrangements through the work of local activitists
> such as Jill Jordan at Maleny in Australia eventually emerge as new banks
> using traditional currencies, see
> http://www.abc.net.au/austory/transcripts/s355648.htm  and
> http://www.mcu.com.au/service/us/
>
> Since the 1980s, designers in the community development movement and
> elsewhere  have been designing  new alternative currency arrangements and
> moving them into the digital world. IN addition, the design of 'black
> economy' arrangements, outside the law (outlaw) financial arrangements, and
> pirate currencies can be seen as part of this overall movement ( for the
> latter, 'If a Pirate I Must be' by Sanders offers some deep insights).
>
> Crypto-currencies  and designer involvement can be seen as an extension of
> this prior work.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> --
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. 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]
> --
>
>
>
>
> > Is there anyone here on this list studying or participating the
> > emerging cryptocurrency market (i.e. bitcoin, dogecoin, lytcoin etc.)
> > from a Design Thinking perspective?
> >
> > Is there any literature out there that is available to design
> > practitioners?
> >
> > Thank you
> >
> > Stephen Bourgogne
> > Bourgogne Allard Design Inc.
> > Myongji College of Design
> > Seoul, Korea
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
>
>
> --
> André Araújo
> twitter.com/andrelmaraujo
> Guitarist, Dimension Bender, MBTG.
> 55 81 96315031
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:25:49 +0530
> From:    Naveen Bagalkot <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Deadline Extended: Poster and Demo submissions for IndiaHCI 2014
> is now 26 August
>
> Hi All,
> We have extended the deadline for submissions of Posters and Demos to 26th
> August, after multiple requests.
> I request you all to take this opportunity to encourage young researchers
> and students in your network to submit early research to this exciting
> venue. We are looking forward to early ideas that have the potential to
> shape emerging research in the field of HCI and Interaction Design.
> IndiaHCI is a conference sponsored by ACM in co-operation with SIGCHI, to
> be held at the prestigious IIT-Delhi.
> Details about submission:
> http://indiahci2014.in/call_for_submission.html#pad
>
> Warm regards,
> Naveen
> --
> Naveen L Bagalkot, Ph.D.
> UX and Innovation Specialist
> Srishti Labs
> Srishti School of Art, Design, and Tech.
> Bangalore
> labs.srishti.ac.in
> 7mackerelskies.wordpress.com
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 09:27:45 +0100
> From:    Stéphane Vial <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for breathing life into this thread and providing rich matter of
> reflection. I do agree so much with Ken on that there is too much "unclear
> language" around the world on this topic. This is EXACTLY WHY I posted my
> first message and all your replies seem to confirm this issue. Therefore,
> because "people seek what their existing knowledge and interests incline
> them to find" (said Charles), I will try to provide here a bit of
> clarification of what I had in mind and which problem I am currently trying
> to address while writing a short introduction book on design for the large
> French audience.
>
> It is based on this observation: on the one hand, for a few years,
> everybody hears about "design thinking" all the time, mostly (but most
> probably not only) in the sense of Tim Brown, mostly (but most probably not
> only) in professional agencies (and schools). On the other hand, there is a
> long academic research tradition on design processes (including thinking)
> and this tradition not only uses the term "design thinking" but seems the
> first to have used it. Furthermore, this term as used by researchers covers
> itself various meanings (said Ken), which adds difficulty.
>
> 1. The problem I am trying to address and for which I was requesting help
> from PHD-design list is double :
>
> 1.1. WIDE AUDIENCE ISSUE. What are the differences between those 2
> approaches of "design thinking"? Are there differences? Can we clearly
> define and distinguish those 2 concepts of design thinking with a
> popularizing approach? I am writing an introduction book to design for
> French people (students, beginners, non-experts, etc.): they need to
> understand something about this messy "unclear language". They need to
> understand the difference between the wide and strong discourse of
> researchers and the new-trendy discourse on design in companies and
> d-schools. As truly said by Stefanie, I am "writing an introduction to a
> chapter and not a thesis on the topic", so I need to simplify in order to
> popularize. But, actually, let me tell here that, most of time, while we
> try popularizing an idea, we are led to move aside many not so important
> details in order to keep the true real idea. I am educated in philosophy,
> so, as Plato or Hegel or Wittgenstein, I believe that strong concepts can
> be clearly and simply defined, in a few words, otherwise they are not
> concepts :)
>
> 1.2. RESTRICT AUDIENCE ISSUE. Does "design thinking" in the sense of Tim
> Brown can be considered as an inheritor of the works of design thinking
> researchers? As far as you all know, has Tim Brown ever said something like
> that? Has design thinking research ever been an inspiration for IDEO or
> others? Can we reconstruct it? If yes, in which sense? This is not a matter
> of popularization but a matter of (epistemological) research, that seems to
> me essential nowadays. I am sure that you will provide me many ideas on
> that and I would like to have more time in order to go deeper in it, but
> keep in mind it is not my first concern in this post :) Furthermore, with a
> focus on research, the first problem (1.1) about the differences between
> those 2 approaches of "design thinking" can be a strong research question
> too.
>
> 2. I really appreciate all your comments on those 2 problems but let me
> share a kind of solution to the problem 1.1.
>
> 2.1. Yesterday, I came across this paper by Wolfgang Jonas: 'A Sense of
> Vertigo: Design Thinking as General Problem Solver?', full text online
> here:
> http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf.
> I will not discuss here about the main idea of this paper, which is perhaps
> not exactly my concern. I will only focus on page 3 (check the table),
> where Wolfgang fixes the point 1.1, by making a clear distinction between
> "the domain of research into the cognitive and social processes of
> designing (design thinking, lower case) and the new and massively
> propagated normative strategic concept (Design Thinking, upper case)." For
> him, "design thinking" is descriptive (Nigel Cross, Norbert Roozenburg,
> Kees Dorst, Ömer Akin...) whereas "Design Thinking" is normative (Larry
> Leifer, Terry Winograd, David Kelley, Tim Brown...). I think this is a very
> good way of making things clearer for a large (but perhaps not only?)
> audience, and I will now use this distinction in my book and with my
> students.
>
> 2.2. Because of typography rules, I would personally complete this
> approach by saying that "design thinking" (lower case) refers to what Ken
> called "the method labeled design thinking" in design firms (Design
> Thinking as a Method) whereas as "Design Thinking" (upper case) refers to
> the wide field of academic research in design thinking and processes
> (design thinking as a field of Research), without regarding here on the
> various meanings of the concept of design in this field (at least "three
> different meanings", said Ken). Nigel Cross seems to use himself the term
> "design thinking research" in order to subsume various approaches of
> "design thinking research" ('Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline
> Versus Design Science', Design Issues: Volume 17, Number 3 Summer 2001, p.
> 54). Design Thinking method versus design thinking research, which includes
> the study of (all) methods.
>
> 3. I personally appreciate the idea that IDEO's Design Thinking is a way
> of popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers, marketers, mass
> media, etc. It is sometimes frustrating since design should not need
> another word to be identified as himself and since, as said by Klaus, it
> would surprising to speak about Physics Thinking or Law Thinking. However,
> as said by Don Norman a few years ago (design thinking as a 'useful myth'),
> before he changed his idea, I would say it is definitely useful to speak
> about design as a thinking, not because others fields (physics, law...) are
> not thinking too, but just because it helps people stopping seeing design
> as decoration. And it works. Then, perhaps Pedro is right when he argues on
> that Design Thinking is becoming a "social representation" of design in the
> sense of social psychology. A strong study on that would be appreciated
> some day.
>
> My pleasure,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 17:26:43 +0800
> From:    Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Hi Stephane,
>  I'm puzzled by your comment that ' IDEO's Design Thinking is a way of
> popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers....'.
> As I understand it, it was amongst engineers (engineering designers)  the
> term 'design thinking' first came into common use. I suggest,
> historically,  it was more that engineering designers encouraged designers
> from other fields into the practice and concepts of design thinking.
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> --
> Dr Terence Love
> PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. 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: [log in to unmask] [mailto:
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of St éphane Vial
> Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:28 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc: St éphane Vial
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for breathing life into this thread and providing rich matter of
> reflection. I do agree so much with Ken on that there is too much "unclear
> language" around the world on this topic. This is EXACTLY WHY I posted my
> first message and all your replies seem to confirm this issue. Therefore,
> because "people seek what their existing knowledge and interests incline
> them to find" (said Charles), I will try to provide here a bit of
> clarification of what I had in mind and which problem I am currently trying
> to address while writing a short introduction book on design for the large
> French audience.
>
> It is based on this observation: on the one hand, for a few years,
> everybody hears about "design thinking" all the time, mostly (but most
> probably not only) in the sense of Tim Brown, mostly (but most probably not
> only) in professional agencies (and schools). On the other hand, there is a
> long academic research tradition on design processes (including thinking)
> and this tradition not only uses the term "design thinking" but seems the
> first to have used it. Furthermore, this term as used by researchers covers
> itself various meanings (said Ken), which adds difficulty.
>
> 1. The problem I am trying to address and for which I was requesting help
> from PHD-design list is double :
>
> 1.1. WIDE AUDIENCE ISSUE. What are the differences between those 2
> approaches of "design thinking"? Are there differences? Can we clearly
> define and distinguish those 2 concepts of design thinking with a
> popularizing approach? I am writing an introduction book to design for
> French people (students, beginners, non-experts, etc.): they need to
> understand something about this messy "unclear language". They need to
> understand the difference between the wide and strong discourse of
> researchers and the new-trendy discourse on design in companies and
> d-schools. As truly said by Stefanie, I am "writing an introduction to a
> chapter and not a thesis on the topic", so I need to simplify in order to
> popularize. But, actually, let me tell here that, most of time, while we
> try popularizing an idea, we are led to move aside many not so important
> details in order to keep the true real idea. I am educated in philosophy,
> so, as Plato or Hegel or Wittgenstein, I believe that strong concepts can
> be clearly and simply defined, in a few words, otherwise they are not
> concepts :)
>
> 1.2. RESTRICT AUDIENCE ISSUE. Does "design thinking" in the sense of Tim
> Brown can be considered as an inheritor of the works of design thinking
> researchers? As far as you all know, has Tim Brown ever said something like
> that? Has design thinking research ever been an inspiration for IDEO or
> others? Can we reconstruct it? If yes, in which sense? This is not a matter
> of popularization but a matter of (epistemological) research, that seems to
> me essential nowadays. I am sure that you will provide me many ideas on
> that and I would like to have more time in order to go deeper in it, but
> keep in mind it is not my first concern in this post :) Furthermore, with a
> focus on research, the first problem (1.1) about the differences between
> those 2 approaches of "design thinking" can be a strong research question
> too.
>
> 2. I really appreciate all your comments on those 2 problems but let me
> share a kind of solution to the problem 1.1.
>
> 2.1. Yesterday, I came across this paper by Wolfgang Jonas: 'A Sense of
> Vertigo: Design Thinking as General Problem Solver?', full text online
> here:
> http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf.
> I will not discuss here about the main idea of this paper, which is perhaps
> not exactly my concern. I will only focus on page 3 (check the table),
> where Wolfgang fixes the point 1.1, by making a clear distinction between
> "the domain of research into the cognitive and social processes of
> designing (design thinking, lower case) and the new and massively
> propagated normative strategic concept (Design Thinking, upper case)." For
> him, "design thinking" is descriptive (Nigel Cross, Norbert Roozenburg,
> Kees Dorst, Ömer Akin...) whereas "Design Thinking" is normative (Larry
> Leifer, Terry Winograd, David Kelley, Tim Brown...). I think this is a very
> good way of making things clearer for a large (but perhaps not only?)
> audience, and I will now use this distinction in my book and with my
> students.
>
> 2.2. Because of typography rules, I would personally complete this
> approach by saying that "design thinking" (lower case) refers to what Ken
> called "the method labeled design thinking" in design firms (Design
> Thinking as a Method) whereas as "Design Thinking" (upper case) refers to
> the wide field of academic research in design thinking and processes
> (design thinking as a field of Research), without regarding here on the
> various meanings of the concept of design in this field (at least "three
> different meanings", said Ken). Nigel Cross seems to use himself the term
> "design thinking research" in order to subsume various approaches of
> "design thinking research" ('Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design Discipline
> Versus Design Science', Design Issues: Volume 17, Number 3 Summer 2001, p.
> 54). Design Thinking method versus design thinking research, which includes
> the study of (all) methods.
>
> 3. I personally appreciate the idea that IDEO's Design Thinking is a way
> of popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers, marketers, mass
> media, etc. It is sometimes frustrating since design should not need
> another word to be identified as himself and since, as said by Klaus, it
> would surprising to speak about Physics Thinking or Law Thinking. However,
> as said by Don Norman a few years ago (design thinking as a 'useful myth'),
> before he changed his idea, I would say it is definitely useful to speak
> about design as a thinking, not because others fields (physics, law...) are
> not thinking too, but just because it helps people stopping seeing design
> as decoration. And it works. Then, perhaps Pedro is right when he argues on
> that Design Thinking is becoming a "social representation" of design in the
> sense of social psychology. A strong study on that would be appreciated
> some day.
>
> My pleasure,
>
> Stéphane
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 11:48:54 +0200
> From:    Stéphane Vial <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
> Thanks, Terry. I am not enough expert in design history studies but, in my
> view, 'is a way of popularizing' (as I said) did not mean 'is the first way
> of popularizing' (as you suggest). I would say it is just 'the most
> common/popular way' nowadays. By the way, you are right, it would be
> interesting to study the history of all design popularization attempts.
>
> Best,
>
> --
> *Stéphane Vial*
> Maître de conférences en sciences du design à l'Université de Nîmes
> Responsable de la licence Arts Appliqués
> Membre permanent de l'équipe << Sémiotique des Arts et du Design >>
> à l'Institut ACTE (UMR 8218, CNRS/Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne)
> Co-responsable du groupe de recherches PROJEKT
> uni.stephane-vial.net
> --
> PhD Philosophy (Paris Descartes University)
> Associate Professor of Design Studies at the University of Nîmes (France)
> Head of the Bachelor of Applied Arts Program
> Researcher at the ACTE Institute, Sorbonne Paris 1 University
> Co-head of the research group PROJEKT <http://projekt.unimes.fr/>.
>
>
> 2014-08-21 11:26 GMT+02:00 Terence Love <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Hi Stephane,
> >  I'm puzzled by your comment that ' IDEO's Design Thinking is a way of
> > popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> > non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers....'.
> > As I understand it, it was amongst engineers (engineering designers)  the
> > term 'design thinking' first came into common use. I suggest,
> > historically,  it was more that engineering designers encouraged
> designers
> > from other fields into the practice and concepts of design thinking.
> > Best wishes,
> > Terry
> >
> > --
> > Dr Terence Love
> > PhD (UWA), B.A. (Hons) Engin, PGCE. 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: [log in to unmask] [mailto:
> > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of St éphane Vial
> > Sent: Thursday, 21 August 2014 4:28 PM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Cc: St éphane Vial
> > Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> > related (or not)?
> >
> > Dear All,
> >
> > Thank you for breathing life into this thread and providing rich matter
> of
> > reflection. I do agree so much with Ken on that there is too much
> "unclear
> > language" around the world on this topic. This is EXACTLY WHY I posted my
> > first message and all your replies seem to confirm this issue. Therefore,
> > because "people seek what their existing knowledge and interests incline
> > them to find" (said Charles), I will try to provide here a bit of
> > clarification of what I had in mind and which problem I am currently
> trying
> > to address while writing a short introduction book on design for the
> large
> > French audience.
> >
> > It is based on this observation: on the one hand, for a few years,
> > everybody hears about "design thinking" all the time, mostly (but most
> > probably not only) in the sense of Tim Brown, mostly (but most probably
> not
> > only) in professional agencies (and schools). On the other hand, there
> is a
> > long academic research tradition on design processes (including thinking)
> > and this tradition not only uses the term "design thinking" but seems the
> > first to have used it. Furthermore, this term as used by researchers
> covers
> > itself various meanings (said Ken), which adds difficulty.
> >
> > 1. The problem I am trying to address and for which I was requesting help
> > from PHD-design list is double :
> >
> > 1.1. WIDE AUDIENCE ISSUE. What are the differences between those 2
> > approaches of "design thinking"? Are there differences? Can we clearly
> > define and distinguish those 2 concepts of design thinking with a
> > popularizing approach? I am writing an introduction book to design for
> > French people (students, beginners, non-experts, etc.): they need to
> > understand something about this messy "unclear language". They need to
> > understand the difference between the wide and strong discourse of
> > researchers and the new-trendy discourse on design in companies and
> > d-schools. As truly said by Stefanie, I am "writing an introduction to a
> > chapter and not a thesis on the topic", so I need to simplify in order to
> > popularize. But, actually, let me tell here that, most of time, while we
> > try popularizing an idea, we are led to move aside many not so important
> > details in order to keep the true real idea. I am educated in philosophy,
> > so, as Plato or Hegel or Wittgenstein, I believe that strong concepts can
> > be clearly and simply defined, in a few words, otherwise they are not
> > concepts :)
> >
> > 1.2. RESTRICT AUDIENCE ISSUE. Does "design thinking" in the sense of Tim
> > Brown can be considered as an inheritor of the works of design thinking
> > researchers? As far as you all know, has Tim Brown ever said something
> like
> > that? Has design thinking research ever been an inspiration for IDEO or
> > others? Can we reconstruct it? If yes, in which sense? This is not a
> matter
> > of popularization but a matter of (epistemological) research, that seems
> to
> > me essential nowadays. I am sure that you will provide me many ideas on
> > that and I would like to have more time in order to go deeper in it, but
> > keep in mind it is not my first concern in this post :) Furthermore,
> with a
> > focus on research, the first problem (1.1) about the differences between
> > those 2 approaches of "design thinking" can be a strong research question
> > too.
> >
> > 2. I really appreciate all your comments on those 2 problems but let me
> > share a kind of solution to the problem 1.1.
> >
> > 2.1. Yesterday, I came across this paper by Wolfgang Jonas: 'A Sense of
> > Vertigo: Design Thinking as General Problem Solver?', full text online
> > here:
> >
> http://8149.website.snafu.de/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/EAD09.Jonas_.pdf
> .
> > I will not discuss here about the main idea of this paper, which is
> perhaps
> > not exactly my concern. I will only focus on page 3 (check the table),
> > where Wolfgang fixes the point 1.1, by making a clear distinction between
> > "the domain of research into the cognitive and social processes of
> > designing (design thinking, lower case) and the new and massively
> > propagated normative strategic concept (Design Thinking, upper case)."
> For
> > him, "design thinking" is descriptive (Nigel Cross, Norbert Roozenburg,
> > Kees Dorst, Ömer Akin...) whereas "Design Thinking" is normative (Larry
> > Leifer, Terry Winograd, David Kelley, Tim Brown...). I think this is a
> very
> > good way of making things clearer for a large (but perhaps not only?)
> > audience, and I will now use this distinction in my book and with my
> > students.
> >
> > 2.2. Because of typography rules, I would personally complete this
> > approach by saying that "design thinking" (lower case) refers to what Ken
> > called "the method labeled design thinking" in design firms (Design
> > Thinking as a Method) whereas as "Design Thinking" (upper case) refers to
> > the wide field of academic research in design thinking and processes
> > (design thinking as a field of Research), without regarding here on the
> > various meanings of the concept of design in this field (at least "three
> > different meanings", said Ken). Nigel Cross seems to use himself the term
> > "design thinking research" in order to subsume various approaches of
> > "design thinking research" ('Designerly Ways of Knowing: Design
> Discipline
> > Versus Design Science', Design Issues: Volume 17, Number 3 Summer 2001,
> p.
> > 54). Design Thinking method versus design thinking research, which
> includes
> > the study of (all) methods.
> >
> > 3. I personally appreciate the idea that IDEO's Design Thinking is a way
> > of popularizing (my concern for my book!) the idea of design for
> > non-design-experts audiences, such as clients, engineers, marketers, mass
> > media, etc. It is sometimes frustrating since design should not need
> > another word to be identified as himself and since, as said by Klaus, it
> > would surprising to speak about Physics Thinking or Law Thinking.
> However,
> > as said by Don Norman a few years ago (design thinking as a 'useful
> myth'),
> > before he changed his idea, I would say it is definitely useful to speak
> > about design as a thinking, not because others fields (physics, law...)
> are
> > not thinking too, but just because it helps people stopping seeing design
> > as decoration. And it works. Then, perhaps Pedro is right when he argues
> on
> > that Design Thinking is becoming a "social representation" of design in
> the
> > sense of social psychology. A strong study on that would be appreciated
> > some day.
> >
> > My pleasure,
> >
> > Stéphane
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date:    Thu, 21 Aug 2014 13:42:03 +0000
> From:    "Maria F. Camacho" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: How 'Design Thinking Research' and 'Design Thinking' are
> related (or not)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Stephan et al.,
>
>
>
> I think we are all discussing many matters
> at the same time, though all related to design thinking. In my view, some
> things depend on your end aim: what are you trying to achieve with your
> communication?: Inform?, Sell design thinking?, Make a best-seller?,
> Contribute
> knowledge for the growth of the discipline?. Your audience's needs, as in
> any
> design endeavour, are important to acknowledge in order to decide how to
> present a topic.
>
>
>
> I'd categorize the matters in stake in the
> following way:
>
>
>
> A. Contemporary design thinking for the
> public
>
> B. Research on design thinking, within a
> research audience
>
> C. Origins of design thinking
>
> D. Proprietorship of the term design
> thinking
>
>
>
> I will build only a bit on each item as
> time is short. Only enough to (hopefully) make the matters understandable
> and
> debatable.
>
>
>
> A. Contemporary design thinking for the
> public:
>
> Stephane, the information needs of your
> general audience are probably quite basic, if compared to the needs of
> design
> thinking researchers. Still, I sense there is a need from design thinking
> researchers here too: If you generalize design thinking to the general
> public
> as an IDEO construct or similar full stop, then people will stick with this
> definition and disregard the whole background, richness and complexity of
> design thinking, for good. You can communicate the most widespread
> concepts on
> design thinking as such, and hopefully also make the case for 'the other
> side
> of the coin'. You'd have to be a great communicator and communication
> designer;
> as you say, "I believe
> that strong concepts can be clearly and simply defined, in a few words"...
> maybe
> also through infodesign J. Nonetheless, design thinking is still to
> become a robust, unique and unified concept.
>
>
>
> B. Research on design thinking, within a
> research audience:
>
> The debates of the design thinking research
> community can be made available to the public if simplified. Still,
> researchers' audience is mainly other researchers. In this domain, design
> thinking is something like a teenager... we still don't know exactly what it
> is,
> and it tries to be one thing and the other and we can't stop it. We are all
> working on building it as a field of knowledge. It's unstable for now.
> There
> are the cognitive issues on the way designers think, which for obvious
> linguistic reasons end up being called design thinking. Also, then there
> are
> the developments of entities like IDEO and Stanford who are broadly using
> the
> term: the former, as a practising entity, and the latter as a research,
> education and practice entity. IDEO and Stanford practice "their" design
> thinking, and Stanford does much research about it too.
>
>
>
> C. Origins of design thinking
>
> Point B leads me to this next matter.
> Lately some colleagues and I have been concluding that there is no single
> origin for design thinking. Designers and design engineers have been
> somewhat separately
> and simultaneously developing design thinking which finds itself in a
> juncture.
> In Spanish, we have a word that I have discovered does not exist in
> English:
> 'coyuntura'. Discussing it with colleagues in Australia and the US I have
> got
> two nice interpretations: 'the alignment of the stars' and
> 'synchronicity'. I
> believe this is the time in history in which it all has to come together,
> for
> many global reasons. It is important to know the origins for historical
> constructs, but we could all benefit from being more open and less
> apprehensive
> as to who, which discipline, and where created design thinking.
>
>
>
> All for today!
>
> Hope to continue getting thoughts.
>
> As Stefanie, I am working on my PhD thesis
> at Swinburne University, focusing on design thinking matters. All these
> discussions are helpful.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Maria F. CamachoDoctoral Design Research FellowPart-Time lecturer -
> Swinburne Design FactorySchool of DesignSwinburne University of
> TechnologyMelbourne - Australia
> [log in to unmask] +61 (0)434 267 297
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of PHD-DESIGN Digest - 20 Aug 2014 to 21 Aug 2014 (#2014-224)
> *****************************************************************
>


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

April 2024
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