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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|