Hi Teena and all,
You wrote,
'This is similar to the exhausting discussions about what is or what is not
'design' or 'Design' in a broader sense. As suggested some time ago, it is
the mark of an immature discipline which disputes both name and territory.'
It's a different issue.
Trying to conceptualise and define the term design is about clearer theory
foundations and better theory development about design activity. This, in
turn results in improvements to design activity, especially in areas of
computer support for designers and automation of design activity. Perhaps
even more important, it helps those working in design build on knowledge
from elsewhere. To do this well is the mark of a mature discipline.
The current discussion is different. It seems to be a boundary discussion
about territory and naming for universities wanting attract students.
It reminds me of departments of Management Information Systems and Computer
Science teaching e-business design in universities in the dot -com boom.
Course names were radically changed as frequently as 3 months. The aim being
to capture what society (the parts of it that would pay) felt was the most
appropriate name for courses to make lots of money and status, and hence
maximise student intake.
When trying to identify the 'one true version' without the work to identify
the core theory foundations it can lead to undirected educational confusion.
I remember one institution had 5 absolutely different e-business Masters
programs with different names carefully chosen to delineate by name that
they addressed very different aspects of e-business theory and practices.
I remember the humour when teaching staff realised all 5 programs were
teaching the same content.
Its also worth remembering the dynamics of disciplines where a new
discipline becomes eventually established, and then as it matures,
sub-disciplines emerge and the over-arching discipline becomes more of an
overarching field name rather than a specific and active discipline, then
later over time it dies away.
It is not that long ago that a weird and very small novel subgrouping of
practitioners focused only on the physical aspects of the world. Within the
broader field, they were nicknamed the 'physicalists' to distinguish them
from serious researchers and what they did was disparagingly referred to as
'physics'. The parent field (Natural Philosophy) has now all but
disappeared. Physics is at the stage where there are so many significant
subfields, they will soon replace it as a head discipline as the world
moves on, and Physic disappears. Engineering and Architecture are in much
the same position.
As Mulla Nassr Uddin said, 'Is it better to be the full moon or the new
moon?' The full moon is greater bigger and brighter than the new moon at the
moment. Its powers however are waning and the New Moon's light will soon
come.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, 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]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|