Klaus, Ken,Terry and colleagues,
Although Terry could have presented his arguments better, I think he got a bum wrap from Klaus and Ken, especially Ken who likes to chastise those who don’t follow his model of scholarship and discussion.
Both Ks seem to speak of human agency as the only agency worth thinking about overlooking that the words “human” and “agency” distinguish two aspects to what they are saying.
Happily The Oxford on line dictionary sets us straight with its second definition of agent:
"Agent : A person or thing that takes an active role or produces a specified effect.” giving "bleaching agent” as an example.
I don’t think the word “specified" is needed in this definition although Terry has argued that it is what designers do. In my view the effect doesn’t always need to be specified (an indication of intentional human agency) but may just happen due to the properties and circumstances of the thing, however created. Naturally toxic things come to mind. We designers like to believe that everything we do is a service to humankind, an agency we aspire to provide. But our efforts sometimes have unanticipated effects. It is also sometimes helpful to separate “human" from “ agency" in order to understand cause and effect in the things we manipulate and transform.
Or so I believe,
Chuck
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|