So is DesignX just a pragmatic mix of (existing) evidences? Who gets to determine which evidences when and where? How does that determination happen - on what basis and via what kind of “design activism"?
Which evidences are best for DesignX’s ambition to be "a new, evidence-based approach for addressing many of the complex and serious problems facing the world today?” The same ones for determining height or wait-times or prestige?
We live on the same planet in societies that are surprisingly unsustainable despite having been dominated by evidence-based discourses. What is the difference that Evidence-based DesignX will make - a difference worthy of "a radical reformation of design practice, education, and research”?
(I am quoting from http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/designx_a_future_pa.html, the penultimate paragraph of which reads “It is important to strengthen dialogue between the multiple cultures of the world. It is time to emphasize world-wide conditions that will provide sustainability with alternative measures of quality and performance that move beyond systems requiring high energy and resource consumption.”)
Cameron
> On Jan 2, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Don Norman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Conclusion: There are many different forms of evidence. Some is very
> weak, some strong. Some is more precise than others, some more accurate.
> Some allow for qualitative assessment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|