David
--
> On 15 Feb 2017, at 10:32 am, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Erik,
> Isn't the primary role of this way of categorising design activity to provide a self-justification framework for the existence of design educators?
I was having a similar thought to Terry’s, but with a different inflection. I have found these approaches, however categorised and differentiated hollow, because they rely on their own internal logic and plausibility to justify themselves. There need to be strong external criteria by which these methods, processes, or ways of thinking—schools of thought—can be judged. Internal coherence and plausibility are not sufficient.
There are many social practices which meet strong criteria of internal consistency and plausibility, but which provide no strong external criteria. The one I often use by way of comparison is rain making ceremonies. It only has to rain once in a while after such ceremonies for the belief in the practice to be validated. I suspect (though I have no systematic evidence to support my suspicion) that the same is true of designing. What I do know, is that we have no systematic criteria by which to judge the outcomes of our work, whichever of the three schools we follow.
David
blog: http://communication.org.au/blo <http://communication.org.au/blo>g/
web: http://communication.org.au <http://communication.org.au/>
Professor David Sless BA MSc FRSA
CEO • Communication Research Institute •
• helping people communicate with people •
Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
Phone: +61 (03) 9005 5903
Skype: davidsless
60 Park Street • Fitzroy North • Melbourne • Australia • 3068
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|