A CLARIFICATION
Dear Terry
Here also I entirely concur. Except on the word and concept of "creating".
In my view, those who "create" things are 'artists' : also professional
designers, but I situate these at the far end of a spectrum of people
concerned with artifacts. They conceive and often produce themselves
artifacts, primarily for self appreciation and satisfaction. Only
incidentally other people are concerned or called upon in the designing
process.
At the other end of the spectrum, I situate those, also professional
designers,but who, under different 'parishes', conceive, systematically
elaborate, and communicate to others specifications of things to make and
to use. These others, makers and users, are prominently present throughout
the entire designing process.
In my poor understanding of the meaning of the English term "to create",
the above second category of professionals do not "create" things, they are
not involved in the "creative industry", they are not confined to drawing,
rendering and drafting. Somewhere along the spectrum, in between its two
extreme ends above, they are designers in such and such sub-field: they are
graphic designers, fashion designers, industrial designers, systems
designers, engineers, architects, etc. etc. Alas, as you say, each one
pretending to be the only one doing "real" design!
Regards,
Francois
Kigali
On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:29 AM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Liz,
>
> Thank you for your post.
>
> Yes, there is a significant problem in the design literature from a sort
> of blinkered parochiality across design fields about 'What is design?'.
>
> In each of the thousand or so design fields there is a body of people in
> that field that to some extent regard only their field as 'design' and
> everyone else's as 'not design'.
>
> A research and design theory problem that follows on from this is each of
> these groups in the different fields produces definitions of design that
> are parochial to that group. In other words they define design
> specifically in terms of what they do. The problem has been obvious from
> at least 25 years ago. As part of getting a perspective on this , I find it
> sobering to realise each design field is on average only about 0.1% of the
> whole.
>
> A related question is 'Which groups should be counted as design fields?'
>
> The definition I've found useful is, 'Any community of practice of at
> least a hundred people who self-label themselves as designers, and who
> create designs (as a specification for making or doing something).'
>
> Yes, I know many people feel they would prefer something different...
>
> For me as a professional designer and as a researcher, I've found the
> above definition works well and better than many others in terms of
> identifying boundaries that make sense, for making coherent n and well
> integrated design theory, and undertaking research.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:owner-phd-design@
> jiscmail.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Elizabeth Goodman
> Sent: Saturday, 4 February 2017 4:00 AM
> To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies andrelated
> research in Design <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: RE: Are politicians designers?
>
> Dear Ali --
>
> I am sympathetic to your (perhaps exaggerated) confusion. Coming from an
> ethnographic background, I often try to remind myself that the definitions
> of design that the scholarly design researchers on this list find useful
> do not need to match those that professional designers find useful in order
> to be legitimate.
>
> My own ongoing research in science and technology traces how interaction
> designers enact definitions of "design" and "not design" in everyday work.
> I am a professional interaction designer as well. From that I can tell you
> with confidence that, for many commercial interaction designers at least,
> politicians are not designers in any way that counts.
>
> (Unless, of course, those politicians are making wireframes or service
> blueprints on the side.)
>
> My take is that boundary-expansion on this list is useful to certain
> positions and approaches because it expands the potential field of inquiry.
> However, I find my own analytical clarity in bounding definitions through
> empirical engagement with specific sites and the activities taking place
> there. Otherwise, as you say, my arguments get entirely too muddy.
>
> But that's me, coming from a strong tradition of fieldwork-grounded
> theorizing. I like my conclusions modest.
>
> Cheers,
> Liz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Ali Ilhan" <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: 2/3/2017 12:36 AM
> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Are politicians designers?
>
> Dear All,
>
>
>
> I would like to add yet another dimension to this debate, a dimension that
> oftentimes confuses me, and for which answers –at least for me-seem pretty
> elusive. As this post highlights we, as the design research community, have
> begun to find design and designing almost everywhere, from governance to
> economy. But every profession, every discipline and [every concept] is
> almost always an attempt of bracketing. There is always “boundary work”
> involved and there are always things that are left beyond that boundary.
> By pushing that boundary infinitely outwards, it seems to me that we are
> creating an inherent danger to make design –as a professional act-,
> irrelevant. If there is nothing beyond the bracket, there is no need for
> that bracket: the concept looses analytical clarity. Or to put it more
> bluntly, if design is everywhere, who really needs designers? (Ok, I am
> exaggerating). This is why I found Simon’s classical definition both
> liberating and dangerous. His definition is so wide that even sitting on a
> chair becomes designing (the existing situation was me standing next to my
> desk with a dull ache in my knee)-I exaggerated again.
>
>
>
> I am no expert in these matters (I quantitatively study how
> fields/disciplines grow or die), so please note that I do not have a
> definitive standpoint on this issue, but I am, more than anything, very
> confused.
>
>
>
> Warm wishes,
>
>
>
> Ali o. Ilhan, PhD
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
