Pierre,
I believe that the most promising direction to study everyday is through
²practices² ‹ I think that it addresses the same phenomenon but is a more
solid and analytically more powerful concept, already with a tradition.
Practice concept has long pedigree going back to Hegel, Marx and Dewey (or
Aristotle!), it has been important for Wittgenstein and Heidegger, and it
was picked up in social sciences in 1980s in the quest to conceptualize
what happens in real life when looked from a close distance (Schatzki et
al. 2001, Miettinen et al. 2009, Nicolini 2013).
Practice concept has been used in many ways in design research, but not
much in such analytical way as in social sciences. I hope that the review
work Ken Friedman has just taken will give us some clarity in this
respect. We wrote few years back with Liam Bannon a paper on the topic for
the HCI community, and I hope to be able to continue that work now when I
have more time in my hands.
Schatzki, Theodore R., Karin Knorr-Cetina and Eike von Savigny, eds. 2001
The practice turn in contemporary theory. New York: Routledge.
Miettinen, R., Samra-Fredricks, D, & Yanow, D. (2010) Re-Turn to Practice:
An Introductory Essay. Organization Studies 30(12) pp. 1309-1327.
Nicolini, D. Practice Theory, Work, & Organization. An Introduction.
Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.(2013).
Kuutti,K., & Bannon, L. J. (2014). The turn to practice in HCI: towards a
research agenda. In Proceedings
of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems
(pp. 3543-3552). ACM.
best regards,
‹Kari Kuutti
professor (emeritus)
Interact research unit
University of Oulu, Finland
>Subject: the everyday
>
>Dear all,
>
>I am trying to address the notion of Œeveryday¹ and questioning the way
>it is or could be tackled by design.
>
>I have read Georges Perec on infra-ordinary (enjoy
>http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/Gustafson/FILM%20162.W10/readings/perec.a
>pproaches.pdf !) and George Orwell on common decency, which both are very
>inspiring. I studied Bourdieu and de Certeau, who address the notion of
>the everyday in different ways, once again inspiring but not that
>practical for design. I have read The Design of Everyday Things of Don
>Norman, and the Everyday Aesthetics of Yuriko Saito, certainly more
>satisfying for design but, to my perspective missing the attempt to
>clarify what is the Œeveryday¹ (please let me know if I missed it!).
>
>The everyday seems to be about in the closest, the less significant, the
>less noticeable facts. The everyday Œis as much in the habitual events
>than in the forces that make them habitual and calmly liveable¹ (Dewolf).
>However, it is also a space of creation, as the habitual may turn
>unexpectedly, and the resulting irregularity may be simultaneously a
>space of frustration and a space of creation. Here is why I am intrigued
>in it, and believe it should closely and unhesitatingly addressed by
>design research.
>
>However, it seems to me the Œeveryday¹ remains one of these things that
>everybody knows until it is time to describe it, a view that is not
>satisfying from a (design) research perspective.
>I would be very glad if some of you could suggest directions,
>perspectives, or opinions to comprehend better the Œeveryday¹ and the way
>it can be tackled by design (research). Or even better if some other
>people are addressing the same topic, and would like to share further on
>this topic...
>
>Thank you in advance,
>Best,
>Pierre Lévy
>
>
>‹‹
>dr. LEVY Pierre
>Assistant professor at TU/e
>President of the European Kansei Group
>Coordinator of the KEER steering committee
>
>Eindhoven University of Technology
>Department of Industrial Design
>Designing Quality in Interaction
>
>www.plevy.fr<http://www.plevy.fr> | dqi.id.tue.nl
>@picchono
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|