Week 6 - Oct 1

This is our last section of readings on "what is design?". This last week focuses on the nature of design situations - how design compares to a general model of problem solving, how features of design tasks relate to design practices, and ways to characterize broad features of design situations.

• Jonassen, D.H. (2000). “Toward a Design Theory of Problem Solving.” Educational Technology: Research & Development, 48 (4), pp. 63-85.
• Goel, V. & Pirolli, P. (1992). “The Structure of Design Problem Spaces.” Cognitive Science 16, pp. 395-429.
• Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.

Some guiding questions:

• How do they characterize "design situations"? In what ways does this speak to "design knowledge", "design processes" or "design thinking"?
• How do they distinguish design from other activities (e.g., problem solving, non-design)? Do you find their arguments persuasive?
• How do these ideas connect to our prior discussions / readings?

Open thread week of Sept 24

Hi all,

Good work on delving into some really complex and slightly (ha ha) abstract ideas. I wanted to capture the open questions and put them here - if you want to continue adding questions (I think I missed a few) or chat...this is the place!

Application: How do you USE these ideas?
Agent of change: How do you bring forth a design culture?
Recency: These are new ideas and conversations - how do they relate to prior work - what should we hold onto (are they incommensurate or is there a way to connect them)?
Defining "design": Tension between a concrete (potentially universal) definition and an abstract (potentially situational) definition - how to enable room for change?

Open Thread - Sept 17

Here's a place where you can continue and start conversations.

What are your ideas for analyzing an "instance" of design education

November 19 you are expected to turn in and discuss an analysis of an "instance" of design education through a lenss of "design knowledge and cognition". This can be a textbook, an assessment tool, a syllabus, an observation of a class period, etc.

Because this project may require some "up front" time so that you can access your "instance" - it would be good to share opportunities with the group (e.g., people you know who would let a student sit in class for a session). Use the comment button below to get discussion happening on the kinds of opportunities that exist on campus - the sooner you do this, the more you'll get out of it!

What are your ideas for Design as X project

October 22 you will turn in and discuss in class what you found through your own exploration of an area of design knowledge (e.g., design for emotion, sustainability, lifecycle; design as innovation, mathematical thinking. analogical reasoning, design fixation, etc.).

To focus your exploration and find 3 quality sources to review - you need to start thinking about this now. Using the comment box below - send me some ideas on what you are thinking so I can provide some guidance on where to look.

To get you thinking - here are some links to design communities.

Week 5 - Sept 24 - Design Philosophies

Recently, philosophies of design have entered into the conversation. These involve taking a philosophical approach to articulate the goals-aims-purpose of design. In the process they highlight design skills, knowledge, and values.

The readings for this week provide two views:

• Nelson and Stolterman articulate “the design way” – where design involves intention and judgment and the outcome of design emerges from systems thinking. Nelson, H. & Stolterman, E. (2003). The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World. New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications. Chapters: Desiderata, Judgment (skim "The First Tradition" to get a sense of where they are coming from)
  
• Krippendorf takes a semantics view to articulate a view of “human-centered design” – that designers design for “meaning”. Krippendorf, K. (2006). The Semantic Turn: A New Foundation for Design. Boca Raton: Taylor and Francis. Chapter Two: Basic Concepts of Human-Centered Design

Some of you will enjoy these readings, some of you will struggle with them – they are included because they are representative of current conversations about the nature of design (and to some extent they are seeking to “redraw the boundaries of design”). At the same time they provide interesting connections to design as process, designerly ways of thinking, and design as negotiation.

We will use a jigsaw technique this week – while I will assign groups don’t feel that you can’t argue for a different group!

George, James, Aidsa – try out Krippendorf: what does he argue about the goals, aims, or process of design, and what does “semantics” have to do with design?

Celia, CJ, Junqiu, and Roy – try out Nelson and Stolterman: what do they argue about the goals, aims, or process of design, and what is “the design way”?

Week 4 - Sept 17 - Design as a social process

Thank you Aidsa - for the fabulous snacks!

This week we will use what is called a "jigsaw technique" to delve into the readings. Since the topic this week is "design as a social process" it seemed fitting to use an approach that focuses on "social learning". For this jigsaw, one group will read the Bucciarelli chapteres (Celia, CJ, James, Roy); the other group will read the Stumpf and Brereton articles (Junqiu, Aidsa, George). This roughly works out to be a similar reading load. When you come to class, each group will first discuss their reading - and then change groups where they will educate others on the main points in the readings.

To help you "educate your peers" on the readings - here are some guiding questions:
(1) How does each talk about design as a social process (similarly, how does each study design as a social process)?
(2) What new insights do these authors bring to the question "what is it that designers know and how do they know it?"

The readings for this week are:

• Bucciarelli, L. L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Chapter 1-2, 6. Chapters 1-2 provide an overview of his approach while Chapter 6 is a case study. Chapter 2 is provided as an "fyi".
• Brereton, M. F., Cannon, D. M., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. J. (1996). Collaboration in design teams: How social interaction shapes the product. In H. C. N. Cross, K. Dorst (Ed.), Analysing design activity . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
• Stumpf, S.C. & McDonnel, J.T. (2001). Talking about team framing: Using argumentation to analyse and support experimental learning in early design. Design Studies, 23 (1), pp. 5-23.