Design and Design Discourse

To insert a general understanding of Design between the contexts presented is rather metaphorical, since logically it could have also been presented at the beginning. The decision to place it here is a reflection of the entire process and its outcome. It also indicates that there is no beginning or end, but rather a state of permanent questioning, which leads to answering and reframing of what design is and might be. This incessant inquiry is primarily generated by identifying and detailing the gaps.

Over the years, and during the last two decades in particular, many professionals tried to define design. In order to highlight a common understanding they

reached, it is necessary to state some core concepts.

A very general, and oft cited, definition comes from Friedman, who posits that most definitions of design share three attributes.

‘First, the word design refers to a process. Second, the process is goal-oriented.

Third, the goal of design is solving problems, meeting needs, improving situations, or creating something new or useful. Herbert Simon (p.129), 2 (p.112) defines design as the process by which we ‘[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones.’ Since this definition covers most forms of design, it is a useful starting point’ (Friedman 2003, p.508).

Since Friedman’s definition includes Simon’s generalized statement, it a very broad, comprehensive and useful theory. Simon (1996) went so far as to say that,

‘The proper study of mankind is the science of design’ (p.83).

In his Semantic Turn, Krippendorff (2006) also proposes a basic and comprehensive definition of design with his reference to Latin:

‘The etymology of ‚design‘ goes far back, of course, to the Latin de+signare, which means to mark out, set apart, give significance by assigning it to a use, a user, or an owner. Design has the same origin as ‚sign’ and to ‚designate‘, calling attention to something other than its observer-independent existence: meaning.

The sixteenth century English emphasized the purposiveness of design, and because design often involved drawing, or marking out‘, the seventeenth century

moved design closer to art. Based on these original meanings, one could say:

Design is making sense of things.’ (Introduction)

Within this definition, he already indicates a change - a paradigm shift in design - which he calls the ‘semantic turn’ (Ibid).

Cross (2007a) has collected many quotes from designers and has interpreted these to reframe design, concluding:

‘In quoting these designers, and interpreting those quotations in terms of concept from design research, I have been trying to show two things. Firstly, that

although designers themselves do not normally use the kinds of concepts that researchers use, we are talking about the same experiences and perceptions: we are talking about - hopefully, developing - highly-developed design ability.

Secondly, I have wanted to show that this is a difficult conversation: we are not talking about simple activities that can be expressed in simple concepts. I do not want to imply that designing is mysterious and obscure; but I do want to show that it is complex. Although anyone can design, designing is one of the highest forms of human intelligence’ (p.54).

On the other hand, Buchanan (1996) develops a theory with which he defines design as the new liberal arts:

‘What design as a liberal art contributes to this situation is a new awareness of how argument is the central theme that cuts across the many technical

methodologies employed in each design profession. The new liberal art of design thinking is turning to the modality of impossibility. It points, for example toward the impossibility of rigid boundaries between industrial design, engineering and marketing. It points towards the impossibilities of relying on any one of the sciences (natural, social, humanistic) for adequate solutions to what are the inherently wicked problems of design thinking. Finally it points toward something that is often forgotten, that what many people call “impossible”, may actually only be a limitation that can be overcome by better design thinking’ (p.19).

Schoen (1987), however, defines design from an active process perspective: ‘A designer makes things. Sometimes he makes the final product; more often he makes a representation - a plan, program, or image - of an artefact to be constructed by others. He shapes the situation, in accordance with his initial appreciation of it, the situation ‚talks back’ and he responds to the situation’s back talk. In a good process of design, this conversation with the situation is

reflective. In answer to the situation’s back talk, the designer reflects-in-action on the construction of the problem, the strategies of action, or the model of the phenomena, which have been implicit in his moves’ (p.78-79).

If design is perceived merely as a problem-solving profession, it implies that everybody who changes an existing situation into a preferred one is a designer (as Simon defines). Thus, the question is - how do we change an existing situation into a preferred one?

The ‘how’, represents the process of changing that which exists. Further,

‘process’ in design is usually aligned with Cross’s description:

‘1.) exploring the problem and writing a performance specification;

2.) generating a range of concepts;

3.) evaluating and selecting the most promising concept;

4.) developing the concept into a detailed design; and

5.) communicating the final proposed design’ (Cross 1997, p.311ff).

Now that some perspectives are established, it is possible to look to the histories, at the designer, the design profession, design as a basic human activity, and the goal of design—problem solving, for example. However, problems do not exist, they are constructed, and they are not independent from us as humans. Problems are invented and can thus change; therefore, there is no design without

invention and, ultimately, design is an invention as well.

Archer is making a case that there needs to be a third area next to science and the humanities, since the essential of design is modelling, as it is a notation for science and a language for humanities. Therefore, in his view, the problem stems from the fact that we have not yet developed a strong case for such a ‘designerly way of knowing’ (Archer 1979).

Thus, asking ‘what is design’ would inevitably yield different answers, depending on the perspective from which the problem is stated. Is design a practice, a

discipline? Is it a general human activity? Does it have its own knowledge? Is it discourse? Whenever a problem is invented, a different result is created.

Therefore, what design is, depends on the framing of the problem ‘design’. There is no all-inclusive answer. Defining design is a wicked problem that unveils the fluidity and constant transformation involved in the discursive construction and

the exploratory nature of trying to answer the question of what design truly is.

Verganti (2008) states that design is fluid and slippery, which is likely a very adequate description.

Design Discourse

Margolin (1989), as the responsible editor of the book ‘Design Discourse’, has coined the term, and showed what a design discourse might be, by presenting the contributions of several designers and theorists, who argue and debate for design studies as a new discipline. Importantly, he started to frame the entire study with several definitions of design. He began with a definition from

Buchanan, a contributor to this book, who said that design is what all forms of useful production have in common. According to Buchanan, design provides for intelligence, the thought or the idea. Of course, one of the meanings of the term

‘design’ is a thought or plan that organizes all levels of production, whether in graphic design, engineering, or industrial design, architecture, or the largest integrated systems found in urban planning.

Yet, arguing, even within definitions, which are very similar, gives us a sense of what design discourse may be. It might serve as the base - the underlying

method to create design studies - because ‘design study’, as a field, does not exist. Design training is extremely fragmented, as we can appreciate by looking at the various departments at universities and art schools where design is being taught (Margolin 1989).

Margolin clearly indicates his intention when he says that design study needs debating arenas - a place where new ideas can be presented and questioned, and where issues of the discipline can be defined (Ibid, p.6). One of the outcomes, he argues, is the commitment to draw in researchers with

backgrounds in history, sociology, literary criticism, psychology, engineering, philosophy, rhetoric, and design practice, among many. However, to this date, this issue remains unresolved for design entities, such as the Journal of Design.

Margolin further develops his idea of design discourse by discussing the

difficulty of conveying a theory, which is not compromised by ideology and still able to produce natural models of either designing or society. ‘Creating design

theory then becomes a matter of argument, and part of a broader debate about social theory in general’ (Ibid, p.7). That is the basis for why design discourse is so important to Margolin, for creating a theory of design, or for design.

Design discourse, in the best sense, would provide a non-ideological theory, or at least would make the ideological influences visible, thereby showing that there is no value-free discipline, and arguing with Dickson, Feyerabend and Stanley. Accepting this, any theory of design is, thus, also connected with any theory of society.

An equally interesting differentiation that can assist in understanding design discourse is pointed out by Perelman (1999), who makes a distinction between the engineering design discourses. Grounded in the production of artefacts, humanistic discourse is largely based on consumption, particularly of textual objects. Therefore the ‘engineering discourse, then, is informed by a rhetoric of design, that is, a rhetoric of deliberation, while most humanistic discourses echo back to rhetoric of interpretation, judgment, and evaluation’ (p.66).

Still, there are others who see design discourse as weak, or even non-existent.

For example, Poggenpohl (2004) claims that ‘Design does not have a strong tradition of reflective or critical writing, perhaps because much design

knowledge is tacit and formalizing this knowledge through language is difficult’

(p.588). In Perelman’s (1999) view, this could be interpreted as suggesting that design does not have a strong rhetoric of interpretation, judgment, and

evaluation. Poggenpohl adds: ‘Different sub-disciplines in design have stronger, weaker, or virtually nonexistent discourse traditions’ (Ibid, p.588).

Hence, if design discourse is required, there needs to be a clarification what discourse means in order to understand what design discourse comprehends.

And who better to put this into perspective than Foucault in his writing.

However, the problem here is the language, because it is generative, rather than consumptive like humanistic discourse, as we saw in Perelman’s excursion.

Focusing deeply on the understanding of discourse, language discourse in general, and using Foucault's The Archeology of Knowledge, we can attempt to evaluate contemporary design theory and see whether it is embedded in

ideology, or whether the ideology is transparent, following selected discourse formations.

The methodology applied here is a form of cross-reading and cross-evaluating Foucault’s exploration and a publication from Krippendorff’s The Semantic Turn, where he sets a new foundation for design, and develops a design theory by describing the development he constructs. He is reviewing design in the 20 century, which he subsequently calls ‘trajectory of artificiality’ (Krippendorff 2006). Foucault’s writing is used in this thesis as a backdrop to look into the base of Krippendorff’s description of design discourse.

Model A.2.0a Design and Design Discourse

Summary:

The purpose of this chapter was to show how design and discourse can relate and how design in such a context has to be thought of.

Design refers to a process, which is goal-oriented approach to solving problems.

Its aim is to meet needs, improve situations, or create something new or useful (Simon 1986). Simon’s definition is the broadest and most inclusive, as he makes

the case that design is the process by which we ‘[devise] courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones (Friedman 2003, p.508),

Krippendorff (1989), on the other hand, indicates a ‘semantic turn’ when he states that the assignment of designers is ‘Design is making sense of things’. (p.9) Cross (2007a) summarized his research, stating that anyone can design,

designing is one of the highest forms of human intelligence.

Buchanan (1996) instead defines design as the new liberal arts.

Schoen (1987) describes the active process implicit in design and makes the case that, in a good design process, the conversation with the situation is reflective and the situation talks back. His statement culminates in his concept of reflecting in action, which gives designers a new frame to do research.

In general, an all-embracing definition of design generates a wicked situation, which reveals that there is no all-inclusive answer; it shows the fluidity and the constant transformation of a young discipline that can be best described as fluid and slippery (Verganti 2008).

Design Discourse as a concept was coined by Margolin (1989), who demonstrated the fluidity when collecting a set of essays around design

understanding in order to define what design might be. The key to this approach is the set of statements, instead of a definition. Still, he also argues for research into various fields, which can benefit the design discourse. He summarizes his understanding of design discourse with the notion that design theory becomes a matter of argument and is a part of a debate in social theory in general (Ibid).

The distinction between humanistic discourse, which consumes textual objects, and engineering discourse is interesting, since engineering discourse is informed by rhetoric of design, rhetoric of deliberation. (Perelman 1999) In contrast, Poggenpohl (2004) sees various design sub-disciplines having virtually no discourse tradition. Despite their different perspectives, in general, all aforementioned theorists make the case that design discourse is needed.

Therefore, Krippendorff’s design discourse framework is used in the next

chapters, to discuss it on the backdrop of Foucault’s groundwork, with the aim of providing a better understanding of the design discourse.

A.2.1 Foucault’s Discourse and Krippendorff’s Design