By: Oliver Greive, I604 Design Theory, Indiana University M.S. HCI/d Spring 2020
Through my time in design theory, I’ve gained a more complete view of myself as a designer and as a person. I’ve also begun to acknowledge that this is subject to change as my perspective is tied to my development at this point in time. My background in other disciplines has helped me discover parallels in my thinking and practice as a designer, as design has revealed itself as an incredibly broad field of inquiry and practice.
Earlier in my education, I was exposed to music and linguistics. I didn’t go to music school or study theory at a high level, but exposure to music from an early age helped deepen my experience of music as a whole. In a similar way, being a linguistics major in college enriched my understanding and appreciation of language. In both fields, a veil was peeled back to reveal a complex web of interactions to be explored, their implications examined, and their everyday experiences discussed. As Friedman stated in Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria:Approaches, and Methods: “ [Theory] is an illustration describing how something works by showing its elements in relationship to one another.” (p. 513). After this semester studying design theory, I feel a similar sense of growth and appreciation for design as a discipline, as well as excitement at my development as a designer.
As I’ve begun to appreciate design more fully, I’ve also grown more competent in my abilities. To understand this progression, I found this passage from Nigel Cross helpful: “Like other forms of intelligence and ability, design intelligence is not simply a given ‘talent’ or ‘gift’, but can be trained and developed.” (Cross, p. 701). In this way, seeing design as similar to other forms of intelligence – such as bodily/kinesthetic, musical, linguistic, spatial etc. – this sense of progression becomes more clear. I feel comfortable recognizing where I can grow since I no longer see design ability as a static talent with predefined limits for competence or mastery. With this in mind, I’ve developed a design philosophy to help me grow and develop as a designer. This philosophy encompasses my stance on the nature of design, my process, as well as my values.
I see design as a tightrope walk between chaos and order. Similarly, I see designers as those who can exist on both sides of this divide without being overwhelmed in either direction. As Nelson and Stolterman write in The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World: “Design is realized through the manifestation and integration of ideal, if not always creative, concepts into the real world.” (p. 5). In my view, recognizing this ideal requires a direct confrontation with the unknown and the creation of meaningful solutions resulting from that confrontation. This can’t occur if a designer strays too far into order, structure, or process, as this generates rigidity and an aversion to change. Similarly, a designer can’t venture too far into the realm of chaos, freedom, and intuition – a recipe for personally meaningful but impractical solutions. Designers are not task managers or purely artists, but something balancing the admirable qualities and limitations of each.
With this view of design in mind, I’ve arrived at three principles to guide me through my design process: to strive for balance , to prioritize substance over hype , and to expect consequences .Striving for balance means to hold multiple perspectives in mind while designing – weighing requirements of users against those of business or technical stakeholders, and thoughtfully integrating diverse elements in a way that exhibits “organic unity” (Nozick, p. 163). Having a balanced design may mean viewing an idea from the perspective of a non-human stakeholder(Forlano). Prioritizing substance over hype means to emphasize a design’s personal, intrinsic value as opposed to externally-imposed value. This principle highlights the importance of intellectual and emotional honesty in recognizing one’s own opinions, and distinguishing personal taste from taste imposed by social expectations. The final design principle is to expect consequences. As design is the creation of novel and preferred situations, existing designs are bound to be replaced or destroyed in the process. As a result, a degree of resistance and pushback is expected with any design. In this way, design can be seen as a type of conversation between existing and novel interpretations, goals, and value systems. This type of conversation can be linked to the “critical inquiry” proposed by Friedman (2003): “It is not experience, but our interpretation and understanding of experience that leads to knowledge. Knowledge emerges from critical inquiry.”(p. 521). Although consequences, disagreements, and compromises are challenging, they are necessary in the emergence of knowledge via critical inquiry.
In determining an ideal design process, I decided to create a generative metaphor proposed by Schön (1990). He stated: “Generative metaphor produces a selective representation of an unfamiliar situation that sets values for the system's transformation.” (p. 131-132). Using this definition, I employed the generative metaphor of Design as Conversation as the guiding theme of my process. This process follows four stages in a cyclic structure: Notice, Create, Listen, and Learn.
To notice is to perceive something new. This means taking note of patterns, similarities, distinctions, and underlying meanings. This also means to arrive at an opinion about what one perceives. At this stage a designer starts asking themselves questions: “What do I think about this, really?” “Why do I hold that opinion?” or the most revealing, “Why?”
The next stage is to create. Creating is to put something new into the world in response to a“Why?” question. This creation can take many forms: visual, verbal, written, any way to present an alternative or a variation as a potential way forward. The substance, form, and underlying meaning of this stage’s outcome is intimately connected to the designer’s personal development, and how familiar they are with the problem space.
The third stage is to listen. This is to see what others have to say, and to accept feedback, contributions, and criticism. In some cases this may involve interviewing relevant stakeholder ,observing other’s natural reactions and behaviors, or eliciting detailed feedback about a design.This is broadly referred to as “research” which is used to validate or disprove existing hypotheses, opinions or mental models about a problem, as well as alternatives intended to address it. As Horst Rittel stated: “Learning what the problem is IS the problem” (Rittel p. 2). With this in mind, one way to arrive at a common understanding of “the problem” is to listen to the perspectives of others, as a comprehensive understanding cannot be achieved by a designer working alone.
The final stage is to learn. This is to take an active role in integrating feedback into the designer’s own perceptions. This is also attempting to see things from another perspective with enough feedback to validate that point of view. This stage broadens the designer’s worldview and provides a better vocabulary for what they will experience in the future. The learning stage reveals the reflective, cyclical attributes of the Design as Conversation metaphor – learning pushes the cycle to repeat itself as the designer notices more by broadening their personal horizons. This stage is informed by Schön’s act of “framing” situations, as he stated in The Design Process: “When we frame a situation and create an initial design structure within which we begin to invent and implement solutions, we become newly aware of conflicts within our own appreciative system.” (p.137). The act of framing and acknowledging internal conflicts and discrepancies shows design asa highly reflective process. Following Design as Conversation , a conversation is similar to design in that it is constantly evolving, unpredictable, and reflective in nature. The outcome of this process is similarly unpredictable in terms of form, as there is no prescribed course of action. The development of the designer’s own judgement is the primary focus of this process, as opposed to the strict adherence to rules or procedures.
For me, an ideal design outcome reflects the principles listed above . The ideal outcome is balanced: it takes multiple perspectives into consideration. This may also refer to compositional or physical balance by integrating diverse elements and achieving a sense of organic unity. An ideal outcome is also substantial: it is able to withstand the test of time by being genuinely meaningful to the people using it. This stands in contrast to a trend-driven outcome which would likely be rendered obsolete in a short period of time. Finally, an ideal design outcome is consequential: it makes a significant contribution to the ongoing conversation of design. It provides a solid basis for critique and improvement over time, ideally steering the conversation in a positive direction.This course helped me clarify my own approach to design by encouraging me to reflect on my experiences, strengths, and weaknesses. For the first time, I feel a clear sense of trajectory for my development in design. I also feel more responsible for cultivating my personality, priorities, and value system. In the same way that my background has deepened my perception of language and music, design theory has changed how I see myself when confronted with the ambiguity and responsibility of design.
Works Cited
Cross, Nigel (2018) Developing design as a discipline, Journal of Engineering Design, 29:12,691-708
Forlano, Laura. “Decentering the Human in the Design of Collaborative Cities.” Design Issues , vol.32, no. 3, 2016, pp. 42–54., doi:10.1162/desi_a_00398.
Friedman, Ken. “Theory Construction in Design Research: Criteria: Approaches, and Methods.”Design Studies , vol. 24, no. 6, 2003, pp. 507–522., doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(03)00039-5.
“The Design Way: Intentional Change in an Unpredictable World.” The Design Way: IntentionalChange in an Unpredictable World , by Harold G. Nelson and Erik Stolterman, The MIT Press, 2014.p. 1-23, 105-138, 139-158, 183-200, 239-259:
“Chapter 15 Value and Meaning.” The Examined Life: Philosophical Meditations , by Robert Nozick,Simon & Schuster, 2006.Rittel, Horst W.J. “Die Denkweise Von Planern Und Entwerfern / The Reasoning of Designers.”Thinking Design , 1987, doi:10.1515/9783038210665.123.
“The Design Process.” Varieties of Thinking: Essays from Harvard's Philosophy of Education ResearchCenter , by Donald A. Schön, Routledge, 1990, pp. 111–141.
