[this webpage is outdated, please go to DAB02]
Instructors:
Prof. Dr. M. Rauterberg
and
Dr Ben Salem |
Benefits This assignment need 40 hrs work in total, number of weeks depends on the actual period length (min 4 weeks). After following this
assignment
students should be able to:
|
Previous Knowledge
|
Abstract Dogma is
defined as: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or
opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.(
www.dictionary.com ) |
Assignment
schedule
|
Date |
Topic |
Literature |
kick-off |
Introduction in the basic ideas: extra presentations: Anthony Dunne about BioLand Wim Rietdijk: Evil, Sex and the Mechanisms of Power; Machiavelli Now Nick Epley: Science or Science Fiction? |
literature is provided here: Pike, Albert (1909) Digest Index of Morals and Dogma. ISBN 0766142442.
Milton, Richard (1996) Alternative Science: Challenging the Myths of the Scientific Establishment. ISBN: 0892816317.
Caillois, Roger (2001) Man and the Sacred. ISBN: 0252070348
Johnson, Phillip E. (2002) The Right Questions: Truth, Meaning & Public Debate. InterVarsity Press.
Brockman, John (2002, ed.) The next fifty years. ISBN 0753817101.
Witham, Larry (2003) By Design: Science and the Search for God. ISBN 1893554643. |
2nd meeting |
Each 4-student team present the chosen |
Presentation of
Group-1 Presentation of Group-2 Presentation of Group-3 Presentation of Group-4 |
3rd meeting |
Each 2-student team present the |
Presentation of
Group-1-2 Presentation of Group-2-1 Presentation of Group-3-1 Presentation of Group-4-1 Presentation of Group-4-2 |
|
Each individual student present the |
Assignment
work
The feedback for this assignment will be determined by the work done on the set of deliverables (see below). Each deliverable will cover a number of steps relevant for planning, applying and conducting a combination of different approaches. Furthermore, they will include discussions about the trade-offs of the decisions taken and the validity of the justification of made decisions. Feedback will be determined based on the rigour with which the work is done, whether relevant concepts discussed in the assignment are embedded in the work and the report, and extra initiative to ensure good quality of work. |
|
Deliverables |
Date due |
A) Individual written report (part 1: description of the chosen dogma and taboo(s); part 2: description of the reasons why this dogma (and related taboos) exist; part 3: risk analysis (individual and societal level) of breaking the chosen dogma; part 4: conceptual design idea to break this dogma; part 5: design guidelines for a product/service design that could break the dogma; part 6: reflection on your own emotional experiences throughout this design process; list of used references)
B) Portfolio of design sketches
C) Drawings/models plus manual (incl. scenarios of use) |
last meeting |
Presentations in electronic form | 2nd, 3rd and final meeting |
[all deliverables delivered on a CD per individual student] |
Student Feedback Students will be working in four person teams till 1st presentation; for the second part of this assignment students will work in two person teams, and after that till final presentation each student works individually; s/he will be graded based on the quality of the written reports/documents and the presentation given using a 5 point grading scale [A=very good, B=good, C=sufficient, D=insufficient but recoverable, F=failed because unrecoverable] and in constructive written feedback via the assignment feedback form. |