Hi Chris,
Glad to hear you are back. Hope you've had a nice holiday.
There is a lot of interesting theory and findings form recent brain research
that make irrelevant/obsolete much of the theorising about bicycle riding
(and many other sorts of activities) that is done either by asking the
subject or by looking at the subjects behaviour.
The main brain bits that seem to be involved are basal ganglia (for the
'zip file' of the behaviour), anterior cingulate cortex and bits of frontal
cortex (for error checking against multiple representatons), the amydala
(for the affective signals of 'cool', 'aargh', 'this way' not 'that way'
that shape what people feel is the right way to go forward), plus all
the other motor, thinking and memory stuff that fill out the other bits
of the cranium and body.
Seriously, the new findings and theories coming out of brain research
are offering a new foundation for theorymaking in many areas and design
theorising is one of them, another is tacit knowledge. In theory terms
this looks like revolution (or 'delete all and insert') rather than making
minor adjustments to existing theories. I've a couple of working papers
if you are interested.
Yes, I agree, riding bicycles is not USUALLY acheived via theoretical
understanding. Some people, however, can learn this way and Fieldenkrais
(hope I spelled it right) methods suggest that the outcomes from purely
practice-based learning can be improved on by learning using theory via
mentation. I suspect it applies to designing . . . . ( Now I'll put on
my flak jacket!)
Happy bicycling, and best wishes from rainy Western Australia
Terry
PS. Where do you put the banana peel?
_________________________
Dr Terence Love
Love Design and Research
GPO Box 226
Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel & Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Email: [log in to unmask]
_________________________
========================================
From: "Chris RUST(SCS)" <[log in to unmask]>
To: Internet Mail::[[log in to unmask]]; Internet Mail::[[log in to unmask]
UK]
Subject: Back to Bicycles, and tacit knowledge
Date: 8/22/01 8:32 AM
having been on holiday by the sea thinking of nothing at all I have come
back
to this huge backlog of PhD list post. So this is a late entry in the
"what
Gunnar asked" discussion"
I would like to raise a question about tacit knowledge as a subject for
design
research.
[log in to unmask] writes:
>The questions remain: Is riding a bicycle an example of "knowing-how"
>or a metaphor? If riding a bicycle is, in fact, a reasonable example
>of "knowing-how," how would standards be established about such an
>activity? (Is there another example that would serve better?) How
>would something that parallels bicycle riding (or knowing how to ride
>one) contribute to legitimate goals of a university?
As has been said, riding bicycles is perfectly amenable to academic study
and
theory and serious bicycle knowledge is probably growing as we chatter.
When I
asked about this some time ago Terry Love provided me with some very
interesting examples of design research which helps to explain how bicycles
stay upright and on course although it does not appear to me that there
is, or
will be a single unified theory of bicycling and the world is a better
place
for that.
What really interests me is that the act of riding a bike is not driven
by any
theoretical understanding. Bicycling, like many other physical acts, only
works
when the ability to do it has been totally subsumed into the bicyclist's
tacit
knowledge. You start with some faith that you might be able to do it (perhaps
supported by observation, reading or reports from others), you ignore
the
buzzing and flapping from the well-meaning advisors who think they can
tell you
how to do it, you fall off once or twice then.........."I'm
cycling".........and you can do it for the rest of your life. The only
thing
you need to learn after that is how to do it with no hands so you can
eat
bananas and (crucially) put on the cap with the sponsor's logo just before
you
cross the finish line.
The great thing about this, from a research point of view, is that there
is no
point in asking a cyclist how it is done. In fact we may not need to know
much
more in the case of cycling but I feel strongly that many of the problems
faced
by designers would be helped by methods to learn from tacit knowledge.
As I have said before, I believe that one role for practice in research
is the
production of artefacts which reveal or challenge people's tacit knowledge,
I'm
quite good at artefacts but I'm an ignoramus on tacit knowledge so I would
welcome any comments or recommended sources on this subject and would
greatly
really welcome some developing debate on this question. We seem to spend
a lot
of time agonising over what is, or is not admissible as research or knowledge,
do we also have specific opportunities that might transcend our present
framework? (other candidates very welcome)
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
*******************************************
Chris Rust
Reader in Design
Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University UK
[log in to unmask]
tel +44 114 225 2706
fax +44 114 225 2603
Psalter Lane, Sheffield S11 8UZ, UK
|