Dear John,
you made me very curious about the joint text with Nigel Croos which you
mentioned some weeks ago.
I am struggling with complexity theory in design for several years. I think
it is necessary for mapping / describing the topology of the field and,
further, to operationalize design thinking in a way that goes beyond
sequential approaches. And of course this goes beyond Dick Buchananīs
concept of fourth-order design, as you mention.
Only recently I am trying to include evolution theory in order to introduce
the process aspect.
In my view the concept of evolution with its sequence of variation -
selection - re-stabilization - ... is able to describe / maybe clarify the
differences and the relations between scientific knowledge production and
design thinking / designerly ways of knowledge production.
Design thinking is situated in the vicinity of the bifurcation points in
the evolutionary process. It has to do with variation and selection. Design
is aiming at variance.
Scientific thinking is aiming at re-stabilization, at adapting its findings
to predefined standards or at fitting them into existing knowledge
structures. Scientific thinking aims at invariance.
Dickīs notion of paleoteric and neoteric thinking seems to be closely
related to the evolutionary model. What comes out are two fundamentally
different types of knowledge. But they are related in a complementary way.
Their difference has to be acknowledged in order to be able to connect them.
Of course design research is different from designing. But design research
has to take this into account. Otherwise it will be inadequate, too rigid,
in its function as a reflective position for design practice. It cannot be
completely subsumed under the standards of scholarly research...
Jonas
__________
John Broadbent wrote:
To better understand the 'why'
>of the transition in design practice as we more fully engage with the
>Information(Knowledge) Age, I use the General Evolution Theory of Ervin
>Laszlo(Laszlo, E.(1996) General Evolution Theory. Cresskill, NJ:
>Hampton). This has its origins in the 20th century 'sciences of
>complexity' rather than the reductionist views of traditional science.
>It was developed to better understand the behaviour of whole complex
>adaptive systems rather than their elemental parts and, as such,
>provides helpful insights into the broader sociocultural role of design.
>
>Laszlo applies his theory at a high level of abstraction to physical,
>biological, social and cognitive dynamic systems. It is thus proposed
>as a 'unifying' theory and accommodates more specific theories like that
>of Darwin for biological systems. I am using the general principles of
>Laszlo's work to better understand the many complex adaptive systems
>which increasingly define design practice and its broader sociocultural
>context.
>
>More specifically, I am using Laszlo's thinking both to interpret the
>transitions in design education during the Industrial Age and to predict
>those most likely as we embrace the Information Age. It is, by nature,
>an inexact science - to say the least - but it does provide a
>theoretical basis for approaching sociocultural change proactively
>rather than reactively. This latter point has been well understood by
>parts of the systems community, who view design as a sociocultural
>evolutionary guidance system - an interpretation with truly profound
>implications. It moves us, for example, beyond Dick Buchanan's fourth
>order of design to a fifth - evolutionary systems design.
>
>I think you answer your own query about 'design practice', when you
>observe that it is becoming more participatory!
>
>Kindest,
>John
>
>--
> [log in to unmask]@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
>John A. Broadbent,
>Faculty of Design, Architecture & Building,
>University of Technology, Sydney,
>PO Box 123
>Broadway, New South Wales
>Australia 2007.
>
>Tel: (61) 2 9514 8986
>Fax: (61) 2 9514 8787
>Email: [log in to unmask]
|