Ken, Lubomir et al
I agree that these are very important threads. My particular interest
is in how these threads are woven into whole cloth. An example of the
integration of these two distinctions for me emerges as a consequence
of exploring one of the foundations of design that Erik and I have
explored over the past years which is "service". Moving from the
concept of service as a dimension of design to the area of practice I
have reflected on the issue of "design contracting". Within the domain
of contacting we have studied the issue of contractual design
relationships with clients, surrogate clients, customers, consumers,
decision makers, stake holders etc. One of the particular contracting
relationships I have looked at is with future generations. A particular
case I focused on dealt with the design of investment funds to be paid
to future generations for the loss of resources consumed by present
generations. I believed that this particular case was of interest to
designers because service was a foundational issue in design practice.
Designers had a lot to contribute to this issue including the judgment
of whether these funds were "good" solutions to the issue of resource
development. (This was not the perspective of the majority of
individuals involved and the issue was unfortunately cast as a problem
of portfolio management resulting in major problems later on.)
Harold
On Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 03:21 PM, Ken Friedman wrote:
> Dear Lubomir,
>
> You, Harold and Erik have developed an elegant range of distinctions
> in the current thread.
>
> In comparing inquiry into general design process with inquiry into
> professional design practice, you articulated an important
> distinction. Your wrote, "The two avenues have different implications
> and applications . . . . although they might be competing in a
> purposeful activity framework, in a global theory of design they are
> complimentary."
>
> One of the challenges of design research is the fact that we require
> high-level global theories covering the full domain, mid-range
> theories that bridge and operationalize high-level concepts, and
> situated theories that serve within fields and subfields. Some
> situated theories also render general process and activities concrete.
>
> Your note captures the values and virtues of the two approaches. You
> wrote, "The philosophical reasoning that [Harold and Erik] follow is
> the way to go for understanding the nature of activity as a social
> phenomenon. However, when we go into a more specific domain like
> professional development, it is more economical to use a framework
> that banks on specific issues. I used several times the term
> 'benchmarking' to imply a particular area of application. I still
> believe that this is the way to advanced professionalism.
>
> "Basically, both ways can lead to these goals, but there are might be
> some differences in efficiency, level of necessary invention and
> discovery, and the associated risks with innovation, versus the
> relatively holistic and proven results of benchmarking. Again, I am
> talking only regarding a particular situation -- professionalization,
> professional development, and domain sustainment. I do not talk about
> a general theory of design."
>
> This last note is a useful reminder. A field grows when scholars work
> on the different issues for which they entertain personal passion. As
> Birgit noted, we all grow as we read and learn from each other. While
> I tend to focus on the broad-gauge issues that interest Erik and
> Harold, I also follow the important contributions of professional
> research. To develop rich high-level theory in the design domain, we
> must attend to the issues that are embedded in specific process and
> practice. At the same time, rich high-level theory serves to inform
> and develop excellent professional practice and good research in the
> field.
>
> The two approaches are complementary. They are linked in a
> dialectical relationship that fuels the development of good research.
>
> They are also linked in the development of good professional
> practice. W. Edwards Deming, one of the world's great professional
> practitioners in manufacturing, industrial engineering, and
> management, insisted on the dynamic interaction of good practice and
> good theory.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
> --
>
> Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> Department of Leadership and Organization
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> Visiting Professor
> Advanced Research Institute
> School of Art and Design
> Staffordshire University
>
>
Harold G. Nelson, Ph.D., M. Arch.
President; Advanced Design Institute
www.advanceddesign.org
Past-President; International Society for Systems Science
www.isss.org
Affiliated faculty, Engineering, U. Wash.
|