Ken, I'd like to follow up with some comments.
Being that one of my research areas is defining a formal logical basis
for the notion of 'part' and 'whole', my eyebrows sure went up when I
saw the subject "parts & wholes". Tho Ken's posting doesn't relate
directly to my research, it does in part (no pun intended).
Design is a piece of a puzzle. So too are design methods (tho maybe of
a different puzzle). So at least conceptually, one might consider
bringing a perspective of 'mereotopology' into this. Mereology is the
logic of 'parts'; topology is the logic of connections.
The way I think of it, we only distinguish parts of things by noticing
where characteristics change. Example: a thing that is painted partly
red and partly blue. We would typically refer to the red part and the
blue part of the thing. But we notice these two 'parts' because we
notice the *difference* - we notice a boundary.
Say we're talking about design, now, instead of blue and red things. We
distinguish design because we see a boundary beyond which is
"not-design". Design is defined with respect to these boundaries (a
definition lets us distinguish between what is and what isn't a thing -
or what's inside and outside of some boundary.
What I'm getting at is that since design, being a thing, is defined with
respect to its boundaries, then it is by definition defined by its
context (that which is outside the boundary). If suddenly that which is
outside the boundary came to have all the same characteristics as that
which is inside the boundary, the boundary vanishes - the inside and
outside are indistinguishable.
Since the context (that which is outside the boundary) of design is
essentially "our world", and since our world changes alot, then context
is extremely important in knowing what is and what isn't design.
...in other words, I agree with Ken. :-)
Mereotopologically yours,
Fil Salustri
Ken Friedman wrote:
> Dear Harold,
>
> As Louis the Simple used to say, "This chase is hotly followed, friends."
>
> The exchange on Cindy Jackson's point has intrigued me. It seems to
> me that Cindy offered a logical analysis of a closely defined issue.
> The nuances of the issue lead me to agree on your general point while
> disagreeing on the specific case.
>
> You and I share the view that "the specific cannot be understood or
> valued without an understanding of the contextual whole." This is a
> systems approach perspective.
>
> What makes this thread interesting as a case in logic is the fact
> that the design methods approach is not the contextual whole of
> design or design process. That is what makes a list of design methods
> books irrelevant as an answer to Maryam's question. Maryam may well
> find the book list relevant as a person. Her views would not change
> the fact that a book list on design methods and the design methods
> movement fails to answer a question on consumer analysis research
> methods.
>
> In response to your post, I would suggest that design methods as a
> specific way of approaching design practice is not the larger context
> of design. It is one approach to design.
>
> A book list intended to establish the general context of design is
> another matter. For that, I would include the book you wrote with
> Erik Stolterman. Other authors on my list would be Christopher
> Alexander, Victor Margolin, Dick Buchanan, John Warfield, Louis
> Bucciarelli, Buckminster Fuller, and Herbert Simon. Books by these
> authors attempt to define the context of design in a way that most of
> the design methods books do not generally do.
>
> As I see it, the design methods approach is one form of practice
> within the larger context. Christopher Alexander's point, in fact, is
> precisely that design methods approach to design is only one
> approach. This is also John Chris Jones's current view. In
> Alexander's view, it is a mistaken approach. I do not agree entirely
> with Alexander on this point. I remain interested in design methods.
> Where I do agree with Alexander is that the design methods approach
> is one approach to design among many. Most of us recognize multiple
> approaches, some useful, others less so.
>
> We do need to understand the contextual whole of design.
>
> The design methods movement made important contributions to design
> practice and even to understanding design. Nevertheless, we do not
> need to study design methods to understand the contextual whole of
> design.
>
> On this basis, I would say that Cindy's point was clear and
> reasonable. While I tend to think that Rosan was a little off the
> mark in offering advice on graduate education, it's a free world - or
> it should be. I am still busy trying to answer the five questions
> Rosan asked me a few days ago.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ken
>
>
>
> Harold Nelson wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> There may be another option to consider. Drawing from the design
> concept of 'composition' and the systems concept of 'emergence', it
> is possible to consider that the specific cannot be understood or
> valued without an understanding of the contextual whole-the whole
> that emerges from the interrelationships of the specifics and the
> substance of the specifics themselves. For me this defines some of
> the intent of a design dialogue.
>
> -snip-
>
> --
>
> Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
> Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> Department of Leadership and Organization
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> Design Research Center
> Denmark's Design School
>
> Faculty of Art, Media, and Design
> Staffordshire University (Visiting)
>
> +46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|