Dear David,

Thanks for your helpful comments.

(0) Short review

My earlier two notes and this last addressed (1) purpose as a
stimulus to design, (2) the role of problems in the design process,
and (3) the dialectic of problem finding and problem solving, and 4)
reflection and inquiry.

You seem to have noticed that I never attempted to define the nature
of a problem or to say what a "problem" is.

You take two useful approaches to illuminate the nature of problems.
Both are rooted in the idea of social construction.

(1) Pragmatic approach -- problems belong to people

The first approach is practical. We agree completely that a "problem"
belongs to someone or to some group. That's what I mean in my
discussion of stakeholders. Anders Skoe sometimes uses a phrase in
which he refers to the person or group that "owns" the problem.

All of the models of design process agree with you on this, Fuller's,
Skoe's, and mine, and all the comments I quoted from earlier list
contributions do, too. You summarized it well.

A problem -- whatever it is -- is defined by and arises in the world
of the problem owner or the person or group that defines a condition
as a "problem."

I speak of a "problem -- whatever it is --" since I did not attempt
to define the qualities of nature of the term "problem." Since you
don't attempt to define " what a problem 'is' " either, I'm happy to
use a working term-in-use.

(2) Philosophical approach -- the nature of a problem in a social
construction perspective

The second approach deals with more than the nature of problems. It
deals with the nature of how we understand anything. This, too, is
based on social construction.

Like you, I began to work with this idea in the 1960s. For my
master's and doctoral research and in much work since, I build my
method around issues developed in Berger and Luckmann's (1967)
classic, The Social Construction of Reality. I also made good use of
Berger's less known but vitally useful contribution to the sociology
of religion published in the same year, The Sacred Canopy. Elements
of a Sociological Theory of Religion. Berger (1967) extends on his
work with Luckmann, deepening some of the issues, stating others from
slightly different perspectives.

We basically agree on the value of this perspective.

The list has occasionally discussed different approaches to social
construction in several flavors. Within the larger frame of a key
understanding, there are multiple positions. The distinctions among
these positions have useful and important implications. I'd argue
that one could hardly do better for an introduction than by reading
Berger and Luckmann (1967) and Berger (1967). For those who wish to
dig deep, there an excellent book by philosopher Ian Hacking (1999)
reviews the multiple histories and lines of inquiry within social
construction.

To say that something is "socially constructed" entails many issues.
Developing those issues is a major thread -- or a seminar or book.
Since the book is in print, I'll suggest that those who wish to
explore read further.

(3) No gap

The only mild disagreement I want to make is that there was no gap
between my notes and Jonas's concerns.

When Jonas restated my carefully written first note, he proposed an
idea for which I have no responsibility. Perhaps I seem grumpy on
this point, but "the gap between Ken is saying and what concerns
Jonas" is an artifact of the restatement. The inaccurate restatement
stripped the meaning out my note by removing most of the verbs and
nouns in Fuller's 24-step model.

If I were to take most of the carefully developed ideas out of your
recent post, that would leave a gap. The gap would be my fault and
not yours.

I don't want to argue with Jonas here. I agree with him on most key
points, and especially on the importance of three key issues. Without
holding Jonas responsible for the way I state those issues, the
issues are:

1) There is no perfect model of the design process. 2) The idea that
a problem leads directly to a solution without intervening steps is
not merely simplistic -- it leads to new problems. 3) Robust design
process involves -- and requires -- inquiry, exploration, knowledge
production.

I agree with Jonas that the "problem -> solution view of designing"
is problematic. It's not a gap between what I said and Jonas's
concerns, though. I never said it.

Best wishes,

Ken


p.s. I may not be responding to comments for the next two days. I
will be in Aarhus for the defense of Bo Christensen's doctoral thesis
-- in psychology -- on issues of analogy and incubation.
Christensen's work is generating a lot of excitement in the design
research area here. Those who live in Scandinavia or find themselves
close by may wish to attend the defense. It takes place tomorrow,
Friday 19. August, at 14:00 in the auditoirum of the Psykologisk
Institut.



References

Berger, Peter. 1967. The Sacred Canopy. Elements of a Sociological
Theory of Religion. New York: Doubleday and Company.

Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of
Reality: a Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, New
York: Anchor Books.

Hacking, Ian. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.



erhaps, this little anecdote goes some way to bridging


--

Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management

Design Research Center
Denmark's Design School

email: [log in to unmask]