Carl,
There's nothing stopping us from agreeing that context can be dynamic
and/or active.
However, I would suggest we keep clear that a context is a *model* of
something. We can make the model be whatever we need it to be, to be
the best possible model of -- something. For me, a context is a model
of a 'situation'.
Although it sounds a bit antiseptic even to my engineering ears, I like
"design agent" exactly because it doesn't necessarily tie one to
thinking of humans as the only agents of design.
And I have nothing against contexts being dynamic -- if that suits one's
purposes. I can see cases where it could be beneficial to take a
context as a 'snapshot' model (i.e. static) of some fluid/dynamic
"real-life" situation, just as easily as I can see the need for dynamic
contexts to represent those dynamic aspects of a situation. Since
contexts are models, we can have different contexts representing the
same situation.
However, I'm not sure about *active* contexts - i.e. making the context
an agent of some kind. I cannot think of a "real-life situation" that I
would think of as a participant in the situation itself. Indeed, since
I tend to prefer logical structures (my shortcoming, I guess), I'm
always concerned about these kinds of self-referential entities.
Especially as I can't see the benefit in it.
Could you suggest some examples of "real-life situations" that would be
participants in their own existences?
Cheers.
Fil
disalvo wrote:
> Filippo,
>
> I would actually like to retain the sense that context is an active
> participant in the design process and not a static thing.
>
> In your example below, it seems all of the agency resides in "design
> agents", by which I assume you mean designers. But in fact the capacity
> to cause change may be considered to reside in many other places within
> a given context. Not the least in other people who might not (or might
> not want to) be characterized as design agents. Of course, we could also
> (productively) entertain the notion that nonhuman elements of a given
> context also either possess or exhibit agency thus, should be considered
> as active.
>
> In fact, context only seems to be a static thing in laboratory
> experiments, even then its is arguably not a static thing, rather the
> structure of the experiment requires that context be treated as such.
>
> Carl
>
>
>
> --On Monday, November 7, 2005 1:46 PM -0500 "Filippo A. Salustri"
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> While I see Todd's point, I prefer a different description.
>>
>> I don't like "Context can guide design decisions" because it might give
>> some the sense that 'context' is an active participant.
>>
>> A context, as I think of it, is a model of a situation that some design
>> agents are motivated to change. The agents usually can't change the
>> situation extensively, but rather change some particular part of it,
>> usually by designing some new product, system, or process that is
>> 'inserted' into the situation. The systems nature of the interactions
>> between the situation and the thing inserted by the designers brings
>> about a change in the situation.
>>
>> Put another way, the situation is the operating environment into which
>> the designers add some artefact, for the sake of causing a change in that
>> environment.
>>
>> As such, the context is a static thing.
>>
>> So I'd rephrase what Todd wrote as: Context can influence design
>> decision-makers.
>>
>> ...maybe just hair-splitting.
>> Cheers.
>> Fil
--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St. Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3 Canada http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|