Dear Ken,
Re the possibility of absurd Taylorist design practices - part of
Taylor's purpose was to take proper account of safety margins so that
bosses wouldn't be able to use factory safety regulations to impose
fines on workers (ie cut wages) and enforce military discipline (ie
raise productivity). With proper calculations of optimum conditions,
the worker wouldn't have to resort to fraud to bypass factory safety
rules, and 'discipline could be made to subsist in the machine itself,
rather than behind the worker's back' (Donzelot, 1991, 255).
Likewise, its possible that as academics we might ourselves be
contributing to the absurd formalization of design practices, simply
out of a desire to create productive working conditions (ie gain
'research' time). How do we resist the way the university tends to make
us all complicit in the Taylorisation of design?
Without resorting to humbug, which upsets professional colleagues? Or
resorting to generalities which gets us offside with our managers?
Donzelot, J. (1991). Pleasure in Work. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P.
Millar (Eds.), The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(I'm worried about this because my scholarship has run out and I have
to go back to work soon)
Amanda
On Monday, March 21, 2005, at 07:06 AM, Ken Friedman wrote:
> Dear Rosan,
>
> Been thinking about the theory thread and meaning to write a reply to
> your comment. Earlier, I responded to Klaus's note on the nature of
> theory as the constructive practice of a theorist. It seems to me
> that Klaus was proposing an issue somewhat different than the issue
> you raise.
>
> Theorizing is itself a practice. So is research. One may engage in
> the practice of theory while undertaking the practice of design -- or
> any other practice, for example nursing, engineering, management,
> mathematics, philosophy, chess. Any form of practice may be a process
> of inquiry, but this is not always the case.
>
> IMHO, the example you give is indeed a difference of kind rather than
> degree.
>
> If one completely formalizes any practice, one removes both the
> elements of design and of theory development. To completely formalize
> a practice means providing all process descriptions as a priori
> statements. When everything is described in advance, there is no need
> for inquiry. This is the idea behind many of the ISO standards. It is
> also the idea behind certain kinds of development in design methods,
> and this is partly why John Chris Jones turned away from the concept
> of design methods. Kari Hans's response hit the nail on the head when
> suggesting that overly rigorous description removes the design
> element of human judgment from the design process.
>
> Taken to an impossibly absurd level, completely formalized guidelines
> for design practice would result in a Taylorist design practice.
> This, in turn, would mean the loss of craft that so upset early
> craftsmen and laborers who felt that Taylor's rigorous prescriptions
> removed the human element from their work. In Taylor's terms,
> managers would think and craftsmen would functions as human
> extensions of machines in a large system programmed by managers. (The
> idea of economic-administrative managerialism has taken this to
> absurd lengths, even for managers. This problem is the focus of an
> important stream of management inquiry that asserts the importance of
> the design process in management work.)
>
> The issue you raise requires distinguishing between guidelines as
> input factors and criteria as output measures.
>
> Rigorous research or rigorous theorizing do not involve
> how-to-perform-each-step guidelines. We describe criteria of rigor in
> analytical, logical, and rhetorical terms -- and we describe such
> qualities as methodological awareness and researcher reflectivity and
> mindfulness that make research deep and rigorous. This is a contrast
> with theorizing or research that is shallow and mechanical because it
> adheres to an overly formal series of prescriptions. This, in fact,
> is the argument that Herbert Blumer (1969) famously makes in his
> article, "The Methodological Perspective of Symbolic Interactionism."
>
> The careful and precise descriptions of much research and theory
> construction involves describing what the researcher did to reach a
> conclusion. This is descriptive. The purpose of this description is
> to represent the process clearly and carefully so that others can
> understand it. The goal is not normative prescription of each step in
> the process. The goal is process description for reflective and
> analytical understanding.
>
> Theory construction may be linked to any professional practice. This
> area that remains to be developed much further in our field. Not all
> practices are research, though, and no degree of formalization can
> transform a different kind of practice into research practice. Kinds
> of practice that engage rigorous reflection and inquiry may also
> constitute an emerging research field. In this field, theorizing may
> arise from the process of skilled practice. This is where we may
> agree, along with Donald Schon and Chris Argyris, among others.
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
>
> References
>
> Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and
> Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
>
>
> Rosan Chow wrote:
>
> Thanks Klaus for bringing this up again. perhaps we need to keep
> hammering the
> fact that theorizing and practicing, as processes of inquiry, are
> different in
> degree, not in kind. as how dewey would say.
>
> perhaps the day when we can establish some formal guidelines/criteria
> for the
> level of rigor in practice, that are on a par with those for theory,
> then
> those practices can be recognized as a form of research.
> --
>
> Ken Friedman
> Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
> Department of Leadership and Organization
> Norwegian School of Management
>
> Design Research Center
> Denmark's Design School
>
> +47 06600 Tlf NSM
> +47 67.55.73.23 Tlf Office
> +47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
>
> email: [log in to unmask]
>
|
