It seems to me that the Louridas has identified some 'archetypes' in his
writings about bricoleurs and engineers and such. But I agree with
Jason; the descriptions of the actors doesn't mesh *at all* with what
I've experienced of engineers, and scientists, and artists. (I've never
consciously met a bricoleur).
In my experience, practicing engineers, for example, have elements of
both Louridas' engineer/scientist and bricoleur archetypes in them.
Cheers.
Fil
Jason Foster wrote:
>> The following interesting article may be of interest:
>>
>> Design as bricolage: anthropology meets design thinking
>> Design Studies, Volume 20, Issue 6, November 1999, Pages 517-535
>> Panagiotis Louridas
>
>
> A very interesting article; thanks for the reference.
>
> Having skimmed over the article, I have to admit that my definition of
> "bricolage" (as well as "engineering" and "science") seems more
> different than that of Levi-Strauss than my first impression
> indicated. The comparison of bricolage to engineering struck me as
> highly idealized:
>
> "Whereas the engineer creates the means for the completion of his work,
> the bricoleur redefines the means that he already has." (page 518)
>
> "But the bricoleur asks his collection, whereas the engineer, like the
> scientist, asks the universe. And, more important, the engineer and the
> scientist seek to go beyond the constraints, pertaining to a certain
> state of knowledge, presented to them, whereas the bricoleur stays
> within them. The engineer and the scientist break down, decompose and
> analyse; the bricoleur reorganises. The engineer and the scientist
> abstract: they create and use concepts; the bricoleur uses signs."
> (page 519)
>
> These distinction doesn't mesh with my training or experience as an
> engineer. What makes an engineer is (IMHO) rhetorical style and
> perceptual focus; what is being argued about and focused on is mostly
> irrelevant. Based on what is described in this paper, what modern
> engineering education and practice seem to be aiming for are
> predominantly bricoleurs.
>
> That said, the paper does provide a succinct definition of design based
> on the notion of bricolage:
>
> "Design is a tinkering using materials which the designer cannot freely
> select, and which have meanings which he cannot freely specify, in
> order to make a structure fitting the structure of the context." (page
> 532)
>
> Rephrasing slightly, "Design is constrained tinkering intended to suit
> a context". While this sounds nice, I have three issues:
>
> 1) Are there any circumstances where a designer *can* freely select
> materials? (there are always resource limits)
> 2) Are there any circumstances where a designer *can* freely specify
> meanings? (social constructionists might disagree)
> 3) How does this definition separate chance results from intentional
> results? (and does doing so matter?)
>
> Nice paper though; good and thought-provoking!
>
> Jason
--
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/
|