If I might add a thought stimulated by Ben's long but very readable post
and also by recently re-reading Polanyi's discussion of the role of
interest and judgement in sorting and choosing between equally valid but
differently useful scientific knowledge (Identifying what is true AND
significant)
Simon's definition may be an elegant true one but is it an interesting
one? Does it attend to that which makes designing interesting and valuable?
Some of you will now sigh and say "here we go again" at this next statement
I would like to contrast Simon's definition with Horst Rittel's attempt
to characterise planning (and by implication designing) as being
concerned with wicked problems. Some people in this list have said that
this is not of interest, perhaps because it does not provide a template
for action. In contrast I believe it is deeply interesting because it
provides a rich basis for reflection on what we do. It is also extremely
valuable to me because it identifies the boundaries of designing.
Simon's definition does not help much with boundaries and we have got
into several tangles in this discussion as a result. We have found
ourselves using degrees of complexity or significance as boundaries but
these are both essentially quantitative matters. Rittel gives us a
qualitative way to recognise designing. It can be applied reliably to
both complex and simple acts.
Best wishes from Sheffield
Chris
*********************
Professor Chris Rust
Head of Art and Design Research Centre
Sheffield Hallam University, S11 8UZ, UK
+44 114 225 2706
[log in to unmask]
www.chrisrust.net
|