Hi to All,
I've been lurking and reading the interesting ideas which
have been proposed. But apparently the word "problem" causes
more concern than need be the case. Here are some ideas to
consider.
The Psychology topic of "problem solving" apparently may be
yielding some unanticipated concerns in conjunction with
Design. Perhaps a different term might have been a better
choice, such as "task," "challenge," or even "puzzle." I
checked a few introductory psychology textbooks I have in my
office. Although I didn't notice this before, authors talk
about "problem solving" without sufficiently clarifying that
a broad meaning is intended (instead of only "negative"
instances).
First, so far as I've known this body of theory and research
over the past several decades, both "positive"
and "negative" kinds of challenges are supposed to be
considered within the "problem solving" literature.
Second, it is noteworthy that the "problem solving"
literature especially emphasizes diversity in "solutions."
Thus the intent is to be open to various approaches instead
of seeking only or mainly some "correct solution."
Third, occasionally some authors have proposed a "problem
solving" approach might be useful in helping us to
understand "creativity."
Glenn Snelbecker, Temple University, Philadelphia
---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:28:52 +1000
>From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Working across multiple design
sectors (was A simple definition of 'Design'?)
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>Crawling from my bed very very early on this wintry Sydney
morning, I
>follow this 'line of flight' (Deleuze and Guattari 1975).
>
>What might happen if I conceptualise design spaces not as
problem
>spaces, and thus design outcomes NOT as evidence of having
solved
>problems - how else might they be seen? In the process of
designing,
>as is often the case, other possibilities emerge but are
rejected as
>being 'not right' by particular stakeholders (but not me?).
What of
>these other design possibilities? Might my portfolio
perhaps also
>represent in my memory the lost possibilities of each job?
I have
>stories for every job represented as an outcome in my
portfolio, of
>the 'one that got away', the 'great idea' the client did
not go for,
>or those that couldn't be 'resolved'. Does this not
represent a
>problem for design spaces conceptualised as
problem 'solving'? In
>this space, are there only solid, concrete, stable,
sanctioned
>winners as represented in the portfolio? And if so, what
happens to
>the other possibilities? Do they remain, problematic,
ghostlike in
>our stories? Do they emerge perhaps in other jobs? What if
we
>conceptualise the design space as one of possibility? How
then might
>we speak of our work?
>
>teena
>
>Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1975, from 'A thousand
Plateaus:
>Capitalism and Schizophrenia', from 'Introduction:
Rhizome', cited in
>Norton's Anthology, p. 1595 (sorry, don't the have full
publication
>details).
>
>
>>Teena et al,
>>
>>Re: your first paragraph.
>>
>>I don't know about Gavin, but I think your description
fits
>>beautifully with how I see designing - including
engineering
>>designing.
>>
>>Now please have mercy as I'm about to use words in ways to
which
>>some may be unaccustomed, but it's the words that work
best for me &
>>my background.
>>
>>Designing usually (in my experience, always) begins with
an analytic
>>stage. The designer, confronted with a new situation, is
unlikely
>>to "fit" into it / understand it very well. The designer
will then
>>try to figure out what the "real problem" is - what's
missing from
>>the way things are. This requires a rather deep
understanding.
>>
>>Teena, this is where your brainstorm, etc, happens. My
perspective
>>is that the problem is there, you just don't recognize it
as such,
>>because (and I'm guessing here) "problems" exist in "more
corporate
>>design" settings. Your "problem", generally, is finding
the right
>>image/visualization to communicate certain emotions &
other info to
>>specific individuals or groups.
>>
>>The study of the situation your in - aka the problem you
have to
>>solve - will map key features/points/aspects to certain
>>memories/emotions/capabilities you have stored in your
brain. To do
>>this you have to take the situation/problem
apart...."deconstruct"
>>is perhaps too overloaded a word. That is, you're
analyzing the
>>situation (perhaps inspirationally - whatever works best
for you!)
>>and connecting the dots in your head.
>>
>>Put another way, you're finding a way to overlap your
perception of
>>the actual situation onto your own mental structures and,
thus,
>>absorb/understand it.
>>
>>Then you start coming up with something that will change
the
>>situation in a beneficial/desirable/required way. Some
people call
>>this designing, but it can't happen except in the most
trivial cases
>>without first understanding the current situation (the
analysis), so
>>I think of designing as including both the analytic and
(sorry for
>>the next word, no offence intended again) synthetic.
>>
>>At least, that's how I see it.
>>
>>Re: your second paragraph
>>
>>I'd say the temporal ordering of tasks will vary from
situation to
>>situation. But the tasks themselves will be there sooner
or later,
>>and that there will be many similar situations that will
end up with
>>task orderings that are very similar too, and that might
be assumed
>>permanent features by those who are often involved in
those
>>situations.
>>
>>
>>teena clerke wrote:
>>>Hi Gavin,
>>>
>>>I am mindful that there are also spaces in which design
operates
>>>that are not seen as being problem-based, so articulating
design
>>>space as 'problem' space may be misleading and also
limiting.
>>>Suffice to say that in my experience, design can occur as
a way of
>>>thinking, practicing, experimenting, researching (before
picking up
>>>the drawing implement, I always list, brainstorm, play
with words),
>>>and then doing/making/visualising, etc, without there
being a
>>>'problem' as such. In fact, many of my designs, and
particularly
>>>illustrations are conceived and then executed this way.
Is this
>>>design? Is it practiced within a 'problem' space? Can
design space
>>>be articulated as occurring within 'inspirational' space
without
>>>there ever being a problematic? I suggest so, but suspect
not in
>>>the realms where more corporate design resides.
>>>
>>>Further, in my experience, the way you have worded the
proposal
>>>suggests that design is linear, and we can also 'suspend
the desire
>>>to draw', when in fact, drawing, mark making, and so on
are very
>>>much a part of the 'thinking', 'researching'
and 'defining'
>>>activities - a bit chicken and egg really. They don't
seem to have
>>>formal stops and starts, and are not easily articulated
as a linear
>>>process, or even a circular sequential process, nor do
they occur
>>>in isolation or explicitly in teams (in fact,
frustratingly, they
>>>most often occur just when you crawl into bed at night -
try and
>>>categorise that!). Very tricky process this, attempting
to find
>>>commonalities without also excluding. But still, in my
opinion, a
>>>commendable one.
>>>
>>>And might I suggest that it might also be useful to
explore this
>>>question empirically with your design students and
practitioners,
>>>beyond the 'research space' of this list and beyond
the 'academic
>>>space' of the university. These questions are really
useful ones
>>>particularly at this 'defining' time in the disciplinary
>>>development of design, and ones that might be illuminated
through
>>>speaking with practitioners who might thus provide
insights into
>>>these very interesting ideas that blow the 'problem'
space wide
>>>open.
>>>
>>>so, I ended up with a long response. hope you find it
useful.
>>>
>>>teena
>>
>>--
>>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://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
Glenn E. Snelbecker, Ph.D., Professor, Temple University
|