Just to clarify, I picked up 'situation' from John Gero's work on
situated design, which in turn is derived largely from 'situated
cognition' which is a theory of cognition. Google knows a lot about
John's work, and "situated cognition."
If it works for us, so much the better; but thank John, not me.
Cheers.
Fil
teena clerke wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
>
> yes, perhaps 'situation' is useful after all in relation to what went
> before, thanks to Fil.
> teena
>
>> Teena, Glenn, Fil and all
>>
>> Fil's term "situation" seems to best capture the focus of design
>> thinking for me. A "situation" always arises in the context of what
>> went before. It is not problematic if we can interpret and act on
>> it satisfactorily with what we know already. If we can't the
>> anomalies that remain constitute the "problematic " hot spots - the
>> wants and needs manifested by the situation. These needs and desires
>> have a higher emotional salience than other information in the
>> situation and motivate an intention to resolve them - to synthesize,
>> design, and express our thoughts about the situation in context, over
>> time and with or without others involved. Or so I believe.
>>
>> To any of you interested in design in basic education the website
>> idesignthinking.com is back up.
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jun 30, 2008, at 8:00 PM, teena clerke wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>
>>> in picking up on your post, substituting 'task', 'challenge' or
>>> 'puzzle' for 'problem', still seems to construct the design space as
>>> a site of struggle in some way - which might also seem contrary to
>>> the idea of design as collaboration (or is collaboration also seen
>>> as a site of struggle, challenge, puzzle?).
>>>
>>> In thinking through what this might mean while walking my children to
>>> school, I wonder what might happen if we trouble this perhaps
>>> adversarial construction to allow for a 'collection' of words
>>> ('working across multiple design sectors') rather than a single
>>> (problematic) term, that provide for descriptions of the design space
>>> as other than problem/task/challenge? Words like synchronic,
>>> serendipitous, synergous, might open a broader space for discussion
>>> about certain phases of the design process that disrupt the binary of
>>> 'smooth/problematic' temporal narratives of how it works in design -
>>> I prepare my children's school lunch, wonder what I might cook for
>>> dinner, worry about the (lack of) thesis writing, and think through
>>> a tricky wine label design I have been working on for six months. I
>>> go hear the Dalai Lama speak and lunch with a self- described
>>> 'housewife who sits in the corner' from Warren, who is also the
>>> ex-Mayor of Nyngan, and from a family of fifth generation Merino
>>> sheep farmers who recently switched to wine production and exporting
>>> - she pragmatically suggests a way forward, while I am 'inspired' to
>>> produce an entirely different illustration than the one that remains
>>> problematic for me and the client. What are these sites? Do they
>>> arise from my struggle alone? Do they emerge from synchronous random
>>> events that are not about design and also not about struggle? Or is
>>> this simply another site of struggle? (after all, I did go hear the
>>> Dalai Lama speak). Are they then legitimate sites/spaces for design
>>> work? Can the housewife/ex-mayor be a collaborator in my design
>>> work? Is there space in this collaboration for other (future) work?
>>>
>>> Can we conceive of a productive and 'collaborative' space as a coming
>>> together (is this merely unproblematised collaboration?) of
>>> things/ideas/views/perceptions, that produces other things (ideas/
>>> processes/partnerships/products), or from which other things might
>>> emerge, not in a strictly linear, sequential or temporal manner, but,
>>> as Deleuze and Guttarri (1975, previously referenced) suggest,
>>> rhizomic, and/or as Patti Lather (2007) suggests 'polytemporal', in
>>> that working on a current issue/job/outcome that already is, I might
>>> also predict that which is yet to come (a line of flight predicting
>>> a future thought/enterprise/process). Am I not collaborating with
>>> myself in a polytemporal space which specifically focuses on
>>> possibilities rather than resolutions? Not sure.
>>>
>>> cheers, teena
>>>
>>> Lather, Patti, 2007, 'Getting Lost', State University of New York
>>> Press, Albany
>>>
>>>> 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
--
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/
|