Chris, and others interested ...
Here is my longer response, as an attachment, as promised.
It is constructed of some preliminary remarks .. indicating part of why
Schon's work 'speaks' to me.
It includes details from my process of reading and transcribing to learn by
processing more slowly, and implanting in order to remember, or at least
know where I can go for ready reference.
It wraps with a sharing of when I had this realisation of multiple
evaluative process, undertaken serially, and where reframing came into play.
Note that there was other work, including writing to explicate
understanding, and work with other material, between the first read and the
revisit and the enhanced understanding.
I would note that it is the descriptive detail in Schon's original material
that then becomes so useful.
Regards,
Dianne
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dianne Allen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: Design as Research
> Chris,
>
> Thanks for asking ... I will need a bit of time to work up some thing like
> a review and overview of Schon's material to come back to you on this and
> to expose my thinking a bit more clearly. I hope to be able to settle to
> this later today, and intend sending that work as an attachment.
>
> Dianne
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christiaan Thomas Johannes De Beer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2010 11:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Design as Research
>
>
> Hi Diane
>
> Having read Schon I find your response very helpful and I relate to the
> idea that,
> as a natural designer, design = research was 'hidden' from me.
> Could you possibly explain a bit more about "order of evaluative criteria,
> and why one order over another has particular power/value"? It sounds like
> the type of entry point I'm looking for.
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Practitioner-Researcher [[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Dianne Allen [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 30 March 2010 04:31 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Design as Research
>
> Chris,
>
> My understanding of 'design' and the 'design process' is that it is a
> series
> of steps and responses, multiple evaluations in a sequence, where the
> number
> (multiples) of criteria used for evaluation can be added to or subtracted
> from, and where the sequence of compliance to criteria can be reordered,
> and
> where the multiples and order, as they are varied, can interact ... until
> the 'solution' represents a best fit for all the components, and in a way
> that is aesthetically pleasing.
>
> (I see Donald Schon explicating the design process as he spells out what
> he
> calls 'reflective practice' in his two key books about educating for
> professional expertise. I see that reflective practice = design process.
> Donald Schon sees that 'reflective practice' = research, research within
> the
> professional practice context. By logic, then design process = research.
> See Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. New York: Basic
> Books.
> and Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: Toward a
> New
> Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions. San Francisco:
> Jossey-Bass. Watch out for the fact that Schon uses a design studio as
> his
> 'architectural practice' example. That can tend to disguise/hide from a
> natural designer what is going on, and how and why it 'fits the bill' of
> being both research and design, and design=research. Notice how Schon
> extracts the 'general' from the particulars of a number of different
> professional practices to build his description of 'reflective practice'.)
>
> My understanding is that, especially in the development of more mechanical
> devices, design work can also be team work, compared with jewellery and
> other artistic expression design, and where the artistic expression is
> expected to be wholly individual (ie like 'all your own work' of a
> thesis!).
> In such team work there are brainstorming sessions, and then individual
> focus on solving particular design issues. The activity, in the design
> studio and in team work in brainstorming sessions, of talking out what it
> is
> that is being addressed (which evaluative criterion, what order of
> evaluative criteria, and why one order over another has particular
> power/value, in this context) would be akin to some of the 'participatory'
> of 'participatory action research'. After all, what is going on in
> participatory (democratically processed decision making for action) action
> research is making explicit and then building consensus around the
> multiple
> values that the participants hold as they endeavour to act in the world,
> in
> order to take collaborative, or cooperative, or corporate action.
>
> Dianne
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris de Beer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:38 AM
> Subject: Design as Research
>
>
> Dear All
>
> In the area of Jewellery Design and Manufacture there seems to be a strong
> correlation between the steps that the design and manufacture process
> follows and that of the action research process
> (plan/act/observe/reflect).
> However, in the design process, as my students are executing it at the
> moment, the participatory element (from an AR point of view) is missing.
>
> Is there a more appropriate methodology/process that I can investigate
> that
> would lead to more 'depth' and will guide my students towards being more
> immersed in their design work without it becoming an exercise in
> narcissism?
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
> "This e-mail is subject to our Disclaimer, to view click
> http://www.dut.ac.za"
|