Derek
A couple of resources that may be useful as you explore the nature of designing. I would highly recommend H. Simmons Science of the Artificial. There has been good work on moving beyond this seminal work but this would be a good start. I would also recommend reading Russell Ackoff's work on ideal design. He does an excellent job explaining the symbiosis of analytic and synthetic thinking. I would also highly recommend Horst Rittel's work on Wicked Problems and concepts like 'sachzwang'—a German term for 'coercion by facts'. An insight from his writing for me was that: description and explanation do not prescribe action and prediction and control do not justify action.
These resources define an interesting branch in design's family tree. Good stuff I think. The above authors make a case for design that has nothing to do with hubris, just great scholarship.
Harold
EMAIL ADDRESS FOR Harold Nelson:
[log in to unmask]
(secondary email: [log in to unmask])
On Mar 30, 2011, at 5:26 AM, Derek Miller wrote:
> Dear Fil,
>
> Not a Buddhist, and don't even play one on TV, so I can't answer that. But as for a scientist: Yes! It's identical. Staring at a white board (or black board, if you're old enough) and wondering "how do i answer that? Is that even the right question?" or simply (ala Dr. Suess), "How do we get from here to there, what do we do?" is the nature of the task.
>
> This why Tim Brown is wrong is thinking that "creative" thought is inherently different from "analytical" thought, and we need to shift from the latter to the former with "design thinking" to unlock innovation. It's a PR game to build theory around core business competence at IDEO. It is living proof of what we often call the political economy of knowledge.
>
> Coming up with an appropriate research design for valid analysis is an INCREDIBLY creative task. And teaching research design is also hard for that reason. We can explain standards, criteria, and grounds for claims (as well as techniques, methods, approaches), but in the end, it requires a stroke of insight to:
>
> 1. Drill for ice core in the arctic to find trapped ancient gases to map CO2 over millennia as an answer to "where is there falsifiable proof of climate change?"
>
> 2. To examine the teeth of elephants for mineral deposits to track atmospheric conditions
>
> 3. To use the exacting rate of growth in stalactites to compare it to the data from carbon 14 dating to provide the rate of variance and therefore shift the entire paleontological calendar as a seismic shift for the discipline…
>
> … and the list goes on and on and on. Whoever doesn't think this is a creative act is simply mad. It is just creativity in response to a different set of constraints (scientific ones about claims) as opposed to other sorts of constraints.
>
> Of course this is designing. Which is why scientists are wondering what all the fuss is about.
>
> I'm not saying that design doesn't indeed offer something new. I'm openly exploring what that is and I don't know. But it lacks humility as a field. I once read a pithy comment in a self book at the check out stand. It said, "Be humble, a lot was accomplished before you were born." Not bad advice for "design thinkers."
>
> d.
>
> _________________
> Dr. Derek B. Miller
> Director
>
> The Policy Lab
> 321 Columbus Ave.
> Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
> Boston, MA 02116
> United States of America
>
> Phone
> +1 617 440 4409
> Twitter
> @Policylabtweets
> Web
> www.thepolicylab.org
>
|