Dear Jonas,
It’s not clear to me that all these three-part models map onto each
other. Not all of these models are process models. They are models of
different kinds.
The last time we disagreed about three-part models, the model we
discussed was Frayling’s proposal for three kinds of design research:
research into design, research by design, and research for design. This
is not a process model, but rather a series of rubrics for three kinds
of research. In Frayling’s proposal, each of these three rubrics
describes a different approach to research. This is a taxonomic model.
Your three-part model is a process model. In your model, analysis,
projection, and synthesis are sequential steps in the same process.
Peirce describes a process model into which he integrates his view of
the scientific method. He starts with abduction (forming hypotheses),
moving to induction, and finally to deduction.
But the Nelson-Stolterman model describing the true, the ideal, and the
real is not a process model. It is a domain model.
Kolb’s experiential learning model is a four-part iterative cycle
involving experiencing, observing, conceptualizing, and experimenting.
For Kolb, these process steps can follow each other in several ways.
The process models in Boland’s article also work.
Without agreeing that the actual process models you describe do indeed
map over onto one another, your description of the process models seems
reasonable. My argument with mapping all three-part models onto one
another is that domain models and taxonomic models don't work the same
way that process models do.
It’s difficult to see what’s notorious about a pattern of posing
thoughts, requesting clarification, challenging debatable issues. In my
view, the well-known end to this kind of debate is to clarify and sort
through ideas, and sometimes to scrub off ideas that don’t really
work. Isn’t that what research has always been about?
Yours,
Ken
Jonas wrote:
—snip—
a notorious communication pattern is showing up again. I would like to
contribute to avoiding the well-known end of this kind of debate.
If I remember right, then this thread started with a discussion about
3-phase models of the design process.
Anyway, I come back to this issue and invite you to give this debate a
cybernetic turn. To look at it in a cybernetic spirit. Circularity,
feedback, self-reference, etc. are the keywords. Also groundlessness and
these infamous concepts.
Many design and many learning process models have a 4- or 3-step
structure.
Most 4-step models go back to Kolb’s theory of experiential learning.
In my terminology I call the steps research - analysis - synthesis -
realization.
And most 3-step models can be mapped to Peirce’s 3-step logic of
Induction - Abduction - Deduction. In my terminology: Analysis -
Projection - Synthesis. In Nelson (since Harold’s name appeared) and
Stolterman’s terminology: the true - the ideal - the real.
4- and 3-step models can be closely related to each other, an advantage
of the 3-step models is that the abductive step is made explicit.
—snip—
|