Dear David

Alas, you don't like FRENCH people...(just joking!). But, like any other
people on earth, some time they nonetheless come up with interesting ideas,
' ways ', and things to explore further the new territory of people and
designs.

A couple of weeks ago, one list member mentioned Edgar Morin. Morin
(1921-), one of the world renowned contemporary philosophers, has just
published "La Voie. Pour l'avenir de l'humanité. Fayard, Paris, 2011"  (The
Way...to ensure survival of humankind - free interpretation). One of
Morin's major 'oeuvre' is LA MÉTHODE, a collection of six volumes written
between 1977 and 2004. To my present knowledge, Morin's wok has not yet
made known to the anglophone readership...!

Morin is also co-founder, with Jean-Louis Le Moigne (1931-), of the
PROGRAMME EUROPEEN MODELISATION DE LA COMPLEXITE (MCX) et
l’ASSOCIATION
POUR LA PENSEE COMPLEXE (APC). Le Moigne is an Engineer, expert in complex
'systematics and constructivist epistemology'. He translated into French,
in 1974, Herbert Simon's *The science of the artificial*, 1969, MIT
Press. Still
drawing on Herbet Simon's "From Substantive to Procedural Rationality",
(1976), in 1991, Le Moigne shared his views "SUR LA CAPACITE DE LA RAISON A
DISCERNER RATIONALITE SUBSTANTIVE et RATIONALITE PROCEDURALE. D'ARISTOTE A
H.A. SIMON PAR R. DESCARTES ET G.B. VICO".

For several years now, I have been receiving and eagerly reading the
monthly newsletter, "InterLettre Chemin Faisant MCX-APC", issued by a group
' led ' by the above tandem of octogenarians. The tandem mainly draws,
among others, on Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) and on Paul Valéry
(1871-1945). And we, readers of the Newsletter, whether lay persons or
experts, are particularly instructed on the best way to generate and
conduct practical reasoning on (actual world) human-centered complex
systems. We are prompted,  - "chemin faisant" -  along the way,
individually and in groups,  to better use our capacity to reason, unique
endowment to humankind (free interpretation of ' le bon usage de la raison
humaine' ). Better reasoning to use for actively and positively intervening
into earth/world systems we all are part in.

As designers, our group concern is about subsystems coalescing around
artifacts. More specifically, we are concerned with those dynamics
resulting from artifacts use, in respective contexts of use. There is
indeed a need for "a coherent vocabulary for describing the many 'walked
paths' " in those subsystems of our concern. But I am confident, "chemin
faisant" - along the way -, designers will come up with  such a needed
vocabulary and parlance. I think it is just a matter of time. Current
educational institutions are yielding more and more new generations of
Designers with PhDs, along with highly competent technicians in designing.

Provided, however, PhDs in Design, while drawing on precursors both inside
and outside of the domaine of design, and learning from more and more
octogenarians such as Morin, Le Moigne, and others, are specifically
trained to purposeful reasoning on artifacts and related human centered
dynamics. For instance, certainly among the core references in the 'way' of
training  PhD design, one should systematically refer to "bounded
rationality" (Herbert Simon), towards devising more "satisficing" (Herbert
Simon) 'way finding' methods. In my view, there is a truly new and more
appropriate vocabulary and language to explore, name and convey value to
our field. By the way, this is what I was hinting at in my post to Gunnar a
few days ago.

Thanks for sharing the brief update on work being currently conducted at
your Communication Research Institute.

Francois
Montreal

On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:58 PM, [log in to unmask] <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Francois,
>
> You are correct in that we have a wealth of precedents to draw upon.
> Indeed, with our Institute's own background in communication research we
> have been able to draw on research into interpersonal communication,
> counselling, and negotiation. In that area appreciative dialogue stands out
> as a productive technique. But adapting those precedents to the needs of
> designers so that the investigative outcomes assist design decision making
> is still work that needs to be done in many areas.
>
> We have managed to do significant work in what we call 'diagnostic
> testing'. It is not unlike what usability specialists call usability
> testing, but there are many aspects of it that are both conceptually and
> methodologically different to usability testing. And the interpretation and
> use of results is subtly inflected by designers' needs. In historical
> terms, we can trace this work back through a variety of intellectual
> strands of thought, including psychology, art history, quality control,
> ergonomics, clinical medical practice, graphic design, and, of course,
> design methods. But it took us some time to develop the methods into a set
> of techniques that could be validated, tested for sensitivity and
> reliability, and then articulated so that it could be shared with others.
> We have yet to publish a monograph that contains a full account of all
> aspects of this one technique, though we have published a large number of
> account of its use in specific projects. And we still lack a coherent
> vocabulary for describing the many 'walked paths' that are at the heart of
> the data we collect with this method. So we still have some way to go
> before we can—to use your phrase—
> > leap into 'adulthood' and start speaking, at last, in a more coherent,
> more meaningful, more useful and more socially negotiable manner
>
> David
> --
>
>