Hi Terry,

Can you generate a multiple feedback loop model that effectively resolves
any ethical questions facing designers?

Cheers,
Adam

On 10 February 2012 18:49, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Peter,
>
> Thank you for your message. Interesting.
>
> If, however, you observe (as I do) that humans are not capable of thinking
> about situations with two or more interdependent feedback loops THEN this
> suggests it is not satisfactory to go the human path of attempting to
> understand or address any  'wicked' or complex' design situations via
> dialogical means or through social design processes.
>
> It means that all you have is a bunch of people, none of whom are capable
> of
> understanding the behaviour of the situation, sat is a room talking. I
> suggest the issues can, however, be resolved by creating and running a
> mathematical model containing the feedback loops that incorporates all the
> separate pieces of knowledge, opinions and value judgements  of the people
> in the room in a way that individually or as a group they are not capable
> of
> using to understand  nor predict the situation behaviour and any design
> outcomes.
>
> This seems to be a fundamental difference between our positions.
>
> I maintain that due to human biological limitations, individuals and groups
> are unable to understand or predict the behaviour of situations with
> multiple feedback loops. I identify this biological limitation of human
> functioning as the primary basis for people defining some situations as
> wicked problems rather than the characteristics  of the problems
> themselves.
> In parallel, I maintain that using dynamic modelling enables humans to
> understand the behaviour of (and hence design solutions for) what are
> otherwise wicked problems. Simultaneously, I suggest that social design
> processes and visual design representations  do not work for these kinds of
> situations.
>
> Your position differs. If your position is as I understand it, I think you
> are mistaken,  along with the basis of the literature on this issue that
> you
> have pointed to.
>
> I suggest the core difference in our theory foundations is the issue of
> whether or not humans can predict the behaviour of situations involving
> multiple feedback loops. This is the defining feature of the two positions.
> My research indicates that 1) it is straightforward to demonstrate that
> humans CANNOT predict the behaviour of situations involving multiple
> feedback loops,; 2)that people have the illusion that it is not true; and
> 3)
> that ability to predict the behaviour of the situation is essential to
> designing successful outcomes.
>
> I first started publishing these  findings from my research around 4 years
> ago so they are not yet widespread. The findings have, however,
>  potentially
> quite important implications because if true they challenge many aspects of
> design theory, design research and design education relating to design of
> interventions that involve feedback (e.g. in business, strategy, planning -
> even strategic innovation).
>
> I welcome your thoughts on tests for refuting these findings - other than
> casuistic references to authority.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
> ____________________
> Dr. Terence Love, FDRS, AMIMechE, PMACM, MISI
>
> Senior Lecturer
> Researcher, Social Program Evaluation Research Unit
> Edith Cowan University, Perth, Western Australia
> Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
>
> Senior Lecturer, Dept of Design
> Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia
>
> Director, Design Out Crime Research Centre
> Member of International Scientific Council UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
> Honorary Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
> Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
> ____________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter
> Jones | Redesign
> Sent: Saturday, 11 February 2012 9:58 AM
> To: Dr Terence Love
> Subject: Re: Understanding science in design (was: Where science fails)
>
> Terry, I was doing my best to stay out of this lively discussion. I even
> mentioned the controversies Don and Birger raised regarding design research
> and action research methodologies in class today (Research Methods, core
> course in Mdes Strategic Foresight and Innovation). Birger will be visiting
> our good class in March, and as the discourse is so current, I considered
> it
> an introduction to his ideas expressed in "Discussions and Movements in
> Design Research" in the context of a methods discussion.
>
> The Greek tradition extended the necessity for high quality observations
> and
> special communicative forms to dialogue. Dialogue, as opposed to rhetoric,
> is a language process that draws on multiple perspectives to co-construct a
> meta-view that leads to informed design and civic action (in the Greeks
> case
> and in democratic design). Structured Dialogic Design was developed by
> Greek
> systems thinker Aleco Christakis, whose philosophy of design is based on
> the
> collaborative construction of meaning and action as a foundation for
> consensus in designing for complex social systems.  This mixed-reasoning,
> mixed-method process was developed by Warfield and Christakis after the
> original Club of Rome decided to run the World Model system dynamics
> experiment with Jay Forrester and the Meadows', after declining the
> proposal
> of Hasan Ozbekhan to invest stakeholders in what he called the global
> problematique. SDD was developed soon after (at Battelle) as a dialogic
> design method for complex social systemic problems, such as urban planning,
> peace negotiation, species and resource management. Hundreds of cases are
> in
> the peer-reviewed literature from the 1970's to today (some are listed at
> http://globalagoras.org ), yet design schools and social sciences
> generally
> no little of the process or its applications. We teach it at the other
> OCADU
> course I teach, Systemic Design.
>
> I depart from Terry in agreeing with the social systems school that wicked
> problems are different by definition, have unpredictable patterns of
> development, and are impossible to measure for intervention. The very
> notion
> of "problem" is a mental model and not a phenomenon in the world, and
> agreement on problem solving must be reached by people with investment and
> stake in the actions to be resolved. Wicked problems are layered "problem
> systems" that are defined by agreement and not observation.  Horst Rittel
> described 10 properties of wicked problems, and most of them are
> observations about the impossibility of conventional solutions (or
> "design"). Social design processes that observe these principles can be
> considered scientifically based but not positivistic or linear, they are
> dialogic and socially constructed, in the group hermeneutic spirit of
> Habermas' communicative action. The SDD process grew from Warfield's (and
> Aleco Christakis') life's work to develop a science of design, an axiomatic
> and quantifiable, even repeatable and measurable, instrumented dialogic
> process that generates high quality observations and significantly better
> planning than known alternatives.
>
> One of our methodological research projects at OCADU is developing a new
> generation of dialogic design methods based on these foundations, extending
> it beyond planning and systems design into new scenario and foresight
> practices for long-horizon problems. These are problems that may be
> supported by, but not solved by, OR-style modeling and simulation or
> design-led prototyping and generative design.
>
> Peter
>
> Peter Jones, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor, Faculty of Design
> Sr. Fellow, Strategic Innovation Lab (sLab)
>
> OCAD University
> 205 Richmond Street West, Toronto, Canada  M5V 1V6
> http://designdialogues.com
>
> <from terry>
>
> A simplified picture of this view of science goes like this:
>
> In the Greek political public decision-making process, it proved beneficial
> to some to develop and refine powerful skills to persuade others to hold
> the
> same opinions as oneself. This body of skills and knowledge became called
> 'rhetoric'.
>
> Some key figures in Greek thinking identified that in many cases this did
> not produce the best outcomes and often did not produce the outcomes that
> people had been persuaded to believe via rhetoric.
>
> Some of these key figures in Greek thinking identified that various issues
> needed to be addressed to ensure that outcomes were as expected and to
> develop approaches by which  the best outcomes could be predicted. This was
> seen as an approach to develop 'knowledge that is of better quality and
> more
> reliable'.
>
> The issues that needed to be addressed included:
>
> *   Ensuring that observations about the world were accurate and reliable
> (and hence trustworthy).
>
> *   Ensuring that any reasoning was sound,  and free of personal bias and
> manipulation.
>
> *   Ensuring that situations in which multiple possible explanations were
> possible were identified.
>
> *   Developing a meta-level knowledge of the approaches and methods useful
> to develop this 'knowledge that is of better quality and more reliable'.
>
> *   Developing a special way of communicating that is better suited to
> identifying, expressing and reasoning with this knowledge that is of better
> quality and more reliable.
>
> The scope of this endeavour to develop knowledge that is of better quality
> and more reliable is extensive as it covers the natural, 'philosophical',
> social, political  and meta-physical realms.
>
> This generic approach to develop knowledge that is of better quality and
> more reliable is what became called 'science'.
>



--
Adam Parker
Campus Academic Coordinator
Qantm Melbourne

Qantm College Melbourne Campus
235 Normanby Rd
South Melbourne VIC 3205 Australia

+61 (0) 3 8632 3400   | Phone
+61 (0) 3 8632 3401   | Fax

**** 2011 MCV Pacific Awards: **Tertiary Games Educational Institution of
the Year ***
*

www.sae.edu  | Web
www.qantm.com.au  | Web
www.saeshortcourses.com  | Web

SAE National Provider Code: 0273. SAE CRICOS Provider Codes: NSW 00312F.
SAE Institute Pty Ltd, ABN: 21 093 057 973

This email (including all attachments) is confidential and may be subject
to legal privilege and/or copyright. The information contained within this
email (including all attachments) should only be viewed if you are the
intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify
the sender immediately and delete this email from your system along with
any copies that have been made. Any unauthorised use, which includes
saving, printing, copying, disseminating or forwarding is prohibited and
may result in breach of confidentiality, privilege or copyright. If you
wish to unsubscribe or choose not to receive further commercial electronic
messages from SAE Institute or any grouped/associated entities please send
an email this address with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.