Dear Stefanie
I am very curious about the idea of using bio-mimicry to gain knowledge about our society and as an inspiration for the design of human activity systems like we find in service design, social design etc.
I think there is much superficial and uncritical bio-mimicry found even in design. I have seen quite a few design projects that are of the superficial type, e.g. looking like some part of nature, and that's it.
I am excited about your ideas since they clearly are about looking deeper into the issue.
But at the same time I am sceptical. At least I think your endeavour needs a well developed criticality.
It would be interesting to know more about the ant example, of how we could learn from such animal societies to derive something useful for our own society. My spine reaction is immediately negative. We know for sure that the individual does not count in these societies. We know that they do not have democracy and that they are monitored by hormones and other signals.
The other thing that needs criticality is the approach to nature itself as something good and harmonic. This belief in the good of nature, while being un-harmful in copying certain aspects of nature to produce better products, can be harmful when trying to copy certain larger principals of nature, e.g. the survival of the fittest, to human society. Unnecessary to say this type of "bio-mimicry" has been tried before with devastating results.
Nature is not good nor bad. Too much of the "bio-movement" at large lacks criticality. Nature does not care about extinction of species, in fact extinction of species is a principal element in the development of life-forms. The basic principle of nature is not harmony. A principle in nature is about the interaction between species mostly meaning they eat each other. There are many other types of interaction but eating each other is the dominant one. This interaction can form balancing stages (or negative feedback loops) like the ambulating interdependency between a predator and its bate. But this is not the same as harmony. Such mechanisms can and have frequently led to a species getting the overhand and leading to the extinction of others. So there are certain things in nature we don't want to copy in a "gardened" world. In a gardened world we do not let species being extinct, but we protect and breed them to counteract the escalating extinction caused by one dominating species, man. We are acting in a good way to protect other species and nature at large.
On the other side we are all nature, so the concept of good and bad, politics, democracy, welfare systems, social security etc could also be seen as developments in and of nature. There are theories that claim that social behaviour, being good, and feeling love for each other do have a biological bases and that these features are central in the dominance of humans in the world. (Off course there are other important abilities also biologically grounded, like being able to fight and kill). So our ability of being good and taking care of each other is biologically programmed and is one of the advantages we have as a species and that contributed to our dominance. (We are not the only species that does have social behaviour as an advantage but ours is most developed).
I'm not a biologist nor an expert of bio-mimicry so this is anecdotal and polemical and don't ask me for references please. The point is that we have to be less naive and more critical and analytical about where and what to look for when seeking inspiration in nature.
You open up a very interesting discussion .
Thanks
Birger
________________________________________
Fra: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design [[log in to unmask]] på vegne av stefanie di russo [[log in to unmask]]
Sendt: 12. juli 2012 07:45
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: Biomimicry, Service Design and Design Thinking
Hi Terence,
I hope i have interpreted your question correctly, and will do my best to
answer (bearing in mind i have only recently begun research into this topic
so i apologise if my response seems a little superficial).
I will explain firstly why i diverted my research to this area and why.
Having spent the last year and a half collecting and analysing
research/articles/etc on design thinking, service design, human-centered
design and meta-design, i reduced my knowledge to a few simple conclusions:
1. there is no clear explanation of the relationship between these fields
of theory/practice. There was no clear 'history'- how these theories
evolved, why they evolved and how they evolved in context of design
literature. This led me to research design thinking heavily and work
backwards through fundamental design theories, resulting in an
(interpretation) of the history of design thinking which makes up most of
my literature review.
2. Having looked at and somewhat clarified the past, i began to look
towards the future of design thinking- the problems and limitations of
current practice. At the same time i was concerned with the issue of
sustainability.
3. Through current (and even historical) research, i realised there were a
few major problems with the practice of design thinking (including service
design/meta design). One problem is the issue of understanding between
designers and clients, and the adoption of design thinking in
organisational culture. The other primary problem I discovered was that
many design thinkers/serv designers/etc and business professionals were (
complaining) discussing the need for adaptable (and sustainable) strategic
solutions. Many articles and practitioners argued a need for more adaptable
and evolving solutions but none pointed to ways of achieving this.
Having already had an interest in biomimicry, i began to wonder whether
there lies an answer to these issues through this approach, and why
biomimetics has not been applied (to the same degree as industrial
design/engineering) as a method for resolving some of our intangible and
'wicked' problems.
This is where things get a bit fuzzy. and brings me to your question:
"Please could you say more about *your* reasoning as to why you feel the
methods for using bio-mimicry for design products is not applicable to
designing non-tangible design outcomes such as strategies, services etc.?"
It is not so much that i feel current biomimetic methods are not
applicable. The difference i believe lies in how we interpret and
synthesise information from nature so we can best mimic and apply what we
observe into systems+services. Currently i have found some research papers
discussing intelligent system of colonies: ants, bees, etc, and how the
operations within these colonies can be directly translated into
organisational and system design. This is one approach: look at
intelligent, living systems that exist and interpet how best to mimic their
organised nature for our own design outcomes. The other approach (that some
have suggested to me) is a little more abstract- analysing the function of
prokaryotes, and with much creative interpretation, applying these
functions into strategic design solutions. The hopeful insight is that by
observing natural phenomena, we might be able to discover more efficient
and sustainable ways to function- and not just for our own benefit, but
function in harmony with nature.
Designers have developed great products that directly mimic functions in
nature- most that are sustainable, some just innovative. My aim is to apply
biomimetics to improve strategies that will hopefully result in more
efficient and sustainable ways of operating.
I hope this answers your question and thank you for taking an interest
Regards,
-Stefanie
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Stefanie,
>
> It's great you focus on the use of bio-mimicry in creating non-tangible
> design outcomes such as strategies, services and ways of thinking.
>
> Almost everyone else has primarily focused on using bio-mimicry only for
> designing products.
>
> I agree using bio-mimicry in designing non-tangible outcomes appears to be
> essentially different from using it for designing products.
>
> Please could you say more about *your* reasoning as to why you feel the
> methods for using bio-mimicry for design products is not applicable to
> designing non-tangible design outcomes such as strategies, services etc.?
>
> This is something that potentially has significant implications for design
> theory and research.
>
> It may add to the weight of evidence that existing design methods and
> theories are restricted in their application to a clearly bounded set of
> design situations. Additionally, it may imply that design situations
> outside those bounds require different ways of theorising about design and
> different design practices.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terence
> ==
> Dr Terence Love, FDRS, PhD, B.A. (Hons) Eng, P.G.C.E
> School of Design and Art, Curtin University, Western Australia
> Psychology and Social Science, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia
> Honorary Fellow, IEED, Management School, Lancaster University, UK
>
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia 6030
> [log in to unmask] +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> ==
>
>
>
>
> -----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
> stefanie
> di russo
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2012 12:34 PM
> To: Dr Terence Love
> Subject: Biomimicry, Service Design and Design Thinking
>
> Greetings colleagues,
>
> I am currently conducting research on design thinking, service design and
> meta design for my PhD, with a focus on sustainability. I have recently
> begun to investigate the application of biomimicry within these fields of
> practice and research. I am aware of research surrounding biomimicry for
> designing material artefacts, but am attempting to source information and
> examples of biomimic research that has been adopted for the aid and/or
> resolution of intangible (for use of a better word) "wicked" problems - or
> in strategic fields of research and practice. A superficial scan of current
> research shows some progress has been made within business + organisational
> design- however i am particularly interested in examples from fields of
> service/systems and design thinking.
>
> I will gratefully appreciate any research and advice that can be offered on
> this topic, or which more broadly relates to the adoption of biomimic
> design
> for intangible problems and (ideally, sustainable) organisational
> solutions.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> --
> *Stefanie Di Russo*
>
> PhD Student
> Faculty of Design
> Swinburne University
> *twitter:* @stefdirusso <https://twitter.com/#!/stefdirusso>
> *linkedin: public
> *profile<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>
>
--
*Stefanie Di Russo*
PhD Student
Faculty of Design
Swinburne University
*twitter:* @stefdirusso <https://twitter.com/#!/stefdirusso>
*linkedin: public
*profile<http://www.linkedin.com/pub/stefanie-di-russo/35/16/a84>
|
