Hi Diane,
Thanks for a great post. Thank you also for posting the paper. I enjoyed
reading it.
We seem to be covering the same ground and drawing different implications:
both of which can be true.
There is a different way of looking at two of the issues you raise.
The first: ' difference between complicated problems (problems for which
experts can find solutions) and complex problems for which no final
solutions exist. Think for example of climate change. We can never 'solve'
this issue with a blueprint but this doesn't mean that we can't do nothing.
Here we can design for evolution.'
This first issue has itself two points:
a) all experts are limited in their ability to think about complex
situations. My research shows the limit is situations with 2 or more
feedback loops. However, mathematical modelling enables us to go beyond this
limitation in experts thinking.
b) The situation is simply that there is a class of complex dynamic systems
in which the systems intervention also needs to be dynamic. Its been a bit
of a blind spot of systems thinkers to be comfortable with the idea of a
system having dynamic outcomes yet be blind to the idea that systems
interventions can also be changing over time. There is no need to claim as
Banathy that there is a different class of 'evolutionary' systems. I suggest
that is humbug. All that is requires is to either include the system in
focus as part of a larger dynamic system (in which the intervention is the
dynamic output of part of the larger system) or focus on the dynamic
meta-characteristics of systems. My own work does both, especially in
formulating new extensions to Ashby's Laws that focus on dynamically
intervening in dynamics of distribution of variety in systems (papers in
www.love.com.au/docs/publications.htm ) The problems is we have been
thinking that a solution must consist of a fixed in time blueprint for
action rather than creating the code for dynamically generating appropriate
actions dependent on system states.
The second is the assumption that somehow living systems are beyond
prediction. The reality is that living system behaviours are highly
predictable and we are very good at it in many different realms. The fact
that we can teach and have explicable bodies of knowledge in fields such as
history, sociology, management, geo-politics, economics, ecology,
environmental science and the like shows there are already well established
bodies of predictive theories.
The real problem at the moment has three aspects:
* Overspecialisation - we are often not aware of the predictive modelling
on living systems done in other disciplines. This was the rationale for
trying to create a single trans disciplinary systems field but is still a
work in progress.
* Timeliness - We haven't yet completed specific predictive models of many
elements of situations. This is ongoing work in progress and much is
addressed each year.
* Meta-theory - addressing complex dynamics situations involving dynamic
(or fixed) management interventions requires bringing together a lot of
complexity of modelling. As per Ashby, the complexity (variety) of the
model required parallels the complexity of the situation. On the other
hand, as humans, our own limits in thinking require complexity (variety) of
our systems modelling to be attenuated to the point we can cope.
Meta-theoretical modelling provides this attenuation. We need tools that
make systems of systems work easier. There is nothing intrinsically
difficult about this. It simply is a natural progression from Banathy's work
of 20 years ago that you refer in your paper (though I'd prefer a more
chaotic dynamic non-linear system understanding than the generative order
of Banathy ).
In essence, there are two choices at this point.
One is to adopt better systems tools in design. This has the implication it
will significantly change design fields and the practices of design and
will require designers and design educators to work to change.
The second is to claim these situations can only be addressed through some
mystical human creative power held by designers. This has the implications
of not requiring designers to change, and of reinforcing the status of
designers and the design professions.
I prefer the former, your paper assumes the latter.
Best wishes,
Terry
---
Dr Terence Love
PhD(UWA), BA(Hons) Engin. PGCEd, FDRS, AMIMechE, MISI
Director,
Love Services Pty Ltd
PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
Western Australia 6030
Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
[log in to unmask]
--
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nijs, Diane
Sent: Sunday, 7 December 2014 1:21 AM
To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design
Subject: RE: From material to "social design" (was Re: Clinical Research and
Clinical Guidelines)
Dear Lubo and Jean,
I am also working in this 'problematic' field. In February I finished my PhD
at Groningen University on this specific issue.
I argue (with Banathy) that designers can use two scientific resources in
coping with issues:
- systems thinking stemming from conventional science and
- systems thinking stemming from living systems science (complexity science
and chaos-theory).
The first resource works perfectly well for material design. Then we design
SOLUTIONS.
The second resource allows for working with living systems. Then we can
design for EVOLUTION. (Conditioned Emergence and Imaginative Emergence)
I think that part of the problems of design for social issues stems from the
fact that we don't (yet) make a difference between complicated problems
(problems for which experts can fiend solutions) and complex problems for
which no final solutions exist. Think for example of climate change. We can
never 'solve' this issue with a blueprint but this doesn't mean that we
can't do nothing. Here we can design for evolution. The core of these
complex issues is behavioral change. Therefore I like to differentiate
between 'design' (solution orientation) and imagineering (evolution
orientation - design that appeals to the imagination of the individual
actors in collectives and as such catalyzes collective creativity and
collective action).
I would like to connect with social designers that work from the complexity
perspective (not in the sense of modelling existing behavior but in the
sense of trying to catalyse behavioral change).
Maybe you like to read a paper? Just uploaded one on academia.edu. Hope to
hear/read about your ideas.
Best regards,
Diane
________________________________
Diane Nijs PhD
Lector Imagineering/Professor Imagineering
NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences
06/109 41 381
http://imagineering-network.com
http://DianeNijs.com
________________________________________
Van: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
research in Design [[log in to unmask]] namens Jean Schneider
[[log in to unmask]]
Verzonden: zaterdag 6 december 2014 17:23
To: [log in to unmask]
Onderwerp: From material to "social design" (was Re: Clinical Research and
Clinical Guidelines)
Dear Lubomir,
I hope you will find time to elaborate more ! I would enjoy hearing more
about your experience and insights !
Best regards,
Jean
Le 6 déc. 14 à 15:49, Lubomir Savov Popov a écrit :
In this line of thought, I am surprised that "material" designers dare to
engage in social design and believe they can do it, while sociologists and
psychologists are quire reserved. Actually, they even reject the idea of
social design. I am struggling to promote this idea at several social
science conferences and at this point I am at the stage of being accused of
authoritarianism and totalitarianism. It is strange that designers are ready
to accept the idea of social design while the social scientists (from left
and
right) are rejecting it vehemently. Designers are so optimistic because they
assume that organizing behavior is like organizing material and space. I
will stop here because this is another talk.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Op deze e-mail zijn de volgende voorwaarden van toepassing :
The following disclaimer applies to the e-mail message :
http://www.nhtv.nl/disclaimer
-----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD
studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|