 |
 |
Hi Jenny, <snip> > So i suppose i am somewhere between BOTTOM UP as an ideal and TOP DOWN. > Structuration theory is interesting on that one thouthg again in > information > systems(Wanda Orlikowski) </snip> i don't think that TOP DOWN is bad. Sometimes it's the right approach. :) And probably one works within a mix anyway. My personal experience & impression is just that TOP DOWN can be such a typical example for the "western" and arrogant way of thinking, that partly is the cause of the current, global problems. Conceiving something at the desk, ignorant of (local) context, need, practical conditions etc. I think we all can come up with examples. (Of course these talents were necessary to get things done for the success of western culture, education, medicine (& imperialism).;) Here is a quote from Christopher Alexander, that i use as a Email signature: <snip> "Things that are good have a certain kind of structure. You can't get that structure except dynamically. Period. In nature you've got continuous very-small-feedback-loop adaptation going on, which is why things get to be harmonious. That's why they have the qualities we value. If it wasn't for the time dimension, it wouldn't happen. Yet here we are playing the major role creating the world, and we haven't figured this out. That is a very serious matter." Christopher Alexander [S. Brand, "How buildings learn", p.21, 1994] </snip> That is indeed a very serious matter. The problem usually is that we don't have the time, because time=money. We have our deadlines and budgets. Or, as Rastafarians say: "time is time"? ;) I hope this makes sense, best, Michael ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Michael Hohl, PhD Research Student Sheffield Hallam University School of Cultural Studies Art & Design Research Centre Psalter Lane Campus Sheffield, S11 8UZ United Kingdom email: [log in to unmask] ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++