terry,
let me intersperse my comments in yours:
Hi Klaus,
I think that like Jerry you are faultily presuming a simplistic logical
positivist approach to information in what I wrote. The underlying
epistemology is constructivist (social and individual) and ethological, but
not phenomenological. Like any constructivist perspective it presumes faulty
construction and self-delusion as equivalent states to sound understanding.
frankly, i do not understand what you are saying that i am presuming, and
the big labels you are connecting: simplistic positivist, constructivist,
epistemology, self-delusion, sound (as opposed to unsound) understanding....
I am happy with the approach you have to information and the roles that you
give it. From experience, I have found that all of those richer
understandings you describe of how a designer functions seem to work well in
viewing design methods as primarily modes of gathering information. Its
also possible to extend the richness of understanding how designers fucntion
and are informed through extending your approach into a biological
perspective of human functioning - and one that includes humans/designers
being self deluded.
A couple of questions though. What is the 'it' that you say 'reduces
uncertainty'; 'is always relative to what you know'; 'is always an issue of
timing' etc?
it can be a conversation about a subject matter, the experience of reading a
report, observations that confirm of deny a hypothesis, connections you made
that give you the confidence in acting knowledgeably
Second, if designers thrive on not taking 'information' too seriously in
order to bring something new forth (which I have no problem with) then
'what' are they exploring?
i'd say they are exploring possibilities
With 'what' do they reflect on it?
with their minds and in conversations with others, other designers,
stakeholders, users.
With 'what' do they express it?
i have said it often. designers make proposals for possible futures that
they hope other stakeholders will pick up and realize.
My suggestion is that this is all a matter of informing and information -
tho perhaps with a perspective on information that is more than a simple
fact such as the 'the date is the 10th of April'!
a proposal is not a fact, nor a convention, e.g. to label time in reference
to an agreed upon calendar. it must make realistic suggestions, pass
possibilities for desirable futures to potential stakeholders, possibilities
that others can see as realizable and enroll them into the project that
designers are proposing.
proposals are linguistic in the broad sense to include presentations,
drawings, visualizations, instructions, and if you want, address the
capabilities and aspirations of those stakeholders who matter. proposals
have no truth value in the sense of accurately describing what exists. they
must be compelling others into actions to bring forth something not yet
realized.
Understanding the practices and internal activities of engineering designers
is in a way much more complex and difficult than understanding graphic
designers. The difference is the intermedial conscious and unconscious roles
of formalised unambiguous yet inaccurate abstractions.
the comparison is a bit simplistic. there are simple engineering problems,
like routinely varying the design of a fastener to fit an unusual situation,
and there are complex graphical design problems, like developing the
graphical strategy for a large advertising campaign, having to anticipate
the responses of culturally diverse audiences. the failure of a graphical
design may cost millions and have long lasting effects for the future of an
agency. the failure of an engineering design can be costly too, but can be
corrected within a narrow problem solving paradigm.
i hope this answers your questions
klaus
ps, since the discussion group does not allow detachments, i am sending you
(or anyone who requests it) the first draft of and encyclopedia entry on
information theory
One thing that hasn't yet (to my knowledge) been adequately written about in
the design research literature is engineering designers' artistic use of the
information provided by abstract meta-representations of phenomena via
equations. Many good engineering designers (particularly conceptual phase
designers) can 'feel' their way round the potential for better solutions by
feeling round the multi-dimensioned phenomenological potentials represented
by the relationships between variables in equations. This artistic use of
information about phenomena is in respects different and no different from
the perhaps less abstract ability central to all designers to be able to use
internalised informal representations of the visual, 'what they have seen',
or mixed external perceptions 'what they have experienced', (both
information) to be able to feel their way using internal biological
processes to identify potential or better possibilities for design outcomes.
If anyone knows of good literature about the above application of designers'
feelings to formulae in design research I'd welcome knowing about it. I'm
aware of several books and papers in the realms of mathematics, physics and
biology that document this phenomena.
Warm regards,
Terry
===
Dr. Terence Love
Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
Mobile: 0434975 848
[log in to unmask]
===
-----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 Klaus
Krippendorff
Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2007 9:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Defining Design (Re: Evidence and ethics)
dear terry, jerry, and others.
when terry speaks of "gathering information," his choice of words implies
that there exist some entities in the world outside, called information,
that the researcher needs to pick up and use. this is a popular conception
that many people live by. from my perspective, "information" has quite
different qualities, for example, it reduces some uncertainty, it is always
relative to what you know, especially in the dimensions of interest (outside
of which it is irrelevant), it is always an issue of timing (what is
information today may not be tomorrow), etc.
within relevant dimensions of uncertainty, something can provide information
only if it is true or believable. this ties information to the world that
exists, not the world that designers are thinking to bring forth. hence,
information gathering keeps designers stuck in what is known, true, already
existing.
the point of design -- at least from my perspective -- is to get out of what
exists, to conceive and realize what others are not able to perceive as
possible, to render uncertain what everyone else considers settled, to make
the unpredictable real.
in information theoretical terms, this means to undo available information.
i would not discourage designers to explore what others consider information
-- gathering information if you insist on that phrase -- but designers
thrive on not taking information too seriously. think about it
klaus
-----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 Jerry
Diethelm
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Defining Design (Re: Evidence and ethics)
Dear Terry,
In my experience, information must be chosen because no one can ever really
afford to just gather. One tries to distinguish between useful and relevant
kinds of information related to the effort at hand.
And so information is "gathered" purposefully toward some end and where
possible in a form related to the nature and scale of the questions driving
the process. Call it wisely selected, chosen, or whatever, it is an
inescapably judgmental, modeling and sorting process.
Putting evaluation in a box at the far end of things is for me to miss the
central role that evaluation plays in all phases of designing.
Best,
Jerry
On 4/9/07 5:24 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Jerry,
> I referred to 'gathering information' rather than 'choosing information'.
> 'Gathering' doesn't necessarily require 'choosing'. The point (and
> benefit) of many design methods is that they gather information that
> one wouldn't otherwise choose.
>
> Choosing a design method? That's a different question!
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Terry
>
>
>
> -----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 Jerry Diethelm
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2007 8:17 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Defining Design (Re: Evidence and ethics)
>
> Dear Terry,
>
> You are mistaken. Choosing information is an evaluation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jerry
>
>
> On 4/9/07 5:01 PM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Jerry,
>>
>> You are mistaken. Information gathering means exactly that.
>>
>> Analysis is a form of information gathering. The central role of all
>> design methods is to provide information to the designer. This even
>> includes creative thought producing techniques.
>>
>> Evaluation is a later stage covering only a small part of the game.
>> It depends on having information to work on. Design can occur without
>> evaluation - unless you extend the meaning of evaluation to include
>> anything that results in a decision. I think that takes it to too
>> broad a role that reduces the value of evaluation as a concept.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Terry
>>
>> ===
>> Dr. Terence Love
>> Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
>> Mobile: 0434975 848
>> [log in to unmask]
>> ===
>>
>>
>> -----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 Jerry Diethelm
>> Sent: Tuesday, 10 April 2007 4:24 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Defining Design (Re: Evidence and ethics)
>>
>> On 4/9/07 7:35 AM, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> 1: The central purpose of ALL design methods is information gathering.
>>> Period. (Its because of the definition of design as a human activity).
>>
>> As I read further in the post, it becomes clearer that "information
>> gathering" is intended here to mean ANALYSIS.
>>
>> I'd assert that EVALUATION is a larger and better concept for
>> designing, yielding a broader cultural conversation about what matters.
>>
>>
>> Regards to all,
>>
>> Jerry
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
>> ------
>> Jerry Diethelm
>> Architect - Landscape Architect
>> Planning & Urban Design Consultant
>>
>> Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
>> and Community Service ? University of Oregon
>> 2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
>> ? e-mail: [log in to unmask]
>> ? web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~diethelm
>>
>> ? 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
>> ? 541-206-2947 work/cell
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
> Jerry Diethelm
> Architect - Landscape Architect
> Planning & Urban Design Consultant
>
> Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
> and Community Service ? University of Oregon
> 2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
> ? e-mail: [log in to unmask]
> ? web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~diethelm
>
> ? 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
> ? 541-206-2947 work/cell
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Diethelm
Architect - Landscape Architect
Planning & Urban Design Consultant
Prof. Emeritus of Landscape Architecture
and Community Service ? University of Oregon
2652 Agate St., Eugene, OR 97403
? e-mail: [log in to unmask]
? web: http://www.uoregon.edu/~diethelm
? 541-686-0585 home/work 541-346-1441 UO
? 541-206-2947 work/cell
