 |
 |
Hi to All, I've been lurking and reading the interesting ideas which have been proposed. But apparently the word "problem" causes more concern than need be the case. Here are some ideas to consider. The Psychology topic of "problem solving" apparently may be yielding some unanticipated concerns in conjunction with Design. Perhaps a different term might have been a better choice, such as "task," "challenge," or even "puzzle." I checked a few introductory psychology textbooks I have in my office. Although I didn't notice this before, authors talk about "problem solving" without sufficiently clarifying that a broad meaning is intended (instead of only "negative" instances). First, so far as I've known this body of theory and research over the past several decades, both "positive" and "negative" kinds of challenges are supposed to be considered within the "problem solving" literature. Second, it is noteworthy that the "problem solving" literature especially emphasizes diversity in "solutions." Thus the intent is to be open to various approaches instead of seeking only or mainly some "correct solution." Third, occasionally some authors have proposed a "problem solving" approach might be useful in helping us to understand "creativity." Glenn Snelbecker, Temple University, Philadelphia ---- Original message ---- >Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:28:52 +1000 >From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Working across multiple design sectors (was A simple definition of 'Design'?) >To: [log in to unmask] > >Crawling from my bed very very early on this wintry Sydney morning, I >follow this 'line of flight' (Deleuze and Guattari 1975). > >What might happen if I conceptualise design spaces not as problem >spaces, and thus design outcomes NOT as evidence of having solved >problems - how else might they be seen? In the process of designing, >as is often the case, other possibilities emerge but are rejected as >being 'not right' by particular stakeholders (but not me?). What of >these other design possibilities? Might my portfolio perhaps also >represent in my memory the lost possibilities of each job? I have >stories for every job represented as an outcome in my portfolio, of >the 'one that got away', the 'great idea' the client did not go for, >or those that couldn't be 'resolved'. Does this not represent a >problem for design spaces conceptualised as problem 'solving'? In >this space, are there only solid, concrete, stable, sanctioned >winners as represented in the portfolio? And if so, what happens to >the other possibilities? Do they remain, problematic, ghostlike in >our stories? Do they emerge perhaps in other jobs? What if we >conceptualise the design space as one of possibility? How then might >we speak of our work? > >teena > >Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1975, from 'A thousand Plateaus: >Capitalism and Schizophrenia', from 'Introduction: Rhizome', cited in >Norton's Anthology, p. 1595 (sorry, don't the have full publication >details). > > >>Teena et al, >> >>Re: your first paragraph. >> >>I don't know about Gavin, but I think your description fits >>beautifully with how I see designing - including engineering >>designing. >> >>Now please have mercy as I'm about to use words in ways to which >>some may be unaccustomed, but it's the words that work best for me & >>my background. >> >>Designing usually (in my experience, always) begins with an analytic >>stage. The designer, confronted with a new situation, is unlikely >>to "fit" into it / understand it very well. The designer will then >>try to figure out what the "real problem" is - what's missing from >>the way things are. This requires a rather deep understanding. >> >>Teena, this is where your brainstorm, etc, happens. My perspective >>is that the problem is there, you just don't recognize it as such, >>because (and I'm guessing here) "problems" exist in "more corporate >>design" settings. Your "problem", generally, is finding the right >>image/visualization to communicate certain emotions & other info to >>specific individuals or groups. >> >>The study of the situation your in - aka the problem you have to >>solve - will map key features/points/aspects to certain >>memories/emotions/capabilities you have stored in your brain. To do >>this you have to take the situation/problem apart...."deconstruct" >>is perhaps too overloaded a word. That is, you're analyzing the >>situation (perhaps inspirationally - whatever works best for you!) >>and connecting the dots in your head. >> >>Put another way, you're finding a way to overlap your perception of >>the actual situation onto your own mental structures and, thus, >>absorb/understand it. >> >>Then you start coming up with something that will change the >>situation in a beneficial/desirable/required way. Some people call >>this designing, but it can't happen except in the most trivial cases >>without first understanding the current situation (the analysis), so >>I think of designing as including both the analytic and (sorry for >>the next word, no offence intended again) synthetic. >> >>At least, that's how I see it. >> >>Re: your second paragraph >> >>I'd say the temporal ordering of tasks will vary from situation to >>situation. But the tasks themselves will be there sooner or later, >>and that there will be many similar situations that will end up with >>task orderings that are very similar too, and that might be assumed >>permanent features by those who are often involved in those >>situations. >> >> >>teena clerke wrote: >>>Hi Gavin, >>> >>>I am mindful that there are also spaces in which design operates >>>that are not seen as being problem-based, so articulating design >>>space as 'problem' space may be misleading and also limiting. >>>Suffice to say that in my experience, design can occur as a way of >>>thinking, practicing, experimenting, researching (before picking up >>>the drawing implement, I always list, brainstorm, play with words), >>>and then doing/making/visualising, etc, without there being a >>>'problem' as such. In fact, many of my designs, and particularly >>>illustrations are conceived and then executed this way. Is this >>>design? Is it practiced within a 'problem' space? Can design space >>>be articulated as occurring within 'inspirational' space without >>>there ever being a problematic? I suggest so, but suspect not in >>>the realms where more corporate design resides. >>> >>>Further, in my experience, the way you have worded the proposal >>>suggests that design is linear, and we can also 'suspend the desire >>>to draw', when in fact, drawing, mark making, and so on are very >>>much a part of the 'thinking', 'researching' and 'defining' >>>activities - a bit chicken and egg really. They don't seem to have >>>formal stops and starts, and are not easily articulated as a linear >>>process, or even a circular sequential process, nor do they occur >>>in isolation or explicitly in teams (in fact, frustratingly, they >>>most often occur just when you crawl into bed at night - try and >>>categorise that!). Very tricky process this, attempting to find >>>commonalities without also excluding. But still, in my opinion, a >>>commendable one. >>> >>>And might I suggest that it might also be useful to explore this >>>question empirically with your design students and practitioners, >>>beyond the 'research space' of this list and beyond the 'academic >>>space' of the university. These questions are really useful ones >>>particularly at this 'defining' time in the disciplinary >>>development of design, and ones that might be illuminated through >>>speaking with practitioners who might thus provide insights into >>>these very interesting ideas that blow the 'problem' space wide >>>open. >>> >>>so, I ended up with a long response. hope you find it useful. >>> >>>teena >> >>-- >>Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng. >>Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering >>Ryerson University >>350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada >>Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749 >>Fax: 416/979-5265 >>Email: [log in to unmask] >>http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/ Glenn E. Snelbecker, Ph.D., Professor, Temple University