Yes Keith; thanks for the clarification. I'm not a cognitive scientist
and so my ability to talk sensibly about situation whether it be in the
sense of situated cognition or not is limited. But to the best I can
figure, 'situation' is good word to use to name this thing I'm thinking of.
Cheers.
Fil
Keith Russell wrote:
> Dear Filippo
>
> It is worth pointing out, even if it is obvious, that "a situation" is different to "the situation" which are both different to "situated learning/cognition". All knowledge, like all experience, is situated. Shifting from this logical observation to an actual situation is a cultural shift that both constrains situ and expands the concerns. The missing element from all this time/space stuff is, of course, identity. I could tell you the answer but then I would become the one answering.
>
> cheers
>
> keith russell
> oz newcastle
>
>
>
>>>> "Filippo A. Salustri" <[log in to unmask]> 07/02/08 11:49 AM >>>
> Just to clarify, I picked up 'situation' from John Gero's work on
> situated design, which in turn is derived largely from 'situated
> cognition' which is a theory of cognition. Google knows a lot about
> John's work, and "situated cognition."
>
> If it works for us, so much the better; but thank John, not me.
>
> Cheers.
> Fil
>
> teena clerke wrote:
>> Hi Chuck,
>>
>> yes, perhaps 'situation' is useful after all in relation to what went
>> before, thanks to Fil.
>> teena
>>
>>> Teena, Glenn, Fil and all
>>>
>>> Fil's term "situation" seems to best capture the focus of design
>>> thinking for me. A "situation" always arises in the context of what
>>> went before. It is not problematic if we can interpret and act on
>>> it satisfactorily with what we know already. If we can't the
>>> anomalies that remain constitute the "problematic " hot spots - the
>>> wants and needs manifested by the situation. These needs and desires
>>> have a higher emotional salience than other information in the
>>> situation and motivate an intention to resolve them - to synthesize,
>>> design, and express our thoughts about the situation in context, over
>>> time and with or without others involved. Or so I believe.
>>>
>>> To any of you interested in design in basic education the website
>>> idesignthinking.com is back up.
>>>
>>> Chuck
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 30, 2008, at 8:00 PM, teena clerke wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Glenn,
>>>>
>>>> in picking up on your post, substituting 'task', 'challenge' or
>>>> 'puzzle' for 'problem', still seems to construct the design space as
>>>> a site of struggle in some way - which might also seem contrary to
>>>> the idea of design as collaboration (or is collaboration also seen
>>>> as a site of struggle, challenge, puzzle?).
>>>>
>>>> In thinking through what this might mean while walking my children to
>>>> school, I wonder what might happen if we trouble this perhaps
>>>> adversarial construction to allow for a 'collection' of words
>>>> ('working across multiple design sectors') rather than a single
>>>> (problematic) term, that provide for descriptions of the design space
>>>> as other than problem/task/challenge? Words like synchronic,
>>>> serendipitous, synergous, might open a broader space for discussion
>>>> about certain phases of the design process that disrupt the binary of
>>>> 'smooth/problematic' temporal narratives of how it works in design -
>>>> I prepare my children's school lunch, wonder what I might cook for
>>>> dinner, worry about the (lack of) thesis writing, and think through
>>>> a tricky wine label design I have been working on for six months. I
>>>> go hear the Dalai Lama speak and lunch with a self- described
>>>> 'housewife who sits in the corner' from Warren, who is also the
>>>> ex-Mayor of Nyngan, and from a family of fifth generation Merino
>>>> sheep farmers who recently switched to wine production and exporting
>>>> - she pragmatically suggests a way forward, while I am 'inspired' to
>>>> produce an entirely different illustration than the one that remains
>>>> problematic for me and the client. What are these sites? Do they
>>>> arise from my struggle alone? Do they emerge from synchronous random
>>>> events that are not about design and also not about struggle? Or is
>>>> this simply another site of struggle? (after all, I did go hear the
>>>> Dalai Lama speak). Are they then legitimate sites/spaces for design
>>>> work? Can the housewife/ex-mayor be a collaborator in my design
>>>> work? Is there space in this collaboration for other (future) work?
>>>>
>>>> Can we conceive of a productive and 'collaborative' space as a coming
>>>> together (is this merely unproblematised collaboration?) of
>>>> things/ideas/views/perceptions, that produces other things (ideas/
>>>> processes/partnerships/products), or from which other things might
>>>> emerge, not in a strictly linear, sequential or temporal manner, but,
>>>> as Deleuze and Guttarri (1975, previously referenced) suggest,
>>>> rhizomic, and/or as Patti Lather (2007) suggests 'polytemporal', in
>>>> that working on a current issue/job/outcome that already is, I might
>>>> also predict that which is yet to come (a line of flight predicting
>>>> a future thought/enterprise/process). Am I not collaborating with
>>>> myself in a polytemporal space which specifically focuses on
>>>> possibilities rather than resolutions? Not sure.
>>>>
>>>> cheers, teena
>>>>
>>>> Lather, Patti, 2007, 'Getting Lost', State University of New York
>>>> Press, Albany
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
--
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/
