If your coffee breaks are that deep and intellectual, I can imagine what is
it when you start working.
At coffee break, I usually relax and think about the end of the day and a
real coffee shop (or a bar) where I can meet someone and have fun.
Now about design and design studies. All this discussion can take much
different direction if we look at design as an activity and approach it
from the vantagepoint of theory of activity. I have mentioned this a couple
of times before, but nobody pays attention to it. You might say that the
readings you know will not help much, and this is true. But, there are a
lot of developments in the area of action/activity theory that can be very
helpful. I know several research centers or at least individuals in (West)
Germany and Russia (USSR) that were heavily engaged with such research
during the 70's and the 80's. May be they still are.
>From the position of theory of action, our coffee talk s about knowing and
doing and it can be transcribed in terms of knowledge and skills, know-how
(how to do), or methodology. The approach and the terminology are very
important for the subsequent line of thinking and understanding both the
problem and the phenomenon. At this moment, we on the list use the term
"knowledge" for denoting several different phenomena. This brings us in a
circular movement and all kinds of endless questions. Although we imply, we
do not use the terms "skill" or "know-how" (I don not mean know-how in the
way it is used in business and technology, although the conceptual origin
is the same.).
There are several studies on activity using skiing as a an empirical
material. It is like our bicycling. There are action studies on the process
of learning, etc. (Unfortunately I do not remember bibliographic
references). All of them are interesting not only in conceptual and
terminological aspect, but also from a methodological point of view. It is
not that easy to study human action and how people do things. I have
experienced this when I studied how facility programmers do programming.
What about if we start discussing the types of knowledge involved in
design, the process of acquiring knowledge, the process of utilization of
knowledge, the formation of skills, etc.
My big question to the reserarchers on this list is if we go on with the
coffee talk, don't we risk to reinvent the wheel that was already invented
by researchers in the fields of psychology, sociology, and so forth.
However, my big question to the designers on this list is if we become
experts on this, will we design better? Do people who become professors in
sexual behavior make sex better? Are there professors in sex in this room?
Regards,
Lubomir Popov
PS I am not sending an invitation for a new string. Let's keep to the
old one, but in a new way.
At 12:18 PM 10/11/2000 +0200, Tim Smithers wrote:
>Dear Klaus and Sid,
>
>Your question, Klaus,
>
> "so, we can talk about design without knowing
> whether we can do it. but what is it that
> one is then describing?"
>
>is not just a very good one, it is, I think, also
>a very important one for design research, given
>that much design research is based upon observing
>what designers do when they do designing.
>
>This second-order first-person engagement (watching),
>as you say Sid, gets us a kind of understanding
>(a kind of knowing), but, as you ask Klaus, an
>understanding (a kind of knowing) of what?
>
>second-order first-person engagement [I'll call this
>sofp for short)] can get us a good understanding
>of how cogs work in gearboxes; what their function
>is and how they function, but in this case, and in
>others like it, there is no knowing needed by
>what is being observed---the cog does not need to
>know anything in order to be a good cog and work
>properly.
>
>The situation is, I think, very different when
>we have sofp observations of processes or
>activities that do (necessarily) involve knowing
>and practice on the part of the agents (or
>agencies) that are responsible for realising
>the process.
>
>So, Sid, I think I understand, and accept, what
>an sofp-based understanding of the workings of
>cogs (and similar things) is about, but what
>is an sofp-based understanding of designing about?
>
>If you respond by saying it's an understanding about
>designing, then how is this understanding different
>from the first-order first-person engagement (doing)
>based understanding the designer or designers have
>about designing?
>
>With this distinction made clearer, and got out
>into the open, I think we might start to usefully
>ask how (if at all) sofp-based understanding
>(knowing) might usefully inform (or even form at
>least some of) first-order first-person engagement
>based understanding (knowing). In other words,
>how (if at all) design research (based upon observing
>designers designing) can properly support the teaching
>of designing?
>
>Thanks to you, Klaus and Sid, for setting these thoughts
>off with your respective posts!
>
>Best regards,
>
>Tim Smithers
>CEIT, Donostia / San Sebastián
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|