Hi John (Broadbent),

I agree with your emphasis on tacit knowledge (or: rather 'tacit knowing'
as Polyani and others preferred to label it, a verb form also recently
embraced in this list), although we need to reflect on how tacit knowing is
often misunderstood as being literally silent or 'implicit'. Tacit knowing
include what may be talked about* and initiating or 'inaugurating' others
into the particular design thinking and (alternative) solutions seems to be
very important in order to foster learning and make design strategic. Yet
this is not my first concern here, rather my question is more to the
following part of yours:

John Broadbent wrote:
..." Several members of this discussion group have commented in the past on
evolution as a pattern by which we may better understand design.  In
this context, I use the term 'evolution' in the manner proposed by
Fracchia & Lewontin(2002), "generative laws or mechanisms whose
operations produce the actual histories"."

Since this statement is put under the discussion thread "creativity" I
wonder how you more specifically relate creativity to these "generative
laws or mechanisms"? I have not read the reference you quote but as far as
I have understood evolutionary theories, they seem to leave out creativity
...or it remains as a problematic area or blindspot. Am I wrong or is this
your experience as well?

I am curious of this missing link since I am of course aware that "history
matters" as well as the (potentially creative) combined conception of past,
present and future. I have been wondering for a while on why and how
creativity does not seem to have a big place within evolutionary
perspectives ... perhaps you John or any of the other participants on this
list have more specific reflections here?

If we should critic at least part of the evolutionary perspectives in
relation to designing perhaps this is the point to do it best? I am clearly
in an inquirying (& pluralist) mode rather than propagating a fixed
position but if you want my preliminary thoughts these are:

... Although we embrace designing as development and emergence over time
(at least parts of) the evolutionary theories seem to be a possible "dead
end" missing out creative humans acting, interacting and co-creating in
novel and sometimes surprising ways beyond 'generative mechanisms' or some
kind of variation-selection-retention processes. This does not mean that I
do not recognize the value of routines and former types or classic
reference solutions in designing. However, the non-routine and potentially
creative aspects need to be explored too and how are these issues dealt
with from an evolutionary perspective? Are we left with the various forms
of innovation (incremental, radical, discontinous etc)?

By the way the not-so-predictable human co-creative aspects seem to be
related to what Klaus is trying to learn us on enabling action in designing
leaving freedom to do things in novel and hopefully more useful ways: from
my perspective narratives should enable, inform, suggest actions.  yes,
some verbal statements leave more freedom to do things with, but this does
not speak in favor of abstractions.

Best wishes,
Birgit Jevnaker
BI Norwegian School of Management, Sandvika outside Oslo
Also teaching regularly at Oslo School of Architecture & doing
collaborative research with NTNU in Trondheim.


*) Reference: I've briefly reflected on this (tacit knowing but even more
on the sustained practice of expressing design)e.g. in a previous paper in
Design Studies. See Birgit h Jevnaker (1993) "Inaugurative learning:
adapting a new design approach. Design Studies 4 (14), 379-401.