Dear Chris, Terry, Norm, and Chuck,

Thanks for this excellent thread on design learning. The overlapping
range of issues and distinctions opens territory for useful
reflection.

The first territory worth considering is exchange on distinctions
between "design learning" and "learning."

It is clear that many aspects of design learning are much the same as
other kinds of learning. It also seems that there is value in
designating some forms of activity as design learning.

One distinction between general learning and design learning is the
fact that design learning takes place within a design context. The
label "design" in "design learning" is an adjective and boundary word
that establishes context and purpose.

Some argue that taxonomy should, in theory, distinguish among
different kinds and classes of without overlaps. While this may be
true of natural phenomena, I suspect that this may not always be the
case for social phenomena. We live in a world where intentionality
and context may require similar (or the same) phenomena to fulfill
different roles in different taxa. The taxon "design learning" may
well be distinct from the taxon "learning" even though many of the
activity streams in each taxon are the same.

The concept of design learning involves teleological issues along
with epistemological and ontological issues.

One thing that is worth noting is the range of issues in which design
learning also overlaps the field of organizational learning. The
literature of organizational learning and knowledge creation offers
fruitful sources of inquiry and reflection. It is not coincidental
that Donald Schon and Chris Argyris are key figures in the literature
of reflective practice for the professions and in the literature of
organizational learning.

This brought me to an intuitive connection that I will explore
further on another occasion, and that is the relationship between
design learning, professional practice, and research.

At the 1999 UIAH conference in Helsinki, Tore Kristensen described
the qualifies of a progressive research program in design. (I
restructured Tore's model for a presentation at IDATER 2000 in
Loughborough, so he cannot be blamed if my restatement seems
inadequate.)

In essence, a progressive research program in design 1) builds a body
of generalized knowledge, 2) improves problem solving capacity, 3)
generalizes knowledge into new areas, 4) identifies value creation
and cost effects, 5) explains differences in design strategies and
their risks or benefits, 6) generates learning on the individual
level, 7) generates collective learning, and 8) generates
meta-learning.

There are striking parallels between the features of a progressive
research program and the features of a situated learning cycle
embedded in the context of design practice.

This is not a fully formed argument or an articulated demonstration.
I am proposing this as a concept worth exploring.

I have been learning a great deal from Chuck's exchange with Norm on
different aspects of learning and the cultural frames within which
learning takes place. I find myself agreeing with - and learning from
- both positions and the distinctions that emerge in the dialogue.

This reminds me of Niels Bohr's famous comment, "There are trivial
truths and great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly
false. The opposite of a great truth is also true."

Best regards,

Ken

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University