> The following interesting article may be of interest:
>
> Design as bricolage: anthropology meets design thinking
> Design Studies, Volume 20, Issue 6, November 1999, Pages 517-535
> Panagiotis Louridas
A very interesting article; thanks for the reference.
Having skimmed over the article, I have to admit that my definition
of "bricolage" (as well as "engineering" and "science") seems more
different than that of Levi-Strauss than my first impression
indicated. The comparison of bricolage to engineering struck me as
highly idealized:
"Whereas the engineer creates the means for the completion of his
work, the bricoleur redefines the means that he already has." (page 518)
"But the bricoleur asks his collection, whereas the engineer, like
the scientist, asks the universe. And, more important, the engineer
and the scientist seek to go beyond the constraints, pertaining to a
certain state of knowledge, presented to them, whereas the bricoleur
stays within them. The engineer and the scientist break down,
decompose and analyse; the bricoleur reorganises. The engineer and
the scientist abstract: they create and use concepts; the bricoleur
uses signs." (page 519)
These distinction doesn't mesh with my training or experience as an
engineer. What makes an engineer is (IMHO) rhetorical style and
perceptual focus; what is being argued about and focused on is mostly
irrelevant. Based on what is described in this paper, what modern
engineering education and practice seem to be aiming for are
predominantly bricoleurs.
That said, the paper does provide a succinct definition of design
based on the notion of bricolage:
"Design is a tinkering using materials which the designer cannot
freely select, and which have meanings which he cannot freely
specify, in order to make a structure fitting the structure of the
context." (page 532)
Rephrasing slightly, "Design is constrained tinkering intended to
suit a context". While this sounds nice, I have three issues:
1) Are there any circumstances where a designer *can* freely select
materials? (there are always resource limits)
2) Are there any circumstances where a designer *can* freely specify
meanings? (social constructionists might disagree)
3) How does this definition separate chance results from intentional
results? (and does doing so matter?)
Nice paper though; good and thought-provoking!
Jason
|