dear ken,
i am glad we seem to get on the same page. for you this was accomplished by
separating motivations from research questions that designers may ask
themselves. i want to make two comments:
first, as you know, i am not a mentalist and i am not saying that motives
are some kind of hidden mental drivers of cognitive processes or behavior.
to me -- and based on a long history of inquiries on anthropology, sociology
and language studies -- motives are what people say why they do what they
do. sometimes motives are asserted before engaging in an activity,
sometimes afterwards. but since they are always asserted to someone, they
cannot be separated from their social role, which psychological, mental, or
cognitive explanations cannot grasp.
second, i am not willing to separate motives from the research questions
that designers need to ask. when one is motivated by a problem, one asks
different kinds of questions than when one is motivated by the perception of
opportunities. i am nor so sure what questions one would ask when motivated
by varying something aimlessly. i suppose these might concern what others
think of doing something aimlessly, the resistance experienced or the
freedom granted to do so. when motivated by a problem, research questions
turn to what can be done to solve it. when motivated by perceived
opportunities, research questions might turn to how one can convince others
of the benefits of change.
in other words, motivations, especially when conceived as asserted by
designers, not in the abstract, do have an effect on the research question
that designers tend to ask themselves
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and
related research in Design [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Ken Friedman
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Three motives for design -- reply to Klaus
Dear Klaus,
Thank you for your replies Sunday and yesterday.
Tried to post an earlier draft of this note on
Monday. I hope it gets through now. Perhaps
JISCMAIL held me back while waiting for your
reply to Chris.
These two posts clarify things beautifully. It
seems to me that we have been describing two
different things. You are describing the
motivations for design. The earlier contributions
to the thread involved research questions,
approaches to research rather than design issues.
In my response of February 15, I was discussing
approaches to two processes, design, and design
research. I acknowledged, "motives are another
matter" (Friedman 2006). I have not discussed the
MOTIVES for design until this post.
I agree with you. The three motives you describe seem to cover all cases:
1. Reactive.
2. Proactive
3. Playful.
These three terms describe the motives for
design. While there may be many motives of
different kinds, these three terms seem to cover
all of them.
While these three adjectives cover all motives,
it is difficult to find SHORT verb phrases
describing the process these adjectives typify.
Without committing myself to a position on this,
it seems to me that the three adjectives
describing reactive motivation, proactive
motivation, and playful motivation can be turned
into process nouns: reaction, action, play. In
contrast, I'm not sure that the three verbs
react, act, play mean quite the same thing. It is
clear that some of the earlier sets of verb
phrases used to describe approaches to design
research don't quite capture it - they became
cumbersome without achieving the coverage of your
three simple words: reactive, proactive, playful.
That may account for some of the misreading and
ambiguity in this thread. Rather than struggle
with active verb phrases to capture these
distinctions, I will use your adjectives.
My earlier posts were an attempt to describe
different aspects of the design process and the
research process. I did not attempt to describe
the motives for design or for design research. I
suspect that your three motives - reactive,
proactive, and playful - work for researchers as
well as for designers. There are many kinds of
researchers. Scientists are one kind. While
scientists seek knowledge for its own sake, they
may do so as play, but they also seek knowledge
in response to assignments or as a way to develop
something. Even here, all three motives seem to
work. This is my view, though, and I am not
asking you to accept it. I am simply applying
these three motives to a case that also seems to
suit them. Perhaps that's a topic for another
thread.
Thanks again for this clarification on motives.
It offers a good model of motivation - REASONS
FOR design or design research. This is different
than an attempt to describe approaches to design
and design research - HOW we do them.
In the exchange between you and Chris, I feel
that Chris is describing process and you are
working with motivation and process both. In
terms of process, the three ways of working often
overlap. For example, proactive seeking is -- to
borrow Simkon's words -- an attempt to transform
an existing situation into a preferred situation.
This is even the case when the existing situation
is not identified as a "problem" or an
"undesirable situation." The proactive designer
may nevertheless seek a preferred situation. The
simple motive that starts this process may lead
to several steps across different kinds of
process.
Thanks again for these clarifications.
Yours,
Ken
Reference
Friedman, Ken. 2006. "Subject: Solve, seek,
create -- short reply to Klaus." PhD-Design List.
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:01:28 +0100.
--
[1]
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
dear ken,
when rosan was referring to an earlier
distinction of mine, you are right, i didn't feel
compelled to correct her characterization as it
was quite adequate in the context in which she
was using it. you defended your rephrasing her
characterization rather than mine by saying that
you didn't have mine handy. indeed, how could
anyone keep track of all that is said on the
list. however, you cited my post in which i had
just quoted what i had written in the semantic
turn and further elaborated by suggesting:
equating A = reactive, B = proactive, and C =
playful. you clearly had the choice of
reformulation rosan or mine or both wordings.
you say "playing" is an action verb that could
denote a purposive activity and one that is not.
true enough. playing a musical instrument or a
sport, for example. but in my original
formulation i didn't use the word "playing." i
spoke of "introduc(ing) variation into the world
that others may not dare to consider, creating
something new and exciting -- just as poets,
painters, and composers do -- aimlessly and for
fun." rosan used similar words (quite restlessly,
perhaps just for fun, not necessarily making
something better). in my subsequent
interpretation, i spoke of playfulness, which in
my reading entails the aimlessness i had referred
to earlier. "playful" is not the same as
"playing." in your own post you included the
equation: "playful or purposeless variation,"
which is what i had in mind.
o.k., you are right to resist being labeled for
the direction of your rephrasing of what others
wrote. so, let readers make their own label.
personally, the five categories that you are now
proposing seem confusing to me. i was merely
grouping motivations -- the answers that
designers could give for getting involved in a
design activity -- into three kinds. i was
concerned with accountability in terms of which
different kinds of knowledges, processes, and
methods become justified. i had no intention of
stating or developing a model. commenting on my
formulations without using them, you said that
chuck burnette and i see things differently. you
too.
˜klaus
[2]
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006, Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
often we are struggling with the meaning of words
that serve as shortcuts for longer explanations.
so let's drop aimlessness, playfulness, and flow,
and simply categorize what designers say when ask
why they did what they did:
A) they may say they perceived a problem in need
of a solution, a conflict in need of resolution,
something that hurtful but shouldn't, an
abnormality, a disease, but also something that
needs to be fixed as a condition of employment
-- these are all undesirable, unworking (not yet
working) situations that are perceived as outside
the designer's doings and to be reacted to.
(B) they may see an opportunity to change
something for the better that others do not (yet)
realize. i.e., there is no problem, no
undesirable situation
(C) there is no motivation present: a change was
said to be introduced for its own sake, the
designer does not know why s/he altered
something, or had nothing but fun while doing it
-- without an externally defined goal without a
measurable criterion -- even if it turns into a
success story afterwards and for others, and even
if making those changes had been preceded by
mastery, competence, or authority.
i am not taking a position on what is preferable,
but am merely acknowledging that designers can do
something other than A or B. i called it aimless
because the designer cannot name any aim, i
called it playful because it often C is
accompanied by having fun, enjoying the
introduction of changes as insignificant as
complicating a contour, wearing a different shirt
today, or going down the slope by letting gravity
and one's own movements determine how
--
Ken Friedman
Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Institute for Communication, Culture, and Language
Norwegian School of Management
Center for Design Research
Denmark's Design School
+47 46.41.06.76 Tlf NSM
+47 33.40.10.95 Tlf Privat
email: [log in to unmask]
|
