Hi Laughlan,
The key to understanding the gestation, illumination phases lie in a
different arena.
A designer does not do these things by thinking. They temporarily usurp
the bodies homeostasis processes to represent complex dimensions of problem
and solutions physically in the body by small shifts in hormone levels,
posture etc (secondarily represented in the brain). This functioning is well
documented and has been well known (except apparently in the design research
field) since the 80s. Current theory models in the literature of design
research about creativity, intuition, design judgement and problems solving
etc are 'fallacious' in that they do not align with what actually happens.
As Dick pointed out we are in need of some serious revision in the field
over and beyond these conversations.
Best wishes,
Terry
____________________
Dr. Terence Love, PhD, FRDS, AMIMechE
Curtin Research Fellow
Design-focused Research Group, Design Out Crime Group
Key Researcher at Centre for Extended Enterprise and Business Intelligence
Research Associate at Planning and Transport Research Centre
Curtin University, PO Box U1987, Perth, Western Australia 6845
Mob: 0434 975 848, Fax +61(0)8 9305 7629, [log in to unmask]
Visiting Professor, Member of Scientific Council
UNIDCOM/ IADE, Lisbon, Portugal
Visiting Research Fellow, Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise
Development
Management School, Lancaster University,Lancaster, UK,
[log in to unmask]
____________________
-----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 Dr.
Lauchlan A. K. Mackinnon
Sent: Friday, 30 March 2007 5:12 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: wicked problems
David,
There is a lot to reply to here, so this will be a short note.
1. From my point of view your description below conflates what I would call
convergent / divergent *problems* with convergent / divergent *thinking*.
Both convergent and divergent thinking may be deployed in relation to
convergent problems - but convergent problems may not require divergent
thinking. A well formed algebra problem for example could be solved by
applying algebra methods taught at school.
2. rather than looking at things in terms of convergent and divergent
problems, I'd typically look at things in terms of the Wallas stage model of
creative illumination, where a 'problem' is worked on using whatever methods
and this may lead to a 'solution'. However, many 'problems' hold out against
this sustained effort, and on the one hand an ever increasing range of
creative approaches are used and on the other the 'problem' begins to be
internalised into the subconscious and churns around in an 'incubation'
phase there. Eventually, something clicks on a subconscious level and an
illumination insight breaks through (often dramatically) into conscious
awareness.
3. in the above model, thereis typically a stage of 'problem finding' where
an initially vague and ill-defined investigation may be progressively
redefined as progressively more explicit and well defined 'problem
situations'.
4. this progression may involve redfining the context (underlying 'paradigm'
or mindset) in which the problem is understood (this is well defined in the
Wertheimer model).
With the above in mind, I'd view convergent *problems* as those that are
readily solved using relatively conventional tools and may have relatively
straightforward and well-defined 'right' answers, and divergent *problems*
as those that require more creative thinking and may afford a wide range of
'correct' answers.
This is my best answer for a few minutes before I dash off to work, anyway!
I may change my position later. ;)
Regards
Lauchlan Mackinnon
Hi Lauchlan,
I am very conversant with the literature, it has been an interest for
many years. The two links you provide support my point. These are
about creative thinking, not about the nature of the problem. Given
that these are modes of thinking, I still cannot see how you map
these onto the nature of the problem. Your characterisation of these
bipolar modes of thinking seems to match one style of thinking to a
particular style of problem. This is hardly ever so. Guildford,
Hudson [and many since] recognised that both modes of thinking must
be employed in any non trivial problem solving exercise. If divergent
thinking is about the production of lots of ideas (that we respect
equally blah blah), what then is a divergent problem? One that
produces many solutions? If so, I suspect a bit of convergency is
required to come to a single answer that a designer's client can
use! This then contradicts your assertion that divergency of thought
is required to crack a 'divergent' problem. You also seem to equate
convergency with ordinary thinking, and divergency with creative
original thought (a dangerous game!). I suggest that, for example,
much work in science and technology has emerged from strongly
convergent thought, mixed perhaps with a bit of divergency and some
intuition at the right points. Both are needed. One could perhaps
say that certain occupational groups lead with one mode rather than
the other, and in this sense [art and] designers may be seen to be
more divergent than say engineering designers. This is borne out in
personality type profiles.
In any case, I have often felt that a lot of what designers do (in an
art and design context rather than a technology context) is
characterised more by opportunity-seeking than by problem-solving.
David
________________________________________________________________________
______
David Durling FDRS . Professor of Design . School of Arts &
Education, Middlesex University,
Cat Hill, Barnet, Hertfordshire, EN4 8HT, UK . tel: 020 8411 5108 (24
hour answering machine)
international: + 44 20 8411 5108 . email: [log in to unmask] .
email: [log in to unmask]
web: http://www.dartevents.net http://www.durling.co.uk
|