Hi Chuck,

yes, perhaps 'situation' is useful after all in relation to what went 
before, thanks to Fil.
teena

>Teena, Glenn, Fil and all
>
>  Fil's term "situation" seems to best capture the focus of design 
>thinking for me. A "situation" always arises in the context of what 
>went before.  It is not problematic  if we can interpret and  act on 
>it satisfactorily with what we know already. If we can't  the 
>anomalies that remain constitute the "problematic " hot spots - the 
>wants and needs manifested by the situation. These needs and desires 
>have a higher emotional salience than other information in the 
>situation and motivate an intention to resolve them  - to 
>synthesize,  design, and express our thoughts about the situation in 
>context, over  time and with or without others involved.  Or so I 
>believe.
>
>To any of you interested in design in basic education the website 
>idesignthinking.com is back up.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>
>On Jun 30, 2008, at 8:00 PM, teena clerke wrote:
>
>>Hi Glenn,
>>
>>in picking up on your post, substituting 'task', 'challenge' or 
>>'puzzle' for 'problem', still seems to construct the design space 
>>as  a site of struggle in some way - which might also seem contrary 
>>to  the idea of design as collaboration (or is collaboration also 
>>seen  as a site of struggle, challenge, puzzle?).
>>
>>In thinking through what this might mean while walking my children 
>>to school, I wonder what might happen if we trouble this perhaps 
>>adversarial construction to allow for a 'collection' of words 
>>('working across multiple design sectors') rather than a single 
>>(problematic) term, that provide for descriptions of the design 
>>space as other than problem/task/challenge? Words like synchronic, 
>>serendipitous, synergous, might open a broader space for discussion 
>>about certain phases of the design process that disrupt the binary 
>>of 'smooth/problematic' temporal narratives of how it works in 
>>design - I prepare my children's school lunch, wonder what I might 
>>cook for dinner, worry about the (lack of) thesis writing, and 
>>think  through a tricky wine label design I have been working on 
>>for six  months. I go hear the Dalai Lama speak and lunch with a 
>>self- described 'housewife who sits in the corner' from Warren, who 
>>is  also the ex-Mayor of Nyngan, and from a family of fifth 
>>generation  Merino sheep farmers who recently switched to wine 
>>production and  exporting - she pragmatically suggests a way 
>>forward, while I am  'inspired' to produce an entirely different 
>>illustration than the  one that remains problematic for me and the 
>>client. What are these  sites? Do they arise from my struggle 
>>alone? Do they emerge from  synchronous random events that are not 
>>about design and also not  about struggle? Or is this simply 
>>another site of struggle? (after  all, I did go hear the Dalai Lama 
>>speak). Are they then legitimate  sites/spaces for design work? Can 
>>the housewife/ex-mayor be a  collaborator in my design work? Is 
>>there space in this collaboration  for other (future) work?
>>
>>Can we conceive of a productive and 'collaborative' space as a 
>>coming together (is this merely unproblematised collaboration?) of 
>>things/ideas/views/perceptions, that produces other things (ideas/ 
>>processes/partnerships/products), or from which other things might 
>>emerge, not in a strictly linear, sequential or temporal manner, 
>>but, as Deleuze and Guttarri (1975, previously referenced) suggest, 
>>rhizomic, and/or as Patti Lather (2007) suggests 'polytemporal', in 
>>that working on a current issue/job/outcome that already is, I 
>>might  also predict that which is yet to come (a line of flight 
>>predicting  a future thought/enterprise/process). Am I not 
>>collaborating with  myself in a polytemporal space which 
>>specifically focuses on  possibilities rather than resolutions? Not 
>>sure.
>>
>>cheers, teena
>>
>>Lather, Patti, 2007, 'Getting Lost', State University of New York 
>>Press, Albany
>>
>>>Hi to All,
>>>
>>>I've been lurking and reading the interesting ideas which
>>>have been proposed. But apparently the word "problem" causes
>>>more concern than need be the case. Here are some ideas to
>>>consider.
>>>
>>>The Psychology topic of "problem solving" apparently may be
>>>yielding some unanticipated concerns in conjunction with
>>>Design. Perhaps a different term might have been a better
>>>choice, such as "task," "challenge," or even "puzzle." I
>>>checked a few introductory psychology textbooks I have in my
>>>office. Although I didn't notice this before, authors talk
>>>about "problem solving" without sufficiently clarifying that
>>>a broad meaning is intended (instead of only "negative"
>>>instances).
>>>
>>>First, so far as I've known this body of theory and research
>>>over the past several decades, both "positive"
>>>and "negative" kinds of challenges are supposed to be
>>>considered within the "problem solving" literature.
>>>
>>>Second, it is noteworthy that the "problem solving"
>>>literature especially emphasizes diversity in "solutions."
>>>Thus the intent is to be open to various approaches instead
>>>of seeking only or mainly some "correct solution."
>>>
>>>Third, occasionally some authors have proposed a "problem
>>>solving" approach might be useful in helping us to
>>>understand "creativity."
>>>
>>>Glenn Snelbecker, Temple University, Philadelphia
>>>
>>>---- Original message ----
>>>>Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 01:28:52 +1000
>>>>From: teena clerke <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: 
>>>>Working across multiple design
>>>sectors (was A simple definition of 'Design'?)
>>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>>
>>>>Crawling from my bed very very early on this wintry Sydney
>>>morning, I
>>>>follow this 'line of flight' (Deleuze and Guattari 1975).
>>>>
>>>>What might happen if I conceptualise design spaces not as
>>>problem
>>>>spaces, and thus design outcomes NOT as evidence of having
>>>solved
>>>>problems - how else might they be seen? In the process of
>>>designing,
>>>>as is often the case, other possibilities emerge but are
>>>rejected as
>>>>being 'not right' by particular stakeholders (but not me?).
>>>What of
>>>>these other design possibilities? Might my portfolio
>>>perhaps also
>>>>represent in my memory the lost possibilities of each job?
>>>I have
>>>>stories for every job represented as an outcome in my
>>>portfolio, of
>>>>the 'one that got away', the 'great idea' the client did
>>>not go for,
>>>>or those that couldn't be 'resolved'. Does this not
>>>represent a
>>>>problem for design spaces conceptualised as
>>>problem 'solving'? In
>>>>this space, are there only solid, concrete, stable,
>>>sanctioned
>>>>winners as represented in the portfolio? And if so, what
>>>happens to
>>>>the other possibilities? Do they remain, problematic,
>>>ghostlike in
>>>>our stories? Do they emerge perhaps in other jobs? What if
>>>we
>>>>conceptualise the design space as one of possibility? How
>>>then might
>>>>we speak of our work?
>>>>
>>>>teena
>>>>
>>>>Deleuze, G. and Guattari, F., 1975, from 'A thousand
>>>Plateaus:
>>>>Capitalism and Schizophrenia', from 'Introduction:
>>>Rhizome', cited in
>>>>Norton's Anthology, p. 1595 (sorry, don't the have full
>>>publication
>>>>details).
>>>>
>>>>>Teena et al,
>>>>>
>>>>>Re: your first paragraph.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't know about Gavin, but I think your description
>>>fits
>>>>>beautifully with how I see designing - including
>>>engineering
>>>>>designing.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now please have mercy as I'm about to use words in ways to
>>>which
>>>>>some may be unaccustomed, but it's the words that work
>>>best for me &
>>>>>my background.
>>>>>
>>>>>Designing usually (in my experience, always) begins with
>>>an analytic
>>>>>stage.  The designer, confronted with a new situation, is
>>>unlikely
>>>>>to "fit" into it / understand it very well.  The designer
>>>will then
>>>>>try to figure out what the "real problem" is - what's
>>>missing from
>>>>>the way things are.  This requires a rather deep
>>>understanding.
>>>>>
>>>>>Teena, this is where your brainstorm, etc, happens.  My
>>>perspective
>>>>>is that the problem is there, you just don't recognize it
>>>as such,
>>>>>because (and I'm guessing here) "problems" exist in "more
>>>corporate
>>>>>design" settings.  Your "problem", generally, is finding
>>>the right
>>>>>image/visualization to communicate certain emotions &
>>>other info to
>>>>>specific individuals or groups.
>>>>>
>>>>>The study of the situation your in - aka the problem you
>>>have to
>>>>>solve - will map key features/points/aspects to certain
>>>>>memories/emotions/capabilities you have stored in your
>>>brain.  To do
>>>>>this you have to take the situation/problem
>>>apart...."deconstruct"
>>>>>is perhaps too overloaded a word.  That is, you're
>>>analyzing the
>>>>>situation (perhaps inspirationally - whatever works best
>>>for you!)
>>>>>and connecting the dots in your head.
>>>>>
>>>>>Put another way, you're finding a way to overlap your
>>>perception of
>>>>>the actual situation onto your own mental structures and,
>>>thus,
>>>>>absorb/understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then you start coming up with something that will change
>>>the
>>>>>situation in a beneficial/desirable/required way.  Some
>>>people call
>>>>>this designing, but it can't happen except in the most
>>>trivial cases
>>>>>without first understanding the current situation (the
>>>analysis), so
>>>>>I think of designing as including both the analytic and
>>>(sorry for
>>>>>the next word, no offence intended again) synthetic.
>>>>>
>>>>>At least, that's how I see it.
>>>  >>
>>>>>Re: your second paragraph
>>>>>
>>>>>I'd say the temporal ordering of tasks will vary from
>>>situation to
>>>>>situation.  But the tasks themselves will be there sooner
>>>or later,
>>>>>and that there will be many similar situations that will
>>>end up with
>>>>>task orderings that are very similar too, and that might
>>>be assumed
>>>>>permanent features by those who are often involved in
>>>those
>>>>>situations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>teena clerke wrote:
>>>>>>Hi Gavin,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I am mindful that there are also spaces in which design
>>>operates
>>>>>>that are not seen as being problem-based, so articulating
>>>design
>>>>>>space as 'problem' space may be misleading and also
>>>limiting.
>>>>>>Suffice to say that in my experience, design can occur as
>>>a way of
>>>>>>thinking, practicing, experimenting, researching (before
>>>picking up
>>>>>>the drawing implement, I always list, brainstorm, play
>>>with words),
>>>>>>and then doing/making/visualising, etc, without there
>>>being a
>>>>>>'problem' as such. In fact, many of my designs, and
>>>particularly
>>>>>>illustrations are conceived and then executed this way.
>>>Is this
>>>>>>design? Is it practiced within a 'problem' space? Can
>>>design space
>>>>>>be articulated as occurring within 'inspirational' space
>>>without
>>>>>>there ever being a problematic? I suggest so, but suspect
>>>not in
>>>>>>the realms where more corporate design resides.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Further, in my experience, the way you have worded the
>>>proposal
>>>>>>suggests that design is linear, and we can also 'suspend
>>>the desire
>>>>>>to draw', when in fact, drawing, mark making, and so on
>>>are very
>>>>>>much a part of the 'thinking', 'researching'
>>>and 'defining'
>>>>>>activities - a bit chicken and egg really. They don't
>>>seem to have
>>>>>>formal stops and starts, and are not easily articulated
>>>as a linear
>>>>>>process, or even a circular sequential process, nor do
>>>they occur
>>>>>>in isolation or explicitly in teams (in fact,
>>>frustratingly, they
>>>>>>most often occur just when you crawl into bed at night -
>>>try and
>>>>>>categorise that!). Very tricky process this, attempting
>>>to find
>>>>>>commonalities without also excluding. But still, in my
>>>opinion, a
>>>>>>commendable one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And might I suggest that it might also be useful to
>>>explore this
>>>>>>question empirically with your design students and
>>>practitioners,
>>>>>>beyond the 'research space' of this list and beyond
>>>the 'academic
>>>>>>space' of the university. These questions are really
>>>useful ones
>>>>>>particularly at this 'defining' time in the disciplinary
>>>>>>development of design, and ones that might be illuminated
>>>through
>>>>>>speaking with practitioners who might thus provide
>>>insights into
>>>>>>these very interesting ideas that blow the 'problem'
>>>space wide
>>>>>>open.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>so, I ended up with a long response. hope you find it
>>>useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>teena
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
>>>>>Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
>>>>>Ryerson University
>>>>>350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
>>>>>Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
>>>>>Fax: 416/979-5265
>>>>>Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>http://deseng.ryerson.ca/~fil/
>>>Glenn E. Snelbecker, Ph.D., Professor, Temple University