Dear all,
a notorious communication pattern is showing up
again. I would like to contribute to avoiding the
well-known end of this kind of debate.
If I remember right, then this thread started
with a discussion about 3-phase models of the
design process.
Anyway, I come back to this issue and invite you
to give this debate a cybernetic turn. To look at
it in a cybernetic spirit. Circularity, feedback,
self-reference, etc. are the keywords. Also
groundlessness and these infamous concepts.
Many design and many learning process models have a 4- or 3-step structure.
Most 4-step models go back to Kolbīs theory of
experiential learning. In my terminology I call
the steps research - analysis - synthesis -
realization.
And most 3-step models can be mapped to Peirceīs
3-step logic of Induction - Abduction -
Deduction. In my terminology: Analysis -
Projection - Synthesis. In Nelson (since Haroldīs
name appeared) and Stoltermanīs terminology: the
true - the ideal - the real.
4- and 3-step models can be closely related to
each other, an advantage of the 3-step models is
that the abductive step is made explicit.
What is important: Both models are circular. If
this is taken seriously, then they have neither a
beginning nor an end. It was only the more or
less arbitrary sequencing of pragmatic (not
pragmatist) method designers that contributed to
the establishment of the procedures we are
argueing about.
Have a look at Richard Bolandīs article "Design
in the Punctuation of Management Action" in
Managing as Designing 2004. Boland refers to Karl
Weickīs 3-step model of Intelligence - Design -
Choice (in my terminology: Analysis - Projection
- Synthesis). The model allows 6 different
combinations of the 3 steps. And Weick argues
that four of them are deficient, whereas two of
them make sense: Intelligence - Design - Choice
(Analysis - Projection - Synthesis) and Design -
Intelligence - Choice (Projection - Analysis -
Synthesis). Here projection comes before analysis.
What did I want to say? Designing / learning are
cybernetic processes. The entry point is - in
principle - arbitrary. In reality it should be
carefully chosen with respect to the context,
i.e. the design / learning situation we find
ourselves in.
---
By the way: My hypothesis is that not only
designing / learning but also design research is
a cybernetic process of this type. But this would
be another debate.
Best wishes,
Jonas
|