Dear Birger,

Overarching statements can be problematic. 

Does the ban on asking questions include questions involving reflection?

In ethnographic inquiries for example, it would be important that the researcher(s) leading the inquiry would deeply reflect whether indeed they have any preconceived ideas towards the culture (or situation) they intend to observe and how and where these might affect their views. Questioning one’s assumptions (not simply alone but in a group) is one way to reveal the biases.


 BR. Lily
**************************************
Dr./Professor Lily Díaz-Kommonen
Head of Research
Department of Media
Aalto University, School of Arts,
Design and Architecture
[log in to unmask]


> On 03 Jan 2016, at 13:03, Birger Sevaldson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dear Gjoko
> 
> You are entitled to be provoked by my post. I apologized up front and also for commenting out of context. I am looking forward to read your book.
> 
> Never the less the quotes where correct and I am disagreeing that the design process always starts with a question and I find this position outdated. I will concentrate on this issue.  There is so much to be said about this so I don’t know where to start. Let’s start with science.
> 
> There are some examples in research where asking questions in the outset is regarded as counterproductive and damaging. This position we can find in ethnographic inquiries where preconceptions can heavily bias the reading of another culture. It is also systematized in Grounded Theory where starting with a question would be disturbing the process of theory building. GT starts with observation and analyzes. So there are established modes of knowledge production that avoid formulating questions in the start. They avoid formulating questions in the start to avoid biases and preconceptions. These are ways of knowledge production that are relevant for design situations so I think this already justifies my critique on a level of discussing design as a knowledge producing activity.
> 
> The biggest problem with formulating questions in the start of a design process is that they are necessarily gross simplifications, seeking to extract some kind of essence and prioritize and single out the most important issues. This does not work in the real world. Well it works in the sense of providing a client with an illusion of low risk in solving simple problems but it does not work if you are addressing complex issues that need deep resolutions.
> 
> Regarding Wicked problems, I like Conklins reformulation of Rittel: 
> "The problem is not understood until after the formulation of a solution. " 
> I would say if you are able to formulate the main question in the beginning of the process you either already know the solution or you are working with very small singular problems. 
> The question is if such singular isolated problems really excist. It is immensely hard to formulate questions that cover dynamic complexities. It is better to formulate tasks and actions with reviewing learning outcomes for this. E.g. making probes or other provocations to learn how the systems will react. You can argue that there are questions prior to these actions and your right, but these are not the type of essential defining and guiding questions, but more like “lets try this and find out what happens”.
> 
> When formulating a question too early in the process you are at great risk of projecting your own preconceptions and skewed world views into the project. This will heavily color your conception and perception of the problem and hence bias the solution. It will be harder to overthrow the question and restart when you discover what other stuff you’d rather solve.
> 
> Another problem is that while you’re planning the system you plan for is changing so your question is quickly rendered irrelevant.
> 
> Yet another problem is that there are never singular problems but if you scratch the surface problems always are nested and interlinked into problem fields or problematiques. So solving single questions won’t work. You have to operate much more dynamically in these problem fields and be ready to change course and reformulate your “image” of the problematique.
> 
> There are ways of reducing these risks by starting design processes with observation. Very open-minded and open-ended investigations in the start will eventually lead to insights and the formulations of tasks, actions or formulation of questions. In Systems Oriented Design we have been especially aware of these issues and we have developed simple techniques for such open started processes that are formulated as very rapid learning processes. We start with (ideally) totally unfocussed investigations where the relevance filter is (ideally) turned off and information is collected and mapped without any initial intention ore vision of neither relevance nor solutions.  The main platform for these techniques is called Gigamapping.  
> 
> 
> Birger Sevaldson (PhD)
> Professor at Institute of Design
> Oslo School of Architecture and Design
> Norway
> Phone (0047) 9118 9544
> www.birger-sevaldson.no
> www.systemsorienteddesign.net
> www.ocean-designresearch.net
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------