Design Theory Model

• Last year, other groups chose…
• Parents
• Kids
• Non-Profit
• Teachers
• Based on the organization you pick, you can start to work with this group
• You have to pick some of the ways to share the core characteristics of design that you think the group would benefit from.
• “If you think they would benefit from doing something in a designerly way” share that with them.
• Pick several key points and then present it to them!
• Pick a Group
• Pick a Topic
• Pick a Method
• Present it to them!
• You have to think about what design is
• Then you have to chose something from that
• Then you have to think about what you client needs
• Then you have to find a way to figure these out
• NOTE: You don’t have to have a real client. You can make up a fake group!
• The goal is to see how we think about design, and what aspects we pick, not to see your client interaction.
• (From Bob:) Personas would be a good idea!
• 5 Minute, professional presentation

Rationality

• Comes from the French reason, leading to “thinking”
• Being rational is about having a reason for what you do
• Logical
• Economic
• Efficient
• Using the least energy as possible
• Basically, does it make sense???
• Not necessarily is it the “right” thing
• Is there an argument behind it?
• Is there a reason behind it?
• Not being rational, or being irrational, they’re acting without reason. They just do stuff
• What did Simon get out of all this?
• He argued that there is a danger if people have a preconceived notion of rationality.
• If you don’t really know what it means, you can make poor judgments
• In our world today, people have ways to narrow understanding and definition. How to approach things in a rational way… If you approach something in too narrow of a way, you will judge actions as irrational even if its not.
• How do you judge something as rational or irrational?
• Look at the outcome!
• If the outcome is the expected outcome
• Its probably rational
• BUT
• To solve a difficult design task… Erik’s rational solution is to go for a run.
• When he gets back he usually gets ideas.
• Is that rational???
• Why is going for a run funny vs. “reviewing all the data from the beginning” funny?
• What are our “rataional” ways?
• Running
• Going to a symphony
• Walking outside
• Talking to people!
• (From Eugene:) How do you say if something is rational or not? Is there a central definition of what’s rational or not? Isn’t it pretty subjective?
• From Erik: I want you to ask yourself those sorts of questions… There are situations where people will assume there is a correct way of understanding or approaching something. Its always important to constantly critique, evaluate, re-evaluate, etc.
• In certain areas there may be certain ways that you’ll want to perfectly define what rational behavior is (e.g. In a nuclear power plant… what to do in the control room if an alarm goes off. This is probably not a good time to go for a run.)
• Rationality and Accountability are very linked in this way.
• In a design project the accountability aspect is not as difficult (Probably not getting shot if the design isn’t done the next morning.)
• Bounded Rationality – Not complete, not perfect
• Simon however believes that even within a bounded rationality we can still do things in a logical, scientific way.
• From the 1800s on, there is a movement to make things more logical / scientific.
• Belief arose that if you can be “rational” you can solve any problem. (Of course, this led to electricity, roads, the internet, buildings, cars, etc.)
• This approach drove the industrial revolution!
• Since this approach was so successful, many people wanted to try and copy this process and apply it to other areas.
• You however can’t use the same rationality in a different field and expect to get the exact same results.
• Even in the not to logical rationality, there is always a question of discipline.

Donald Schön

• Some of his most famous “research” is sitting next to a single student in architecture for 15 minutes and then writes a chapter about it.
• He was a philosopher by training. As a result, very much focused on ideas!
• Also, very focused on how we think about ideas
• Focused on the notion of knowing in action.
• To know something in a profession is being able to do it
• Its the knowing “in action” that counts.
• Also, can mean knowing about other ideas.
• “Hands on” doesn’t literally mean using hands, it means you can apply what you know in context, its not about the general, its about the specific / particular
• Schön argues that you can reflect on your actions afterwards. Most formal educational methods do this.
• Heidegger (philosopher) when you get really into something, you aren’t focused on what you know, you’re focused on what you’re trying to do unless you do a breakdown. Sometimes though, the tool doesn’t work and its like you wake up and realize that you haven’t separated the idea from yourself
• What can we learn from the breakdown
• You have to reflect on what you’re doing every time so you don’t make a mistake in the future. This is when learning occurs.
• Marty says… fail early… fail often… fail bad.
• When you fail, you have the time to understand and realize what you did wrong which can hopefully lead to learning.
• Technical Rationality – the way we teach problem solving in higher education
• We have constraints, so, for example, if we’re working on a project then time might be a constraint.
• This isn’t really focused on solving messy, wicked problems.
• “When you live in the world, it feels like being in a swamp. There is no firm ground to stand on. There might be small hills of firm ground.” Technical rationality is really focused on those small areas of firm ground since they are stable and nice and easy to be on. They are however very rare. In the real world, you basically try to survive because you’re drowning, not standing on nice firm ground.
• “The plunge into the doing”
• A lot of students don’t have a clue, don’t know what they’re looking for, but they keep doing it anyway and eventually, hopefully, get a clue.
• You can’t necessarily recognize the outcome before you reach it.
• Form groups and come up with 3 points: Practical sense of how Schön defines reflection and action… How can that be manifested in the actions / doings of a designer?
• My Group:
• Doing things, like blogging, to constantly reflect on what it is that you’re doing / what’s going on / etc. Sometimes too, capturing the exact process used in the project is incredibly helpful too so you can reflect on the process as well.
• Updating the client and other members of you team on where you are in the process, what’s up next, what you’ve done, and what you will do and discussing feedback. If you are able to vocalize what you’ve done, explain it to the client, and take feedback, it kind of forces you to see where you are in the process.
• Before the release of the final version, do a sort of “pilot” test to get opinions from others, peers, clients, adversaries, and then look at the design through the eyes of these people.
• Arguments
• When do you have time to reflect? That’s a lot of work!
• When you get to a point that you can actually come up with criticism, you have to critique that criticism!
• Having a relationship between master / apprentice will be incredibly expensive
• Its important to realize that there is a difference between understanding ideas and accepting them!
• For Example… Erik really enjoys listening to / reading about several philosophers, but he disagrees with about everything they have to say!

Even though we move away from traditional / technical rationality, that doesn’t mean that “anything goes.” The rationality inherent in design is as disciplined as any other rationality. If someone tells you that a designer is very creative and intuitive… it doesn’t matter… you can do whatever you want. Well, that’s true. You can. But, that doesn’t mean they aren’t disciplined. They know exactly what they can do, when to do it, how to do it. Is not a lack of discipline, its just different from technical rationality.