"Design" "Classification"

Dorst describing the design process says:

The designer, in his/her paradoxical problematic situation, needs to construct a design that transcends or connects the different discourses, in a general sense (by the construction of a meta-discourse), or just in the concrete instance of the design-to-be developed. To do this, the designer has to step out of the ways of thinking embodied in the discourses. This step is likely to include a strong intuitive element. Based upon a clear understanding of the discourses, and upon earlier experiences with paradoxical situations, a solution is created that needs to be evaluated from the standpoints of all the different discourses (i.e., to see that the solution is valuable within the relevant discourses). Designers use their understanding of the ways of thinking within the different discourses to create a framework in which a solution is possible for the paradoxical situation. The paradoxical problem situation works as both a trigger to creative imagination and as a context for the evaluation of the design. For the solution to be a solution, it needs to be recognized as such in the contexts of all the relevant discourses.

This description reminded me the notion of statically indeterminate problems that we have in engineering structural analysis. Let me try to see if I can describe this intuitive spark here. The above description of design says that we cannot get to design by staying in the ways of thinking embodied in the discourses. That is a design problem is indeterminate by staying within the ways of thinking of the discourses. "The paradoxical problem situation works as both a trigger …" (the paradox makes it determinate). We have to get to a solution that meets standpoints of all the different discourses. Sounds like solving simultaneous equations; isn’t it!

In structural analysis we have statically determinate problems and statically indeterminate problems. We also have linear and nonlinear problems. This classification of structural analysis problems is based on the kind of knowledge and process needed for reaching to a solution. In the class we used the "Boundary Work" tool to understand design. What I was thinking that can we use "classification" as a tool that we used in earlier classes to understand design and that might provide some new or better insights. We can classify different types of design perhaps based on the kind of knowledge and thinking process needed. Something like Bloom’s taxonomy. I looked up Google with the term "Taxonomy of Design" and it led me to at least one site [click here] where someone is considering something like that.

Is it valuable to analyze "design" by "classification"?

On a couple of week 4 readings

There is a continuous tone of concern against how classification and categorization is used which I found a little difficult to connect with while reading Bowker and Star. However as they say "To Classify is Human." The very basic manifestation of this is language in which we use words to label things and concept. There is no language in my knowledge which does not have adjectives. I find it interesting that to describe something we compare it with something else. Similalry when we want to compare something with other things we tend to use superlatives for the object that we want to talk about. This I guess is what politics is about. To express your opinion and find support for it. I think there is a politician is all of us and most of what we do is political. It is only that some of us have a greater conviction for our views and have a greater interest and capacity to exert ourselves than others.

While reading Culver and Hackos who have discussed Perry's model in the context of engineering education, what caught my attention is the year it was published, 1982. The paper has clear description of what engineering education is like and how it should be. It took something like 20 or so years that we now have ABET's Engineering Criteria 2000 which require similar kind of attributes in the engineering graduates that Culver and Hackos are asking for. Similarly we now have "Engineer of 2020" program which calls for changes in engineering practice and education. It took us 20 years to reach to this point to have formal realization of what we need to do. I am wondering how much time it will take to bring the change that we are dreaming for. Is 2020 an achievable target to turn the decades or perhaps centuries long built perceptions and habits.

On the other hand as a researcher of engineering education I wonder how soon will we see plateau for the field. We have a few short term targets. But are there any long term targets and can we find some?

Challenges in classification

In Sorting Things Out, the author pointed out that 'No real-world working classification system that we have looked at meets these "simple" requirements...' That would strike me 2 weeks ago when I was working on my project where I need to seek for a perfect ontology for Engineering Education, but not now. I realized that I cannot classify ENE in such a way that it meets any of the three properties mentioned in this book. Instead, a quasi-perfect classification should be constructed so robustly that it well supports including, excluding, transiting of elements. Uncertainty and emergence of new elements keep deviating a real-world classification from Bowker's ideal model.

I have similar question with Sensen after reading Perry's Model. In my opinion, this verbalized Positions are far from standing as a classification. But maybe I am wrong because I used my quantitative head to make this judgment. Still, I am very interested in how this model can be applied to put students into positions correctly.

Thanks, Junaid, for sharing the 6-level learning in group discussion two weeks ago. So it's not a new concept to me any more. Also, I saw a few figures from Kolb Model somewhere before, but this article elaborates in greater depth which inspires me with the following question: while teaching in multi-disciplines can benefit from this model, would it also overstate the inter-discipline differences so that this preconceived guidance hinders the diversity and innovativity of both teaching and learning?