Skip to main content

Design Inquiry: Metaphors and Images

Design inquiry is distinct from other forms of inquiry in that it is ‘inquiry for action’—not merely description, explanation, prediction,  or control. At the beginning of design inquiry it is essential to make a reality check—an ‘assessment’—of the situation at hand. What constitutes the nature of the reality that designers find themselves in when they begin designing?



This assessment is too often framed as a process of ‘analysis’. When someone is directed to learn more about a situation, an organization, a person, an event or anything in the real world, the assumption is made immediately that what is needed is an ‘analysis’. Analysis is a process of breaking something into its constituent elements, which allows for a certain level of understanding and people excel at this. However, it has become clear that in order to really understand something it is important to know how the constituent elements interact as a whole—a ‘synthesis’—as well.

It turns out that it is difficult to give a name to a synthesis of elements unless it is merely a functional assembly that can be understood by what it does. For example when making an assessment of an organization everyone—student or professional—has difficulty saying what the nature, character or essence of the organization as a whole is when all the departments, divisions, staff and behaviors are taken together. Usually metaphors or analogies are used to convey what the organization as a whole is like because we don’t know how to do that directly.

A recent article in Aeon makes the case that we design metaphors to help us see things differently using words. But, when something is too full or rich for words we use images if we have the skills to do so.  Unfortunately the use of images to see and understand the essential nature of a thing—encountered or created—is not as common as is the use of words. Nor is creating or reading images very well understood except for the truncated versions found in the world of computers.


It is even more difficult to convey the nature of a whole thing when designing it—when elements are linked and connected together intentionally in such a way as to create desired synergies and emergent qualities—not merely functional assemblies—in particular or ultimate particular designs. The use of images to convey the nature of what has been created is necessary. The use of images to help us understand the value of what has been created is essential.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Design, Wicked Problems & Throwness

Horst Rittel is one of the seminal residents in my 'Berkeley Bubble'. Recently a friend and colleague sent me an article about ‘double-wickedproblems’ . I have become ever more aware of the increasing number of references to ‘wicked problems’ in all forms of media that seem to have missed Rittel’s deeper insights . This brought up the concern I have about the use and miss-use of the term ‘wicked problem’.  The term ‘wicked problem’, first introduced by Rittel in West Churchman’s seminars at Berkeley, was in reference to his conceptualization of the impossible challenge of dealing with significant social issues using traditional, rational, ‘problem solving’ methods. In most cases what are miss-diangnosed as ‘wicked problems’ are actually complex or complicated problems that can be simplified or broken into smaller 'tame' problems allowing for a straight forward 'problem solving' approach to be taken. This approach is believed by many to be capable

Center for Systemic Design draft prospectus

    PROSPECTUS Center for Advanced Systemic Designing Introduction  Our futures can be approached in four ways: 1) drifting—adapting to whatever happens,  2) colliding—reacting and enduring,  3) retreating—backing away from undesirable states or conditions, or   4) advancing—navigating into desirable states-of-affairs. The norm nowadays is to drift, collide or retreat into the future. The fourth approach, the proactive approach, is the more apt response given the complex challenges and rising expectations that are the new norm for the foreseeable future.  The fourth approach depends on the agency of individuals who have the capacity to handle the challenge of securing desired outcomes in indeterminate situations on behalf of concomitant stakeholders and clients. They achieve this by serving—design agency—as members of design teams and design cohorts. These systemic designers are skilled polymaths who have the ability to create assemblies of essential elements into coherent whole system

Give Someone a Fish....Teaching & Learning

  During the process of developing a series of   master classes in systemic designing    (www.haroldgnelson.com/masterclasses) I became aware of a critical issue. Many of the terms I was using, such as ‘learning’ and ‘teaching’, had been hollowed out by the predominance of AI-related terms in public discourse like ‘machine learning’ and ‘artificial intelligence’ (AI). In addition, the dominating hype or shallow understandings of the ideas behind the terms I was using further hampered any meaningful communication with others. Even the term ‘masterclass’ had lost common meaning — much like the term ‘equal’ has lost shared meaning among mathematicians.     Common terms like ‘innovation’, ‘change’, ‘creativity’, ‘agent’, or ‘paradigm shift’ are among a growing list of words that have become mere tags or indicators rather than carriers of useful information in shared discourse. In my  master classes,  for example, key terms like ‘learning’, ‘teaching’, and ‘knowledge’ are central concepts t