policy, research and design as different language games prof.dr.ir. taeke m. de jong chair technical...

Policy, research and designas different language games

Prof.dr.ir. Taeke M. de Jong

chair Technical Ecology, chair Regional Design, assignment MethodologyUniversity of Technology Delft, Faculty of Architecture

T.M.deJong@bk.tudelft.nl http://team.bk.tudelft.nl

Language games

Language games: being able knowing choosingModalities >: possible > probable > desirable >Sectors: technique science ruleActivities: designing predicting managing

Reductions as tocharacter: legends variables agendasplace/time: tolerances relations agreements

Different modalities of future

• design science (possible futures >)

• empirical science (probable futures >)

• policy (desirable futures >)

Probable futures

There are more and less probable futures

chance

Probability,the core of empirical science

Possible futures

Anything probable is per definition possible but not everything possible is also probable.

A probable future could be predicted.

Improbable possibilities cannot be predicted.You only can explore them by design.

Desirable futures

Policy (Mr.)

Empirical research (Drs.)

Design (Ir.)

Obvious and Impossible futures

Field of problems and aims

Undesired, improbable possibilities

Are they relevant as long as nobody wants them?

Unexpected inventions

Yes

Changing desires

Subtracting futures

• Field of problems = Probable - Desirable

• Field of Aims = Desirable - Probable

Design study or empirical research

• Design produces possibilities by conditions

• Research produces probabilities by causes

The modality of ‘possible futures’

Conditions presupposedin causal paradigms

Conditional and causal thinking

Balancing

Environment :=set of conditions for life

Environment as ‘set conditions for life’ means at least

18 different kinds of technical environments (contexts)

conditions lifemanagerialculturaleconomicaltechnicalecologicalmass/space/time

human

animal

vegetable

Conditional analysis

Conditional methodologyA1 VERSCHIL wordt voorondersteld,A2 VERANDERING vooronderstelt een soort verschil,A3 VERBAND duur in verandering,A4 AFZONDERING ongebondenheid in verband,A5 SELECTIE continuiteit in afzondering,

B1 VERBRUIK verschil in selectie,B2 REGELING verandering in verbruik,B3 ORGANISATIE verband in regeling,B4 SPECIALISATIE afzondering in organisatie,B5 REPRODUCTIE selectie in specialisatie,

C1 NIEUWS reproductie van informatie,C2 ZEKERHEID geregeld nieuws,C3 AFFECTIE georganiseerde zekerheid,C4 IDENTITEIT specifieke affectie,C5 INVLOED gereproduceerde identiteit.

Diversity as a hidden supposition

• risk-cover for life• precondition of

– communication– trade, economy– possibility of choice for future generations

• uniqueness of individual and context• quality of human living

So, ‘average’ is useless where exceptions survive: in ecology, evolutionary theory, management and design science.

Ecologicaltolerance

demonstrating diversity as a

risk coverfor life

Quality = f(diversity)

Diversity as a first condition

• The intellectual challenge of this century is to handle diversity– instead of generalising it by statistical reduction.

• Generalising research has diminishing returns– what could be generalised is generalised in

centuries of empirical research.

• Problems left are context sensitive problems– object of design: generating study.

Ways to study spatial design

Preface by Rector Fokkema“Within the range of a technical university the object of design – in terms of (urban) architecture and technique – is the design subject that is amongst all others most sensitive to context.The programme of requirements is not only derived from an economical and technical context, but also from contexts hailing from political, cultural, ecological en spatial considerations; on many levels of scale.” >

Orders of size to unravel context

Object of study andcontexts

Impact analysis presupposes a perspective of future contexts

Ideal contents of a context sensitive Study Proposal

1.OBJECT OF STUDY AND ITS CONTEXT

2.MY STUDY PROPOSAL

3.ACCOUNTS

1 OBJECT OF MY STUDY AND ITS CONTEXT

1.1. Object of my study: frame and grain

1.2. Probable future context: field of problems >

1.3. Desired impacts of my study: field of aims >

1.4. My designerly references: field of means

1.5. My portfolio and perspective: field of abilities

Subtracting futures

• Field of problems = Probable - Desirable

• Field of Aims = Desirable - Probable

Explicit future context

• protects your study against judgements with other suppositions about the future context

• raises the debate about the robustness of your study in different future contexts

• raises a ‘field of problems’ instead of an isolated ‘problem statement’ by subtracting desirable futures from the probable ones

• makes your study comparable to others concerning comparable contexts

2 MY STUDY PROPOSAL

2.1. Location or other future context factors

2.2. Motivation or programme of requirements

2.3. Intended results

2.4. Intended contributions to science

2.5. Intended planning and organogramme

3 ACCOUNTS

3.1. How did I meet criteria for a study proposal >

3.2. My References

3.3. My Key words to find back what any principal wants to know in my proposal

Criteria for a study proposal

A. Affinity with designing

B. University latitude

C. Concept formation and transferability

D. Retrievability and accumulating capacity

E. Methodical accountability and depth

F. Ability to be criticised and to criticise

G. Convergence and limitations

Future impact