policy, research and design as different language games prof.dr.ir. taeke m. de jong chair technical...
TRANSCRIPT
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
[email protected] 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