Tag hegemony

Entries 2 Total

Paradigms as Products

Oct 3, ’10 12:06 AM

I’ve been in a “materialist worldview” land for a few weeks now. Much of the readings are from authors/researchers who are concerned with how scientific activities can be used to create knowledge that provides and understanding of the natural world. In some cases, there is a deviation from the hard sciences with an effort to apply the rigor and relevance found in the science disciplines to the social sciences.

I am gaining familiarity with such terms as “socio-technical” as well as “design science.” I can see why so many schools of thinking are concerned with this idea of design science. In the midst of this, I am constantly asking myself, well, what about design? (I suppose I’m subconsciously also asking about management now that I’m in a management school).

On a side note, it is fascinating to be in intensive, intimate seminars with various faculty members. It doesn’t take long to find out their underlying philosophical assumptions and their intellectual heroes. For example, here are some of the names that keep coming up: Habermas, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Simon, Dewey, and Popper just to name a few. That probably provides someone a glimpse of the tone of my doctoral program.

Two of the people I’ve been reading lately (and enjoying) are A. F. Chalmers (What is This Thing Called Science?) and Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
Chalmers’ easy-to-read style and analysis of various thinkers in science is a pleasure to read (especially his illustrations of historical episodes) and Kuhn’s thoughts on paradigms and revolutions makes me think of Gramsci’s thoughts on hegemony + society as well as the book on worldviews I recently read by James Sire (Naming the Elephant).

Some thoughts and possible issues:

  1. How does paradigm differ from worldview?
  2. What is exactly is Kuhn’s process/mechanism for a revolution? He doesn’t really go into detail as to how such change occurs. He does mention that this process is not based on logical and rational arguments but that we must defer to psychological and sociological investigations to better understand how hegemony of a paradigm takes place.
  3. Chalmers tries to reconcile the criticism that Kuhn is a relativist by pointing out that Kuhn has a contradiction (subjective if one follows the process of paradigm change in an individual but possibly objective when looking at a group of practitioners as a whole as well as the various products, such as technological tools, methodologies, and processes the scientific community creates as they adopt a new paradigm) and pointing out the more objective argument he has of the two interpretations. Interpreting Kuhn ontologically, one can argue that Kuhn believes that the history of science (paradigm to paradigm) is a history of progress

Summarizing the subjective interpretation of Kuhn’s paradigm shifting process, Chalmers writes,

Thus one scientist might be attracted to the Copernican theory because of the simplicity of certain mathematical features of it. Another might be attracted to it because in it there is the possibility of calendar reform. A third might have been deterred from adopting the Copernican theory because of an involvement with terrestrial mechanics and an awareness of the problems that the Copernican theory posed for it. A fourth might reject Copernicanism for religous reasons. Chalmers, pp. 115-116

This is fascinating because people are always different and looking for personal meaning. And the various reasons Chalmers gives as an example here may be present in a design project. This is probably why I enjoy asking my fellow group members when I join for a project why they’re in the group and what they hope to get out of the project. Usually it ranges from “I have to take this class to graduate” to something very personal. These personal narratives capture the subjective aspect of the activity of design.

If design had an objective chapter, it has to be the nature of the project or the product that is created. In the case of Chalmers’ example, is the product the paradigm (Copernican framework) that was created? It was a group of men (and I mean men) who organically coordinated in the public arena to socially form and accept a paradigm and “allowed” it to become a normal science. It was a “massive change” type of project.

Comments (0)

Notes to Self

Dec 20, ’08 9:43 PM

Just spent the afternoon reading and had a few random thoughts:

1. A THOUGHT ON GOING TO THE SOURCE

The origin or primary source of something is very important. Hence, knowing the arts (what guides one’s thinking) is just as important than trying to learn all the methodologies that one can choose from to understand a specific subject matter. It’s like having a framework.

Some examples:

  • When looking for concepts for my thesis, I came upon “assimilation/integration” as a possible process in which culture takes shape. This came from a reading of a book on Asian American cultural politics. I was also vaguely familiar with Raymond Williams. However, Dick’s suggestion to go to the source of both authors’ inspiration, Antonio Gramsci, provided a greater insight into a more fundamental concept – “hegemony,” a complex yet fascinating topic. [download thesis]
  • Donald Schon’s “designerly ways of knowing, thinking, and acting” = repackaging of John Dewey’s thoughts on “Having an Experience.”
  • Herb Simon’s thoughts on the artificial echo Aristotle’s thoughts on poetics.
  • Thoughts around “service design” started over a hundred years ago (ex. Kodak’s “You press the button, we do the rest“).

2. A THOUGHT ON DESIGNING PRACTICE & DESIGNING MANAGEMENT

Forlizzi writes that “Participatory Design” and “Experience Prototyping” are attitudinal rather than procedural/prescriptive methods [by Forlizzi]. Is this the same way “attitude” is used by Boland & Collopy when they describe design attitude v. decision attitude in Managing as Designing? [see previous post]

Forlizzi writes, “… the Product Ecology approach involves doing fieldwork over an extended period of time” in her article to show that a comprehensive understanding of people takes time. This is an important point about design research.

However in the context of the professional world, this is not as easy to implement. Due to constraints, such as budget issues, there’s a disconnect in taking our thoughts towards action. Perhaps designing management, with a similar attitude, may help in bridging the gap between what we would like to have done to what we can get done in our organizations.

3. A THOUGHT ON USER NEEDS

A lot of people talk about being obsessed with finding and identifying user needs. When new products create new habits (ex. we need toothpaste to support the activity of brushing our teeth but this is a 20th century product that didn’t exist in, say, the 15th century), have we created a new “need” or is this something that’s been a latent need in individuals all along? If this is an example of a latent need, is there an infinite amount of needs we can design for? Probably not. Or maybe there are certain core needs that can be addressed differently with the changing times. Hmm. [see previous post on habits]

Comments (0)