Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design ISSS 2016
-
Upload
peter-jones -
Category
Design
-
view
1.979 -
download
0
Transcript of Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design ISSS 2016
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Anticipatory Factors in Dialogic Design
Peter Jones, PhD
OCAD University, TorontoISSS 2016 Boulder
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Ap
plicatio
n
Theo
ry
Foundation
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Translational Systems Science to Practice
• An explosion of design thinking methodologies has emerged over 5-10 years.
• A messy array of design methods deployed in government, social services, & policy without a basis in systemics .
• Systems & futures literacies are emerging concerns in planning.
• Without models for understanding “how and why” of methods, we can’t evaluate causal outcomes or quality of futures. We can’t just “throw methods at a problem.”
• Modeling relations demonstrates how anticipatory understanding & commitment formed in group decision making
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Warfield’s DoSM Model
• Normative, 3rd Phase Science(and Descriptive)
• From Corpus > Arena
• Foundation > Theory > Methodology > Applications
• A developmental approach, advanced by Christakis in 2000’s
• And evolved to define dialogic methodology in systemic design
Warfield, J. N. (1986). The domain of science model: evolution and design. Proc. 30th Ann'l. Mtg., Society for General Systems Research, Salinas: Intersystems, H46-H59.
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
“… the best way to validate a Science is to manage the language through careful design practices, and to incorporate the Theory of Relations and its isomorphisms as part of the Foundations of the Science.”
Dual-Basis Design & Conceptual Science
• Basis for Design – Built primarily from Foundations and Theory of Design Science
• Dual-Basis – Developed from 2 distinctive origins, top-down/conceptual & bottom-up
• Impact on Science – Warfield insisted that “higher quality language” had more impact on science than hypothesis testing.
• Universal Priors – Necessary to understand the histories of language in science, & our pre-understandings.
• Trans-disciplines – To avoid under-conceptualization, require a science of the human, not just selective incorporation.
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Ap
plicatio
n
The
ory
Foundation
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Translational Science - DoSM for Systemic Design
ARENA
Methodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Ap
plicatio
nThe
ory
Foundation
• Lab – Building creative Foundations from philosophy, social science, systemics
• Lab – Visualizing Theory & building artefacts to test in Studio
• Studio – Design science, adapting Theory > Methodology
• Studio – Building new methods for application in Arena.
• Arena – Adapting & testing method& evaluating in Arenas with stakeholders
• Agora – Releasing to public in new forms.
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
“Humanity’s biggest problem isn’t how to
imagine or design solutions for our
economic, environment, and social woes.
Our problem is that we can’t agree to
implement them.”
Karl Schroeder, Degrees of Freedom
6
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Dialogic Design Science & Methodology
• Design ScienceSupported by theoretical & empirical researchScience of dialogue to gain mutual understanding
• Employs ‘all’ Inquiring SystemsChurchman’s 5 systems of inquiry each have role
• Design MethodValidated over 40 years, 1000s applicationsMethod revisions are vetted in communityEvaluated by data collection, reporting, analysis
dialogicdesignscience.wikispaces.com
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
SDD + ISM SoftwareInterpretive Structural Modeling
• Multi-staged, progressive reasoning process
• Cogniscope III (Root Cause Mapping)
• Logosofia (Web-based)
• Multi-Facilitated
• Canonical, rigorous
• Guides dialogue toward effective action
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
1
2
3
Deliberative co-created design of an envisioned social system
Typical SDD Engagement Series(Discovery has recently emerged as a essential stage)
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
SDD - Methods & Language Patterns
ARENAMethodology
STUDIO
LAB AGORA
Ap
plicatio
n
The
ory
Foundation
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
WORLD MODEL
decoding
Design Practice
Entailed in
Arena
Modelinference
SDD as Collective Anticipatory System
encoding
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
How to enable multiplicity of stakeholders to reason about futures together, experienced as dialogue?
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
TQ "In the face of increasing urbanization worldwide, what future challenges do we anticipate for Southern Ontario, now through 2030?”
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Imagining Canada’s FutureSocial challenges structured by leverage, influence map 20 year horizon
INFLUENCE MAP ARTIFACTS
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Conclusion• SDD – Deeply reasoned, integrated methods known to
progressively lead to strong consensus on courses of action.
PROBLEMATIQUE > DESIGN/SCENARIOS > ACTIONS
• Relational modeling demonstrates how (high variety) individual stakeholders come to consensus on action –Within a consensual linguistic domain.
• Each method carefully elicits individual models, evaluates error, constructs group models, & co-constructs inferential model of future relations.
• Propose continuation of relational modeling process to enhance design of SDD Discovery – Problem – Design – Action.
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
Translation from Arena back to LabWhat have we learned in a DoSM cycle that requires methodological revision to adapt SDD as a design practice?
• Long duration, continuous engagements (12-18 months) require consultative model, not interventional.
• At same time, stakeholders often require shorter, focused sessions as required by accessibility.
• Significant methodical work in framing (question) & stakeholder discovery
• Develop & evaluate Discovery methods from design & foresight
• Observations and recording of SDD sessions yield data.Discover where / how consensual linguistic domain formed
• New software enables collocated/remote sessions, & for method design to be trialed & measured
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones 23
• Design proceeds as action-on-objects in iterate-learn cycles. Warfield called this literative, relevant to science.
• Without theory for direction, method fails to address unknowns, complexity, or discounted stakeholders.
• Systemics precedes design with 2nd-order loops between systems & design, theories / praxis.
• A dilemma revealed in “systemics in practice.” We structure agreements (e.g. governance) that suggest we design systems.
• But we almost never design systems (e.g. Lasswell’s Triad). Social systems do not yield directly to design methods.
Can the Design Dialectic guide Futuring?
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
1. The Complexity Axiom: Observational variety must be respected when engaging stakeholders, while making sure that cognitive limitations are not violated in our aim for comprehensiveness (Warfield).
2. The Engagement Axiom: Designing social systems without the authentic engagement of stakeholders is unethical, and results in inferior plans that are not implementable (Özbekhan).
3. The Investment Axiom: Stakeholders designing their social systems must make personal investments of trust to be effective in discovering shared understanding & collaborative solutions (Flanagan).
4. The Logic Axiom: Appreciation of distinctions and complementarities among inductive, deductive and retroductive logics essential for a futures-creative understanding of the human being. (Romm)
DoSM – Foundation of Postulates (abbreviated)
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
5. The Epistemological Axiom: A comprehensive science of human beings should inquire about human life in totality of thinking, wanting, telling, and feeling - it should not be dominated by Western epistemology reducing science to only intellectual dimensions (Harris and Trevino).
6. The Boundary-Spanning Axiom: Empowers stakeholders to act beyond borders in designing symbiotic social systems that enable people from all walks of life to bond across cultural, religious, racialized, & disciplinary boundaries, enriching their repertoires for seeing, feeling and acting (Tsivacou and Romm).
7. The Reconciliation of Power Axiom: Social systems design aims to reconcile individual & institutional power relations embedded in every group of stakeholders & their concerns, by honoring Requisite Variety of distinctions and perspectives as manifested in the Arena (Jones).
Axiomatic Principles of Dialogic Design
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
1. Requisite Variety An appreciation of the diversity of perspectives and stakeholders is essential in managing complex situations. (Ashby)
2. Requisite Parsimony Structured dialogue is needed to avoid the cognitive overload of stakeholder/designers. (Warfield)
3. Requisite Saliency Observations can only be understood by comparisons in an organized set of observations. (Boulding)
4. Requisite Meaning Wisdom are produced in a dialogue only when observers search for relationships of similarity, priority, influence, etc, within a set of observations. (Peirce)
5. Requisite Autonomy & Authenticity … Protect the autonomy and authenticity of each observer in drawing distinctions. (Tsivacou)
6. Requisite Evolution of Observations … Learning occurs in dialogue as people search for relationships in a set of observations. (Dye)
7. Requisite Action … Action plans must be designed in authentic engagement of those whose futures influenced by the change (Laouris)
DoSM – Structure of “Laws”
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
1. Requisite Variety > Stakeholder DiscoveryTheory of Stakeholders, Ontological Variety (Latour)
2. Requisite Parsimony > Macrocognitive HomeostasisNavigating Situational Complexity, Cognitive capacitation of the group (G. Klein)
3. Requisite Saliency > Boundary Framing Saliency discovered within a problematique (K. Dorst)Locates a position to reframe the problem.
4. Requisite Meaning > Sensemaking of knowledge/values Structuration for emergence of wisdom (Giddens)
Transforming Dialogic Laws > Systemic Design Methods
Copyright © 2016 Peter H. Jones
5. Requisite Autonomy & Authenticity > Democratic Dissent Conserving Agency, What’s At-Stake for Individuals (Dervin)
6. Requisite Evolution of Observations > Incremental ReflexionSocial Learning & Evolution (Argyris & Schön)
7. Requisite Action > Social Construction of Intent Enaction across Social Systems (Luhmann)
8. Requisite Power > Entailment of AuthoritiesCapacity to influence & decide across hierarchies (Jacques)
Transforming Dialogic Laws > Systemic Design Functions
ARENA
MethodologySTUDIO
LAB AGORA
Ap
plicatio
n
The
ory
Foundation