[This is a text a wrote many years ago for a
workshop devoted to the work of Donald Schön. Is has been published in Swedish but I don't think in English. I apologize for the language in this text. This is also too long for a blog post but... A PDF version of this text can be downloaded here.]
Donald Schön – some
reflections on his popularity
- "Working methodically is the order of the day, and during this collective work in closed ranks it can happen that individuals forget to make use of their finest, most individual gifts. Their thoughts are for a time completely occupied with the task at hand, the one most available for being carried out according to plan. They become removed and lose feeling for that which is less tangible and only with difficulty perceivable, and as such for some questions they no longer have the necessary refinement." (Hans Larsson, 1892, Swedish philosopher, my translation)
The scientific approach creates endless data,
information and knowledge and perhaps even insights. The truth of this can
hardly be denied. In a society experienced by many as too complicated and
changeable, such an increase in knowledge ought to create security and hope.
Somehow it doesn’t seem to work that way.
At the same time that our knowledge grows, it
appears to become more difficult to formulate knowledge and insights that are
useful - at least when it comes to day-to-day professional situations. A lot of
the knowledge produced by research isn’t experienced as being directly
interesting by someone who has to act, has to make decisions, has to choose
direction. Obviously, the truth and meaning of this development vary from area
to area, but for anyone working with design the situation
appears to be something of a paradox--the more knowledge we have, the more
difficult it becomes to design.
The insight concerning the breadth and
significance of design as a very special activity in our society has been
gaining ground in the last decades. Increased system thinking has led to a
deeper understanding of the enormous complexity surrounding every decision that
gives our society form. We see more clearly relationships between economic
systems, environmental aspects, questions of ethics, and esthetics. In modern
design research, the limits of knowledge are constantly being challenged and
expanded, and new aspects of design work are mapped out, conceptualized, and
penetrated in detail.
While a comprehensive coherence seems to be ever
more wished for but impossible, research shows that all aspects, each one in
itself, can be developed endlessly deeper, and that together they create a
complexity which is much greater than anything a single individual can comprehend.
In many ways it has become impossible for a designer alone to take it all in
and even more difficult to make use of the results of research in his or her
daily work. In many ways what we’re experiencing is a knowledge paradox. The
more knowledge we have, the more we feel that we don’t know enough to make a
good design choice and decision.
Obviously a large portion of all research does
not have as its intention the creation of knowledge that will support practical
design work, nor should it. However it seems as if a large portion is directed
toward helping and supporting practitioners. In my opinion, almost none of the
design research being carried out today achieves this goal. In spite of the
fact that researchers resolutely assert that the results have practical
significance, this knowledge largely leaves practitioners indifferent. But
there are exceptions - one such exception is the work pursued by Donald Schön.
Schön succeeded in formulating ideas and results
in a way that is attractive and accessible for a broad range of readers. We can
see his work referred to in a number of different disciplines. How can this be?
What’s the difference between Schön’s research and other examples of design
research? What makes Schön’s research so successful? Why is it so easy to get
students both to understand and to attempt to use Schön’s ideas? Is it possible
that Schön escapes the paradox discussed above?
There are obviously a number of possible answers
to these questions. It’s possible that Schön’s ideas are in some way correct or
true and that gives the results great penetrating power. But it’s also possible
that Schön has a way of presenting his results that attracts readers because of
its strong rhetorical force or appealing language. It could also be that Schön’s
fundamental philosophical and epistemological approach led to results that
can’t otherwise be reached. Or it can be that Schön’s personally formed
research method, built on a qualitative and phenomenological tradition with
roots in a pragmatic view of knowledge, led to results which are easy to
understand and take in.
In this context I take the freedom to approach
the question in a more personal way. The reason for this is not that I’m less
interested in describing Schön’s work based on the recognized theories and
categories of research methodology and conventional science. Rather it’s
because I doubt that the answer to Schön’s popularity and significance can be
found through such an analysis. So, at the risk of being altogether too simple
and commonplace, I want to show what it is that I see as the most
characteristic traits in Schön’s research and what also makes him both popular
and significant.
First, I want to briefly comment on some of the
other previously mentioned possible answers. To begin with it’s possible that
the reader is attracted by his texts because they’re well written and they
offer an inspirational reading. That language and literary presentation are
significant even in scientific texts is not unknown. Many of our greatest
thinkers have also been masters of style. It may even be difficult to find
meaningful thinkers who don’t control the art of literary presentation in a
conscious and stylistically sensitive way. Consciousness of that sort has
occasionally taken the form of texts that are neither easily read nor easily
understood. Kant and Heidegger are two examples. But even there, language and
rendering are a very important part of the work being presented. It isn’t by
chance that the language has the form it does.
Another answer could be that Schön’s rhetoric
and artful argumentation are so well developed that the contents of his work
does not matter. It’s evident that any text intended to reach a larger public
must have the power to convince both in terms of presentation and argumentation.
Schön fulfills both of these demands. But there are other design researchers
who fulfill these demands without it meaning that they achieve the same
success. We can never exclude the possibility that as readers we are dazzled by
an argumentation that appears to be reliable without necessarily being based on
more profound material. And in general we like to be dazzled.
Another interpretation could be that his texts
simply give the reader what the reader wants. The texts may just confirm and
support common sense interpretations of design work that everyone could make.
The texts perhaps strengthen general prejudices without critically disturbing
our habitual patterns of thought. One sign that could confirm this is one of
the commonest reactions that I get from students who have just read Schön for
the first time. It’s not unusual for them to say that the text was easy to read
and that the contents were ”Okay, maybe nothing new but ok.... ”. However, it
usually turns out that they have seldom understood the text in a deeper way,
and above all haven’t realized the consequences of Schön’s explanations. In
many cases, further reading and discussion leads to completely new evaluations of
the texts.
The cause of the students’ reaction is to be
found less in the superficiality of the text than in its deceptive character.
Schön’s simple language and uncomplicated, straightforward argumentation are
easily interpreted as a sign that the contents are also simple and straightforward.
That lead, in the case of the students, to the conclusion that what Schön does
is only to give a very superficial but true picture of design work. It’s my
assertion therefore that Schön to a certain degree is not successful because of
his language and presentation skills but actually suffers as a consequence of
his language and his rhetoric. That leads me to believe that it isn’t in the
language and presentation that we find the key to Schön’s success. So, what can
it be?
Comprehending
We’re all familiar with the possibility of
dividing knowledge into different forms with different objectives, such as
understanding, comprehending, explaining, predicting, controlling, mastering,
and prescribing. In design research, the dominant view seems to be that
knowledge should be useful primarily for predicting and accordingly for
prescribing. I’m not here going to engage in the growing criticism concerning
this view during recent years. It’s enough to say that the criticism has
largely been directed at an overly simplified view of the potential for controlling
the results of the design process through methods and detailed planning.
When Schön takes on his research, he seems to be
driven by an irrepressible and genuine interest in understanding and
comprehending. He seems to be constantly astounded by the reality he studies—which
is primarily the practice of the professional (designer). His astonishment is
filled with fascination and even admiration. Reality isn’t to Schön, as for
other design researchers, chaos of irrational actions that need to be corrected.
Where other researchers see a reality that needs to be ordered and directed,
Schön sees a rich and complex reality, full of life and people who try to do
their best. For him it is a reality that above all should be something we
should try to understand. Only by having a deep understanding of practice will
there be a possibility of changing it. Where others see orderly knowledge as
the answer to the problems of chaotic practice, Schön sees the problem in a
blind faith in orderly knowledge.
Such a point of departure definitely creates the
conditions for a form of research that can reach practitioners, in as much as
it accepts reality as both existing and reasonable, and practice as both
rational and comprehensible. It is research that becomes very practical even if
it is driven by the urge to understand and not to control.
Firmly rooted
One aspect of Schön’s work is that he seems to
be so stable. To be firmly rooted means that one knows where one is standing
and looking, which role one has as an observer. It also means that the status
of what one is looking at is known. When you are firmly rooted, there is all
the time in the world to devote oneself to this ”looking” - it creates a
peacefulness and a stability which is expressed in interpretations and texts.
There is no stress to constantly seek new points of departure and new
perspectives.
Schön never diverges from the task of trying to
understand the expressions and conditions of practice. The point of departure
is always the local activity, the weighing and decision-making of the
practitioner. Schön never gets caught up indulging in empirical details, nor
does he disappear in an abstract investigation of theories. As a reader, one
feels that the objective is always close at hand and that it is both tangible
and concrete.
But it isn’t just the steady objective that
gives Schön consistency and stability. It is also a number of fundamental
assumptions regarding the nature of reality, which constantly steer the work
and like a rubber band pull the studies and the reader back to the central
questions.
One such fundamental assumption is that the
actions of professional practice are basically rational, that is, possible to
comprehend as sensible deeds. That’s true even in situations where the results
of the deeds don’t fulfill expectations. A lot of design research takes these
failures as a point of departure and concludes that practice is irrational and
to a large degree incorrectly carried out. And that what is needed is
completely new methods and approaches that can transform practice. In such a
perspective there is often no interest in thoroughly studying current practice
since it has failed - and therefore nothing to have as a model for good
practice.
For Schön, common practice is always
interesting, even when it leads to bad results or seems irrational. He sees
common practice as a manifestation of the dominant, as a consequence of
practical conditions and restrictions, which must be more closely studied and
understood. In this way, practice for Schön has status as the richest and
perhaps the only source of true knowledge and understanding. Actually, all we
need to do is to carefully study this reality without the preconception that it
is basically irrational and in need of ”repair”. That means that what’s most
important to study is our way of thinking about reality. We act and we reflect.
And how we reflect is a result of the conceptions we have. For Schön, this can
be demonstrated with the difference between seeing design as ”problem-solving”
or as ”artistry”.
For Schön, these concepts can be used to
illustrate the power of thinking over action. Seeing practice as
”problem-solving” leads practice to regard itself and its role in a specific
way. The same is true of ”artistry”. There is a dialectical relationship
between concept and action. What Schön shows in his research is that we can
make our concepts visible and thereby also possible to change. In the same way
that Schön employs this ”method” in his research, he also presents it as a
solution for the practitioner. In the end there is only one way for both the
researcher and the practitioner.
Capturing and stabilizing
There are many ways for a researcher to approach
a rich and complex reality. Often it’s done by selecting one aspect to be
studied. In order to be able to say something about this aspect, the researcher
probably has to simplify reality and peel away complexity. The researcher has
to stabilize and ‘clean’ his object of study. One of the most important tasks
for a researcher is to be able to do this without losing relevant and
significant information. It won’t do to reduce complexity to such a degree that
the basis of its explanation also disappears.
The way Schön gets hold of reality is through
capturing and stabilizing a study object. But he doesn’t do this in a way that
makes everything simpler, that is, by reducing complexity. The object of study
that Schön attempts to capture can perhaps most easily be called a designer’s
skillfulness. That is to say, that which lets the practitioner achieves
something despite the overwhelming and complex reality. The skillfulness of the
designer can be seen as being a priori in Schön’s research. He lets this
skillfulness function as a point of crystallization. All ideas and results bit
by bit build up a richer picture around this core.
It isn’t an easy task that Schön undertakes.
It’s difficult to empirically confirm the existence of something as diffuse and
complex as skillfulness. It’s also possible to assert that skillfulness isn’t a
general concept since it is something that is entirely individually based. And
it’s also possible to assert that skillfulness - in the sense that Schön uses
the concept - moves altogether too freely between the concrete and the
abstract.
But it is just in this movement that we can see
some of Schön’s strength. The ability to allow a central concept to develop while
it is completely incorporated in the full complexity constituted by practice.
Skillfulness becomes in this way something that hovers between the theoretical
and the practical. In this way, skillfulness can be related to higly
theoretical reasoning and concepts. But in the next moment be used to describe
be concrete practice in a number of different case studies.
Getting closer
Another aspect of Schön’s way of working is his way
of getting close to the phenomenon he has formed. It is commonly recognized
that Schön’s examples and case studies are very effective. In his observations
and descriptions Schön creates the ”Right, that’s the way it is”-feeling that in
a convincing way affects the reader. The way Schön does this is difficult to
classify.
With imminent risk of being altogether too
categorical, one can see several typical and traditional ways of getting close
to a phenomenon. One way of course, before beginning a study, is to develop a
conceptual structure that can be used as a tool in the analysis and
interpretation of a situation. This requires a well-developed theoretical
construction. A familiar problem with this approach is that the construction becomes
so governing that the observations in the study easily become the victims of
the investment required by the theoretical preparations. As an opposite
approach, which can be understood as ”grounded theory”, the empirical material
is presented as being completely decisive. Getting close to a phenomenon
unconditionally and without previously defined theoretical tools becomes the
strategy. One wants to get as close to the phenomenon as possible and to create
pictures, which are as rich and as deep as possible. The idea is that out of
these pictures relevant and decisive analyses and interpretations will arise,
and these in turn will be the foundation for further conceptual developments.
Between these two extremes there exist all the
in-between forms, where we probably find most research. But Schön is difficult
to put into one or the other of these two categories. In some rather unique way
he succeeds in ”escaping” the demanding portions of both of these approaches.
Schön doesn’t get close to his object of study with a well-developed conceptual
structure or with highly specialized conceptualizing. Nor does he get close to
his empirical material in a particularly methodical way, and above all not with
the degree of detail and exactness that is usually required.
One can read Schön’s texts as though it’s
neither the concepts nor the empirical material that prevail. Instead it is the
well developed object of study. In order to achieve the greatest possible
understanding for this object, Schön simultaneously approaches it from all
sides. Concepts are captured and refined in interplay with both general and
detailed descriptions of the empirical. We get a better feeling for the
theoretical concepts at the same time that we get a better and deeper picture
of the empirical. Through this process, what is being made more precise is the
object of study. The Swedish philosopher Hans Larsson has in his book Intuition
succeeded in capturing, in his wonderful language, how this takes place. He
writes concerning the danger of making concepts too precise too early:
"It
is an altogether too common piece of theater, that while we demonstrate with
the cage of definition in hand, the bird that we think we have flies away, back
to freedom." (Larsson, 1892, p. 60)
Larsson also describes how the development of an
understanding in the way I attributed above to Schön must take place; how it is
a delicate, slow and sensitive process.
"And
every new concrete stroke he draws, makes the border somewhat more distinct for
the concepts he wants to define; his thoughts hover less and less in the blue
and get closer to the objective .... How many of these concrete strokes, from
the pictures constantly appearing out of life, and out of the most deceptive,
fleeting, inner life, are needed in order to achieve such a fixing."
(Larsson, 1982, p. 65)
Larsson also presents a wonderful description of
how a successful approach must take place. I can see only that the description
corresponds well with many of the studies Schön has made.
"I’m
quite aware: the borderline drawn up in this way is in a certain way wide, but
the area is completely surrounded, and inside the drawn line is the object
being defined. You want to tighten up the line, but you have to make sure that
when you do so the object doesn’t disappear.
Don’t get
too aggressive with your definitions. You want to get your hands on the truth:
well and good - if you can! The secret of life is like a bird in the woods.
Don’t become one of those who rush unskillfully around wanting to catch him
dead or alive. Make your approach carefully and keep yourself still - so you
may get to hear him sing." (Larsson, 1892, p. 67)
For some, getting close in this way may appear
to be unstructured or too diffuse. The result may not achieve the desired
stringent form. But I believe that just the opposite is true. Schön’s empirical
material, that is, the case studies combined with the special treatment of
concepts, are all performed according to Larsson’s advice. Schön knows how to
”make his approach carefully and keep himself still” and in that way, through
his texts, we are able to hear the bird sing. In this way reality isn’t
mutilated and overly simplified - but rather living and true. In this manner,
the material is given a convincing power that feels not only possible but also
true.
Getting close to a study object this way can
also be described with the help of the concept notitia. Notitia requires approaching what one is studying with
extreme exactitude. But it is not about getting close however you choose, not even
with getting close with as much precision as possible. It’s a question of
getting close to the qualities of what’s being studied. The psychologist James
Hillman, a promoter of this approach, writes:
"Attention
to the qualities of things resurrects the old idea of notitia as a primary
activity of the soul. Notitia refers to that capacity to form true notions of
things from attentive noticing. " (Hillman, 1989)
Notitia in this meaning is an instructive concept. Hillman wants to
show that the most significant and deeply embedded characteristics that may be
hidden in the things around us cannot be understood if we don’t abandon
ourselves to ”attentive noticing”. It requires time, energy and precision to
discover the deeper significance of things and actions. The art of practicing
notitia in a way that leads to valuable results requires skillfulness. It is an
art that must and can be trained and developed according to both Schön and
Hillman. That’s what Hans Larsson describes in the introductory quotation of
this text where he writes that we easily:
"…become
removed from and lose feeling for that which is less tangible and only with
difficulty perceivable, and as such for some questions they no longer have the
necessary refinement." (Larsson, 1892)
Schön’s way of getting close to his object of
study, his ability to say things about this empirical material, to make the
complexity of this practice both visible and understandable, shows that he has
this sensitivity - this ”necessary refinement”.
Moments and timing
An important part of what constitutes Schön’s
work is his way of using his empirical material. In his books the empirical
material doesn’t consist of large, quantitative investigations, nor does it
consist of deep, qualitative studies. Schön doesn’t use surveys or interviews.
What best describes his empirical material is to say that it deals with
observations.
The observations that Schön mainly presents
don’t cover a long period of time. In that way it’s difficult to even call them
case studies - we could rather see them as brief time segments. Nor does
Schön’s empirical material deal with detailed and precise notes and
descriptions of what takes place in these brief segments. Rather it’s often a
question of Schön having taken part in a single session or work shift. Or it
can be a small experiment that he has carried out together with his own
students. In his texts, Schön describes these situations in a simple and brief
way. In some cases it becomes a longer description, but never according to
rules or methodological guidelines from an accepted or developed empirical
method. In any case, the way in which the work is carried out is not reported.
Despite his unorthodox empirical approach, Schön
succeeds in making his cases both convincing and comprehensive. Also indicative
is how Schön’s readers often seem to find it easy to recall his cases. Many
readers can name and repeat their favorite among the cases described.
We could call this form of empirical research
the study in the moment. In Schön’s texts
it is difficult to see that the cases he chooses to describe are the result of
a well thought out plan. Nor does he describe the whole case or situation. He
often chooses to describe only a very short passage in a session. A passage
which perhaps covers only a minute. Schön then lets this little time segment of
practice be interpreted and analyzed - but again not according to any common methodological
guidelines.
It’s easy to criticize Schön’s empirical work as
being momentary, not representative, not consistent, and perhaps even careless.
But why does his way of approaching empirical studies have such penetrative
power?
Perhaps the most important explanation is timing. It is the ability to pick out a
time segment that in itself carries something comprehensive, unique and
characteristic. Such a well-chosen segment must have great integrity and
clarity. When this is the case, an interpretation appears to be quite obvious
and cannot be overthrown by alternative interpretations. Great integrity in the
segments imparts believability and significance. To see and pick these segments
is a skill that Schön mastered.
The long span
What is it as a whole that constitutes the
strength in Schön’s work? Perhaps we can call it the capacity to bridge the
long span. What Schön does is to create a balance point between the abstract
and the practical, between the general and the specific, between detail and
whole, between thought and action.
Through his slowly developed theoretical foundation
and his well chosen empirical segments, Schön succeeds in bridging that span.
Perhaps this bridging is something we all recognize more or less consciously -
and maybe it is something we even long for.
Altogether too often we are confronted with
research results that feel only abstract and theoretical or we are flooded by
empirical material. Above all, we as readers are made to create the whole
ourselves, out of the material we have to bridge the span, to create a balance
point where all the threads, ideas and concepts gather and radiate together.
Perhaps this task too often feels overwhelming. Perhaps Schön helps us here,
and that is what attracts us.
But it’s not only that it attracts us by giving
us a whole, but also that that which arises has a strongly convincing power.
Schön’s results, despite all their faults, powerfully influence the reader and
have also found readers in all circles.
It’s not difficult to direct a lot of criticism
against Schön’s way of working. Almost any recognized scientific methodology
gives a good foundation for such criticism. But the task for me in this text
has not been to ask that question, but rather the opposite: why has Schön’s
work won so much respect and why is it so appealing?
The aesthetic gestalt
So, what is it in Schön’s work that draws our
attention? I believe that in the end it has to do with the fact that Schön
himself was a designer. A book by Schön shouldn’t be understood as a complete presentation
of a theory or as a presentation of empirically well-grounded scientific work.
Rather his work must be understood as aesthetic gestalts, that is, as
compositions. A composition that is well designed has integrity and an
expressive character that greatly exceed every part or detail. A book by Schön
has these characteristics.
As with every good design, we are struck by the
whole that the design radiates. We see this gestalt first and become less
dependent on single points, each one of which may perhaps have faults.
The gestalt that Schön presents for us thus has
a strong aesthetic power. As readers, we feel this power and are drawn to it.
One characteristic of such a gestalt is that, if it is well composed, it also
has a strongly convincing power. Not the power to blind us or overwhelm us with
its appearance or its availability. Rather it radiates coherence and integrity
– and thereby a sense of truth.
It may be that we see Schön’s compositions as
the result of his position regarding the realities of practice, and his
struggle via ”authentic attention” and notitia to get close to this practice.
It is because Schön gives us an interpretation of reality and its practice,
which feels so true that we are attracted to it. In a pragmatic spirit we could
also interpret this feeling of truth as connected to activity, that is, we feel
not only that Schön’s gestalt is whole, but also that it creates the
possibility for us to both understand and to act in a complex reality.
Schön’s results are used in many contexts as a
foundation for design theory that connects practice with theory, specialization
with generality, research about design with research for design. In most cases,
we see general references to Schön, often to all of his research, but we see to
a lesser degree references to specific results.
My interpretation of this is that Schön has
created a foundation and a point of departure that many do not have. And he has
done it in the form of an esthetic gestalt. It is a gestalt which feels whole
and coherent and which has great integrity. It is a design - a fabric - with aesthetic
qualities. In that his method and result are simultaneously both all inclusive
and specific, there are points of entry to the fabric that make it possible for
many to find their way in. In that way his work creates a gestalt around which
other design research can take form, grow and develop.
Comments