Advertisement

The Promise of Systemic Designing: Giving Form to Water

  • Harold G. NelsonEmail author
Living reference work entry

Latest version View entry history

Abstract

The world is understood to be more complex and dynamic than previously thought. Design is understood to be a deeper mystery than previously assumed. Design creates reality. Humans have engaged in design activities – designing – from the beginning of history, but little is known of its true nature or full potential. Familiar approaches to design and design education no longer match the real-world necessities and expectations of modern societies. Everything is connected, and it is difficult, or it seems often impossible, to determine what course of action is prudent when designing within such complexity. Systemic design is an emergent means for creating desired change that takes a broader stance and deeper approach to designing than is the norm nowadays. Creating educational experiences that prepare designers for competent professional practice in the world today requires a systemic design approach.

Keywords

Complexity Design Design praxis Design scholarship Systems Systemics Systemic design Design learning Systems learning Systemic design education 

References

  1. Ackoff, R. (1974). Beyond problem solving. General Systems, XIX, 237–239.Google Scholar
  2. Ackoff, R., Magidson, J., & Addison, H. (2006). Idealized design: How to dissolve tomorrow’s crisis today. Philadelphia, PA: Wharton School Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Alexander, C. (1964). Synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, P. (2008). Water- An enduring mystery. Nature, 452, 291–292. https://www.nature.com/articles/452291aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bianchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry: Inquiry comes in various forms. Science and Children, 46(2), 26.Google Scholar
  6. Boyer, E., Moser, D., Ream, T., & Braxton, J. (2016). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate (2nd ed.). Princeton, MA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn. Brain, mind, experience and school (Expanded ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J., Mosborg, S., Copland, M., Honig, M., Nelson, G., et al. (2010). Adaptive people and adaptive systems: Issues of learning and design. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (Vol. 23, pp. 825–856). Dordrecht, NL: Springer Science+Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.Google Scholar
  10. Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems; basic concepts of systems and organization. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Dreyfus, S. E., & Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_model_of_skill_acquisition
  12. Francois, C. (1999). Systemics and cybernetics in a historical perspective. Systems and Behavioral Science, 16, 203–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freud, S. (2010). Civilization and its discontents. (J. Startchy, Trans.). New York, NY: Norton and Co. Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Gagné, R. M. (1972). Domains of learning. Interchange, 3, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Osborn, A. (1953). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving. New York, NY: Charles Scribner.Google Scholar
  17. Protzen, J., & Harris, D. J. (2010). The universe of design: Horst Rittel’theories of design and planning. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Remen, R. N. (1996). In the service of life. Noetic Science Review, 37, 24–25.Google Scholar
  19. Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: Systems analysis of the first and second generations. Bedrifts Onkonomen, 8, 390–396.Google Scholar
  20. Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simon, H. A. (1982). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Snow, C. P. (2001) [1959]. The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Upitas, A. (2008). Design methods movement, 1944–1967. Dissertation at MIT. Retrieved Online: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/45943
  25. Vardouli, T. (1967). The behaviourism/phenomenology debate in the Portsmouth Symposium of 1967 on design methods in architecture. Retrieved online: http://www.enhsa.net/archidoct/issue02.html
  26. Wallace, DF (2005). commencement address; Kenyon College in 2005. Retrieved from: https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~drkelly/DFWKenyonAddress2005.pdf

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer ScienceUniversity of MontanaMissoulaUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • Eugene Kowch
    • 1
  1. 1.Werklund School of EducationUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations