Abstract
In this chapter, I outline a framework for collaborative inquiry to address complex and ambiguous problems with broad social, economic, and ecological impacts. This draws upon principles of aesthetic knowing, “designerly” thinking, and the application of scenario analysis. The philosophical foundation that underpins the framework is grounded in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, specifically his “intellectual virtue” of phronēsis, or “practical wisdom” – thinking to inform action for the “good of man” (sic), with specific concern for issues of power. It is acknowledged that application will likely lead into initial divergent rather than convergent thinking. However, there is a deliberate intent to maintain and value difference in search of the most appropriate option for resolution of the problem.
Note: This chapter is based upon a paper presented at the International Social Innovation Research Conference, Glasgow, 2016, and awarded Best Paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J (2004) User-centered design. In: Bainbridge WS (ed) Berkshire encyclopedia of human-computer interaction, vol 2. Berkshire Publishing Group, Great Barrington, pp 763–767
Acumen (2015) Design kit: the course for human-centered design. Retrieved 26 June 2015, from http://plusacumen.org/courses/hcd-for-social-innovation/
Aristotle. (1953/2004) The Nicomachean ethics (trans: Thomson JAK). Penguin, London
Beech G, Cairns G (2001) Coping with change: the contribution of postdichotomous ontologies. Hum Relat 54:1303–1324
Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harv Bus Rev 86(6):84
Brown T (2015) Design thinking: thoughts by Tim Brown. Retrieved 9 July 2015, from http://designthinking.ideo.com/
Brown T, Wyatt J (2010) Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter, pp 31–35
Cairns G (2002) Aesthetics, morality and power: design as espoused freedom and implicit control. Hum Relat 55:799–820
Cairns G, Matthews J (2015) Managing for sustained performance: collaborative realisation by design. Paper presented at the ANZAM conference, Queenstown, December
Cairns G, Śliwa M (2008) The implications of Aristotle’s phronēsis for organizational inquiry. In: Barry D, Hansen H (eds) Sage handbook of new approaches in management and organization. SAGE, Thousand Oaks, pp 318–331
Cairns G, Śliwa M, Wright G (2010) Problematizing international business futures through a ‘critical scenario method’. Futures 42:971–979
Cairns G, Wright G, Fairbrother P (2016) Promoting articulated action from diverse stakeholders in response to public policy scenarios: a case study of the use of ‘scenario improvisation’ method. Tech Forecasting Soc Chang 103:97–108
Cairns G, Wright G, Fairbrother P, Phillips R (2017) ‘Branching scenarios’ seeking articulated action for regional regeneration – a case study of limited success. Tech Forecasting Soc Chang 124:189
Carr A, Hancock P (2003) Art and aesthetics at work. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills/Basingstoke
Chick A, Micklethwaite P (2011) Design for sustainable change. AVA Publishing SA, Lausanne
Dodd T (2014, Apr 9) Why design thinking is the thing in business schools. Financ Rev. Retrieved 16 June 2015, from http://www.afr.com/it-pro/why-design-thinking-is-the-thing-in-business-schools-20140409-jk01w
The Economist (2016, Sept 10) The post-truth world; yes, I’d lie to you. The Economist. Retrieved 24 Jan 2017, from http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21706498-dishonesty-politics-nothing-new-manner-which-some-politicians-now-lie-and
Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2007) Beyond words: aesthetic knowledge and knowing in organizations. Organ Stud 28(5):689–708
Flyvbjerg B (2001) Making social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Flyvbjerg B (2003) Making organization research matter: power values and phronesis. In: Czarniawska B, Sevo’n G (eds) The northern lights: organization theory in Scandinavia. Liber Abstrakt–Copenhagen Business School Press, Copenhagen, pp 357–382
Freeman RE (1994) The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions. Bus Ethics Q 4(4):409–421
Gruber M, de Leon N, George G, Thompson P (2015) From the editors – managing by design. Acad Manag J 58(1):1–7
Helsinki Design Lab (undated) What is strategic design?. Retrieved 17 Feb 2015, from http://www.helsinkidesignlab.org/pages/what-is-strategic-design
Johansson-Sköldberg U, Woodilla J, Çetinkaya M (2013) Design thinking: past, present and possible futures. Creat Innov Manage 22:121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
Jungermann H, Thuring M (1987) The use of mental models of generating scenarios. In: Wright G, Ayton P (eds) Judgmental forecasting. John Wiley, London
Manzini E (2015) Design, when everybody designs (trans: Coad R). MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Mikulincer M (2013) Human learned helplessness: a coping perspective. Springer Science & Business Media, New York
Moholy-Nagy L (1947/1961) Vision in motion. P. Theobald, Chicago
Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ (2008) Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1):5–18
Stanford d.school (2014) Bootcamp bootleg. Stanford Business School, San Francisco
Strati A (1992) Aesthetic understanding in organizational life. Acad Manag Rev 17(3):568–581
Strati A (1999) Organization and aesthetics. SAGE, London
Strati A (2003) Knowing in practice: aesthetic understanding and tacit knowledge. In: Nicolini D, Gherardi S, Yanow D (eds) Knowing in organizations: a practice-based approach. Sharpe, Armonk, pp 53–75
Swaine J (2017, Jan 23) Donald Trump’s team defends ‘alternative facts’ after widespread protests. The Guardian. Retrieved 24 Jan 2017, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/22/donald-trump-kellyanne-conway-inauguration-alternative-facts
UTS (2011) Re-thinking research. UTS Newsroom, 4 July. Retrieved 22 Aug 2016, from http://newsroom.uts.edu.au/news/2011/07/re-thinking-research
Vangen S, Huxham C (2003) Nurturing collaborative relations: building trust in interorganizational collaboration. J Appl Behav Sci 39:5–31
Vangen S, Hayes JP, Cornforth C (2015) Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Manag Rev 17:1237–1260
Verganti R (2008) Design, meanings, and radical innovation: a metamodel and a research agenda. J Prod Innov Manag 25:436–456
Verganti R (2009) Design-driven innovation. Harvard Business Press, Boston
Wright G, Cairns G (2011) Scenario thinking: practical approaches to the future. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke
Wright G, Cairns G, Bradfield R (2013) Scenario methodology: new developments in theory and practice: introduction to the special issue. Tech Forecasting Soc Chang 80:561–565
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Section Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Cairns, G. (2018). Aesthetic Knowing, “Designerly” Thinking and Scenario Analysis. In: Neesham, C., Segal, S. (eds) Handbook of Philosophy of Management. Handbooks in Philosophy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48352-8_1-2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48352-8_1-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-48352-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-48352-8
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities
Publish with us
Chapter history
-
Latest
Aesthetic Knowing, “Designerly” Thinking and Scenario Analysis- Published:
- 27 August 2018
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48352-8_1-2
-
Original
Aesthetic Knowing, “Designerly” Thinking and Scenario Analysis- Published:
- 25 October 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48352-8_1-1