feel good in one's hand ((shows it with his hand)) it's supposed to be easy .... in a »real world« - engineering designers do not handle actual materials - but .... A exits the little story he has told about the prototype and uses ..... device as a whole.
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work Friedrich Glock
In this paper a descriptive approach to design research is adopted. Design processes are conceived as social processes of interpretation. A reconstructive approach is suggested to describe design processes in terms of interaction. The concept of context and frame is employed for reconstructive analysis of design processes. Investigations of deictic expressions in design conversation are used to refine the analysis of contexts. The suggested approach attempts to reconstruct how interpretation is achieved by designers in a particular design process in practice. Design work in this view appears as interpretation and generation of design goals in sequences of context-bound and context -generating design moves. The transcripts of the beginning of a recorded design session is investigated in some detail to demonstrate the suggested approach.
M
ost prescriptive design methodologies are based on “models of technical rationality” (Schön 1983) and conceive designing work as a problem solving process – i.e. as a search for design solutions for predefined ends. Design research in this view is to strive for the determination of the rational process of designing. Prescriptive methodologies are primarily concerned with how designing ought to be done. Actual design work in practice is supposed to apply the findings of design research to improve the design process. Since actual design processes only more or less correspond to the ideal rational process they are conceived as distorted by influencing e.g. social factors. In contrast to prescriptive models, the suggested descriptive approach to design research does not take as its task to determine the ideal process for prescription, but to investigate and describe how design work is actually done in particular design processes in practice. No a priori assumptions are made about an ideal process which could serve as a gauge. Rather than simply being influenced by social factors, design work is conceived as a social process (cf. Bucciarelli 1994) “… work practice is fundamentally social.” (Suchman and Trigg 1991). More than information processing in an individual’s mind or in a machine the design process is conceived as an interactional or conversational achievement.
1
Friedrich Glock
The suggested approach to empirical design research requires case study methodology and ethnographic observations (video recording) for a detailed analysis of how designers actually do design work in practice. In this paper I will attempt to describe the beginning of an actual design process in terms of social interaction and I will adopt sociological and socio -linguistic concepts for analysis. The data for the analysis presented in the paper are taken from case study of a design project in practice which has been carried out in a research organization. The author has accompanied the project as an observer, visited people at their workplace, talked with them, made field notes, took audio - and video recordings of design sessions, meetings, etc. The goal of the observed project was to redesign the prototype of an ‘electronic epi-luminescence microscope’ - a device to replace the previous procedure for inspection of skin lesions in dermatology. The device takes a digital picture of skin lesions to be magnified and displayed on a monitor as well as electronically stored and amenable to image processing and computer aided diagnosing. Meanwhile the device – in a slightly different design - is at the market and in use all over the world. The following extracts are taken from an early design session which has been video recorded. The quoted extracts present the transcript of the beginning of the session; two engineers (A and B, both experienced engineering designers; B is new in the project) work together to redesign the mechanics of the device. Extract 1 (9:25:50 - 9:27:15) A:
Naujo wia mochn an, an an Tei, den konstruktiven Teil soin wia mochn. … Well we make a, a a part, the designing part we are supposed to make. …
B:
wos host gsogt, des haßt Melanommeß(.)gerät oder wia haßt des? what did you say, it is called melanoma measure device or what is it called?
A:
… Auflichtmikroskop zur Melanomfrüherkennung … ((B notiert)) (.) … light microscope for early diagnosis of melanoma … ((B notes)) (.)
A:
Do gibt‘s jetzt an Prototyp, den hobns drübn in der Werkstott gmocht. da X. ... there’s now a prototype, that they have made over there in the workshop. X did.
B:
Den hobn´s scho gmocht, oder? they have made it already, eh?
2
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
A:
den gibts= der is auber eher (.) net sehr (.) handlich und is a schwer zum (.) umständlich zum montiern. Und den woins jetzt in Serie baun[((uv)) it's there= but it is rather (.) not very (.) handy and it is also hard to (.) it’s difficult to assemble. And they now want to produce it in series[ ((inaudible))
B: A:
[ mhm ... und daunn brauchns a aundershh Design. Und und des muaß a besser und leichter zum Montieren sei. Momentan des is s waßt eh wia wia a feinmechanisches Gerät aus de fufzger Johr so ungefähr so hobn’s es baut ... and what they need is another design. And and it has got to be better and easier to assemble. At the moment, it is, well you know, it’s like like a fine mechanical device from the fifties or so that’s how they’ve built it
B:
die Haundhobung soi günstig sein, [(.) zum transportiern leicht wohrscheinlich the handling’s supposed to be advantageous, [(.) easy to transport probably
A:
B:
B: B:
[
sois guat in da Haund liegn ((zeigt mit der Hand)) leicht sois sei, wartungsfreundlich, wei jetzt is so, do muaß ma [des Lamperl auswechln unter Umständen [ jo [ it’s supposed to feel good in one’s hand ((shows it with his hand)) it’s supposed to be easy, easy to maintain because, for the time being, it’s such that one may have [ to replace the bulb if need be [ yes und wird des bei Ärzten eingsetzt oder in Spitälern? Wo wird des eingsetzt? and will it be used by physicians or in hospitals? Where will it be used?
A:
Hautärzte dermatologists
B: A:
[ oder soins de Hautärzte, nau is eh klor. [ or by dermatologists, of course. jo, vielleicht a in Spitäler jo. ... yes, perhaps also in hospitals, yes. ...
1. Approaching design conversation The conversation transcribed in extract 1 might be paraphrased: A announces what they are supposed to do in the session – ‘we are supposed to … the designing part’. B asks for the name of the device
3
Friedrich Glock
to be designed – ‘what is it called’ and A names the device. A then reports that ‘there is … a prototype’ which has been manufactured in the workshop and criticizes some deficiencies of the prototype - ‘but it is … not very handy and it is also complicated to assemble’. A informs B that the originators of the device ‘now want to produce it in series’ and that ‘they need … another design’ of the device. The device to be designed ‘has to be better and easier to assemble’, and the design of the present prototype is outdated – ‘… it’s like a fine mechanical device from the fifties’. B adds further supposable or ‘probable’ requirements for a redesigned device - ‘the handling is supposed to be advantageous’, ‘easy to transport’. A reformulates and adds requirements - ‘it’s supposed to feel good in one’s hand, it’s supposed to be easy, easy to maintain’. As A gives an example for probable maintenance work ‘to replace the bulb’, B asks where the device will be used - ‘where will it be used’ and he anticipates physicians or hospitals. A confirms ‘dermatologists … also in hospitals’ In terms of design methodologies, this strip of talk might be conceived as the “early stage of the design process” in which designers are, or ought to be engaged in “requirements clarification”, “definition of design goals”, etc. Requirements specification is supposed to be of primary importance for design processes because the underlying model of technical rationality assumes the design process, and each “step” within the process to be directed by goals. But the design goals mentioned so far in the transcript are rather vague, such as ‘easy to assemble’, ‘easy to transport’, ‘easy to maintain’, ‘feel good in one’s hand’, etc. Although these utterances describe requirements which are undoubtedly important in the process, they scarcely can be taken to “direct” the steps of the design process. Design goals are elaborated in the process. I argue (cf. Glock 1998, 2001) that design goals inevitably remain more or less vague, incomplete, contradictory, etc. in the beginning of any design process. In the transcript one can observe that B also adds supposed requirements although he does not know the device. B addresses the question - ‘Where will it be used?’ and he anticipates ‘by physicians or in hospitals’. The name of the device ‘light microscope for early diagnosis of melanoma’ might have given some cues as to where it will be used - ‘physicians’ practice … hospitals’. I will call physicians’ practice and hospitals the context of use of the device; B asks for or invokes the context of use. Note that the invoked context of use of the device provides a framework for interpretation of some vague requirements such as ‘handy’, ‘easy’, ‘feel good in one’s hands’, etc. which might have a quite different meaning in ‘hospitals’ in comparison with, say, steel plants, building sites, or laboratories. More than collecting a list of requirements, designers seek to come to a shared understanding of the device by invoking contexts – context of use, context of production, context of maintenance, etc.
4
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
I suggest to conceive the design process as a social process of interpretation and creation of design goals as well as of generation of contexts. Designing is also “construction of meaning”. This suggests a shift in design research. Rather than to strive for finding general laws, and methods valid for any design process, the research shifts to the question of how designers achieve interpretation in a particular design process. 2.Contexts and frames I suggest adopting Goffman’s notion of frame which has introduced Bateson’s concept of “… ‘frame’ and the related notion of ‘context’” (Bateson 1972) into sociology. Goffman’s point of departure is his assumption “… that when individuals attend to any current situation, they face the question: ‘What is it that’s going on here?’” (Goffman 1974). The notion of frame is used to denote the ability of actors to interpret, make sense of, and »define« situations. “When the individual in our western society recognizes a particular event, he tends … to imply in his response (and in effect employ) one or more frameworks or schemata of interpretation of a kind that can be called primary. … a primary framework is one that is seen as rendering what would otherwise be a meaningless aspect of the scene into something that is meaningful.“ (ibid.). At the beginning of the session A announces what (he expects) they are going to in their present situation: to design – ‘the designing part we are supposed to do’. An answer to the question »what is going on?« is: a design session. Goffman discerns primary frameworks and “keyings”. Keying refers “to the set of conventions by which a given activity, one already meaningful in terms of some primary framework, is transformed into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants to be something quite else.“ (ibid., p.43). Designers, in a sense, do not act in a »real world« - engineering designers do not handle actual materials - but they operate within a transformed version in various media (drawings, speech, etc.), or in “virtual worlds”. „The situations … are, in important ways, not the real thing.“ (Schön 1983). „(T)he officially attended activity - is itself a transformation of actual activity.“ (Goffman 1974). There are numerous keying patterns like playing, fantasizing, describing retrospectively, analyzing, planning, modeling, testing, etc. and many of these can be observed and presumably have important roles in design processes. An object can be transformed into various keyings. Like for example a photo is a transformed »copy« of an »original«, the technical drawing of a device is a »copy« of the »original« device; but in design work, the »original« usually does not exist prior to the »copy«! In extract 1, A verbally introduces an object – ‘there is … a prototype’ into their conversation and he adds some information where - ‘in the workshop’ - and by whom – ‘X did‘ - the prototype has been
5
Friedrich Glock
manufactured. A’s utterance - ‘there is … a prototype’ could also be considered as a proposition; and one could attempt to evaluate the truth value of the proposition. But this is not what the suggested approach to design research is supposed to do. B asks - ‘they have made it already, eh?’; he seems to ask for information that A has just been given - ‘they have made … in the workshop’. Is B’s question to be understood as challenging the truth value of A’s proposition? B’s question is not interpreted as a challenge of the truth value of the proposition but as a question for the frame for proper understanding of the ambivalent meaning of the word ‘made’ in A’s proposition. In the engineering world the prototype could be ‘made’ in the sense of manufactured or ‘made’ in the sense of »designed on paper«, as a drawn design. B’s question is understood to address the »status of reality« of the device, its “order of existence” (a phrase by Aron Gurwitsch) in different »worlds« such as the world of material artifacts or the world of drawn ideas. The status of reality of the device frames the succeeding utterances, i.e. the severity of the utterances concerning the prototype. A’s response to the question – ‘it’s there’ clarifies that the device has been manufactured ‘already’. 3. Moves Following Schön (1983) and Bucciarelli (1994) I conceive actions performed in design work as interactive moves such as spoken utterances, drawing actions etc. Goffman introduces the notion of move to „refer to any full stretch of talk or of its substitutes which has a distinctive unitary bearing on some set or other of the circumstances in which participants find themselves (some ‘game’ … in the peculiar sense employed by Wittgenstein)… It follows that an utterance which is … a move in one game may also be a move in another…“ (Goffman, 1981). Moves occur within a chain of moves and cannot adequately be understood in isolation; every move relates to previous and to succeeding moves in the sequence as well as to a wider context. Moves are treated as “doubly contextual” (Drew and Heritage 1992): (1) moves are context shaped; they cannot be adequately understood except by reference to the context in which they occur. (2) Moves are also context renewing or generating; every move will itself contribute to the im mediate context for some next move in a sequence, the context in which the next move will be understood. Thus, the interactional context is in continuous flux and being developed with each successive move; “‘context’ is treated both in the project and product of the participants’ own actions and therefore as inherently locally produced and transformable … “ (ibid.). 4. Contexts and deixis Goffman advises us to identify “a particular framework (which) is chiefly relevant and provides a first answer to the question ‘What is it
6
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
that’s going on here?’… Then one can begin to worry about the microanalytic issues of what is meant by ‘we’, ‘it’…” (Goffman, 1974). The reader of the text of the transcript will observe that designers use in their conversation terms such as ‘we’, ‘now’, ‘over there’, ‘it’ etc. which are called ‘deictics’. Deictic terms such as pronouns, temporal and spatial adverbs are indexical; that is, their significances rely upon the relationship to circumstance and the situation of use. Ethomethodologists take deictic expression as just “… clear illustrations of the general fact that all situated language, including the most abstract or eternal, stands in an essentially indexical relationship to the embedded world.” (Suchman 1987). Expressions in the extracts used e.g. to describe design goals such as ‘handy’, ‘easy to …’ are examples of indexical expression; and the observed invocation of context of use for interpretation is an illustration of “… the general idea that the sense of descriptions is context bound…” (Heritage 1984) The investigation of the use of deictic expression in the transcript may help to refine the analysis in terms of context since deixis is the “… most obvious way in which the relationship between language and context is reflected ...” (Levinson 1983). Hanks observes that “… each deictic category encodes a relation between the referent and the indexical framework in which the act of reference takes place. Thus, a single deictic word stands for minimally two objects: the referent is the thing, individual, event, spatial or temporal location denoted; and the indexical framework is the origo (‘pivot’ of zero -point) relative to which the referent is identified (the speech event in which the act of reference is performed, or some part of this event).” (Hanks 1992). It is Hanks’ seminal idea that “… the referential apparatus encoded in deictic systems … can be read off as mini-descriptions of interactive contexts in which deixis occurs, thus setting a direction for pragmatic research.” (ibid.). Reconsider A’s utterance –‘there’s now a prototype that they have made over there in the workshop’ - a kind of a short (hi)story of the device invoking the context of production. Emphasis is put on some deictic expressions. The indexicality of the verb ‘made’ has been addressed above. The first clause can be understood as a move by A which verbally introduces an object, thus informing B about the object and directing attention to the object. The adverb ‘now’ refers to time and ties the current situation to the wider process of the project; it makes the prototype relevant for their current situation as an object to begin with; ‘now’ seems also to indicate the transient nature of the object. The plural personal pronoun ‘they’, who ‘have made’ the prototype, refers to the personal, the craftsmen ‘in the workshop’; and A calls the name of one craftsman – ‘X did’. Although X is a single person, A uses the plural pronoun - ‘they’; ‘they’ might be X’s coworkers or the team of developers. Through the use of the pronoun ‘they’ A also implies a division within the design team and reflects his
7
Friedrich Glock
»definition of their current situation« in terms of context of relationship within the team: ‘we’ (as in ‘we are supposed to do’) are here – the current situation is the indexical ground - and ‘they’ - other participants in the project - are ‘over there’, exclusive to the current situation and not participating in the current interactive field.“… (T)he indexical ground is intimately tied to the basic process of human interaction and participation frameworks. The relationships that are encoded in deictic usage ‘make up what might be called an implicit playing field for interaction – a set of positions in deictic space, along with expectations about how actors occupy these positions over the course of talk.’” (Duranti & Goodwin 1992). B asks whether the prototype has been manufactured – ‘made already’. A confirms – ‘it’s there’ and immediately turns to an assessment move – ‘but it is rather (.) not very (.) handy…’. 4.1 Assessing the prototype The construction of A’s utterance accords with the structure Goodwin & Goodwin (1992) have found in the construction of post-positioned assessments in everyday conversations. [it] + [copula] + [adverbial intensifier] + [assessment term] it is rather (.) not very (.) handy
In this construction an entity, the prototype, is introduced in a first structure (which is simultaneously a response to B’s question), and then commented in a second. The Goodwins have observed that post-positioned assessments are techniques for displaying closure; “… by moving to the assessment the speaker shows that though her talk is continuing, a marked structural change has occurred in it. … when a speaker begins the assessment she is no longer describing events … but instead commenting on the description already given. Such a shift from description to assessment of described events in fact constitutes one of the characteristic ways that speakers begin to exit from a story.” (ibid.). A exits the little story he has told about the prototype and uses the assessment to go beyond the present prototype and to shift attention to other topics or perspectives - ‘and they now want to produce it in series’. B seems to understand this shift as he utters a continuer - ‘mhm’ at this spot. A adds – ‘and’ further requirements for the future design ‘another design’, ‘easier to assemble’ and returns to the assessment of the present prototype - ‘at the moment’. He again announces a description - ‘it is’, and before he provides a description, he suggests shared knowledge – ‘you know’. He suggests shared understanding through drawing a resemblance – ‘it is like’ to a type of devices both are familiar with - ‘a fine mechanical device from the fifties’. A invokes a design style or context as a background for interpretation or general description of the design of the prototype. He does not add to the list
8
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
of requirements or specify design goals but he seems to establish a contrast; the contrast between an obsolete design and a redesign. The description by reference to an outdated design style also assesses or criticizes the prototype as obsolete. Just as in the previous move – ‘it is …not very handy’ - A used the assessment to shift from the prototype to requirements for redesign, one can observe in the transcript an analogous shift from assessment to requirements; this time, interestingly, performed by B – ‘the handling is supposed to be advantageous…’; B in a sense completes the structure of the sequence. A’s assessment moves provide not only information about the prototype and design goals but function also as communicative moves and contribute to the local context of their conversation. “Assessments reveal not only just neutral objects of the world, but an alignment taken up toward phenomena by a particular actor. … It is therefore not surprising that displaying congruent understanding can be an issue of some importance to the participants.” (ibid.). B projects the communicative function of A’s construction and through his response he displays alignment (at the interactional level) and shared understanding (at the content level). Although B knows the device only from previous descriptions, he adds some general, ‘probable’ requirements – ‘the handling’s supposed to be advantageous, easy to transport’ which do not deal so much with the particular device, “but rather with it as a class” or type of devices “that the device currently being described instances.” (ibid.). 4.2 Deixis and context shift The shift of context initiated by the assessment is also reflected in deictics. Reconsider A’s moves: he introduces the object - ‘there is a prototype … they have made’, moves to an assessment – ‘it is … not very handy’, and turns to future requirements – ‘And they now want to produce it in series.’ The pronoun ‘it’ in the assessment refers to the prototype already established. Notice that the pronoun ‘it’ in the formulation of requirements does not refer to the present prototype but to a redesigned prototype; it is not the present prototype as in ‘they now want to produce it in series’ but ‘another design’ of the device. The referent of ‘it’ shifts. Supported by some ethnographic information one can also observe a shift in the meaning of the plural pronoun »they«: whereas ‘they’ in ‘they have made it … in the workshop’ at least includes craftsmen in the workshop, »they« in ‘they now want to produce it in series’ refers to the inventor and the developer who want to bring the device to the market. As the perspective shifts from the present state - ‘there’s’ to ‘they now want’, the desired future state -‘build it in series’, the referents of the indexical pronouns ‘it’ and ‘they’ also change. “A basic property of the indexical context of interaction is that it is dynamic. As
9
Friedrich Glock
interactants move through space, shift topics, exchange information, coordinate their respective orientations, and establish common grounds …, the indexical framework of reference changes. Patterns of deictic usage reflect these changes, and thereby provide us with a powerful tool for investigating them.” (Hanks 1992). The conversation between the quoted extracts concerns issues such as cost and ecological criteria not discussed here. Extract 2 (9:28:25 – 9:28:57) A:
... Was (.) unser (.) ((nimmt Schreiber))Tei is, is Konstruktion vo dem, (0.5) vo dem Innenlebn. (.) amoi kurz, (.) ((greift zur Mappe)) den jetzigen schaut irgendwie so aus ((zeigt Zeichnung)) nau unis, des is vagrößert
eigentlich die Do gibt’s, (.) Prototyp, der unförmig, des
B:
mhm
A:
des is zwa zu ans. Do is do die Optik, ((zeigt auf der Zeichnung)) Kamera, Linsn, Beleuchtung, und do is de- de Haut do is Melanom | takes pencil |part is actually the design of the (0.5) of the
A:
What is (.) our (.) inner life. | puts note aside | takes the folder | leafing through pages |(.) There is, (.) |briefly, |(.) the present prototype, it kind of looks like | shows drawing; A and B look at the drawing | slight lateral head shakes | shrugs shoulders |that: |mis– misshapen, |this is, this is scaled up
B:
mhm | shows with fingers; B vertical headshakes | points at drawing |B slightly nods
A:
|two to one. Here there is |here the optics, camera, lenses, lighting, and | points with pencil at drawing |B slightly nods |here is the- the skin | here is the melanoma
B:
setzt er auf, he’s mounting it
A:
10
do setzt er´s auf; daunn schaut er- oiso er schaut net eine.(.) Es geht üba die Kamera ((zeigt zur Kamera)) und zum Fernseher ((zeigt zur Kamera, dann…)) ((Bild)) that’s where he’s mounting it; and then he looks – well, actually, he does not look into it.
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
| hand move begins at the drawing
| hand directs to video-camera | opens hand, directs to …
|It goes via the camera onto the |video screen B:
und durt hot er s Büd |A’s hand directs … |B points with head |and |there he’s got the picture ((figure 1))
A:
durt hot er s Büd. there he’s got the picture
| ((figure 1))
Figure 1
A calls the task in the session “in one sentence” (Pahl and Beitz 1984) - ‘what is our part is actually the design of the inner life.’ Interestingly, as he says ‘part’ he takes the pencil – a common tool designers work with. He formulates the task by means of a metaphor - ‘inner life’ - which might be paraphrased as »what is going on inside the device«; the metaphor implies a distinction between inside and outside and seems to »animate« the mechanics. 4.3 Presenting the prototype Before his next utterance, A begins to put aside the note sheets to make room on the table in front of them and announces – ‘there is’. Although this action occurs within the established frame of designing it is clearly not a design move; the action serves to set up the »stage« for an upcoming activity – the presentation of the drawing. The action “… is itself excluded from the content of the activity but … serves as a means of regulating it” (Goffman 1974) and serves as a “boundary marker” (ibid.) or bracket for an episode. For a more detailed description of the design process it appears appropriate to discern episodes rather than different consecutive stages or phases.
11
Friedrich Glock
A then takes a folder he has brought with him and simultaneously utters ‘briefly’; the utterance meta-communicates or frames the activity he is going to perform to be (intended by him as) ‘brief’. And in fact he closes the folder about two minutes later which then marks the end of the episode (not quoted in the extract). As he is leafing through the pages of the folder he imparts what he is announcing and looking for – ‘the present prototype’. Immediately before he presents the drawing, he adds a cue for interpretation of the drawing: to see how ‘it kind of looks like’; and as he says - ‘that‘ he presents the technical drawing of the prototype. The technical drawing of the prototype provides a resource for information as well as a shared visual field to orient their attention – A and B look at the drawing. The drawing of the prototype – although obviously a central resource in the design session - is not presented at the very beginning of the session (extract 1) but is, for the time, being »backstage«. The preceding talk (extract 1) seems to serve as a framing of the subsequently presented (drawing of) the prototype; “… ’opening remarks’ can set the stage and frame what follows…” (ibid.) A presents the prototype and immediately turns to critical judgment - ‘mis-misshapen’ and he simultaneously performs some slight lateral head shakes, “… a prototypical nonvocal assessment marker.” (Goodwins 1992). In the verbal presentation (extract 1) A’s critical assessment addresses features such as ‘not very handy’, ‘difficult to assemble’; as the device is visible (extract 2), A criticizes ‘misshapen’ the shape of the device, which is primarily visible in drawings. The next, succeeding utterances - ‘this is, this is’ appear to be a restart of the clause ‘this is scaled up’. But it can be observed in the transcript that A accompanies the first utterance - ‘this is’ with a gesture – shrug of shoulders; therefore the utterance is to be understood as an abbreviated judgment of the device. “… (P)articipants can also display their involvement in an assessment … through recognizable nonvocal displays.” (ibid.). The clause ‘this is scaled up’ does not, of course, describe the device but refers to the framing conventions and transformation practices of technical drawings. It gives information how to read the prototype as a drawing. The deictic expression ‘this’ does not refer to the properties of the device but to the properties of the transformation of the device. The utterance is understood on a different “syntactic level” (Goffman 1974) and illustrates the organization of the experience of the situation in laminations of different frames. This shift in frame of the utterance can be recognized by competent readers of technical drawings through the term ‘scaled up’; B displays understanding as he utters ‘mhm’. A also demonstrates the scale ‘two to one’ with a gesture he performs with his fingers above the drawing and shows the expansion of the drawn components.
12
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
The next, somewhat odd and difficult-to-translate-formulation ‘here there is here the optics camera lenses...’ shifts the frame and perspective from the drawing conventions to (the components of) the drawn prototype. The first deictic expression - ‘here’ refers to the prototype (re)presented ‘here’ as a drawing. A does not just describe the visible prototype but also says what he is going to describe, the prototype ‘here’. He explicitly meta-communicates the primary frame of the ‘already’ manufactured prototype (re)presented ‘here’ and thereby creates some distance; in some sense saying: ‘here’ »in the present prototype« ‘there is here the optics …’ »but it might be different in the design we are supposed to develop«; “… when activity that is not transformed is occurring, definitions in terms of frames suggest alienation, irony, and distance.” (ibid.). The creation of some distance to the given is a precondition for new or redesign. The move performed through the deictic expression - ‘here’ frames the present design as a changeable. A’s framing or bracketing of the description indicates that he is not just going to describe the device but that his description is also to be understood and might have another, additional meaning in the context of their task; thus contributing to the emerging context and shared background understanding of the future redesign. 4.4 Understanding the device A refers to components of the device - ‘there is here the optics, camera, lenses, lighting’. He enumerates some components singled out from those shown in the drawing and makes these components relevant. Notice that the succession of the enumeration of components implies a perspective (analogous e.g. to the guidance of a camera). Components can be seen simultaneously in the drawing but the description in the form of talk necessitates temporal order which conveys some meaning. “… (T)he temporal sequencing that is inherent in the spoken narration … is itself already a transformational accomplishment …” (ibid). A first enumerates components which are inside; his perspective might be characterized »from the inside to the outside« which seems to resonate the ‘inner life’ metaphor. As A calls the names of the components he points with his left hand’s forefinger at each component shown in the drawing to identify them. A continues – ‘and’ calls »addditional elements« - ‘here is thethe skin’. As he says ‘here’ he points with the pencil he holds in his right hand at the drawing and »draws a line in the air«, to indicate ‘the skin’ and – ‘the melanoma’. The skin, of course, is not part of the device and is not shown in the technical drawing. He neither continues enumeration of components of the device nor completes the drawing, in fact he is not actually drawing but performs the gesture above the drawing. This move goes beyond the conventions of technical drawings and exceeds the framework of the technical drawing. A’s gesture virtually brings
13
Friedrich Glock
the drawn device together with ‘the skin’ as if it were used. He invokes the context of use and shifts to another perspective to perceive the drawing. The focus of attention shifts from the examination of the technical drawing to the context of use of the device. The drawing is transformed into a kind of substitute for the actual device in the invoked context of use. The perspective of examining the technical drawing of the device is put into the background and the drawing of the device is perceived »as a whole«; this is reflected in B’s utterance ‘he’s mounting it’ – ‘it’, refers to the device as a whole. B displays understanding; he also addresses the user’s situation and brings an actor into play of the virtual scene - ‘he’, the dermatologist. A confirms shared understanding through echoing B’s utterance ‘that’s where he is mounting it’ ‘and’ continues what ‘he’ is going to do in the user context - ‘and then he looks- well, actually, he does not look into it. It goes…’; the dermatologist -‘he’ at diagnosing work using the device ‘does not look into’ the device – ‘it’. The device is ‘a part’ of a technical system which transforms the image of the skin into a digital image on a computer screen. As A begins his explanation -‘it goes’, the referent of the pronoun ‘it’ does not refer to the device (as in the previous utterance ‘…look into it’) but to the technical process of data transformation in the technical system. The deictic expression ‘it’ eludes details of the technical process but ‘it goes’ characterizes the referent ‘it’ as a movable, a flow of data. “… deictics differ from semantic descriptions in that they denote referents without actually describing them … is not strictly accurate. Deictics regularly encode features such as … Static vs. Kinetic.” (Hanks 1992). A accompanies his talk with a gesture. He delineates a curve with his left hand which describes a trajectory of the flow of data. As A says ‘it goes…’ he simultaneously points with his finger to the spot where he was indicating ‘the skin’, and begins to move his hand above the components in the drawing as he says ‘via camera’; his hand moves above the table and points to the recording video camera and says ‘onto the video screen’ and than he opens his hand and points to an »imaginary« screen (see figure). B shows understanding and completes the move - ‘and there he’s got the picture’ and at the same time points with his head into the direction where A’s hand directs. A confirms understanding and echoes - ‘there he’s got the picture’. This move scarcely can be understood through spoken words alone. Talk gesture and objects elaborate each other and cannot be properly understood in isolation. As he points to the present recording video camera he says ‘video screen’ although the received image will be displayed on a computer screen. This is one of the spots where the actors display apparent reference to the present recording video camera. And one can assume that this might have caused the false expression ‘video screen’. But it
14
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
does not seem that this mis-designation causes confusio n; his fault seems to be ignored or tacitly corrected. A’s hand gesture describes an imaginary line which goes beyond the drawing frame. The move includes the ambient space of the session room into the description or, vice versa, embeds the drawn device into the surrounding space in a particular way. The move generates a kind of imaginary scenario of the context of use. The present situation itself seem to be transformed into a »virtual« situation of use. Like in a stage play - a prototypical example of “keying” - objects may gain different meanings; in the »virtual« situation of use the drawing is used to play the role of the device brought together with the patient’s skin, meaning is ascribed to the present recording camera in the transformed situation, and other objects are imagined, like the ‘screen’ with an imaginary actor – ‘he’s got the picture’. Notice that they refer to the image as being ‘there’ – outside the present field; this might reflect the monitor not being an object of their design task. But, in the virtual situation of use, they also seem to imply the physician as being here ‘and there he’s got the picture’; they seem to presuppose a regional distinction in the future situation of use of the device –‘here is the skin’ ‘and there he’s got the picture’. Notice that the delineated context of use is also designed because the artifact to be designed is not in use yet. The designing of the device implies a redesign or generation of the context of use. Their anticipation of what ‘he’ is supposed to do in the future redesigned context of use might have implications for e.g. the role of the dermatologists. For example: traditionally, dermatologists inspect skin lesions with magnifiers. In a redesigned user context ‘he does not look into it’ as ‘he’ did with the magnifier but the physician has to look at ‘the screen’ ‘and there he’s got the picture’. And this might have implications on how ‘he’ - the partially designed (role of the) user relates to the patient; e.g. the dermatologist - ‘he does not look’ at the patient – the patient’s skin, but at ‘the screen’. In designing artifacts designers simultaneously affect, intervene in, or generate future contexts of use, contexts of production, assembly, etc. In designing an artifact designers also ‘configure the user’ (Woolgar 1994). Engineering designers are ‘engineer sociologists’ (Callon 1987). A invokes the context of use in order to understand the technical drawing of the device – ‘here is the skin’, ’he is mounting it’ and he recurs to the function of the technical system – ‘it goes via the camera onto the … screen’, to understand the user situation ‘there he’s got the picture’. B displays understanding and contributes to the sequences; both moves are performed together. The context of use of the device is in turn a - still changeable - background for interpretation and generation of design goals and design solutions for a redesigned device in the process. The understanding of the device (to be redesigned) and the understanding of the context of use, as well as
15
Friedrich Glock
the context of production, assembly, maintenance, etc. elaborate each other. Features of the device are evidences for an underlying pattern such as the user context and the device is understood on the basis of what is known about the context of use in hospitals and dermatologists’ practices. In design work as an interpretative process designers also seem to employ “the documentary method of interpretation” as an “… unavoidable feature of all acts of mundane perception and cognition.” (Heritage 1984). “Not only is the underlying pattern derived from its individual documentary evidences, but the individual documentary evidences, in their turn, are interpreted on the basis of ‘what is known’ about the underlying pattern. Each is used to elaborate the other.” (Garfinkel 1967). 5. Summary In the paper a descriptive approach to design research has been adopted. I have suggested to conceive design processes as social processes of interpretation. Design research in this view attempts to reconstruct how interpretations are achieved, that is how requirements are interpreted, generated and transformed into technical designs by particular actors in actual design process in practice. This requires case study methodology and being alert and sensitive to particular design processes. Sociological and socio -linguistic concepts such as frames and contexts have been suggested to analyze designing as a process of interaction. In the paper I have attempted to describe in some detail the transcript of the beginning of a recorded design session in practice and to reconstruct the interaction in terms of contexts and frames. I have taken deictic expressions into account to refine the description and to reveal the dynamic shifts of perspectives and unfolding contexts in the conversation. Investigation of deixis also helped to discern episodes in the process. In the conversation at the beginning of the redesign session designers seek to come to a shared understanding of the present device as well as requirements for a redesign of the device. Designers understand the working of the device and interpret and generate the requirements for a redesign through the invocation of contexts, such as context of use. In turn the user context is also designed and users are configured as well. The approach to design work as a social process suggests conceiving the designers using the documentary method of interpretation. The context of use and requirements for redesign are elaborated in various transformations or keyings generated through talk and gestures. On the basis of their knowledge and understanding designers generate virtual situations, design spaces, and interactive fields through design moves as well as skillfully moving into, and exploring these »spaces«. The approach aims to contribute to a better understanding of design processes through detailed analysis and might contribute to the
16
Design Work in Contexts – Contexts in Design Work
refinement and rethinking of stage and phase models. Comparisons of episodes within design processes as well as comparisons of processes in various field of engineering seem promising for the development of concepts for the analysis of design processes in practice. The approach also suggests to bring together design research with other research traditions such as Science and Technology Studies, and studies of work and interaction. The suggested approach is a way to “… observe, describe, and try to illuminate the things practitioners actually say and do …“ (Schön 1991) and might contribute to “the reflective turn” in design research. Reconstructive analysis aims to characterize the ways or style how designers or design teams in particular design processes interactively create »design spaces«, »fields of interaction« and »move« into. The analysts characterizations might be beneficial for the observed designers as stimulation for “reflection on the understanding already built into the skillful actions of everyday practice.” (Schön, 1991). References Bateson, G. (1972) Steps to an Ecology of Mind, Chandler Publ. Comp. Bucciarelli,
L.
(1994)
Designing
Engineers,
MIT
Press,
Cambridge
Massachusetts. Callon, M. (1987) Society in the Making, in Bijker, W. et. al. (eds.) The Social Construction of Technological Systems, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) Talk at Work, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Garfinkel,
H.
(1967):
Studies
in
Ethnomethodology.
NY,
Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs. Glock, F. (1998) Konstruieren als Sozialer Prozeß. Deutscher Universitäts Verlag, Wiesbaden. Glock, F. (2001) Design Tools and Framing Practices, in Journal of Computer Supported Cooperative Work (forthcoming). Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis, Harper & Row, New York. Goffman,
E.
(1981)
Forms
of
Talk,
University
of
Pennsylvania
Press,
Philadelphia. Goodwin, C. and Du ranti, A. (eds.) (1991) Rethinking Context, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (1991) Assessment and the Construction of Context, in Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.) Rethinking Context, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Hanks, W. (1991) The Indexical Ground of Deictic Reference, in Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (eds.) Rethinking Context, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Polity Press, Cambridge.
17
Friedrich Glock
Levinson, S. (1983) Pragmatics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pahl, G and Beitz, W. (1984) Engineering Design, Design Council, London. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York. Schön, D. (1991) The Reflective Turn, Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Suchman, L. and Trigg, R. (1991) Understanding Practice: Video as a Medium for Reflection in Design, in Greenbaum, J and Kyng, M. (eds.) Design at Work, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hilldale, pp 65-90. Woolgar, S. (1994) Rethinking Requirements Analysis, in Jirotka, M. and Goguen, J. (eds) Requirements Engineering, Academic Press Harcourt Brace, London.
18
