Towards a philosophy of products?

I read an interesting article yesterday (26th April 2013) on Google Glass, in the MIT Technology Review (thanks to David Barlex and Torben Stegg). The author (John Pavius) discusses some of the, potential, technical and social issues with the user interface with Google Glass. However, the most interesting part was a reference to the 20th Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger, who is possibly best know for his writing on tool use.

Pavius takes a slightly dystopian view of the implications of the Google Glass user interface with future ‘technological’ products in the future, which somewhat reflects Heideggar’s leanings. Having said that, I think that he (Heideggar) can teach us something about products. He wrote within a the school of phenomenology, which (very crudely speaking) is concerned with the observation and experience of phenomena (things that occur/happen in human experience).

Taken from: http://www.flickr.com/

Heideggar was interested in objects, or more accurately ‘things’: he actually was not particularly keen of objects as a term, inferring a distance, whereas ‘things’ are experienced and meaningful (think that I’ve got that right!?). Two key concepts regarding tools, in heidegarrian philosophy are readiness to hand and presence at hand. These terms describe human beings relationship to and use of tools. Heideggar used the example of the hammer. When a hammer is in use, it becomes an extension of the arm and withdraws from consciousness: this is readiness to hand. Conversely, if the hammer does not function or functions inefficiently, it comes into consciousness and become less effective as a tool (Heideggar takes about ‘broken’ tools): this is presence at hand.

This got me thinking that often when I have read people explaining this concept, it is in terms of tools being one or the other. But what if tools move between the two states? We experience (use) tools (products and/or technologies) in two different ways (or from two different perspectives). Sometimes products are used instinctively and unconsciously, such as spectacles, and they become an extension to our body (readiness to hand). Many technologies are like this when they become ubiquitous and part of how we live and act within our society/culture. On the other extreme, there are products that are very much in our consciousness, but not necessarily because they are ‘broken’. Take, for example, the iPhone: much loved by many despite its perceived flaws. So appears to be a disruptive element in the design of much-loved products that pulls them into consciousness (presence at hand).

This line of argument suggests that products might be ‘positioned’ at a point along a continuum between readiness at hand and presence to hand. This positioning might be contingent on the technology maturity of or adoption of specific technologies by the local culture (and individual), but complex products, such as smart phones, cars and buildings, move in and out of consciousness; so the ‘position’ is not fixed. When I feel the hardness (resistance, even mild discomfort) of my iPhone in my hand and against my ear, I am reminded that it is not part of me, it remains in my consciousness (presence at hand); at the same time functioning as an extension being used unconsciously (readiness to hand).

Readiness to hand / presence at hand product continuum

So what are the implications for a philosophy of products or product design? Are disruptive ‘imperfections’ part of people’s emotional attachment to products? Can complex products be simultaneously ready to hand and present at hand? Or do they move in and out of consciousness? Does Heideggar suggest a way to avoid the dystopian view of technology and technological determinism?… [to be continued]

Alternative (draft) Programme of Study for Design and Technology!

On Friday 19th April 2013 the Design and Technology Association (D&TA) and Education for Engineering (E4E) met at the Royal Academy of Engineering, London, with around 50 representatives from schools, higher education, industry (design, engineering and food), the cultural sector (museums) and subject associations to discuss a re-drafting of an alternative Programme of Study for Design and Technology. The meeting came about as the result of the Department for Education (DFE) giving the D&TA and E4E permission to present a reworked proposal on Monday 22nd April 2013 (today) – so quite a tight turn around!

I am pleased to say that the group worked solidly all day Friday and developed a redraft, a version of which had been presented at the beginning of the day. The drafting team worked ‘flat out’ over the weekend to respond to feedback and create a document that was ready to present to the DFE. You can click here to download and read the new proposal.

So what can you do?

We would encourage you to read the proposal carefully and feel that you can support this document as it is presented to the DFE, as a more accurate representation of what D&T should be as a forward looking subject. You could:

  1. Email John Husbands at the D&T Association, with your name, title and institution, to signal your support (identifying your support either as an individual or an institution);
  2. Leave a comment or join in a discussion on the Believe in D&T website;
  3. Email your MP and ask them to support this proposal;
  4. Email Elizabeth Truss MP (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Education) directly;
  5. Share this blog post and the document with as many teachers as you can and encourage them to respond;
  6. Use social media (Facebook, Twitter) to spread the word;

If you have any thoughts, responses or questions on the Alternative Programme of Study feel free to leave a comment on this blog and share the link!

Download the proposal: D&T Assoc and E4E Draft D&T PoS April 22.pdf

What is Design and Technology knowledge?

Thoughts on knowledge in Design and Technology…

With the National Curriculum review underway between February and April 2013, there has been a lot of talk about what knowledge is in Design and Technology. With the focus on “essential knowledge [and] fundamental operations” (DFE, 2011: 6) the relationship between D&T and knowledge has been under the spotlight. When the subject was originally conceived, knowledge was viewed as a “resource to be used” (DES/WO, 1988:29) in design and technology activity.

Education for Engineering (E4E) have presented their New Principles for Design and Technology in the Curriculum, which take a ‘tool kit’ approach, identifying design, technology, critiquing and data tools. Whilst there is work to be done if this was to be developed as a programme of study, it does provide a set of ‘lenses’ to evaluate and plan design and technology. It certainly provides a (more) rigorous framework than the DFE’s draft programme of study.

Similarly, the Design Council released their 5 Principles of Design Education: Build a design literate society; Apply user-centred design methods; Ensure a multidisciplinary approach is at the heart of learning; Develop technical skills; Be embedded within an industrial, academic and cultural framework.

Both E4E and the Design Council’s ‘principles’ have merit and value, demanding further discussion and analysis (which I’m not going to do here!). What I’ve been thinking of recently is knowledge areas in D&T. This has been influenced by a number discussions that I have been involved with amongst teachers and teacher educators. The current political ideology informing the curriculum ‘reforms’ undervalues process and activity, which have been the areas that we have been most comfortable with in D&T.

What is Design and Technology?

The mindmap above, shows my first attempt at trying to unpick the knowledge that contributes to the D&T processes. Initially (as you can see above) my thinking was around internal (design) and external (material) knowledge. However, there is another area that this doesn’t take into consideration; that of knowledge of products (see below), which in some aspects is a synthesis between design and materials areas. However, this does not account for the social and cultural aspects of D&T, such as fitness for purpose and designing for real human contexts.

knowledge in D&T

Bodies of knowledge in design and technology (annotated and updated 28th April 2013)

On further analysis, ‘materials’ as an area of knowledge begins to break down, as in D&T we can also be working with components, ingredients and (even) ideas/concepts. So how about ‘technologies’ as the third area? This viewing technology as human interaction with the material world, rather than specific ‘artefacts’ of technology.

So does this lead use to be in a position to develop a taxonomy of design and technology activity? This is something that Mike Martin, my colleague at LJMU, has been thinking about as well. In other words, defining broad categories (albeit overlapping) of knowledge. What is below is my first attempt at drawing together the conversations and past versions of the D&T programmes of study, with D&T being built on knowledge of designing, knowledge of products and knowledge of technologies

A taxonomy of Design and Technology?

Designing

Design thinking & designing

Investigating:

  • Identify and gather primary and secondary data appropriate to each design context/project
  • Analyse data for specific contexts and briefs (and specifications)

Ideation:

  • Use appropriate ‘tools’ for generating ideas
  • Record ideas using words and drawings (2D and 3D) appropriate to the technological domain

Modelling:

  • 2D and 3D modelling and development of ideas (representational and prototyping)
  • Use ICT for simulation and design

Communicating:

  • Presenting ideas visually and aurally
  • Drawings, diagrams and models

Planning:

  • Managing design projects and manufacturing processes

Critiquing:

  • Analysing, synthesising and evaluating ideas, products and systems
  • Understand the impact of design decisions and evaluate against design specifications

Products

Products, systems & environments

Fitness for purpose:

  • Functionality / fitness for purpose / authenticity
  • User and market

Creativity and innovation:

  • Market and technological push and pull
  • Comparing and evaluating products

Cultural/historical:

  • Cultural aspects of design, e.g. aesthetics, function
  • Knowledge of British and global designers/innovators

Technologies

Materials, components & ingredients

Domains:

  • Electronics and control
  • Food
  • Materials (resistant & compliant)
    • Wood, metal, plastic, textiles, (ceramics)

Properties of materials:

  • Physical/chemical
  • Working
  • Natural, man-made (including smart and modern) materials

Processing of materials:

  • Addition
  • Subtraction/wastage
  • Forming/moulding
  • Combining/joining

Origins of materials:

  • Sustainability, sourcing and selecting of materials, components and ingredients
  • Life Cycle Analysis

Control Systems:

  • Knowledge of open and closed systems

Information and Communication Technologies:

  • Use ICT to design, manufacture and evaluate
  • Use collaborative technologies to work creatively as individuals and teams

Note: this is a starting point for conversation and ‘thinking aloud’. 

References

DES/WO (1988) National Curriculum Design and Technology Working Group: Interim Report. London: Department for Education and Science/Welsh Office.

DFE (2011) The Framework for the National Curriculum. A report by the Expert Panel for the National Curriculum review. London: Department for Education. Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/standard/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-00135-2011 [last accessed 14th April 2013]

Developing Arthur’s ‘Typology of Technology’

Please read this as a work in progress (thinking out loud), rather than a formulated and considered piece of work…

Arthur (2009) discusses the many different uses of the word technology, which (possibly) unlike science (as a body of knowledge), makes it difficult to define. There are three main areas that he identifies as ‘types’ of technology: technology-singular (artefacts, systems, devices and objects), technology-plural (fields and domains) and technology-general (principles arising from phenomena). The essesence of technology is described as “a phenomenon captured and put to use” (p.50). He shies away from the term exploitation, due to the obvious connotations, but the principle/concept is good. However, I am not sure that I quite agree that this it the ‘full’ essence of technology.

Heideggar (1977) who was rather pessimistic about the nature and essence of technology, or what he calls modern technology. However, this may be because he puts science at the root of technology, whereas Arthur places science and technology in a symbiotic relationship with both relying on each other. On this basis, I would want to widen the definition of the essence of technology to the observation, capturing and application of phenomenon to human purposes. The observational aspect of technological activity (as expressed in design) can be from either a formal scientific perspective (like the standard engineering model that Arthur describes) or the arts (or humanities) perspective (like designer makers, ’boutique’ product designers etc). There is not clear boundary between each ‘category’ (in fact I’d prefer not to categorise, but rather consider these to be influences or mindsets that ‘push’ or ‘pull’ a design process): engineering can take influences from the arts and artists can take influences from the sciences. Arthur describes how invention of a technology (artefact) can be either needs-driven (social/human) or phenomena-driven (technological/technical), although the incorporate both aspects through the invention/design process (p.107-130).

What Arthur offers us is the beginnings of a typology of technology, with three ‘levels’ or ‘zones’. I’ve not quite decided how to represent this yet, but my ideas so far are: (a) a pyramid (Figure 1) with objects at the top, domains in the middle and principles at the bottom (built on phenomena); (b) concentric circles (Figure 2) with objects as the centre; (c) a web or network (Figure 3) of connections with principles deriving from phenomena, which give rise to domains, in turn being expressed in ‘objects’. Each ‘lens’ has it’s advantages/attractions, but I am leaning towards option (c) at the moment. Although options (a) and (b) may have useful applications for analysing and evaluating technological objects/artefacts. [Diagrams added 15/4/13]

Figure 1: Pyramid model

Figure 2: Concentric circle model

Figure 3: Network model

So what does this mean for Design and Technology? Firstly, if give us a basis to (potentially) build bodies of knowledge, which stem from phenomena, into principles and domains. The current domains in the D&T curriculum (QCA, 2007) are Resistant Materials, Systems & Control, Food and Textiles. However, these are under threat on one side from the current review of the national curriculum (DFE, 2013), which add horticulure and maintenance, alongside what is being described as backward-looking and retrogressive in the D&T Community (see Twitter #dtcurric and http://www.believeindandt.org.uk). Having said this, I am not sure that we can continue to hold closely to the material areas in D&T. Whilst there are traditional material disciplines of woodwork, metalwork and needlework (pre-D&T), I am becoming less convinced that there is a rationale separation between Resistant Materials and Textiles, as a domain of technology. This is not to say that Textiles and Resistant Materials (well can we come up with a better name) have not place, but possibly should be viewed as sub domains of materials technology. So a D&T (or Product Design) Textiles could draw in Resistant Materials knowledge and vice versa.

I’m not sure how this works with Food and Systems & Control. However, Systems & Control has drawn from (variously) electronics, mechanisms, pneumatics and microprocessor control, albeit with local variations and some (sub-)domains being in or out of the curriculum a different points. We seem to have focused more on electronics in recent year, which is fine, as a sub-domain of Systems and Control. Also, whilst we talk about ingredients (food) and components (electronics) as materials (and there certainly is an argument), they have some differences in terms of the technological ‘sub-assemblies’ – which might include combinations or processes. Not sure where I am going with this other than question whether we need to rethink and/or reposition materials within D&T. This leads on to the question about what is D&T…

 

References:

Arthur, W.B. (2009). The Nature of Technology. London: Penguin Books.

DFE (2013). Draft National Curriculum programmes of study [online], 3April 2013. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/teachingandlearning/… [last accessed 11th April 2013]

Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (Trans. W. Lovitt). London: Garland Publishing, Ltd.

QCA (2007). Design and Technology: programme of study for key stage 3 and attainment target. London: Qualifications and Curriculum Authority.