Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘reflection’

Constructionism vs. Constructivism

26 April 2009

Derek Thomson

It’s taken me ages to realise that there’s a difference, but it seems:

The constructivist school came first and is characterised by PCT.  Meaning is ascribed internally within an actor as a consequence of their own experiences.  An individual can, however, change their view of the world as a consequence of their interactions with others.  Meaning is therefore developed within a social group as a consequence of influence and negotiation.

Then constructionism came along and is characterised by development of meaning directly from the interactions of actors.  Meaning is collective and developed directly from social interations.  This school would seem, therefore, to assume that an individual can’t understand their world in isolation form others, which seems somewhat odd.  After all, with this view, what would be the point of skiddling?

Constructs span both, it’s just a question of how they are developed and reorganised…

But, if we’re talking about value theory and judgement among a group of stakeholders, then both have to be considered.  This suggests that interpretation of artefacts has to be considered from a fundamentally different perspective if we’re considering an individual or that individual’s function within a group.  We must decide if we assume knwoldge to be generated first by individuals and then shaped by individuals’ interactions, or if comes solely from the interactions of individuals.  Or maybe it’s bits of both…

It’s interesting that the learning theory has only recently hooked onto the social aspects of learning (Laurillard) – i.e. the construcitivist view – and all the reflective learning (reflective design theory; schon’s double loop learning, etc.) are firmly grounded in the constructionist view.

Does this mean that SNA hasn’t yet been meaningfully looked at from the point of view of knowledge generation, or am I missing something???  Having said that, the Tipping Point stuff assumes, through the action of “salesmen,” a constructivist stance.  Although, from memory, it ever acknowledges this.  I may have to read it again…

Really good parallels: “The most contentious point between software engineering culture and visual design culture is the question of whether important things can be always seen in absolutes. The engineering approach values measurable, reproducible results which can be represented in a graph or a checklist. Unit tests and benchmarks illustrate progress.”^^^ yup, sounds like the DQI to me. “Visual design is often the polar opposite of engineering: trading hard edges for subjective decisions based on gut feelings and personal experiences. It’s messy, unpredictable, and notoriously hard to measure. The apparently erratic behavior of artists drives engineers bananas. Their decisions seem arbitrary and risk everything with no guaranteed benefit.” ^^^ if we see designers (Architects only?) as “artists” – in the sense that they are creating an artefact – then this also works. “Designers, though, are just as frustrated by the apparent blind allegiance to data at the cost of human experiences. They often feel as if engineers lose sight of the actual goal. Artists see data as a tool only, not a purpose onto itself. The reason for this is simple: data in isolation makes no guarantees about whether the correct thing is being measured, or whether the measuring itself is skewing the results.” ^^^ aka “designing by numbers” We need to consider the consequences of our measurements. A BQM alone won’t be enough. We also need to see numbers are guides rather an absolutes – although how will this sit in a positivist culture?

23 March 2009

Derek Thomson

Measuring the Design Process