Later in the week some stills from actual Exeter. I think some people from Blind Ditch will be guests on the Wild Show this Thursday. If they are late I will just talk about my own walk around the sites where the video was located and finding the window frame in Sidwell street near the Odeon. You get a cup of tea and five minutes to think. then a short interview.
You do sign a release form on your words and image rights. I am not sure art projects have changed that much in relation to the public but time will tell. There was no problem around me taking a photograph of them. The real test will be when the production versions are on display in a gallery.
After the Wild Show this morning JD and I were planning a possible future show continuing to look into design science. We may get back to the design envelope from Gibson Burrell. A 3D diagram could take up the whole studio. This is where Chris gets a bit worried. He thinks he will be away one week and when he returns the ceiling will be gone. So we have not got him completely into the design conversation. But he will be checking out health and safety. On radio we just have to describe things and label the walls, floor etc. Nobody will actually have to climb a ladder as it moves about.
This post is about IPEX, the print show next expected in 2014. I have tagged in the title as print disruption relates to the design of online teaching and how to promote MoSO. Management Theory at Work can relate to universities as media organisations.
There have been various announcements previously but this week I got a copy of Digital Printer in print. there is a page about IPEX based on a talk with Trevor Crawford explaining the changes. Fewer days but aligned with the Cross Media event that also continues on an annual basis. There has been a major shifty in focus. There is even competitive talk about drupa, suggesting that drupa will not make a similar shift because of the influence of "large offset manufacturers".
Digital Printer is available online but in a magazine format that prevents copying out of text.
The conference will be about ‘Strategies & Practices of Outstanding Leadership in the Challenging Business of Offline and Online Marketing’, "where thought leaders from within and surrounding the print industry will come together to address the big issues and opportunities they face." But this cannot start too soon. There is no reason to wait till next year.
I notice the sources for the quotes on this page include Canon, Ricoh, Fuji and Screen. there are others but I am getting the impression that it is Japanese companies still on the project. Of course there are USA offers that people will try to follow even if they reduce their face to face existence in the UK. Long ago there would be stands ( booths ) at IPEX and drupa for Apple and Adobe. Maybe as at BETT some supporters could organise a space on the edge of ExCel where they could sneak in an update.
I have updated the slides. Following discussion the quote about design science is chosen for clarity and also I have got one with just the key words to explain how design science fits with other sciences. I have taken out most of the long quotes to a sheet of paper.
Also there is an alternative diagram for soft systems as I'm not sure of the scale that will work from a distance.
This is way off at a tangent but the news this week so far is raising the question - Could the finances of UK universities be such that some sort of problem will appear? Yesterday there was a report from the IPPR
Today there is a Guardian report that Ucas numbers on applications are not being released because of "potential volatility in supply and demand" . The report mentions some named universities where there may be problems.
There may be a chance here for a look at universities as organisations. So far theory about quality has been seen as largely outside the scope that academics are interested in to study. I may be out of date about this but I think books such as "Making Quality Critical" are still influential, especially with people working on management learning.
If UK universities need to move out of crisis it could open up a debate.
A few things strike me about both reports and the comments on the Guardian site.
Sir Michael Barber is chief education adviser of Pearson so may have his own interests. But I think Pearson has been engaged with digital over a long time period. Online is sometimes dismissed as commercial, but I think universities need to work on it in their own way.
Matt Robb, a consultant at Parthenon, predicts that some universities will sell off assets such as business schools to cover the shortfall in fees. This is obviously speculation. But how are business schools regarded?
It seems to be the big cities that are mentioned as in trouble. Universities may have lost a local base as they relate to a global market.
An absence of numbers is not going to help much in the long run, but things could be more clear in a year or two.
Prof Paul O'Prey, vice-chancellor of Roehampton University, where home-student applications are up 27% this year after a dip in 2012, agrees that universities need to adapt to survive in the competitive new world of higher fees. "The ability to diversify and innovate is really important. We are widening our activities and developing new income streams. For example, we have gone into partnership with [private provider] Laureate to develop online courses, and partnered with a leading Swiss hospitality school to provide them with a London campus."
This is the only mention of "online" that I can find in the Guardian report.
It is available for download and is very clear. It shows the background of concerns about relevance and the case for design science.
The starting point for the Design Science approach, which builds on Herbert Simon’s 1969 classic The Sciences of the Artificial, is the recognition that there are three different types of science. First, there are the Formal Sciences, Logic and Mathematics, which have no empirical content in themselves. Then come the Explanatory Sciences, whose purpose is to explain existing phenomena. In the physical sciences that includes Physics, Chemistry and Biology, and in the social sciences Economics, Sociology and Psychology. Then there are the Design Sciences, whose purpose is to design solutions to real world problems. These include Architecture, Engineering, Medicine, and Design itself, all of which are centrally concerned to produce artifacts which are new to the world and preferred to those currently in existence. The distinction between Explanatory Science and Design Science has not generally been made clear in respect of management research, which has been based almost entirely on the explanatory social sciences.
This is slightly different to the distinction made by Hodgkinson and Starkey. They refer to "Simon’s differentiation of explanatory-based
and prescriptive-based social sciences" (page 359)
I think this misses the scope of the danger for social science if design science is seen as defining the relevant from a practice point of view. There is a remark towards the end of the YouTube clip on Science 2 - the Design Science of Collaboration that implies social science is not always seen as contributing much.
I'm still looking for any blogs around the British Journal of Management articles. The publishing aspects are intriguing. If they do a freely available issue, why not do more publicity? If there is some comment, why wait three months to publish it? If the comments are behind a paywall, why not offer some clues or a shorter version somewhere else?
Now there is no university bookshop in Exeter I don't see any of the collections of readings that used to appear. On Design Science there could be a set of links for what can be found as open, and also what is only available through academic libraries. I suppose this could be on offer as a bundle with a specially costed day pass. Any suggestions welcome.
I have been thinking about Quality Function Deployment as a tool to use in learning design and other situations. It could be an example of a link to make for people on the OLDS MOOC course and at the Deming SIG meeting next Friday.
I will be speaking after Alan Clark and Antony Upward have explained two approaches to sustainability. I think the links between Deming and design science will emerge during the afternoon. I will speak about design science in a bit more detail and hope to make a comparison with learning design.
So far I have two versions of slides, both improved by borrowing a couple of slides from Antony. So now there is a clear definition of design science and also a diagram of soft systems. I expect systems to be an aspect that interests the audience.
I don't have a full diagram but could start with four functions, two sets of conflict
The slides should include some definitive information
The slides should allow space for the group to develop a shared understanding
Not so many slides that it takes too much time, especially just before lunch
Enough slides to include as much info as might be asked for
So at this point I'd like some feedback. Any strong views on these four aspects?
I have two versions at the moment. The one with videos could work online for people who have time. I don't think there will be enough time next Friday.
<p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"> Draft with video Design Science for Deming SIG by </p>
<p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"> Draft updated Design Science for Deming SIG March 2013 (1) by </p>
There are still some places available. Details on request.
I have been doing some more study of design science. I got so far online then realised I needed an academic library, and then discovered the main article was part of a special issue that is free online anyway. (It was worth the visit for the recent comments)
Not Simply Returning to the Same Answer Over and Over Again: Reframing Relevance (pages 355–369)
Hodgkinson and Starkey start with a summary of some history on relevance in previous articles. It turns out that "design science" is the latest description for making a link between theory and practice. More below on why I find it surprising it took me so long to find this.
Since you can find the original online anyway I am not going to repeat much from my notes. They refer to Pandza and Thorpe (2010) and a distinction between "explanatory based and prescriptive based social sciences". I think I come across a distinction between social science and design science, maybe this is from people more convinced about design science. This could be an issue for social science, if it is defined as not relevant to practice.
They accept much of the critique of business school content so far, remembering that Sir Fred Goodwin of the Royal Bank of Scotland was once presented as a "model of leadership". But they accept Senge being cited by AACSB as an example of well presented research. There is also a UK line on Senge as a fad for managers.
There are some remarks about journal publishing thatI'm not sure what to make of. Do French academics really have to publish in the USA "to prove they are world class"?
Hugh Wilmott approves the original article for proposing that business schools " become stronger schools of social science rather than pursuing a professional school idea." I'm not sure this was actually their balance but I will read it again later.
Wilmott points out that some design science is based on empirical realism, not critical realism as supported by Hodgkinson and Starkey. There are so many links for this to other articles that I can't get into this anytime soon. Comment welcome.
His concerns come across in this quote-
"It is high time to raise the sights of business schools beyond a myopic notion of 'relevance' fixated upon a narrow range of topics and perspectives that are considered important to (existing or aspiring) executives, or at least pose no threat to their worldview, to business school beneficiaries or to the students who aspire to become tomorrow's business leaders"
I don't think you have to get rid of relevance as part of this. Design might be part of making the case.
Wilmott also references Chris Grey who responded to an earlier article on relevance. Grey spoke at the first Management Theory at Work conference wher I first became aware of this discussion. As memory serves he argued that universities had a more secure role as critics rather than claiming to offer anything useful in practice. This went down well with the academics and the practice issues remain unresolved.
The reply from Hodgkinson and Starkey indicates where design science ideas could be refined since Simon's The Sciences of the Artificial in 1969. Simons early work could be seen as "narrowly positivist" and "we could have been more critical of Romme". They come back to Pandza and Thorpe and their description of design that is not determinist in intention. Path dependent and path creation approaches are possible. But from a quick look at their article these are derived from reading Simon's later work.I did not have enough time in the library to get into any detail. Pandza and Thorpe introduce a fair anmount of critique of design science even though Hodgkinson and Starkey credit them as a source. So again, comments and clues are welcome. There may be comparisons with Learning Design as discussed in the OLDS MOOC #oldsmooc
There is one remark -
"We remain concerned that too much critical management scholarship is preoccupied with deconstruction and critique."
Their conclusion is still supportive of design science, concentrating on the general "engineering problem of design - how to create organisations and systems of management and economy that are better fit for purpose than those we have currently."
Part of my interest is to understand quality management so "fit for purpose" suggests some common ground. #mosocoop
Whether the concern is critique or relevance or social usefulness I still find it starnge that I took so long to find this free issue of the British Journal of Management. I have been looking for anything about design science since reading Teaching as a design Science by Diana Laurillard, probably about six months ago. I search Google and Google blogsearch quite often. Is it possible that there are blog posts about the original article? If not, what is going on? Do the people who read this just naturally wait three months for the next issue to arrive? And if Wiley agrees there can be a free issue every so often, what is done to promote this? There may be some relevant content, but journal publishing is an issue in itself.
Thanks of course to the librarians who helped me find the walk in PC and cope with the two sets of id and password.
Here is a video found through the Leicester website as suggested by Hugh Wilmott. I am not suggesting this is a style he would approve. 33 views is not a lot over six months. Woulkd it be an idea to look at other ways to raise these issues on YouTube or would this be a dangerous turn to "performativity"?
The Buckmaster Fuller podcast from the BBC ( see previous post ) is not helping me much to get a clearcut definition of design Science. It may be more useful to just look at the various ways these words are used. Or start with what interests me and then see where this connects.
The first Management Learning at Work conferences were soon after the collapse of the dotcom bubble
so it was a time to look at long term recovery of what might be possible. I liked the opening keynote from John Burgoyne as the bright side was not ruled out before we started. But the conference themes moved on to leadership and critique. we never got to much on how technology could work in practice.
The Deming Special Interest Group of the CQI has a much more practical approach. But learning is not a priority, it turns up as a topic in situations where learning is not happening. This can be quite often. Also there is an overlap with web design or how content is promoted. The MoSO model is freely available.
The OLDS MOOC still has a couple of weeks to go. Design Science seems to be in the background. There is definitely an interest in design but so far not enough use of a definition of design science that it could be compared with other situations.
I mention this in particular because the MoSO model will be the focus for a face2face meeting on March 15th. It will be compared with another model on sustainability for organisations, based partly on design science. I think there will be a lot of overlap between Deming and design science but this will be clarified during the meeting.
So far in #mtw3 John Burgoyne has not said much about design science though there has been mention of scientific leadership ( possibly as a joke though) There are journal articles about design science and management but not any evidence this is being used by actual managers ( so far as I can tell ) . So maybe design science is the same for learning design and management but this is not yet clear.
In the online test runs for #mtw3 we have looked at academic publishing towards the end as an example of innovation, as studied at the Work Foundation . This could be a bit wider, to look at educational organisations, how learning is supported, forms of publishing within this. The OLDS MOOC course includes a look at the Larnaca Declaration. This covers Learning Design but I don't think it covers the changes in organisation that might be expected.
We were later joined by Don Nutbeam, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Southampton, one of the partner institutions of Futurelearn.
Nutbeam: Traditionally, the universities have always drawn the students to them. Now, the universities are going out to the students. So partnering with The Open University and Futurelearn is absolutely fundamental to our motto of taking Southampton to the world instead of asking the world to come to us. So the best universities in the world are going the way of the best businesses in the world - becoming more global - travelling across countries, becoming multinationals.
So I think design science could relate to learning and organisation. More posts about this over the next couple of weeks. Also related comments on LinkedIn etc for #mtw3 #mosocoop #oldsmooc , trying not to go too far off topic at any one time.
This is very interesting for inspiration and sustainability background. But there is not much on Design Science, the only remark seems to include this with the most strange ideas, as represented on this program.
I think we will come back to this in a future Wild Show on Phonic FM. So far there has been no objection to quoting short sections from the Today program. we don't do it too often, just when they fit in and we can add somnething through comment or relating to other items.
Radio continues as live broadcasting but I think the online listen again is gaining in proportion of how people listen.
The clips we recorded are on YouTube with Creative Commons attribution. So we hope they could be repeated on other broadcasts if we are told about it. chris Norton is back from holiday this week so the Wild Show will return to mostly music, but there may be another look at the Design Science DJ later in the year.
I am a few days behind with the OLDS MOOC so am going to catch up in bits. First situation is the Wild Show on Phonic FM.
The suggested format is something like
a specific incident
that happened to you
confront challenge / problem
resolved it successfully
a specific incident that happened to me
For the Dreambazaar I started to work on video, how to show Creative Commons on YouTube and then use the Remix button. During the week on Prototyping I got the idea of trying out a prototype by talking to the people it is intended for. So I raised this over coffee after the Wild Show on a Thursday morning. It turns out that although several people are moving in the same direction the support needed if on offer in person can take many forms. In one case the permission to reuse content was ok, but I think any technology is through someone else. Another person was happy to video the Phonic Party on an iPhone so there was a second camera as well as my Zi8. But they wanted me to pirate it complete so they could delete it. On YouTube you have to use your real name and this is not their style of music. Another problem is running out of time to edit and upload.
confront challenge / problem
So during the evaluation week I added another cloud to the Dreamscape, treating one radio show as a prototype for the next. Chris Norton is on a two week holiday so left JD and me to fill in. I have previously tried to talk to JD about Design Science and the Design Science DJ. He still thinks being a DJ is a skill, and needs a lot of convincing about science.
resolved it successfully
Fortunately we also invited Fabian King as a guest to talk about 3D scanning ( art shows continue in the Phoenix and the scanning aspect is under reported ) Fortunately he knows about Design Science as well. And better still he brought his own sounds. My design challenge to JD was to alter his style from an 80s show on Totnes FM ( listen again available online) so we did 70s one week and 90s the next. Apart from 20 minutes when I went to find our guest, JD modified the design to leave the music to the guest.
So eventually it worked quite well. We did play interesting sequences of music from the 70s and 90s. We added value through comment to clips borrowed from other sources. The original Design Science of Collaboration is 90 minutes on YouTube. So far no complaint from the Today Program on copying a discussion on the novel and science. Also one clip with mostly Penny Bentley from the OLDS MOOC hangout week 5.
So it turns out sound is still a lot easier than video. Working on two hours of radio a week is possible, especially using lots of content from other sources. YouTube still has potential but working out how to edit several camera angles will take a while longer. Over time there is more awareness of Creative Commons and techniques to work with this. Conclusion so far is that the course is not in time scale as expected.
I am trying to find out more about Design Science. There seems to be a good potential link for the OLDS MOOC course and the work on sustainability. Through Google I have found some info on a possible Critique approach from Hugh Wilmott.
In his commentary on our proposal to reframe the relevance of business and management research by combining design science with critical realism (Hodgkinson and Starkey, British Journal of Management, 22 (2011), pp. 355–369), Willmott (British Journal of Management, 23 (2012), pp. 598–604) commends us for our advocacy of a social science as opposed to professional school agenda, while admonishing us for seeking to underpin the commended design science ethos with critical realism, on the grounds of ontological inconsistency and the risk of diminishing the emancipatory elements of our social usefulness agenda. In reply, we demonstrate how, in highlighting the interplay of multiple generative mechanisms within and between levels of analysis, critical realism is entirely commensurate with the design science approach advocated, and enriches rather than diminishes our overarching agenda to humanize the workplace.
I think that is as much as will be publicly available for free. So next week I may go to Exeter University library and try to find out if it is possible to read some of this. St Lukes campus library was ok for journals connected to the OLDS MOOC.
But I also wonder if there is a short intro to the issues involved in the form of a public blog post. If this about "emancipatory elements" and an "agenda to humanize the workplace" then there may be publication or a version or comment that is easier to understand and get hold of. I still may try to check what is possible through the library, but meanwhile clues welcome.
There are now some clips from yesterday. music on Soundcloud and talk on YouTube. So next week Chris Norton will be back and I expect we will concentrate on music. there are enough clips for the Design Science DJ to develop through social media. There may be more on the live radio when we have some more connections.
I have tried a draft of slides for the March meeting of the Deming Sig. Also a still of the #tags for Hello Spiders
I still don't have a definition of design Science or a clear distinction from social science. But after the radio show on Thursday there could be some better connections or at least a bit of record on how a radio show might be.
I think it is from user experience design that the energy is coming. Teaching Design is headed the same way but presumably will influence most of education. So there will be management implications that could use similar methods and assumptions.
The MoSO meeting could look at how teaching design can influence how MoSO is presented. Meanwhile #oldsmooc will help me to get a better idea of design science, and #mtw3 to relate this to management.
<p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"> Draft Design Science for Deming SIG March 2013 by </p>
I think Design Science could be a link for various ideas. I am getting used to how it is used as part of the OLDS MOOC. Also it is continuing as a topic for the MoSO discussion. there will be a face to face meeting in March which will be a good chance for some talk. There is a limit to online conversation, you need a check every so often. The #mtw3 content looks back to the learning organisation. I think design science continues this somehow but not sure how to map this.
More later, any clues welcome if you have suggestions.