1. Policy, research and design as different language games Prof.dr.ir. Taeke M. de Jong chair Technical Ecology, chair Regional Design, assignment Methodology University of Technology Delft, Faculty of Architecture T.M.deJong@bk.tudelft.nl http://team.bk.tudelft.nl T.M.deJong@bk.tudelft.nlhttp://team.bk.tudelft.nl

2. Language games

3. Different modalities of future design science (possible futures >) empirical science (probable futures >) policy (desirable futures >)

4. Probable futures There are more and less probable futures

5.  chance Probability, the core of empirical science

6. Possible futures Anything probable is per definition possible but not everything possible is also probable. A probable future could be predicted. Improbable possibilities cannot be predicted. You only can explore them by design.

7. Desirable futures Policy (Mr.) Empirical research (Drs.) Design (Ir.)

8. Obvious and Impossible futures

9. Field of problems and aims

10. Undesired, improbable possibilities Are they relevant as long as nobody wants them?

11. Unexpected inventions Yes

12. Changing desires

13. Subtracting futures Field of problems = Probable - Desirable Field of Aims = Desirable - Probable

14. Design study or empirical research Design produces possibilities by conditions Research produces probabilities by causes

15. The modality of ‘possible futures’

16. Conditions presupposed in causal paradigms

17. Conditional and causal thinking

18. Balancing

19. Environment := set of conditions for life

20. Environment as ‘set conditions for life’ means at least 18 different kinds of technical environments (contexts)

21. Conditional analysis

22. Conditional methodology A1 VERSCHIL wordt voorondersteld, A2 VERANDERING vooronderstelt een soort verschil, A3 VERBAND duur in verandering, A4 AFZONDERING ongebondenheid in verband, A5 SELECTIE continuiteit in afzondering, B1 VERBRUIK verschil in selectie, B2 REGELING verandering in verbruik, B3 ORGANISATIE verband in regeling, B4 SPECIALISATIE afzondering in organisatie, B5 REPRODUCTIE selectie in specialisatie, C1 NIEUWS reproductie van informatie, C2 ZEKERHEID geregeld nieuws, C3 AFFECTIE georganiseerde zekerheid, C4 IDENTITEIT specifieke affectie, C5 INVLOED gereproduceerde identiteit.

23. Diversity as a hidden supposition risk-cover for life precondition of –communication –trade, economy –possibility of choice for future generations uniqueness of individual and context quality of human living So, ‘average’ is useless where exceptions survive: in ecology, evolutionary theory, management and design science.

24. Ecological tolerance demonstrating diversity as a risk cover for life

25. Quality = f(diversity)

26. Diversity as a first condition The intellectual challenge of this century is to handle diversity –instead of generalising it by statistical reduction. Generalising research has diminishing returns –what could be generalised is generalised in centuries of empirical research. Problems left are context sensitive problems –object of design: generating study.

27. Ways to study spatial design Preface by Rector Fokkema “Within the range of a technical university the object of design – in terms of (urban) architecture and technique – is the design subject that is amongst all others most sensitive to context. The programme of requirements is not only derived from an economical and technical context, but also from contexts hailing from political, cultural, ecological en spatial considerations; on many levels of scale.” >

28. Orders of size to unravel context

29. Object of study and contexts

30. Impact analysis presupposes a perspective of future contexts

31. Ideal contents of a context sensitive Study Proposal 1.OBJECT OF STUDY AND ITS CONTEXT 2.MY STUDY PROPOSAL 3.ACCOUNTS

32. 1 OBJECT OF MY STUDY AND ITS CONTEXT 1.1. Object of my study: frame and grain 1.2. Probable future context: field of problems > 1.3. Desired impacts of my study: field of aims > 1.4. My designerly references: field of means 1.5. My portfolio and perspective: field of abilities

33. Subtracting futures Field of problems = Probable - Desirable Field of Aims = Desirable - Probable

34. Explicit future context protects your study against judgements with other suppositions about the future context raises the debate about the robustness of your study in different future contexts raises a ‘field of problems’ instead of an isolated ‘problem statement’ by subtracting desirable futures from the probable ones makes your study comparable to others concerning comparable contexts

35. 2 MY STUDY PROPOSAL 2.1. Location or other future context factors 2.2. Motivation or programme of requirements 2.3. Intended results 2.4. Intended contributions to science 2.5. Intended planning and organogramme

36. 3ACCOUNTS 3.1. How did I meet criteria for a study proposal > 3.2. My References 3.3. My Key words to find back what any principal wants to know in my proposal

37. Criteria for a study proposal A. Affinity with designing B. University latitude C. Concept formation and transferability D. Retrievability and accumulating capacity E. Methodical accountability and depth F. Ability to be criticised and to criticise G. Convergence and limitations

38. Future impact