BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Talks.cam//talks.cam.ac.uk//
X-WR-CALNAME:Talks.cam
BEGIN:VEVENT
SUMMARY:Problems\, solutions\, and their co-evolution in design and elsewh
 ere -  Nathan Crilly\, EDC\, University of Cambridge
DTSTART:20210310T110000Z
DTEND:20210310T120000Z
UID:TALK157330@talks.cam.ac.uk
CONTACT:Mari Huhtala
DESCRIPTION:In design projects\, the problems that are being addressed and
  the solutions that are being developed are often said to ‘co-evolve’.
  It is not just representations of the possible solutions that change as t
 he project progresses\, but also representations of the problem\; a change
  in one results in a change in the other. Design is thus not described as 
 a process of solving an unchanging problem\, but of searching both the sol
 ution-space and the problem-space until a well-matching problem-solution p
 air is found.\n\n \n\nThe term ‘co-evolution’ arose in the field of ev
 olutionary biology in the 1960s but was first used in design research in t
 he early 1990s\, most prominently as a way to describe how (co-evolutionar
 y) genetic algorithms would allow computers to tackle design problems that
  are sometimes described as ‘open’\, ‘ill-defined’\, ‘ill-struct
 ured’ or ‘wicked’. Since then\, co-evolution has become one of the m
 ost widespread theories in design research\, especially when describing cr
 eativity. For example\, Dorst and Cross’s (2001) Design Studies paper ti
 tled “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–soluti
 on” is the most highly cited paper published in the journal’s 42-year 
 history. Since the 1990s\, many researchers have invoked co-evolutionary a
 ccounts of the design process to describe the work of individuals and grou
 ps\, to develop computer support tools and to test educational interventio
 ns.\n\n \n\nDespite the influence of co-evolution theory in design\, the t
 heory itself has received very little scrutiny. Perhaps as a consequence\,
  accounts of design co-evolution are often disconnected from accounts of o
 ther similar phenomena in design and elsewhere. In this talk\, I will addr
 ess a range of questions that have seemingly not been addressed in the rel
 evant literature\, namely: What precedent is there for describing design a
 s co-evolution? What is the basis for the biological analogy\, and is the 
 analogy productive? Do other disciplines concerned with problems and solut
 ions describe them as co-evolving\, and if so (or not)\, what might we lea
 rn from this? What is the distinction between problems and solutions in de
 sign\, and is this distinction helpful when describing design co-evolution
 ? Is it only problems and solutions that co-evolve in design\, or do other
  things also co-evolve with them?\n\n \n\nOver the last thirty years\, des
 ign researchers have drawn diagrams to reflect their understanding of co-e
 volutionary processes. I’ll share some of those diagrams to help with th
 e discussion of the questions above\, and also present some new diagrams t
 hat I think might be more useful. I’ll refer to some ‘vintage’ desig
 n research literature\, including work from the 1960s\, ‘70s and ‘80s\
 , from people like Marples\, Alexander\, Simon and Schön. So\, the talk m
 ight appeal to those interested in the history and development of ideas\, 
 the scholarly practices of academic disciplines\, the description of desig
 n activities\, the development of design education\, and the nature of pro
 blem solving in design and in other activities. This is all a work in prog
 ress\, so the talk will be informal\, but all are welcome.\n\nLocation: ht
 tps://us02web.zoom.us/j/81729620175?pwd=OS8wRHBRcFN5bE5iUllZWVlNTDhIdz09\n
 \nZoom Meeting ID: 817 2962 0175\nZoom Passcode: 924092
LOCATION:https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81729620175?pwd=OS8wRHBRcFN5bE5iUllZWVl
 NTDhIdz09
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR