Return to / go to main body of the paper
Return to / go to ds21 Draft Papers
Return to / go to details of ds21 Members
Return to / go to Design Synergy HOME PAGE

Sympoiesis and Sympoiesis in the Writing of Joint Papers

.
O#o van Nieuwenhuijze & John Wood

PART 3) A Practical Approach to the Synergy of Co-Authorship

In practical terms, the above arguments tell us that no ecological issue can be resolved without referring its context, i.e. by asking how the system in question is 'embedded' within an/other system/s. For example, by producing smaller cars with lower toxic emissions and better fuel-efficiency we have made cars more desirable and affordable. The net result is that cars are consuming more fuel than ever before. Similarly, even if we were to insist that all new houses must meet the most stringent ecologically benign building standards, with zero-carbon emissions, locally-sourced materials, autonomous services such as water, gas, or electricity. If, however, we continue to drive long distances to work each day and to fly further and further for our holidays, we may still fail to meet our 'Kyoto Agreement' targets. Integrative thinking is required: the part as well as the whole need to be considered. The logical frame of reference is therefore the interface, connecting the system with its context. The required operant mode of thinking is not (analytic) Objective but (Integrative) Subjective. This shifts the focus from that of scientific models to social life styles. Research has shown that the societies who have the smallest ecological footprint also have spiritual and cultural values that sustain the ‘style of living’ that produce it. A key feature of these kinds of society is that conflict is reduced to the minimum, because it is potentially wasteful of precious resources and energies. It leads to conclude that synergies at the material levels must be synergized with synergies at the phenomenological, social, cultural, somatic and discursive levels.

Is it possible to operate our society by the harmonious principles cited for those small cultures? Let is consider social systems in terms of their differences in constraints of mutuality and potential. (Fairclough, 2005). The interface between a closed system and open system can be characterised in terms of the boundary transition between them. (It is this interfacing condition that needs to be understood to relate e.g. one discipline or author to another) This can be interpreted as four levels of possible collaboration as ranked by their value to the society for which, and in which, they operate. The tetrahedral model described before can be applied for this purpose. In addressing the unknown, the known must be transcended. This requires a boundary transition, not only in our understanding, but also in our involvement. We move between Insider and Outsider; creator and Observer. Both aspects are needed to obtain an integrative perspective (O#o, 2005b). Meta-design applies this understanding in practice.

The paper seeks to integrate two different traditions of practice in an outcome that satisfies the authors' conditions for synergy, where:

• work achieved is of a quality that may be higher than the best work by each author
• work that embodies emergent qualities or outcome that are surprising and/or unpredictable by either author
• work that remains recognisable at a generic level to both authors
• work that connects/integrates richly with interests outside the collaborative task itself

In developing some practical approaches to the development of tools for meta-design, the authors - in collaboration with 12 other ds21 researchers - developed a system that offered specific roles for each of four inter-communicating teams. The teams met in order to co-draft a document that explores aspects of co-design within meta-design. This is the emergent level that can appear when the boundaries in the system are resolved. This is found not in the juxtaposition of the four aspects of the boundary, but by their integration, which implies a dynamic. Relevant in this dynamic is that all facets reflect and uphold each other. This is where the notion of synergy stands central: the interfacing boundaries are dissolved, when the participants transcend their own self-definition and limitations in supporting each other (symbiosis). This calls for imagination and anticipation (i.e. resolution of the shared pattern of understanding and shared functional dynamic). In the ds21 project the work group was asked to operate in four groups, each of which represented one of the four aspects of boundary integration. Within the context of this project they were called:

1. Manifestation/Realisation (object level)
2. Communication (interaction level)
3. Inspiration/Envisioning (relationship level)
4. Creation/Innovation (origination level)

The above categories were devised as a practical way to enable the most effective collaboration with a variety of designers and others with a very wide range of different types of knowledge, skills, and temperaments. In working with this model we came to re-think the categories within the context of how the body organises itself. The rationale is that all aspects of the interface (of the interaction) need to be addressed, thus represented. It implies that the different reflex levels by which we function all need to be appropriately addressed. Thus sensed by the people involved. This insight can be applied in a proposal for tools for synergy. These can be applied at the level of the individual scientist, such as in the writing of joint papers. The same concepts can likewise be used for integrating the insights of disciplines of science (where again it is by the trans-disciplinary collaboration between the scientists that the integration will be attained).

A holistic approach to collaboration

The following describes how the principles of synergy are more basic than may appear from what was written above. It informs the development of a practical approach to co-authorship. Humans are integral part of humanity (humans can be compared to the ‘cells’ of the ‘body’ of humanity). Symbiosis is a natural aspect of our existence. Synergy can therefore be seen at many levels of our symbiosis as a culture. Future tools for collaboration will almost certainly need to offer more levels of involvement at the level of communication, experience and co-creative realisation. For the participants this is experienced as a complex interplay between ‘thinking’, ‘feeling’, ‘doing’ and ‘being’. We may analyse this figuratively in terms of the ‘visual’ (head), the ‘auditory’ (heart), the ‘kinaesthetic’ (gut) and the ‘propriocepsic’ (cell). All play a role, together with the different modalities of consciousness they represent. The imprint they offer on memory differs accordingly. The visual ‘traces’ of the written media, the ‘felt’ imprint of conversations, the ‘tangible’ experience of (inter)action all combine to Gestalt the lived realisation of (co)creation. The choice of media can be made according to the need of concretisation of the project. The visual helps to make concrete representations of Imagination. The auditory is more conducive for resolving anticipation (as this generally involves transcending one’s own limitation, thus the interaction with others. The kinaesthetic is more practical for achieving new realisation (results). While the proprioceptic (individually and collectively) is essential for the vital evaluation (if the result is viable for al involved and out context). This cannot be obtained from the standpoint of a remote, or privileged observer, it needs to include the aspect of personal (responsibility and) involvement (_/_). Arguably, the traditional scientist as ‘outsider’ model has proved to be damaging for humanity and the biosphere. A better understanding of co-authorship is therefore a step towards a more shareable and self-reflexively responsible approach to science. The ‘writing of joint papers’ can thereby serve as simile for the integration of different disciplines of science.

Experiments in collaboration

It is well-known that frequent face-to-face meetings can aid the communication process necessary for collaboration. Unfortunately, this is often unpractical or even impossible. Our 14 (ds21) researchers are typical of this problem in that they are scattered across 6 different countries. Our work with the group therefore explored different modes of communication. Communication takes place at many levels of involvement, both conscious and unconscious. It involves ‘seeing’, ‘feeling’, ‘doing’, and ‘being’. This was the most challenging aspect of the project, because although it would have been useful to integrate all possible levels of communication, they represent very different ‘comfort zones’ for individual participants. The co-drawing of diagrams and pictures proved invigorating and helpful, although researchers tended to forget what they were about, unless some textual interpretation was made, quite soon afterwards. If we compare the reading of, say, facial expressions with that of dancing it may be clear that each has a different level of participatory involvement. Nevertheless, we found that certain dance exercises had a positive effect on subsequent collaboration. After our 14 researchers had met for the first time and (literally) rubbed noses with each of the other thirteen in an open space, we noticed a heightened willingness of the researchers to engage at other levels of interaction.

Suitable tools for co-authorship

The ds21 team envisaged certain features of a digital communication system as helpful or essential. However, our experience was similar to that of other comparative studies in that, although the digital methods looked promising, we did not achieve full agreement on their use; and this took attention away from the main subject of inquiry, and, therefore, the flow of the collaborative process. Experience and consistency with the collaboration tools is therefore important. Ideally, ‘the tool must not get in the way of the job’. Unfortunately, existing collaborative cross-platform software has yet to evolve to the point where we found any one product really helpful. This problem is well documented. Traditional (HTML) websites are 'presentational' and can rally interest, but are ‘read-only’. E-mail and discussion groups tend to be less 'human' than a face-to-face meeting, or even a handwritten letter. Their often rather terse style can sometimes create emotional conflicts because it can make simple messages appear to be more hostile or unfriendly than intended. We experimented with one cross-platform system (‘SmartGroups’) but found it too ‘modal’, and therefore unappealing for our purposes. Similarly, Web log (Blogs) may work as a virtual 'notice board' for long tracts, they are still too unwieldy for co-authorship at level far above simple joint-editing. We designed a ‘wiki’ site (http://attainable-utopias.org/DesignSynergy21) that we found to be more helpful because it facilitates a shorter, more densely woven style, within which any author can intervene in the content, layout, and ‘links’ to different contexts. One of the most effective tools for augmenting the ‘wiki’ site collaboration was ‘Skype’ software. This enables pairs or groups to share ideas on their computer screens whilst discussing them via a high quality acoustic telephone system. Imminent technological developments will provide a basis for further research.

Literature

• Ascott, R., (1994) in Giaccardi, Elisa "Metadesign as an Emergent Design Culture", Leonardo Journal, Volume 38, Number 4, August 2005, pp. 342-349, The MIT Press
• Bateson, G., (1973), "Steps to an Ecology of Mind", Paladin
• Bohm, D., (1980),"Wholeness and the Implicate Order", Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, Boston and Henley
• Brundtland, E., (1987), “Our Common Future”, (Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development), available as a pdf typed draft
• Chrisley, R. (2004), “Some Foundational Issues Concerning Anticipatory Systems”, International Journal of Computing Anticipatory Systems, Volume 11, 2002, pp 3-18. Partial Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference CASYS'01 on Computing Anticipatory Systems, Liege, Belgium, August 13-18, 2001, D. M. Dubois (Ed.), Liege: CHAOS. ISSN 1373-5411; ISBN 2-9600262-5-X
• Corning, P., (1983), “The Synergism Hypothesis”, McGraw-Hill, UK - see also synergism hypothesis
• Cziksentmihalyi, M., (1990), Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience”, HarperCollins, New York
• Dewey, J. (1934), “Art as Experience”, New York: Perigee Book
• Fairclough, (2005) in dream conduct details
• Feyerabend, P., (1975), "Against Method", Verso
• Fuller, R. B., (1975), “Synergetics: Explorations In The Geometry Of Thinking”, In collaboration with E.J. Applewhite. Introduction and contribution by Arthur L. Loeb. Macmillan Publishing Company, Inc., New York.
• Giaccardi, E. (2005). “Metadesign as An Emergent Design Culture”, in Leonardo, Volume 38, Number 4, August 2005
• Goleman, D., (1996), "Emotional Intelligence; why it can matter more than IQ", Bloomsbury, Great Britain Hadamard, 1945
• Heidegger, M., (1935), "Origin of the Work of Art", Basic Writings, Harper, San Francisco, 1977
• Hollis, A. (2001), “Co-authorship and the Output of Academic Economists”, Labour Economics, vol. 8, p. 503-530
• Holton, G. (1978), “The Scientific Imagination: Case Studies”, Cambridge University Press
• Husserl, E., (1900), “Logical Investigations”, First edition Halle: Niemeyer, 1900/01
• Kippendorff, K., (1996), "On the Essential Contexts of Artifacts or on the Proposition that 'Design is Making Sense (of Things)", in Margolin, V., and Buchanan, R., "The Idea of Design", MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts & London
• Koestler, A., (1964), “The Act of Creation”, London: Hutchinson Margulis, 1967
• Maturana, H., & Varela, F., (1980): "Autopoiesis and Cognition (The realisation of the Living)”, Reidel, Dordrecht, NL.
• Newman, M. E. J., (2004), “Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration”, Proc. National Academy of Science, USA 101, 5200-5205
• De Nicholas, A., (1986), “Powers of Imagining; Ignatius de Loyola”, State University of New York Press, Albany, USA Payne (1985)
• Peirce, C.S. (1998), “The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce”, 1931-58, eds. C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss (Vols. 1-6) and A. Burks (Vols. 7-8). (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press)
• Perls, F. S., (1942), “Ego, Hunger and Aggression”, Vintage Books, New York, (1969)
• Polanyi, M., (1969), "Tacit Knowing", in "Knowing and Being", Routledge & Kegan Paul, London
• Pór, G., (2003) for references to “Community Intelligence” see Community Intelligence website
• Janis, I., (1972), “Victims Of Groupthink”, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, USA, 1972
• Pribram, K., (1991), “Brain and perception”, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum
• Reber, A. S., (1993), "Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge, an Essay on the Cognitive Unconscious", Oxford University Press
• Riegler, A. (2003) “The Key to Radical Constructivism” (go to radical constructivism website
• Saito & Toyota, 2003 (Development of a titanium alloy called ‘Gum Metal’ that has characteristics that are significantly different from comparable alloys – see gum metal paper)
• Warnock (1987) “Memory”, Faber and Faber, London
• Warnock, M., (1976), "Imagination", Faber & Faber, London
• Wittgenstein, L., (1922), "Tractatus Logico Philosophicus", Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1961
• Wood, J., (2000), "The Culture of Rigour", Design Journal, UK, April 2, 2000

Return to / go to main body of the paper
Return to / go to ds21 Draft Papers
Return to / go to details of ds21 Members
Return to / go to Design Synergy HOME PAGE