I’ve been circling around Donald Schön’s The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action for years now and finally got around to reading it. As it turns out, I should have read it a long time ago, since it has so much to say (indirectly) about design and what it means to be a designer today, especially designers in the experience design realm. As it turns out, there is a reason for the fact we’re constantly fighting about things like role/discipline boundaries and titles. The book also offers and analyzes a way of working that is very very much how I work and, I suspect, how many people in my field do as well.
The Reflective Practitioner was written in the early 1980s and took as its premise that the world of work was changing rapidly, that there was a group of people (Richard Florida’s Creative Class mostly) who, unlike doctors, engineers, and scientists, didn’t rely on technical knowledge for their expertise. Schön calls these people “practitioners” and their ranks include everything from social workers to city planners to architects and designers. People who, in the words of Charles Reich, “can be counted on to do their job, but not necessarily to define it.”
Practitioners, Schön says, have “an awareness of complexity that resists the skills and techniques of traditional expertise” and are “frequently embroiled in conflicts of values, goals, purposes, and interests.” (Much like ever project I’ve ever worked on!) Being a practitioner means that the traditional methods and techniques of analytical thinking and scientific process simply don’t work. Problems in the messy world of practitioners “are interconnected, environments are turbulent, and the future is indeterminate.” What is called for under these conditions, Schön argues, are professionals who can, as Russell Ackoff says, “design a desirable future and invent ways of bringing it about.”
All isn’t roses for practitioners, however. We’re struggling against 400 years of Technical Rationality, which is “problem-solving made rigorous by the application of scientific theory and technique.” Technical Rationality is ingrained in our workplaces and in our universities, and the professions that practice it (doctors, lawyers, engineers) are emphasized and revered over those that don’t. Professions that practice Technical Rationality apply general principles (medicine, law, physics) to specific problems to achieve unambiguous results (health, justice, bridges, etc.).
However, Schön points out, “Increasingly we have become aware of the importance to professional practice of phenomena–complexity, uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict–which do not fit the model of Technical Rationality.” Instead of simply problem solving, practitioners instead need to problem set. That is, “to determine the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen.”
In real-world practice, problems do not present themselves to practitioners as givens. They must be constructed from the materials of problematic situations that are puzzling, troubling, and uncertain. In order to convert a problematic situation to a problem, a practitioner must do a certain kind of work. He must make sense of an uncertain situation that initially makes no sense.
Problem setting is where we “name the things to which we will attend and frame the context to which we will attend to them.” This cannot be achieved by Technical Rationality, because Technical Rationality depends on understanding what the end is. Only through naming and framing, which do not depend on applying general scientific principles, can these complex problems eventually be solved.
This, however, doesn’t stop practitioners from looking for tried-and-true methods and techniques that will solve all their problems in a neat way. You see this all the time with designers at conferences and on mailing lists, searching for the next great method. Schön says that for practitioners, replying on methods and techniques will leave them solving problems of relatively little importance, for both clients and society at large. It is only by “descending into the swamp” where the practitioners must forsake technical rigor that the really important and challenging problems will be found.
How practitioners should do this is in Part II of this review.