|
I was formally trained in the hard sciences and technology: mechanical engineering, information systems, mathematics, and statistics. I was closing out my degree in English-Communications and Technology with several writing minors, plus philosophy. When assigned or tasked, I was accustomed to having an idea of what I was going study (look at) and usually entered with a proposal thesis as to what I was going to prove or disprove. Going in, I had some kind of a focus and the data would feed back telling me if what I proposed was true or false (scientific method).
The "Shipka Design Spaces" were completely different. We were studying methodology among other areas. Rarely did I have a specific focus of what I wanted to prove or disprove. Instead of having a specific proposal to prove or disprove and finding data that support or refute the claim, I was going out and gathering data, spreading it out on a table and observing what the data and artifacts were telling me how they came together and what they had to say. As a technologist I was not using the technologies to formulate my design plan, but rather the data and artifacts were feeding back to me what I should make of them or how I should make meaning of them. Again and again I have said the designer feeds back to the technologies directing them into what the designer whats them to be but at the same time, the technologies feed back to the designer what the ultimate design will be. For me, all too often Shipka Communications fed back to me what was being said and not vice versa placing me in a completely different position in designing than I am accustomed to. I was being forced to expand my horizons and my methods of "seeing." As Shipka had said from the beginning, This is NOT a freakin' free for all!" Although the design walls were glass (transparent), the design wall or parameters still existed. The further I got into a particular communication design, I quickly found out what the limitations were of the communication whether by cost, scope, or time.