In this section, we discuss how EM model construction supports bricolage. To do this we review the literature on both EM and bricolage, to identify their common points. Bricolage and EM originate from entirely different contexts. In developing the concept of bricolage, the anthropologist Levi-Strauss was concerned with the construction of physical artefacts within ‘primitive’ societies. In contrast, EM is concerned with computer-based model construction that has been observed in practice, primarily in the work of computer science students at the University of Warwick over the past fifteen years. This has involved the construction of several hundred models in connection with student projects and academic research (see [EMRep] for a representative sample).
Evidence that the EM modeller is a bricoleur rather than a planner can be seen in key phrases taken from Russ’s comparison of EM and programming in [CRB00]:
• ‘there is really no counterpart in EM to the ‘planning’ phase. ... conceptual modelling in EM can conveniently be directly put into a script with a visualisation and experimented with on the computer.’
• ‘it is significant that testing occurs in advance of any commitment to a particular form of program.’
• ‘in an EM development it is typical that the interface is left until an advanced stage of the development – when the purpose and requirement has been clarified through extensive use of the very open-ended phase of model construction and exploration.’
In EM, the purpose of model building may not be initially clear:
‘The objective of a (student) project has often been uncertain at the early stages, and a theme has emerged as the model-building activity proceeds incrementally. The profile of work on the project is distinctively different from that practised in other paradigms, such as object-oriented software development. Students typically carry out significant model construction even at the early stages, and are guided by this in their strategic decisions’ [Bey01].
Though the modeller may have a general problem in mind, the initial phase of work involves surveying tools and models both to identify useful resources and to shape the provisional direction of development. This preliminary activity typically influences the modeller’s original conception of their project. This resonates with Levi-Strauss’s account of bricolage in the preliminary stages of a project:
‘Consider the bricoleur at work and excited by his project. His first practical step is retrospective. He has to turn back to an already existent set made up of tools and materials, to consider or reconsider what it contains and to engage in a sort of dialogue with it and, before choosing between them, to index the possible answers which the whole set can offer to his problem.’ [Lev68, p18] ‘Once it materialises the project will therefore inevitably be at a remove from the initial aim, a phenomenon which the surrealists have felicitously called “objective hazard”.’ [Lev68, p21]
The influence of the developing artefact over the modeller’s conception of his or her project is prominent throughout the development of an EM model, and the final outcome of a project may differ significantly from the initial idea.
As highlighted above, the process of model construction in EM is one of negotiation; the modeller uses the partially constructed artefact (and its real world counterpart if it exists) to further refine their current understanding of it. This emphasis on understanding the artefact under construction is also seen in bricolage. Levi-Strauss says of model building:
‘Now the model being an artefact, it is possible to understand how it is made and this understanding of the method of construction adds a supplementary dimension.’ [Lev68, p24]
The products of EM and bricolage both relate to the embodiment of rich experience in a real-world artefact. In both, the emphasis is on human engagement in the model building and concrete rather than abstract representations of knowledge. Levi-Strauss
refers to the products of bricolage as ‘miniatures’ and stresses the importance of real- world human engagement:
‘… miniatures have a further feature. They are ‘man made’ and, what is more, made by hand. They are therefore not just projections or passive homologues of the object: they constitute a real experiment with it.’ [Lev68,p24]
The emphasis in EM and bricolage is on the learning that occurs during construction of an artefact rather than on the finished product, as illustrated in the quotes below:
‘... the ‘bricoleur’ also, and indeed principally, derives his poetry from the fact that he does not confine himself to accomplishment and execution ... The ‘bricoleur’ may not ever complete his purpose but he always puts something of himself into it.’ [Lev68, p21]
‘Computer models constructed using Empirical Modelling principles are not to be viewed as implementing an abstract mathematical model. Their significance is instead similar to that of the physical model that an experimental scientist might build to account for a phenomena, or that an engineer constructs to prototype or test a design concept.’ [BS99]
The qualities of bricolage in relation to the EFL can be inferred from Table 4.1. The defining characteristic of bricolage – of intimate engagement through interaction with the artefact – is found in activities at the empirical end of the EFL. Planners – who preconceive modes of use and functionality of their product before programming – do not engage with the empirical learning activities during construction. This approach is only suitable if they have a good understanding of the situation they are modelling. Model building approaches that embrace bricolage must be capable of supporting learning activities at the experimental end of the EFL.
In summary, the discussion in this section has illustrated that there are close links between EM and bricolage, and that both offer support to the concrete learning activities at the empirical end of the EFL.