Blogs

Original blog post can be found here: https://benzweibelson.medium.com/design-facilitations-101-for-online-distance-education-the-crowded-cabin-challenge-35b74c2d36ee

Groucho: “Listen, I’m getting the manicure. Get out of here, will you?”

Manicurist: “Did you want your nails long or short?”

Groucho: “You better make them short. It’s getting kind of crowded in here. I don’t know. This isn’t the way I pictured an ocean voyage. I always visualized myself in a steamer chair with a steward bringing me bouillon.

Chico: “Come on, Riccardo. You couldn’t get bouillon in unless they brought it in through a keyhole.”

[Knock at the cabin door]

Engineer’s assistant: “I’m the engineer’s assistant.”

Groucho: “I had a premonition you were going to show up. The engineer’s over there in the corner. You can chop your way right through. Is it my imagination, or is it getting crowded in here?

Chico: “I got plenty of room.”

[Another knock at the cabin door]

Groucho: “Yes?”

Young Woman: “Is my Aunt Minnie in here?”

Groucho: “You can come in and prowl around if you want to. If she isn’t in here, you can probably find somebody just as good.[1]

In March 2020, like most educators and facilitators (as well as most everyone else) realized that the COVID pandemic was going to radically change everything, including how we approached design education and facilitation. Previously, our team had done most everything in person, with only peripheral and supplementary content done remote or as ‘pre-course work’ before attending an in-person resident course or facilitation event. We all needed to convert something that was not really intended for online semi-autonomous or autonomous education such as systemic design into a viable exportable education module for the U.S. Special Operations Command and other Department of Defense as well as international partnered entities quickly. It would have to be online, and in this case, be in a semi-autonomous format where people quarantined, working from home, or on a deployment somewhere in the world could do at their own pace, remotely while still having some sort of group and facilitator-led design experience.

Our team already had a host of modules, online material and deep design content online as we had converted all design education to a ‘flipped classroom’ andragogic model in 2018. Yet students might access the core lessons but how were we going to convert all of the unique and often improvised design facilitation exercises from classroom to remote computer, where design teams would be scattered across the planet? We decided first to generate a semi-autonomous, flexible online design course that would span six weeks, but within each week the students could decide where they would do their autonomous 6–8 hours of design work as per their own schedules, with the students uploading their design work and then attending a weekly 1-hour facilitated online video session with the entire class and our design facilitators. Each week would feature an arrangement of assigned design articles, video lessons, blogs or podcasts as well as a weekly ‘design challenge’ that usually produced a drawing, sculpture or some creation that the students had to upload to the online classroom portal.

Thus, each week there would be a ‘show and tell’ in a virtual sort of experience, with students getting to see how others in the class took on the design weekly challenge, and all students required to place a chat entry on at least two student deliverables, generating a nice decentralized, rhizomatic sort of design student interaction that would be monitored and at times curated by the online facilitators. Then, during the hour-long live session, each student would get five minutes to talk to the group and using the digital online image of their deliverable, perform a ‘share screen’ and discuss their work. In this series of design facilitation Medium articles, I will showcase each design challenge and explain the facilitator aspects, the educational outcomes, the andragogic approach (theory), as well as present various student deliverables. This series is intended for any interested design educators that wish to add more tools to their kitbag, whether they are executing online autonomous or semi-autonomous education or they need an in-residence assignment for their seminar. These all are dual-use in that they can easily be homework or in-class assignments or executed entirely online in a pure autonomous mode.

Step 1: The Video clip selection

I prefer to pair a design video clip with my audience in a manner that is both soothing/non-threatening to their institutional norms and practices, but also in a clandestine way, disruptive to it. For most of the students I work with, they are military, security, government or law enforcement and with those populations, one might expect that we reach for a war movie scene to get people excited and interested. This tends to backfire. First, for those of you that know military veterans and watch most any military show or movie with them, they have the same annoying habit of critiquing the accuracy of the movie that doctors have watching medical shows, and police officers when a detective crime drama is on. This is a cultural phenomenon that reflects the profession, community of practice or institution that the people know and live… they in fact are predisposed to be ready to defend the institution and cast a skeptical eye to the scene! This works against design facilitators yet many unwittingly fall into this trap by appealing to the trope that ‘military people should enjoy watching this military scene and thus we can quickly install the design lessons with their undivided attention.’

The andragogic technique I employ is to go with paradox, or in philosophical terms move to a Hegelian discourse where we want to find something entirely unrelated to the military (or doctors, lawyers, police or whomever the population you are facilitating). Yet within that seemingly unrelated scene, you can carefully weave in design lessons that do tie back into the core military design topics that you ultimately are addressing in the facilitation or educational approach. For example, the first day for a basic design course has in the first hour of engagement the student design teams working on a scene from the movie ‘Jaws’- you can find that entire facilitation video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf_IQ5uCS8g and there is an academic design article also available online (no paywall) here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405872621000897. This sort of misdirection is normally not realized by the students, and this equips the design facilitators with a nice way to bypass institutional barriers through what appears superficially to be a harmless and fun design challenge. This technique works in the classroom, as well as in autonomous or semi-autonomous applications.

The video clip I used for this first design challenge in the six-week design fundamentals semi-autonomous course was something of a nod to my father, who was of the World War II generation and a serious Marx Brothers fan. The scene is often called the ‘crowded cabin scene’ and is available here on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFu0KyrNAAA

The scene is one of the most famous Marx Brothers bits that they would develop and hone on the road performing in Vaudeville-styled live shows back in the earliest days of movie-making. In this unique arrangement, they could improvise and tweak their performance over and over while testing it on live audiences, so that when time came to film the movie, they had already ironed out what worked and what did not. This scene is from ‘A Night at the Opera’, arguably their most coherent and structured movie and still quite watch-able today despite the Marx Brothers fading from the American modern zeitgeist that now demands computer-rendered, non-stop action and superhero pizazz. In the scene, Groucho Marx assumes his standard role as the wise-cracking protagonist who lets the viewers in on his mayhem as he manipulates and torments the non-suspecting other characters that fall victim to the Marx Brothers’ shenanigans. He finds his two brothers (they all play various unrelated characters in their movies but the audience always ‘knows’ them as the Marx Brothers) as stow-aways in his ship cabin, and decides to order them food. In quick fashion, chaos ensues in a comical and at times physics-bending sort of scene.

In terms of disarming security professionals, this sort of scene is far removed from showing a military scene from a war movie, as those would likely stimulate institutionalized behaviors and patterns of thinking. The Marx Brothers is decidedly non-miliary, non-war and therefore a more flexible space for security professionals to learn some essential first steps in design: know thy own socially constructed frame… and what might exist beyond those self-imposed limitations. This is the first step in gaining what sociologists call ‘reflective practice’[2] and is related to a similar concept termed: ‘triple loop learning.’[3] In a facilitation technique, we want to remove as many institutional barriers that the basic design students may have- one being that Miles’ Law is almost always operating in the background- “where you stand depends on where you sit!”[4] Finding a topic for a video to use that is outside of their potential ‘where they sit’ bias has the potential to provide a faster mode of design immersion (sometimes- but not always).

The instructions for students when they access the first autonomous online design assignment is posted below along with a hyperlink to the YouTube video:

“Complete this Week 1 physical design artistic challenge located on our online design course page. Students will follow the design exercise challenge and then upload their resulting project/drawing/construct to the portal in the Slide Share portion (each student labels their work in what will be a multi-student slide presentation each week). Week 1: Marx Brothers’ cabin scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFu0KyrNAAA.

Challenge: Make a drawing (however you wish) and explain this scene using Groucho Marx as the main character for your explanation. What is Groucho doing? Why is the scene occurring as you see it? Avoid using words in your drawing- try to explain everything in pictures, not words. The week 1 design challenge learning objective: students will attempt to frame a complex scene and explain, not describe it.”

The online education associated with that first week of the design course provides more details on why explanation is different from description, so that students get a primer in ‘what-how-why’ for design applications. In one quick example, we talk about how students might pick a British car such as a Mini Cooper and take it completely apart in a large room, down to every single bolt and wire. Yet we cannot ever find the part that causes the British to drive on the wrong side of the road! Description is analytical, focused in an iterative deductive and/or inductive loop of ‘what-how’ that leads to… more detailed description.

This is where reducing things down, categorizing them, placing things into bins and attempting to isolate fundamental particles or elements (or principles, memes, etc) might offer the discovery of some universal, foundational law or rule that permits prediction and control at a higher level of organization. Yet some levels of reality are, in complexity terms, linked through downward causation and remain “along for the ride” in the way that a runner is sprinting with a purpose of winning a race, yet their foot (and the attached sneaker) is in motion but is not part of the bigger goal directly. Another example is where I am typing this sentence (and you are reading it) letter by letter. My fingers are striking individual keys in a particular finger-strike order to compose the words I am stringing along as I think and type; yet each individual act of striking a key, and each individual letter in isolation is not involved cohesively in the meaning of the word they are building, nor do they at their level have influence into the larger purpose of this writing composition. Essentially, in complex reality- some things at some levels are functioning in a plane of existence that is part of something bigger, but analysis and reduction (what-how) will only continue to describe such things while missing the forest for the trees.

Systemic thinking is where we look at systems and systems of systems, taking a holistic and often abstract view. Inductive and deductive reasoning is supplanted by abductive reasoning- we seek explanation and this is not accomplished through analysis. Synthesis is key, and this is where we know that the reason the Mini Cooper is driven on the wrong side of the road in the United Kingdom is not found inside the car; it is in British culture and society, as well as automobile history, economics, politics, industry and traditions (shared belief systems that become our social paradigms). Explanation thus cannot be accomplished or demonstrated by breaking things down, categorizing, attempting to isolate a complex system to express fundamental levels where linear-causal reasoning and systematic logic might generate overarching laws/rules/principles to show how the system runs. The answer about the car is outside the car. Yet design students cannot simply switch this off, as our military institution has hard-wired this into all of us in a manner that is quite frightening sociologically. Even when we try not to describe, we still seek to describe (and triumphantly call our results ‘explanatory’). The JAWS exercise I designed for USSOCOM demonstrates this in 30 minutes with students as well.[5]

What happens when students seek to explain the Crowded Cabin scene, and why?

If you watch the 4 minute scene before you go further, this will be fresh in your mind and you can look at the student drawings that they post online for this assignment and determine which ones are more descriptive, and which might achieve some level of explanation beyond merely describing the scene. The scene is comedic, bordering on absurdism and playing with the social norms (and boundaries) of proper and expected behavior.

Here are a series of student drawings where they seek to explain rather than describe. Remember- when we think about description, we will see drawings that list or map out the various Marx Brothers and characters, perhaps draw the cabin itself and even position various people inside the cabin with a depiction of the gags unfolding. These types of drawings are heavily descriptive, yet even when students are instructed to draw (if we let them use words, we would get near identical ‘problem statements’ or ‘mission statements’ through indoctrinated planning lingo)- we still seem to observe a strong pattern of descriptive activities by first week designers. This is quite expected, and something facilitators need to consider when doing the very first activities. The first assignment acts as a ‘tool exposer’ so that once a student sees that they and their peers have fell into the description trap, they can realize in the next exercises when they are tilting to description over explanation.

Consider this student composition based on the video… is it descriptive? Despite the crude drawings (we never fault a student for inability to draw realistically- and frankly that can often be a problem)- the image above fits into the basic design student pattern of ‘describing while expecting enough description shall unlock explanation.’ As for artists, they can fall into the descriptive trap more readily because they begin to equate “realistic imagery that describes” as something that also might lead to faster accomplishment of explanation. See the next image:

The above image is by a talented student, yet does this explain or describe the scene? The image shown above nicely describes much of the scene, with a talented artist composing some of the more memorable moments… but does this accomplish explanation?

This next one below starts to move toward explanation in one major compositional way- the egg. The designer titled this “hardboiled or scrambled” and explained that when the Marx Brothers were ordering hard boiled eggs and creating chaos, they were “scrambling” the situation that should have just been a normal cabin engagement for service. This is an important departure from the earlier drawings in that we finally start to see some explanation and perhaps some abstraction injected into the student assignment.

The next image is one that students frequently compose, where they almost mathematically depict a formula that describes the scene in an A plus B leads to C sort of systematic logic. Inputs should lead to outputs. This is revealing because while the student might not realize it, they are unwittingly (and even unwillingly in some) expressing the preferred compositional outputs of their social paradigm. We draw what we are programmed to generate.

Here is another that demonstrates a similar formulaic approach:

These two are a bit more abstract than the more deliberately descriptive first few examples, yet despite the abstraction presented- these still remain largely descriptive and demonstrate a formulaic mode of comprehension and articulation.

This one takes the mathematical analysis to the next level compared to the last two students. Observe how in this drawing, the student applies mathematical identification of the flow of people into the cabin, differentiated in space and time throughout the scene. They even speculate where in the ship the cabin might be located, and then map out the explosion of people at the very end. In terms of ‘explanation versus description’- facilitators would see this as quite high on the ‘description’ side of the scale and something to encourage that designer to reflect upon. In the JAWs exercise linked earlier, the second part of the design facilitation pulls students out of this high-description mode of thinking by forcing conceptual ‘tool dropping’.

Above, another student takes a similar mathematical, formulaic approach to the scene, reaching a high level of ‘description’ despite being tasked to move away from this and toward ‘explanation.’ In this drawing, the student traces out movements and provides a table to correlate various actors to where they moved and interacted during the scene. This would be an excellent start to a choreography script for such a movie scene, but that still would be a highly descriptive activity.

In the above drawing titled “literal interpretation’ by the design student (wittingly or unwittingly?)- the drawing is a simple and highly descriptive mapping of the scene. The arrow indicates the flow of people into the scene, and the antics are shown in the cabin behind the door. In terms of capturing a descriptive image of the scene while showing little or no explanation, this one is a powerful example. Yet the students were instructed to avoid this and go after explanation. Why might this still occur in the first design assignments?

Let’s shift to some explanatory drawings:

As this is usually the first exercise done in an online, semi-autonomous or autonomous course, facilitators will be excited to see students that demonstrate a natural gift to executing explanatory conceptualizations right from the start. Notice that in the following drawings, there is less of a formulaic, analytical, or sequential mode of depiction. The characters may be depicted, but they are presented in a manner that may not look quite like the scene itself- or they instead may be represented in some metaphoric frame that was not in the actual scene- but it helps convey what that design student experienced.

In the above drawing, the student (who stated, “I am not an artist” does provide some explanation and abstraction in how they composed the image. Note that there are few of the things seen in the previous descriptive drawings. Groucho’s famous grease paint eyebrows and mustache are central, with many different symbols circling and moving toward Groucho as the ‘center of gravity’ to the chaos of the scene.

In the above drawing titled “Orchestrating Chaos”- the student depicts Groucho as central to the scene just like the last artist and many of the descriptive earlier ones. Yet in this one and the last one, Groucho is not seen “doing” anything in the clip. Here, the student puts Groucho into the position of a masterful controller or conductor, creating the chaos that he desires and manipulating everyone else like ants.

The above image at first may not seem rather explanatory or unique- but it has one of two critical things that facilitators must look for in this and many other design exercises. Designers that are not thinking systemically (up and out, systems within larger systems) and reflectively are not going to do what this student did. They went out of the scene into what a movie is, and how the audience (in this case, a person watching an old-time television) is expected to enjoy these things… that Hollywood creates narratives and scenes where chaos occurs in an illusionary manner. The actors knew precisely what they were doing, and between scenes they would return to their normal lives and actions when ‘off camera.’ But when that camera rolled, they performed to create the lively, chaotic scene that was not chaotic at all- except as interpreted in the viewer’s head. We see chaos and humor as we enjoy the scene- but those actors and the directors and stagehands and producers did not experience chaos- they experienced precision and control as the scene unfolded just as rehearsed.

This ‘fourth wall breaking’ of the design student is also called reflective practice (or triple-loop learning depending on the field/discipline) and is an important expression of systems within larger systems. The designer took the scene and when further out into the entertainment system and how societies enjoy film and television. One could take it further into the mind of the director, or the camera man filming, or perhaps into the head of the viewer. Additionally, when facilitators see the rare depiction of the designer themselves in their drawing- this becomes an example of extremely high explanation, empathy, reflection and systemic thought. Why do most students not draw this movie scene as a set with cameras and lighting and a director, or people in a theater watching the scene? Why do no students draw themselves sitting behind a laptop or looking at their smart phone as they watch this scene, perhaps with a frustrated look as they have a blank sheet of paper before them and their design homework assignment? These things rarely occur in these first drawings because we are conditioned to converge, describe, analyze and think systematically for all challenges! We feel increasingly uncertain and out-of-place when we dive into the systemic, the explanatory, the complex and the emergent act of creativity.

The above drawing is very different from the descriptive ones. Groucho is a monster, a mad scientist, with his brain throbbing with the chaos he is creating. The artist places a broken egg in his hands, and in Groucho’s mind, he has a task list of chaos to create, and also decides that time is irrelevant. Everything must be “now”, and the student felt that Groucho viewed reality and time/space differently than everyone else.

The student that made the above image stated that his image was about “Blind decisions, in a complex system, surrounded by chaos, and no apparent direction.” Once we have that information, the drawing takes on new meaning. Again- Groucho or the person depicted here is presented in a way not seen specifically in that clip, and the concepts swirling around them are present in the scene but only through conceptualization. This is an abstract image and far more explanatory about how that student felt about the scene than the earlier descriptive drawings were. In those, we cannot guess much of what the students felt about the scene, other than they watched it and remembered the scripted events enough to describe them or conduct their own analysis.

The above drawing at first glance seems a bit like the earlier descriptive ones. But there is one key difference- the composition places Groucho outside the cabin! Groucho never left it once he entered (until falling out with everyone at the end)- but the designer positions Groucho as the master manipulator of this chaos. Here, he looks on deviously as the people are squeezed into the cabin to do his bidding.

This student’s work, for a first design drawing is quite unusual. Whether it is more explanatory or not is up to others to decide, but in terms of uniqueness and creativity, this one clearly has strong marks. The student references a popular internet meme and titled this drawing “*Slaps roof of car* This bad boy can fit so many hard-boiled eggs in it.” The inspirational meme came from 2014 and depicts a car salesman attempting to sell a car. The original one stated that “this bad boy can fit so much [expletive] spaghetti in it” with the roof slap. Memes are themselves fascinating phenomena of the Information Age- they are usually humorous and include some ‘inside joke’ or information that only those using the meme are privy to, and others that understand the information/joke are encouraged to make endless variations and modifications of the meme.

Memes that go ‘viral’ take on a life of their own, well outside the original creator’s vision or intent. A meme is not new to the generations that have internet and social media to fuel their activities. A meme is defined as “an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.” Fans of SciFi and Star Trek: The Next Generation might consider the episode ‘Darmok’ as ultimately a discussion about intelligence species and how they employ memes for virtually all conceptualization, culture and communication: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darmok.

Memes of this Information Age use advanced technology, computers and social networks to spread elements of culture/behavior, while in analog times in the centuries preceding the late 20th Century, a meme such as ‘throwing salt over shoulder for luck’ and ‘tipping one’s hat when another gentleman approaches’ would spread and influence/shape societies. In the student’s picture, he references the many eggs that Groucho and his brothers order from the steward.

Unlike the descriptive earlier images, nothing depicted in the above drawing happens in the clip, and the digital meme referenced did not even exist until nearly nine decades after the Marx Brothers performed this scene for film. Yet the original Marx Brothers’ joke of ordering a ridiculous amount of hard boiled eggs extends into this new format, with the student drawing Groucho’s famous eyebrows and mustache upon the car salesman character for added effect. Above the meme, the student used a combination of color and mathematical symbols to track and describe the ordering of various eggs throughout the scene. While this portion is more descriptive than explanatory, together the two parts of the student’s drawing provides a synthesis of descriptive and explanatory perspectives of the designer, coupled with a creative use of popular culture modified so that a movie clip from the 1930s extends right into the 21st century. Were this to become viral, only those that “get the joke” of both the car salesman slapping meme plus the much more obscure Marx Brothers’ cabin scene from 1935 would be “in on the meme” content. Overall, this drawing stimulated more laughs, discussion and questions than many of the others.

Not to be outdone, another design student also referenced a popular internet meme and adapted it to the crowded cabin scene. This one above makes for a tighter and easier correlation for those that “know that meme” to identify. The original meme has a dog seated in a room engulfed in flames as the cartoon dog states, “this is fine” and came from an internet comic. It was used to reflect upon situations where one is in denial or as chaos is engulfing them and they refuse to recognize or realize the bleakness of their situation. This student replaced the dog with Groucho, and also referenced the madness of ordering so many eggs.

This last drawing was titled “Four Angles on One Scene” and the student attempted to combine geometry with different cognitive/social perspectives of the cabin scene. The ‘eye of the observer’ is centrally positioned with each section of the paper evenly divided and extending from the eye, representing how our biological bodies all interpret visual data into our brains, but past that point we all conceptualize differently due to our social, cultural and mental differences. The analytical frame is on the left, recognizable by symbols and formulaic depictions of counting, linear causality and systematic logic (A plus B leads to C). A systemic, nodal-network frame is positioned opposite the analytical frame on the right. At the bottom, many of the key elements of the scene are shown moving into the mind and ‘soul’ or perhaps some abstraction of an organ.

Here, the student might have been suggesting the flow of the scene had a calibrated, intentional order that reflected chaos when executed- the building of the tension was purposeful and meant to evoke viewer emotion and reaction. The top image extends outward, referencing how human narratives arrange in primary tropes such as ‘tragedy, comedy, drama, excitement/thrill’- the main categories of how we arrange literature, movies, television and other narratives we employ. The clip is comedic, and while set in an earlier time with different values and cultural frames, a comedic scene such as this one is ultimately created for human enjoyment. This last image represents a high degree of design explanation, and when compared with the earlier descriptive design drawings, facilitators of this exercise can learn to spot where students are moving toward convergence and description (still trapped within their paradigms and institutional motives of self-preservation) with those that are diverging, becoming reflective practitioners and considering the WHY/HOW over the fast track to WHAT/HOW.

Closing Thoughts: Why might design facilitation require a strong appreciation of explanation and description? Why would a facilitator need to consider how students move from convergence toward either stronger convergence (digging in, and defending their legacy frames more fiercely) or breaking out and moving reflectively and knowingly/wittingly toward divergence? This simply cannot be done without a deep, introspective appreciation of what one’s own frame is so that we can navigate intentionally toward the boundaries of that frame and willfully step over. Complexity theorist Russell Ackoff once stated: “Doing the wrong things right only makes us better at being wrong.” Facilitators that do not recognize designers that repeat their favorite processes unwittingly are doomed to watch them do the same things over and over while expecting different results. Military strategists and planners will reapply the same legacy constructs while attempting to accomplish innovation. Convergence does not lead to novelty, and description alone does not produce explanation. In design, a student must realize what description is and how it differs from explanation- these relate to systematic and systemic thinking as well as non-reflective and reflective practitioners (moving from single or double loop to triple loop thinking)- we must move away from ‘WHAT-HOW’ toward ‘WHY’. This case study offers one relatively simple model for engaging with students on this, to include an online/distance form that may be of interest to those seeking to educate on design in pandemic or other technological, organizational and geographic challenges.

For more case studies and facilitation tutorials, subscribe and stay tuned. Check out these other design facilitation tutorials as part of this expanding series on design facilitation for security, defense and governmental applications.

[1] Sam Wood, A Night at the Opera, Comedy (Loew’s, Inc, 1935).

[2] Natalie Ferry and Jovita Ross-Gordon, “An Inquiry into Schön’s Epistemology of Practice: Exploring Links between Experience and Reflective Practice,” Adult Education Quarterly 48, no. 2 (Winter 1998): 98–113; Tim Mickleborough, “Intuition in Medical Practice: A Reflection on Donald Schön’s Reflective Practitioner,” Medical Teacher, Commentary, 37 (2015): 889–91; Christopher Paparone, “Designing Meaning in the Reflective Practice of National Security: Frame Awareness and Frame Innovation,” in Design Thinking: Applications for the Australian Defence Force, ed. Aaron Jackson and Fiona Mackrell, editor’s manuscript pre-publication version, Joint Studies Paper Series 3 (Canberra, Australia: Defence Publishing Service, 2019), 1–18; Donald Schön, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action, 1st Edition (New York: Basic Books, 1984); Willemien Visser, “Schön: Design as a Reflective Practice,” Collection, Art+Design & Psychology, no. 2 (2010): 21–25.

[3] Robert Flood and Norma Romm, “Contours of Diversity Management and Triple Loop Learning,” Kybernetes 25, no. 7/8 (1996): 154–63.

[4] Rufus Miles Jr., “The Origin and Meaning of Mile’s Law,” Public Administration Review 38, no. 5 (October 1978): 399–403.

[5] Ben Zweibelson, James Wetzel, and Todd Landis, “Designing in Complex Security Contexts: Enabling Frame Awareness through Sharks, Dollar Signs, and Police Badges,” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 7, no. 3 (Autumn 2021): 435–61; The JSOU JAWS Exercise and How SOCOM Is Dropping Cognitive Tools with Military Design — YouTube, video Mp4, Think JSOU (Tampa, Florida: JSOU campus studio, 2020), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf_IQ5uCS8g.