Part III is about how Suzuki Lab implements the principles and design covered so far. First, what we study.
None of these is directly visible. Reading invisible structures and designing where to go — that is our work.
Geothermal is a field that contains both invisible structure (technical uncertainty) and invisible feelings (social frames). However correctly you estimate the subsurface, development does not proceed without the community's consent. Conversely, dialogue alone does not move the subsurface.
That is why we treat inquiry into the subsurface and inquiry into society in the same form of question. Estimate causes from observations (What / Why), and design means from goals (How). In the terms of Chapter 02, it is a two-stage stance: hand scientific understanding to engineering design "with its unknowability intact." These two stages are the same underground, in society, and in your own career.
Geothermal is not the goal; it is the best field for inquiry. The methodology gained here extends to other natural and social systems.
In Chapter 02 we said that a scientific question lands through passive inquiry (understanding), and an engineering question layers active inquiry (design) on top of it. Suzuki Lab puts its weight on the latter. Rather than understanding a phenomenon for its own sake, we ask how that understanding can be used for design. So, in the details of understanding, you may feel that "what can be rough is left rough." That is because we judge not to chase precision that does not affect the design.
This is where people differ, and you need not match your supervisor. People who value understanding itself may also be in the lab. But be able to say which you put your weight on. And know that compatibility with collaborators and supervisors is often decided by how close these stances are.
Chapter 02 dealt with the "solution cycle" — searching for the best means given goals and premises. The "exploration cycle" left outside it — inquiry that doubts and remakes the goal itself, the premises themselves, the frame in which the problem is grasped — is Team Society's research object.
As Schön pointed out, what counts as a problem and what counts as its solution depend on the frame in which the problem is grasped. A development plan that is rational for a power producer is unacceptable to a hot-spring operator not because the logic is wrong, but because the frames differ. Using Peirce's distinction among logic, ethics, and aesthetics, Suzuki and colleagues organized it as follows: a frame is the object of inquiry in the ethical dimension (what to take as fact, what to wish for) and the aesthetic dimension (what to feel, and how), and consciously doubting it is reframing (Suzuki, Yamaguchi & Yanagisawa 2025).
In other words, this lab tries to treat inquiry into the subsurface (passive), the design of development (active), and inquiry into frames (reframing) all in the same form of inquiry. Team Rock mainly takes the first two, Team Society the third, and both share the form of the question: "estimate invisible structure from limited observations, and pass it on with its unknowability accepted."
That is why the Paper Card works across teams, and why we can speak to each other's research at Lab Forum.
For specific themes and ongoing projects, see the lab website. → Research — DeSFE Lab
Which disciplines and courses you need to advance your research, and what to learn by when, are in Appendix 07-A Knowledge Map. You can look it up backward from where your Paper Card is stuck.