Dear David and others
explanation is a notion that i find both interesting and difficult, so it took me a
while to assimilate what you have said, thus the delay in reply.
i like it very much the idea of 'useful explanation' for i have a hunch suggesting
this is central to a form of design knowledge that may be developed - I am more
than happy to be corrected or directed to more productive way of thinking.
risking embarrassing myself, here i will present some of my immature thoughts as
why i think 'useful explanation' can be design knowledge.
i take a simplistic view to what usefulness means: something is useful is something
that is relevant to a context.
an explanation doesn't need any context. but a useful explanation always requires
at least one. and in order to develop a 'useful explanation', one must first ask
relevant questions. (and acquiring this ability is not easy).
and i think asking relevant questions for various contexts is one of the elements
that can distinguish design inquiry (or designerly way of asking) from the
scientific or humansitic inquiry.
Scientists or scholars of course also can or do ask relevant questions, but many of
them also ask 'any' question to satisfy their own curiosity or to collect stamps as
you said.
but the main point is the activity of design is context bound and demands asking
relevant questions. it is a 'natural' way to develop useful explanation. it is the
practical side of design that spares us from developing a habit which i like to
call 'intellectual masturbation'.
but it is also the same practical side that prevents us from asking more relevant
questions. we often stop asking once a 'satisfising' answer (for a particular
context) is developed.
in my mind, if we can as designers cum researchers, through the activity of design,
but go beyond the activity of design, to discover more relevant questions or make
seemingly irrelvant questions relevant for various contexts, then we will be able
to develop some useful knowledge.
sincerely rosan
davidsless wrote:
> Rosan
>
> First, I'm not against explanation when it is useful. If it is useful, then
> it clearly adds to knowledge. Of course, there are many possible accounts of
> what might be 'useful' I'm not particularly concerned to catalogue those.
>
> Second, it is important for us to tell each other stories, or give acounts
> of what we do that make sense to us. If this is viewed as 'knowledge
> building', then I am all for it.
>
> Third, I am personally against endless elaboration of the sort that has
> accompanied the 'turn to theory' of the last century. I think it begats a
> kind of academic stamp collecting or train spotting which leads to the
> impression of knowledge but without the substance--people who know
> everything but understand nothing. I am reminded of Casaubon in
> 'Middlemarch'. I passionately believe that the role of the intellectual is
> to provide synthesis and insight, not endless elaboration. I think that the
> use of 'deep causation' as an explanatory metaphor has encouraged this
> endless elaboration. Design 'theory' or 'research' is as guilty of this as
> any other area of so called 'knowledge' in our time.
>
> Fourth, when doing research, it is important to consider the subtle but
> ellusive difference between what we discover and what we invent--between
> what we find and what we create. I think the 'turn to theory' and the search
> for 'deep causation' blur this subtle disitinction in unhelpful ways. I
> suspect that many of our most cherished theories of deep causation are
> actually figments of our collective imagination.
>
> I suppose I take the rather simple view that I would rather stand on one
> square inch of firm ground than on a continent of clouds--castles in the
> air.
>
> I should add, perhaps in parenthesis, that this view is not supportive of
> the political economy of our universities or museums--the great train
> spotting and stamp collecting institutions of our time. Am I being too
> cruel? (vbg).
>
> David
>
> --
> Professor David Sless
> BA MSc FRSA
> Co-Chair Information Design Association
> Senior Research Fellow Coventry University
> Director
> Communication Research Institute of Australia
> ** helping people communicate with people **
>
> PO Box 398 Hawker
> ACT 2614 Australia
>
> Mobile: +61 (0)412 356 795
>
> phone: +61 (0)2 6259 8671
> fax: +61 (0)2 6259 8672
> web: http://www.communication.org.au
--
Rosan Chow
Sessional Instructor
University of Alberta
Department of Art and Design
3-98 Fine Arts Building
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6G 2C9
Tel:1-780-492-7877
Fax: 1-780-492-7870
|
