hi Jean,

well, I see your point, and I guess that we are again trying to come
up with shared understanding on the meaning of words - here the word
'theory'.

I do not have a definition myself that I could share, and I could be
happy with yours, and if I accept it, then it might be that I was not
really talking about theory but of models.

However, in everyday life, the word theory is used more freely, and
somehow I find validity in that way. Also I feel that in design, it
may be hard to build *useful* theories, if one is too strict about
what constitutes one.

I guess my point here is: sometimes things die when they are defined
too strictly - the thing to be defined does not fit the definition,
and must be let loose, and is lost. That is a problem for design
research. I am not sure whether it is more important to define the
concept of theory strictly, or to have good theories that are not
'theories' by strict definition. But I don't want to be an anarchist
either. So in the end I do not have a solution. Am I talking about
theory or a model...don't know...I am interested in how it works,
whatever it is.


Maybe we should try to find some concrete example. For example, I
could say that I believe in a theory that a many-to-many network
infrastructure that we are little by little getting (internet based,
peer-to-peer,...) instead of the one-to-many architecture
(broadcasters, records, channels,...) we have now, increases the
possibility for more democratic and sensible negotiation of what
society will become.

This is probably some kind of a 'folk theory' without the rigour that
you are referring to. But this can probably be further elaborated
towards the direction of a real theory, and probably already has been
by someone. However, I do not subscribe to anybody's else's specific
version of such theory, nor do I find it important or necessary to
know all such theories. I do think it is necessary to have a
reasonable overview of what general ideas exist in this area, but
since there are so many academic disciplines and research directions
that converge in the area of my interest, I will not be able to
develop relevant academic scholarship in many of them at the same
time. Especially when a particular 'my theory' such as this one
crosses many areas - is transdisciplinary - it is originally hard to
even know where to look for and with what keywords.

However, I need this particular personal theory to be able to develop
my own idea of this particular development, and of what kind of media
should be designed for a society in this kind of a situation.

So in this sense, I call it a theory. While it is an important and
interesting theory, it is only one of a multitude of such as
important and relevant theories for me. I can also of course spend
hours elaborating it to anyone face to face, my personal view of it,
and maybe in the end,through the process, it would sound more like
theory the way you described it.

But because it is not in the immediate focus of my work - it is more
concerned of what should be designed than how such supporting
theories should be elaborated - I am probably not going to be able to
do it soon in academic style, because of the disproportionate effort
required.

So is it a theory or not...?


kh

...
At 13:26 +0100 13.3.2003, Jean Schneider wrote:
>Reading both Rosan's and Kari-Hans posts, my impression is that there is a
>confusion between "theory" and "model".
>Or am I misinterpreting ?
>It can be rather easy and fast to develop models; but -at least to me-
>theories are not exactly that easy to build and drop.



>In my understanding, theory requires that you declare a frame [and, most
>probably in design, but this would require more elaboration, a frame for
>interpretation (hermeneutics)], define your position [where do I stand as an
>observer, am I in or out of the picture], what you observe [the limits of
>the scenery observed], and the tools used to classify observations [what do
>I retain, drop, consider as significant connections etc.]. You will thus
>include something from the "outside", something alien to what you have
>observed.