Tim Smithers wrote:
'I take the view that there are different kinds of
theories of designing that we can seek to develop:
theories that are based upon different ways of
considering designing. These different theories
need not be competing nor contradictory. Indeed, if
they are each good theories of the different 'faces'
of designing, then they should be compatible, and
perhaps even combinable. I therefore expect there
to be 'theoretical collectives' to express our
theoretical understanding of designing: collections
of compatible (possibly combinable) theories of
different aspects of designing. This is different
from the way we expect theoretical understanding to
develop in Physics, and other Natural Sciences. In
Physics we expect there to be only one theory for
some particular physical phenomenon or phenomena,
gravity, or aerodynamic lift, for example, not
collections of theories.'
The concept of 'complementarity' comes to mind here. Neils Bohr I think coined the term to address the contemporary need for two incommensurable theories - particle theory and wave theory - to explain electromagmetic phenomena. I am not a physicist so forgive me if my expression of the idea is less than perfect. But, the point is that even in Physics, to some the most fundamental of the natural sciences, there is sometimes the need for complementary theories neither of which can be reduced to the terms of the other. There is a book on the topic:
Plotnitsky, A (1995) Complementarity: Anti-epistemology After Bohr and Derrida, Duke University Press.
In design I think complementarity is particularly useful. Elsewhere I have suggested four distinct ontological objects in design - Product, Programme, Process and Philosophy (4 'P's). A theory of one design object may or may not be epistemologically compatible with that of another. Some of us may seek convergence e.g. a thoroughgoing phenomenological account of design as designed place/message/thing/system (product) design as aura of information (programme) design as way of doing design (process) and design as embodied/expressed values and beliefs (philosophy), but this is not a necessary task. We can, and perhaps ought to for pragmatic reasons, bracket such difficulties. Unified theory may be as far off in design as it was when physics was as young a discipline.
My 'pragmatic' contribution is summarized in:
Matthews, G. M. (2001) 'Writing Design' in Langenhuizen, A., M. van Ouwerkerk & J. Rosemann (eds.) Research by Design, Conference Proceedings vol B, Delft: DUP Science.216-21.
Dr Geoff Matthews
Course Leader MA Interdisciplinary Design
Lincoln School of Architecture
University of Lincoln, UK
|