Hi Rosan,
You say,
"Sorry Terry, I am afraid that that was not my point. The key in my question is
"is abstraction the right criterion to structure design theories?""
Design theories might be about all sorts of things relating to designing and designs - though its not that clear all theories and concepts that designers use should be regarded as 'design theories'. The meta-theoretical hierarchy and abstractions are part of the theory building and repair kit. They are not part of the content of the 'using theories' box. If I substitute 'skiing' for 'using theories', I'd use different things for fixing or making skis (hammer, plane for example) than for using skis (woolly gloves and favourite balaclava). Making decisons about the best ways to make or fix skis is also very differnt from deciding where to ski or decision what sort of day to have and who to spend time with.
To answer your question. I feel that focusing on the abstract characterisitics of theories and their relationships is appropriate to making theories that are epistemologically better. I feel this is an important issues issue for building a stronger body of design theory because the present body of design theory is so problematic. Different things to abstraction are also important, however, in choosing how to include, for example, human issues into a design theory or to include any of many other issues that might be useful to designers, design managers and other stakeholders in design activities. In doing this, I'd expect designers of all sorts to need to take a point of view from their design activities. I'm not sure about the idea of a 'design point of view' - would this include all the different areas in which designers practice?
Best wishes,
Terry
|