Dear Colleagues,

Following an interesting trip to Estonia to deliver the interim
report on policies affecting design in industry, I am home. During my
travels, I have followed the rich and interesting thread on different
aspects of theory. This involves general theory issues and specific
issues in design theory.

The result is a large sheaf of posts filled with notes, linkages
among related themes, and conceptual issues deserving clarification.

David Sless's suggestion on dividing related notes into shorter posts
by topic seems appropriate here. Without ranking or evaluating the
importance of any given question, I have identified twenty-eight
topics within the theme of design theory or clearly related to the
theme in important ways.

The topics are

1) What does the word "theory" mean?

2) What kinds of theory are there?

3) What are the attributes of different kinds of theory?

4) What kinds of theory are suited to design research?

5) What kinds of theory are appropriate to the practice of design?

6) Must all forms of design theory directly advance the professional
practice of design? Are there significant and meaningful forms of
design theory that remain vital to design and design research even
though they do not contribute directly to design practice?

7) What does the word "abduction" mean?

8) What role does abduction play in theory development?

9) What is the general relation between theory and practice in a
professional field?

10) What should the relation between theory and practice be in design?

11) Does (or can) theory contribute to improved practice?

12) How does (or how can) theory contribute to improved practice?

13) What is the role of history in theorizing?

14) Can we do historical research without addressing historiographic problems?

15) Is it possible to do history or to address historiographic
problems without explicit discourse?

16) What are foundations?

17) Has the discourse on design foundations been isolated and
erratic, or have we failed to read widely enough across design
disciplines and deeply enough within then?

18) What is the nature of science?

18) What are the uses of literature?

19) What is the role of visualization in theory construction?

20) What are the formal and structural properties of theory qua theory?

Answering these questions involves several issues that have not
specifically come up in any thread. These are

21) How can we describe and discuss theory and research issues?

22) What distinctions of nominalization affect the grammatical and
linguistic status of the word "design"? (This topic came up in Terry
Love's notes and David Sless's reply to Terry. While both used the
word design as an example, neither discussed the specific grammatical
and linguistic status of the word design.)

23) How does the problem of nominalism - not nominalization - affect
design theory?

In addition, Wolfgang Jonas raised five specific issues as a pendant
to the theory thread. He raised these in his outline draft for his
presentation at the European Academy of design. These issues are
distinct from the theory thread. They are also relevant:

24) Is there an essence of design / designing?

25) What is the overall function of design?

26) What is the specific nature of knowing in design?

27) What about the relation design / science?

28) How to improve the process of "problem-solving" through research?

I am slowly bringing order out of my notes. Because these topics are
of differing scope, some notes will be longer than others.

I will do my best to offer reasoned argument from evidence. I will
"describe the stuff" in a clear, articulate way that allows anyone to
examine my views or the literature on which I draw.

I am not able to predict how long it will take to present these
properly. I take the time to write fully formed, well-reasoned notes
to this list because I see it as a central discourse forum for
concentrated inquiry into design research. It was our hope to shape
such a forum when we re-developed PhD-Design after the La Clusaz
conference. I write with that aspiration as my standard.

As at La Clusaz, theories and philosophies of design are among the
main fields of discourse. This is also one of my specific research
fields. As a result, I feel a particular urge to address issues
responsibly when I write, and I focus on inquiries that help me to
shape my other search inquiries.

This may explain why I spend so much time on well-formed
contributions. I do not insist that everyone else write as I do. What
I ask for is substantive and thoughtful inquiry. This thread has
produced much substantive and thoughtful inquiry. I have been
inspired.

This is a preface to a question. There have been some sharp comments
about my carefully developed notes in the last few weeks, along with
a number of oblique critiques.

If anyone would prefer than I do NOT use this list to address these
issues in a carefully developed series of notes, please state your
objection now. If anyone would prefer that I do not write these
notes, I will refrain from sending them.

Anyone who wishes to ask me not to write is free to voice his or her
request publicly to the list or privately to me.

Best regards,

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University