Dear Rosan,

Thanks for your message and interesting questions. You raise the issue of where in design research the meta-theoretical approach makes most sense.

The analyses in the Design Studies paper are analysisng how design theories fit together and fit to researching and making theory about designing and designs.  The appropriate area of study for this kind of analysis is what was sometimes called 'structure and dynamic of theories' (also sometimes more generally called 'philosophy and theory', and sometimes, inaccurately, 'epistemology'). The study of the structure and dynamic of theory focuses on theories, concepts and technical terms as objects. The general term for these kinds of objects is 'abstractions' because they are defined  representations of abstracted characterisitics of phenomena, and in many cases, other abstractions.

The meta-theoretical structure in Desing Studies was devised as the basis for starting to make some order and sense out of the confused mess that is the literature of design theory. For me,  the body of deisgn theory  was like old garage or shed full of  bits of things that had been haphazardly thrown there for many years. One job of the meta-theoretical hierarchy is as a preconsidered basis for  starting to put things into piles and then sorting through the piles to see which things are wholesome and which are broken; which to keep and which to throw out; and how best to start using the shed and the contents in a more wholesome manner to better  contribute to the future. The meta-theoretical hierarchy does several other jobs as well, including:

*   It can be used for checking through general theories of design to see that they are complete (i.e. they cover the whole range of what is necessary for a general theory)  and to check that the different explicit and implicit bits are coherent.

*   It offers a way of comparing different design research perspectives by identifying each of the components  in the different abstraction categories and comparing them.

*   It can be applied to  texts to check that the different theory elements and analyses make sense

Its also helpful as a reminder that design theories cover a lot of different areas. The ten meta-theoretical levels are very big categories in each of which there is a a lot of sub-categories. For example, there are dozens and perhaps hundreds of sub-fields relating to ' behaviour of objects'. The same is true of each of the categories. The meta-theoretical hierarchy is useful in that after severla years testing it seems to be a reasonably good set of categories at the big scale of making sense of design theory development.

Most of the design theories to do with 'things concrete' as you call them lie in the lower levels of the meta-theory hierarchy (levels 2 and 3). How we make design theories about' things and their behaviours' depends however on how we see the world, what kind of designing is happening and what assumptions we make about how people think and interact (and even, how we label and conceptualise particular objects). The meta theoretical hierarechy draws attention to these other  issues via the other levels. I've listed the hierarchy below for reference.

I'm aware rereading the paper that I probably wouldn't write it the same way now. Some of the ideas have been developed further and I'd check it for nominalisations at least!

You ask 'should Philosophy of Design be concerned only with abstraction?'. For me, the biggest issues in design theory at this moment are sorting out the theory mess and starting to identify the best concept structures on which to build good extensible theories in the different areas to which design research can be applied. The meta-theoretical hierarchy provides a list of  the main areas of design theory and provides a structure for identifying which of them need sorting out and which need more attention. Across the design fields, levels 2 and 3 are where the bulk of exisiting theories lie - the focus has been on designs rather than the other areas. In fact, one of the significant problems is that there is a significant amount of the literature that unhelpfully attempts to use the approaches of levels 2 and 3 to address theory issues in other areas. 

Best wishes,

Terry


===============Meta Theoretical hierarchy

1.      Direct perception of realities
        
2.      Descriptions of objects
        
3.      Behaviour of elements of objects 
        
4.      Mechanisms of choice (i.e decision processes)
        
5.      Design methods 
        
6.      Structures of design processes
        
7.      Theories about the human internal processes of designing and collaboration 
        
8.      General design theories
        
9.      Epistemological analyses of theories about designing and objects
        
10.     Ontology relating to theory about designing and designs

============================

-----Original Message-----
From: Rosan Chow
Sent: 17/03/2003 9:13 PM
To: [log in to unmask]; TerenceLove
Subject: Re: Re: Theory -- What does the word "theory" mean? (long post)


Dear Terry

Thanks for having taken the time to write. I appreciate your generosity, as usual. 

I have just revisited your meta-theoretical structure for design theory, 
(in Love, T. 2000. Philosophy of Design: a Meta-theoretical Structure for Design Theory.
 Design Studies, 21(3), 293-313).

Need your help here again:

In your words, "The above taxonomy has been structured hierarchically in a manner
 which separates different group of abstractions…" (p.306)

It is to me a very useful structure if I am to locate and evaluate theory for its level of 
abstraction. But Terry, (I am sure you know), the decision to choose abstraction as 
the criterion for differentiation among design theories is a value. 

If the goal of developing design theories is to enrich our understanding of designing 
and design, and to better our practice of designing, then is abstraction the right criterion 
to structure/categorize design theories, when the field of design is so much to do with ‘things’ concrete?

Should the philosophy of design be concerned only with abstraction?

I hope you appreciate my struggle in my construction of the meaning of designing. 

Best regards
Rosan


____________________________________________________________________________
Gonnen Sie sich eine Abwechslung vom Wintergrau mit den aktuellen 
Angeboten von Lufthansa http://img.web.de/lh/lhspecial.html