On the side, I just want to say that I am much happier working on a general
theory of design rather than on a theory of the design profession. I say
this because it seems to me that I start getting associated with a narrower
concerns. My previous posts envisaged particular situation and I talked
relative to it.
Right now, a pretty good momentum is built for pointing the importance of a
general theory of design. This is probably the way of building a common
ground between information designers, architects, financial consultants,
entertainers, and so on.
One more concern -- what about planning, engineering, etc. Without
clarifying these terms in relation to design it is not possible to develop
productively a general theory of design. Or may be, as Gerald Nadler wrote
20 years ago, the planning and design approach.
Regards,
Lubomir Popov
At 02:10 PM 7/16/2003 -0400, Charles Burnette wrote:
>Ken wisely said:
>
>"One of the challenges of design research is the fact
>that we require
>high-level global theories covering the full domain,
>mid-range
>theories that bridge and operationalize high-level
>concepts, and
>situated theories that serve within fields and
>subfields. Some
>situated theories also render general process and
>activities concrete."
>
>The problem is that theories of purposeful thinking
>(design) need to be integrated across all levels and
>domains of application. We need high level theories
>that address purposeful thinking across disciplines
>(which Erik and Harold argue for), but ones that that
>are operationally defined in ways that can be
>instantiated in concrete situations and domains of
>interest (which Lubomir argues for). Both higher level
>theories and professional conduct need a common
>framework of reference, interaction and assessment.
>Working to address this, I have argued (not unlike
>Erik and Harold) that design thinking is a universal
>discipline, the instantiation of which depends on its
>particular intent, context and background. Children
>design as effectively within their frame of reference
>as do professional designers (architects, authors,
>musicians,poets,scientists, etc.)in theirs. The
>"common ground" sought for design theory, research and
>practice will never be encompassing enough if it is
>focused primarily on professional competence in the
>field in which we practice. Nor will it have practical
>value if it can not support situated thought and
>behavior in any field or on any subject. As designers,
>design educators and researchers we need to reframe
>our goals to seek a comprehensive integrated
>theoretical framework that is operationally
>(computationally and behaviorally) defined as well as
>emotionally meaningful and personally useful.
>Computational and behavioral because the interactive
>complexity warrants it, personally useful and
>meaningful because we are individually (and
>collectively) human.
>
>Chuck
>
>Dr. Charles Burnette
>234 South Third Street
>Philadelphia, PA 19106
>Tel: +215 629 1387
>e-mail: [log in to unmask]
|