Dear Terry,

You say:

   "The need for greater technical terminological precision
    is significant in this field at this time."

So, it puzzles me to see you say that

   "... These 'informations' may be data and, in this practical
    and neurological sense, data is identical to information
    (as is knowledge)."

If I understand you correctly, you are here saying that
data = information = knowledge, right?  If so, this, to me
is to confound three basic and necessary categories.  To
equate data with information with knowledge simply smudges
out all that is interesting in designing, and, I would say,
gives us no way of properly understanding it.

I am well aware that there are and have been a lot of
discussions about these three terms--data, information,
and knowledge--and I do not wish to divert the terminological
discussion you have started with Lubomir, by offering any
definitions of my own, or asking others for some, but surely
that is what will be needed to gain greater terminological
precision.

I also wonder about your use of the word method, in
the term 'design method.'   Once again, perhaps I don't
understand you well, but I do not see that all so called
'design methods' are simply information gathering methods,
(and so not particular to designing).  I agree that there
certainly is confusion in the design research literature
on the use of the term 'design method', but with some
squinting of the eye, you can, I think, distinguish two
common uses: design_methods_1 as methods that (some)
designers (in some domain) use (to solve some class of
problem), to solve sets of simultaneous differential
equations, for example, and design_methods_2 as methods
to be used to design (some class of thing), subsonic
wing design methods, for example.

Now, it would, perhaps, aid clarity of debate, if we
could all decide to call design_methods_1, method_for_x,
etc, where x stands for what it is a method for doing,
and to call design_methods_2, method_for_designing_z, where
z is what the method is for designing.

Finally, to call "advice on searching literature" a
method (design method or just method) seems to me
to mangle the term method rather a lot.  A method is
a set of well defined steps (operations), possibly
with alternatives, that, when properly applied, result
in the methods product, which needs also to be well defined.
Advice, no matter how good, is not a method.  It might be
called a 'good practice' or even be established as a 'best
practice,' but we should not overload the term method, just
as you don't like to over load the term design.  Which, any
way, I think should be "designing," not "design."

But, of course, if we did this, we would need to start
being clearer about what we mean by 'design method':
is it a designing method, or is it a method used in a
design?  And, then what would terms like "design research,"
or "engineering design research" mean?  We could have
"designing research," and "design research," and "
engineering designing research" and "engineering design
research," and even "engine design research." And, if
we follow this line to increase our terminological
precision (which, in principle, I would favour!), we
would need to start distinguishing between "design
research" = the results of researching a design, (with
"designs research" as its plural form), "design
researching" = researching a design, "designing research"
= the results of researching (some) designing, or
the designing of (some) research, and "designing
researching" = researching into (some or all) designing,
or, as you put it, the 'study of the human activity of
designing'.

As I say, I'd be happy to see the community practice this
fine use of terms, but I don't for one moment think that
this will happen, now, or ever.    In practice, I think
designing researching must learn to live with its
terminological mess while encouraging, mostly by example,
simpler, clear, more disciplined use of the terms each
of us use.

We also need to bear in mind that precision, when it
comes to terms, is in the eye of the reader, or in the
ear of the hearer.  There is no universal metric for
precision here.  The best we can get is clarity and
(internal) consistency of use, even (as is often the case)
if it is not our own preferred use.

Best regards,

Tim
On holiday in the Pyranees