Dear Erik,
I feel that these issue s can best be viewed in a simpler way. Practically:
* Designers create design (for products, services, systems etc). Designers 'use theories', including design theories.
* Design researchers and theorymakers 'create theories 'about: how people design; the behaviours of designed things; and how people interact with designed outcomes. The latter two may be better considered as part of other disciplines.
* Design philosophers 'undertake the management of design theories'. There role is 'critical' in theory terms: making sure theories make sense, are well justified, and fit coherently together. They also work to establish epistemological and ontological foundations for design researchers, to identify weaknesses in the field and opportunities in theory terms for new areas of research that will strengthen the field.
The small population of people and the lack of pure theory specialists means that many of us frequently 'change hats' between theses roles.
Another simplifying idea is of 'three incomensurable worlds':
* The 'external' world of empirically determinable 'objects' that can be perceived by and external to people.
* The 'subjective' internal worlds of individuals that can be subjected to interpretive analyses
* The 'theory' world of theoretical constructs and operators that are communicated between individuals via technically defined symbols and words.
These are essentiially incommensurate. That is, ideas in or about any world can only be tested in terms of that world. E.g. the corectness of study of physical objects via Engineering (say) can only be validated via the bahviour of other physical objects. Ditto theory about subjective experiences and about theory. The inverse is counterintuitively true. That is it is not possible to prove an individuals experiences throught the study of objects, or to 'prove' a model of physical behaviour by inspecting individuals' subjective experiences. Similalry, theory can onbly be validated in terms of other theory. Theory cannot be proven by either tests on external objects or via subjective experience. There is a bit more sophistication in theat theory, for example can be seen in different forms as 'external object', internal subjective representation' and 'qua theory'. Just another layer.
If you apply these tools to issues relating to Philosophy of Design, most of the problematic issues drop away.
There is one interesting, very interesting, exception to the above. For 5000 years or so, the above incommensurability 'rule' has held. Things have changed. The ability to look inside humans via the tools and study of cognitive neuro-science is offering potential opportunities to bridge the three worlds without moving into problematic areas of biological determinism.. This is becasue it is possible to look at the 'external' world of individuals internal physiological subjective processes and bring in the physiology of how theory is internally represented inside us as abstractions.
Best regards,
Terry
=======
Dr. Terence Love
Dept of Design
Faculty of BEAD
Curtin University
+61 (0)8 9266 4018
[log in to unmask]
=======
-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Stolterman
Sent: 5/12/2003 6:07 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Philosophy of Design - response to Ken and Rosan and general assembly
Dear list
To articulate design practice is the first step to a philosophy of
design. Any kind of reflection on practice can, if cared for and dealt
with in deep respect for the richness and complexity of practice, lead
to philosophical thoughts of value. I sympathize with the ideas on what
is the core of philosophy of design (PoD) given by Per, Terry and Ken.
But there is one aspect (only touched upon) that I think is important
to remember.
I think Ken opens up for my position when he writes:
"Designers are action oriented, and
the passion that is natural to activists sometimes runs ahead of the
analytical skill required for philosophical inquiry."
I think that is true, but why does it happen? And is it wrong?
PoD can at least have two purposes and based on that, two "measures of
success". If PoD is carried out in a scientific environment and with
the ambition of being scientific (or someone might say, truly
'philosophical') it can only be measured by its internal philosophical
standard. And this is, of course, a challenging task and demands the
skill of a trained philosopher. But, as Ken mentions in the quote
above, if PoD is carried out as a means to improve design thinking and
design action, then we have to apply other 'measures of success'. In
this case PoD becomes one of many (intellectual) 'tools' in the tool
box of a practicing designer.
This leads me to belive that the outcome of process of articulating
design practice has to be 'judged' in an intentional way. If the
intention is to find some truths that have universality if design
practice, we have to conduct the articulation process in line with the
most advanced and succesfull (of course always debated) practices
within 'real' philosophy. But, if the intention is to support design
thinking and action then I believe that design researchers have a
better chance at producing (philosophical) outcomes that will be found
useful and 'true'.
But there is another level of articulation. I think that any PoD should
be seen as a tool for thoughtful reflection for practitioners and other
researchers. It is not an end, but a means. Since design is about
intention and will, it can never in a universal way be prescribed. A
practicing designer can, though, prepare for action by delving into
carefully expressed articulations of the fundamental character and core
of design. Being prepared is partly about accepting that there is no
final answer 'out there'. So, when Rosan finds herself back at the
starting point, since there is no universal 'evaluation criteria' for
what is a better articulation --- she is in the right place.
> "and then comes the most difficult part:
> which set of evaluation criteria should i use to judge these
> traditions?
> and i think i am back to square 1. anyone can evaluate the
> articulation of design all he or she wants and desires. there is
> always an arbituariness that cannot escape and is a reflection of the
> interests of the person who evaluates." (Rosan)
Articulation and PoD is by nature and endless adventure. It is an
adventure where our analytical skills are constantly challenged by an
ever changing reality. PoD and articulation is therefore in constant
need of our imagination and creativity in parallell with out analytical
and logcial skills. PoD is, when carried out within design research and
by design researchers, itself a design adventure. It is a process of
creation and composition -- and an extraordinary exiting and rewarding
one.
Erik
--------------------
Professor Erik Stolterman, Ph.D.
Department of Informatics
Umeå University
S-901 87 Umeå
Sweden
Phone: +46 (0)90-7865531
Email: [log in to unmask]
Homepage: http://www.informatik.umu.se/~erik
Advanced Design Institute: http://www.advanceddesign.org
My new book! http://www.advanceddesign.org/book.html
|