Rosan,

Is not economic theory based on historical data coupled with predicted and
then validated observations of the future?

Doesn't physics operate under similar rules?

Even psychological theory has it's roots in observation.

I agree that one static look at designing will be like a faded snapshot of
the real activity.

What about the efforts that use dynamic observation to understand the
efforts of designers?

You can't be saying the Delf Protocols are full of hooey?

How can you help your students? Under the view that you are provoking,
your observations of their efforts can be of no help to their development,
only providing a history of their work.

But then again, I am the novice here.

Just some other provoking thoughts on a late night.

Thanks for your patience,

John

John Feland
Doctoral Candidate
Center for Design Research
Stanford University

At 01:25 PM 3/10/2003 +0100, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Rosan,
>
>Last item first: I have nothing against short posts. What I ask is
>substance. The challnge we face often here is delivering a substantive
>comment or query in a short post.
>
>It is easier to raise a løarge issue in a few short sentences than to
>discuss it. If I understand you, you are saying that design theory is
>impossible because design involves a process. You seem further to say that
>what one can posit is a history of design rather than a theory of design.
>
>Unpacking this rather complex assertion requires careful analysis. Give me
>a little time and I will offer some reflections on the nature and
>conditions of design theory, with attention to the different kinds of
>theory we may develop for understanding, practicing, using, or improving
>design.
>
>There has been some good work in this field, and massive amounts of good
>work in cognate fields. All of these fields involve process, both social
>process and other forms of process. If the argument agauinst design theory
>is that design is a process or a practice involving process, then this same
>argument would have to apply equally well to many of the cognate fields
>that shape and use different kinds of theory quite well.
>
>I am traveling a great deal this week. When I return to my office with
>proper access to reference tools and library resources, I will give this
>important question the attention it deserves.
>
>As you may imagine, I will argue that there are such things as useful kinds
>of design theory. I will demonstrate that these are not simple histories,
>but that these theories have features that are understood as theory in all
>research fields. I will offer information for those who wish to read
>further.
>
>In the meantime, I'd like to ask for Terry Love's view on this. Because
>this also touches on systems issues, I'd especially like to hear the views
>of Harold Nelson and Erik Stolterman. (Harold and Erik have just published
>a new book titled The Design Way).
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ken
>
>
>--
>
>Subject:
>the impossibility of design theory by observation. long title, short post
>
>Dear all
>
>Designing as a social process (and I imagine as a cognitive process as
>well, and terry, please correct me if I am wrong) is not fixed. It is
>moving if not evolving. Observing it, examining it, analyzing it and
>articulating it freeze it momentarily. The results strictly speaking, are
>not theories of design, but histories of design. Thus the title ? the
>impossibility of design theory by observation. No?
>
>Just a thought fed by the German air, water and wurst and the recent
>discussions.
>
>Rosan
>
>p.s. sorry ken, I know you don't like short posts. That's the best i can do
>though.