Rosan,

You've continued to spawn more questions than answers. That's part of the
fun...


>Thanks for talking. I guess, with the Internet, one can never be alone.

Then then again, unless you've got the right hardware, no one can hear you
scream.

>José: for me, strictly speaking, a theory explains the causal relationship
>between
>mechanisms to unify phenomenon ­ (straight out from some lecture notes
>that I have taken).

But do you believe that definition? Does it have conviction for you? I
bring up quotes from the literature and you readily dismiss them but you
readily accept something from your lecture notes? Please be explicit on
why or why you don't believe a certain maxim. I think this will greatly
aid the conversation.

>John: thanks for sharing your ideas. It helps me to know a bit more where
>you are coming from.
>I can see many faces twitching for this sentence - "it attempts to derive
>a particular design
>that logically will follow from theories." Are you familiar with the terms
>"wicked problem"
>and "abduction"? I think it is now generally agreed within our design
>community that
>a design product is not a LOGICAL deduction of theory of any kind.

Not my quote, that of Nadler. If you recall from the creativity
discussion, I am not a subscriber of the systematic/logical methods of
designing as being the end all. I see them as part of the suite of tools
designers have available to them. Personally, in my design practice I make
use of logical and illogical tools to support my efforts. The logical
tools are especially handy when trying to explain to the client why I did
what I did and answer the very real question of why does it cost this much
to design.

Let me ask what you mean by design product? Is that a product that is
designed or the fruits of the efforts of a designer? These can overlap so
I've violated the rules of taxonomy. My view tends to be centered on what
I heard defined today in a class as "real products," that is a product that
makes a noise when you drop it. I venture into other domains occasionally
but live most of my time in the product design space. I might argue with
the phrase "real product" but do like the definition.

By logic, I do not mean deterministic. I believe that design was
deterministic, I would give up and turn over my passions to my laptop to
churn on. Luckily I don't feel that way and indulge in the act of
designing any chance I get!

>You said that " especially since a large portion of design is informed
>from our understanding
>of people gained from the social sciences, which develop theories based on
>observation".
>Here I detect that we were thinking in different frames of reference. I
>hate to bring this up
>since the mention of it often creates tension. But are you familiar with
>the distinction
>between ‘theory for design(ing)’ and ‘theory of design(ing)’? I assume
>that you were
>thinking in the former and I in the latter. (It is my fault, because in my
>original post, I used ‘design theory’).

By all means, don't hate to bring something up!
I must admit I am not familiar with the distinction between theory of/for
designing. Nuances of the english language elude this farm boy most of the
time. Would you school me in the difference and tell me why you put
yourself into the latter camp? Please also comment on how my discussion of
the former matches up. This response doesn't really react to my response
to you other than tell me I'm talking about the wrong stuff.

>
>
>You also said "… observations are one of many valuable inputs that lead us
>in the development
>of theories that designers can use to improve their own practice". I think:
>Scientific theories of the world are valuable. But they are more valuable
>or become really valuable
>when they are interpreted and transformed to ‘beings’ and here I think
>lies the value of designing
>and the design knowledge. (By the way, are you familiar with the
>distinction between ‘knowledge of design’
>and ‘design knowledge’?

Again these are distinctions of language that as a novice in the field I am
not familiar with. I should ask what you mean by beings here. I assume
you mean people. Based on that assumption, I agree with you. Knowledge
without people to apply it lies dormant and useless. Are design theories
not valuable? What do you consider a design theory to be? Heuristics for
interface design? Rules of brainstorming? The golden ratio? Pugh Concept
Selection Matrix?

Let me attempt to pull out what you might mean by your distinction.
Knowledge of design seems to center on the practice and process of designing.
Design knowledge has more to do with experience and the knowledge of what
is possible and come before.
You might separate them as process and product views of design knowledge...

Was I even close to what you mean?

>(And Chris Rust, if you are reading: I have taken notes when you mentioned
>in various occasions
>that ‘the more a designer knows, the better a designer designs". I don’t
>think it is the volume itself
> but the active interpretation and synthesis of a volume of knowledge
> that does it. What do you think?)
>
>You mentioned prediction. I prefer to the term ‘anticipation’ which I
>think histories provide.
> I think histories of design are no less valuable than theories of design
> by observation especially
>because I don’t think the latter are possible.

Prediction came from Nadler's work. I used it to follow from the quote. I
am not wedded to the term. Actually I don't prefer prediction or
anticipation but intention. You second sentence seems to say that you
believe that histories of design and theories of design by observation are
not possible and therefore useless. Then you do believe the Delft
protocols are a load of hooey, in contrast to your earlier comment.

>I must confess: by saying that it is not possible to have theory of design
>by observation.
>I am saying there is no science (in the modern sense) of design. And I
>imagine many,
>except John Chris Jones for sure, will not agree with that.

Again please be explicit with what you mean by science of design. Do you
mean design science as defined by Eder and Hubka? Or something else? These
folks that look at design from the engineering perspective and were big on
the WDK and ICED communities.

Can you please define what you mean by theory of design by observation? I
tried to define what I mean, give valid examples from other fields,
etc. Yet the response I get from you is, "Nope, still not right."

Rosan, other than telling me that you don't agree with anything I said, I
don't really know what you believe in this case. Can you reply with being
more explicit about your own views? This would help me understand more
than just disagreeing with me.

Just trying to make sense of this crazy design world!

John


>>i value your response very much. i am very alone and dying to talk to people.
>
>
>
>>John Feland <[log in to unmask]> schrieb am 10.03.03 14:35:02:
>>
>> > 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?
>>
>>i don´t know much about economics and physics. so i better not comment.
>
>I don't know much either but that's never kept me from commenting!
>
>What little I do know is that both rely on observations for the
>development of theory. A paper I dug up recently on some early efforts in
>exploring design by Gerald Nadler distinguishes between the efforts of the
>designer and the researcher as being deductive versus inductive. The
>researchers are inductive in that they build theories based on
>observations and experiments. These observations are used to support the
>researcher in their quest "to derive generalizations or hypotheses from
>many instances and specifics." He argues that the designer is deductive
>in that "it attempts to derive a particular design that logically will
>follow from theories."
>
>So, as design researchers, this leaves us in a curious position where we
>have to be both deductive and inductive at the same time? I've integrated
>this into my thinking by trying to wear both hats at once. While acting
>as a research, I view designers as the customers of the theories that I
>develop. At times, I put on my designer hat to test the developing
>theories for their usefulness in a deductive sense. This approach keeps
>me honest as I work on my PhD by constantly asking "So what?"
>
>(Nadler, G., "An Investigation of Design Methodology," Management Science,
>Vol. 13, No. 10, June 1967.)
>
>> > Even psychological theory has it's roots in observation.
>>
>>yes. but what is that got to do with design?
>
>
>See above, especially since a large portion of design is informed from our
>understanding of people gained from the social sciences, which develop
>theories based on 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?
>>
>>that is better. but the observations are not theory, strictly speaking.
>
>Agreed but observations are one of many valuable inputs that lead us in
>the development of theories that designers can use to improve their own
>practice.
>
>
>> > You can't be saying the Delf Protocols are full of hooey?
>>
>>no. that is not what i am saying.
>>
>> > 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.
>>
>>i am breading an idea that by changing the language, we can start to
>>think differently.
>>i have been stuck with 'design theory' for a good three years and
>>yesterday i realized
>>it circumscribed the way i evaluate and think 'things'.
>
>Then get out of design! I don't mean that literally of course. Get out
>of the box that design seems to have built for you. I have spent the past
>few years of my PhD outside of the design box and exploring how others use
>the word and what I can learn from them. Hence, my suggestions of looking
>at other types of theory built on observations. My goal in my own
>research work is to improve the practice of designers. This is not as
>stark contrast to what others have said about those that do research for
>the sake of research (understanding) instead of practice. A kind of happy
>guy myself, I tend to try to live in between those areas and see how the
>pure research contribute to my understanding as well as those focused
>purely on practice also improve my awareness. I find for my own work, my
>assertions on how to improve the practice of design are stronger and more
>likely to actually help people when they are built on observations of
>successful practice.
>
>
>>i happened to be thinking that if we think of our observations are
>>histories then we
>>evaluate them as histories, then we don't expect them to predict, but
>>rather we expect
>>them to tell us stories that make us wiser. that's all.
>
>Hmmmm, I like being wiser but I also like doing something. Prediction
>seems more active to me than increasing my wisdom. Increasing wisdom can
>be very satisfying activity but I also like the action of prediction. And
>actually I do try to use histories to predict. I think I learned that
>from one of my history teachers one time.
>
>If you look at the tools used by anthropologists and designers, you'll
>find some similar methods to understand the nature of people, especially
>through their material culture. What distinguishes how these tools are
>used by the two fields is that the anthropologists use them to grow their
>wisdom and designers use them to predict how the end user will react to
>the product or to predict the needs of the user accordingly. These tools
>are kind of like theories, using observations, as well as other data
>sources, to hone their effectiveness.
>
>> > Just some other provoking thoughts on a late night.
>>
>>thank you. i love provoking thoughts. they keep me alive.
>
>Same here. Don't we tell our students to change their frame when they are
>designing? I think we should do the same things ourselves to keep our
>perspectives and ideas fresh!
>
>Thanks for the conversation!
>
>John