|
Definitions and clear usage
Before addressing the theme of theory in design research, it will
help to establish a few basic definitions and parameters. These
definitions are not complete and all-inclusive. Rather, they
establish terms as I use them in the notes that follow.
Establishing clear definitions also encourages reflection on central
themes in theoretical inquiry, and each definition is supported by
references to multiple sources.
Clarity is important in understanding theory. Theoretical sensitivity
and methodological sophistication rest on understanding the concepts
we use. None of us is obliged to accept any single specific
definition of a term such as "theory." This also applies to such
terms as "design," or "research."
Some of us find that no single definition suits us for all purposes,
and we are often obliged to restate or reshape definitions to the
task. Precisely because there is no need for adherence to a single
definition, we are obliged to make our usage clear.
This does more than help others to understand terms as we use them.
It also helps to ensure that we understand what we are saying.
Problems in terminology and the limits of this note
Usage of the term theory in design and design research suffers from
the problems that affect any new field. Where other fields have a
rich tradition of theory development, however, there is relatively
little work on which to draw that examines the term theory as a word.
Beyond this, relatively few scholars or scientists in established
fields specifically study the issues and topics involved in theory
construction. While the knowledge base of most fields provides a rich
array of resources in research methods and methodology studies, few
fields offer much material on theory and theory construction.
It is important to note that this is a relative statement. There is a
reasonably good body of work on theory and what theory means across
most fields and disciplines. Nevertheless, this literature is far
smaller than the literature on comparative study of research methods
and methodology and the even larger literature of specific research
methods and projects. This is slowly changing in most fields.
There comes a moment in the evolution of every field or discipline
when central intellectual issues come into focus as the field and the
discipline on which it rests shift from a rough, ambiguous territory
to an arena of reasoned inquiry. At such a time, scholars,
scientists, researchers, and their students begin to focus articulate
attention on such issues as research methods, methodology (the
comparative study of methods), philosophy, philosophy of science, and
related issues in the metanarrative through which a research field
takes shape. In many fields today, this also entails the articulate
study of theory construction.
The following sequence of notes will explore the issues of theory and
theory construction in design research. To do so requires
establishing a range of concepts around the terms I will use. Theory
is the first of these.
While defining the term "theory" is more difficult in our field than
in others, any attempt to explore the topic of theory requires an
adequate definition. This first note therefore offers definitions.
While these definitions are robust enough for wider use, I do not
explore all of their general properties or the many uses to which
they may be put. I use them here to establish a foundation for the
consideration of theory and theory construction that will follow.
Defining Theory
In a basic form, most theories are models. A theory is an
illustration describing how something works by showing its elements
in their dynamic relationship to one another.
It is the dynamic demonstration of working elements in action as part
of a structure that distinguishes a model from a simple catalogue of
parts. Some theories or models do take the form of taxonomies or
descriptive analyses. These can also demonstrate relationships, some
in static form, others as the foundation for dynamic representation.
In simple form, though, one may think of a theory as a kind of model.
It is the nature of theory to function as model and explanation.
These attributes define the nature of theory. One confusion we often
see involves the notion that theories must predict or enable
prediction. This is not so. Many theories explain in a way that
permits prediction. Other theories explain without predicting. We
will return to this issue later.
The word theory entered the English language in 1597 via Latin from
the original Greek. Merriam-Webster (1990: 1223) defines theory as:
"1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract
principles of a body of fact, a science or an art <music ~> 4 a : a
belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of
action <her method is based on the ~ that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles or
circumstances - often used in the phrase in theory <in ~, we have
always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically
accepted general principle or body of principles offered to explain
phenomena <wave ~ of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake
of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a
subject <~ of equations>."
The first theorists were the Greek philosophers. They developed a
vocabulary of theoretical distinctions in their effort to explain the
world around them. They considered the distinctions between episteme,
the knowledge that can be explained or demonstrated to the
satisfaction of others, either through experimentation or
presentation, episteme haplos, unconditional knowledge of principles
which always hold true and hos epi to polu, knowledge which holds
true for the most part. They considered different kinds of practical
knowledge and skill: praxis, doing, performing, accomplishing through
practical knowledge or know-how; poiesis, knowledge needed to put
things together, for instance a poem; phronesis, practical knowledge
needed to address political or ethical issues; techne, now translated
as what we would call skill. To the Greeks, theoria, meditation,
speculation, contemplation, involved seeking to know the highest and
eternal principles. Aristotle believed this to be life's highest
function.
In Plato's Phaedo, Socrates says that, "the superlative thing to know
is the explanation of everything, why it comes to be, why it
perishes, why it is." Explanation makes empirical demands. Aristotle
understood this, and he was a practitioner of empirical observation.
Although limited by human imperfection and available technology,
Aristotle was concerned with apprehending the mortal, physical world
in an attempt to explain.
The limits of theory
Aristotle was as much an empirical biologist as a speculative
philosopher (Morowitz 1993: 160-163). The conceptual depth of
Aristotle's work was been served badly by the scholastic philosophers
who primarily drew on one small portion of his work to the neglect of
his research and writing on the life sciences. By the Middle Ages,
Aristotle was the hostage of empty scholasticism. Ignorance of the
central role that biology and philosophy of science held in
Aristotle's Academy continues to this day.
While Aristotle was far more sophisticated on these issues than many
realize, something was nevertheless missing in his approach to
science. Of the "three great conceptual approaches to science -
observation, experimentation, and theory - experimentation was
unknown to the classical Greek savants. They worked back and forth
between observation and theory and therefore lacked the powerful
weapon of falsification to prune wrong theories" (Morowitz 1993:
161-2).
Plato's science stood on one leg, theory. Aristotle's science stood
on two legs, observation, and theory. It was not until the great age
of physics that Galileo, Newton, and Bacon developed the concept of
robust experiment. This made scientific progress possible by
stabilizing scientific method with its third leg. Experiment allows
us to choose among alternative theories, moving in increasingly
better directions.
Theory is the distinction between a science and a craft
The distinction between a science and a craft is systematic thought
organized in theory. Craft involves doing. Some craft involves
experimentation. Theory allows us to frame and organize our
observations. Theory permits us to question what we see and do. It
helps us to develop generalizable answers that can be put to use by
other human beings in other times and places.
This, in effect, is the central issue in design. To "[devise] courses
of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones"
on a predictable basis means understanding "things: how they are and
how they work," which is Simon's (1982: 129) explanation of science.
One form of design practice is allied to art and craft. It is
intuitive. It sometimes produces desired results. On occasion, this
practice of design produces desirable results that may have been
unpredictable, but results that can nevertheless be seized
retrospectively as the useable result of muddling through.
The other face of design practice involves predictability. It is
created by the effective response to problems, and it has
similarities to science, engineering, and technology. The basis of
design science is the idea of applicable theories of how to devise
courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into
preferred ones. This science is geared to industrial production,
including production in the digital industries of the knowledge
economy.
Industry now meets the vast majority of the world's physical needs,
and industrial productivity is a necessity in a world of billions of
people. Industrial production, and therefore design, touches nearly
everything we do, use or consume. It begins with the morning
newspaper that we read while we eat breakfast. It includes the food
we eat. It moves on as we drive a car, take a bus or train, and it
involves the computers most of us now plug in at work - if we are not
commuting to work from a computer in our home office. Some of the
day's events will take place on the phone, and therefore, we will be
reaching out via switchboards, long-distance networks or even
satellite. From the start of the day until the end, designed
artifacts, industrial artifacts, information artifacts, technical
artifacts, and graphic artifacts in hundreds of combinations and
forms will surround us. We will interact with them, and they will
shape our waking experience. The designers who plan and create these
artifacts are not simple artisans. They are involved in the
industrial process whether or not they think of themselves in
industrial terms.
A later note will discuss different kinds of theories. These include
forms of theory that designers use in action, including various
theories that would not be labeled as scientific theories. There are
theories of many kinds. Before examining them, it is useful to
understand what theory is qua theory - what theory is as a concept
and construct in its own right.
This is an important exploration for many reasons. The necessary
linkage of design to large networks of industrial production and
social interaction is one of the reasons that make theory an
important issue in design research.
Design is of necessity in transition from art and craft practice to a
form of technical and social science focused on how to do things to
accomplish goals. To meet the challenges of the design process
requires understanding the actions that lead from existing situations
to preferred ones. This means understanding the principles of
predicting and measuring outcomes based on what W. Edwards Deming
(1993: 94-118) terms profound knowledge. This knowledge is comprised
of "four parts, all related to each other: appreciation for a system;
knowledge about variation; theory of knowledge; psychology" (Deming
1993: 96). According to Deming (1986: 19), "Experience will answer a
question, and a question comes from theory."
Describing theory
Theory can be described in many ways. Some theories are complex and
sophisticated. Others are simple. Mautner (1996: 426) defines theory
as "a set of propositions which provides principles of analysis or
explanation of a subject matter. Even a single proposition can be
called a theory." This often depends on the nature of the subject.
McNeil (1993: 8) proposes eleven characteristics of any general
theory. 1) A theory has a constitutive core of concepts mutually
interrelated with one another. 2) A theory has a mutually productive,
generative connection between central concepts and the peripheral
concepts where theory verges onto practice. 3) The core concepts of a
theory are stated in algorithmic compression, parsimonious statements
from which the phenomena in the theory can be reproduced. 4) A theory
has an irreducible core of concepts, a set of concepts in which no
central concept can be removed without altering the scope and
productivity of the theory or perhaps destroying it entirely. 5) Two
or more of the core concepts in a theory must be complementary to
each other. 6) The central concepts of a theory must be well defined
and must harmonize as much as possible with similar concepts of
enlightened discourse. 7) The central concepts of a theory must be
expressed at a uniform level of discourse. Different levels of
discourse must be distinguished and used consistently. 8) More
general theories (higher-level theories) must relate to less general
theories (lower-level theories) and to special cases through a
principle of correspondence. This principle confirms and guarantees
the consistency of the more particular theories and their
applications. 9) Explicitly or implicitly, a theory describes dynamic
flows with contours that trace relatively closed loops as well as
relatively open links. 10) A theory states invariant entities in its
assumptions or formulas that provide standards for measurement. 11)
Theories describe phenomena in the context of a conceptual space.
This implicitly establishes a relationship between the observer and
the phenomena observed.
Theory in design
The ability to theorize design enables the designer to move from an
endless succession of unique cases to broad explanatory principles
that can help to solve many kinds of problems. Warfield (in Francois
1997:100) describes the generic aspect of design as "that part of the
process of design that is indifferent to what is being designed,
being applicable whatever the target may be." He contrasts this with
the specific aspect of design, "that part of the design process that
is particular to the target class." Warfield (1990, 1994) identifies
thirty-two basic postulates of the generic design process, which he
groups under six categories: the human being, language, reasoning
through relationships, archival representation, the design situation,
and the design process. This generic design process is inevitably
theory-rich. However, the generic design process is not entirely
abstract, any more than science is abstract. Quite the contrary,
theory relies on an engagement with empirical reality.
Brockhampton (1994: 507) defines theory as "a set of ideas, concepts,
principles or methods used to explain a wide set of observed facts."
A designer who fails to observe facts cannot theorize them. Design
requires humility in the face of empirical facts. Design based on the
idea of individual genius or artistic imagination involves the
externalization of internalized images. This involves a priori ideas
and images. The designer comes first in this model of the design
process. In contrast, solving problems demands robust engagement with
the problem itself. The problem comes first.
The problem sets the premise by establishing the boundary conditions
of a solution. At the same time, the problem opens a forum for the
imagination and expertise of the designer. Social science depends on
what Mills (1967) described as "the sociological imagination."
Mathematical invention involves a journey of psychological discovery
through what Hadamard (1996) termed "the mathematician's mind."
Across the many fields of the natural and social sciences, progress
comes when individuals and groups apply their genius to the
understanding of how the world works and why. Understanding why
things come to be, why they perish, and why they are as they are
involves discipline and imagination both. Thus, Weick (1989)
describes theory building as "an act of disciplined imagination."
References
Brockhampton Press. 1994. Dictionary of ideas. London: Brockhampton Press.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1986. Out of the Crisis. Quality, Productivity
and Competitive Position. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deming, W. Edwards. 1993. The New Economics for Industry, Government,
Education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study.
Francois, Charles. 1997. International encyclopedia of systems and
cybernetics. Munich: K. G. Saur.
Mautner, Thomas. 1996. A Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell.
McNeil, Donald H. 1993. "Reframing systemic paradigms for the art of
learning." Conference of the American Society for Cybernetics.
Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1990. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate
Dictionary. Springfield, Massachusetts.
Morowitz, Harold J. 1993. Entropy and the Magic Flute. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Simon, Herbert. 1982. The Sciences of the Artificial. 2nd ed.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Warfield, John N. 1990. "Generic planning." Knowledge in Society,
vol. 3, no. 4.
Warfield, John N. 1994. A science of generic design: managing
complexity through systems design. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press.
--
Copyright notice
This note is a preliminary draft for a discussion of design theory.
Text copyright ( c ) 2003 by Ken Friedman. All rights reserved.
This text may be reproduced and quoted freely provided that the text
is sourced to the PhD-Design list with copyright acknowledgement to
the author.
--
--
Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management
Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University
|
