Dear Klaus,
Thanks for your post.
You raise an issue that I will address later. What I have done so far
is to define and describe the term theory. I have not yet reached the
point of addressing the issues you raise.
As I understand your post, you are not arguing against the
DESCRIPTION of what the term theory means. Rather, you argue against
the concepts and uses to which definition seems to lead. In this,
your argument states that theory is insufficient to the many needs of
design and design research. I agree.
My view on this is that theory is important for some activities, but
not for all. I will propose some distinctions in later segments of my
notes. These will make my views on these issues more clear than a
definitional note can do.
If you look at the list of twenty-eight issues in the thematic
preface, you will see that such issues come up at several points. If
I understand your note, you are distinguishing theorizing from other
forms of knowledge, description, languaging, and action. You also
raise the issue of the ways in which the construction of knowledge in
a plurality of ways is important to the field of design. Here, too, I
agree. While I believe that theory in its classical sense remains
useful for some purposes and in some kinds of context, these other
issues are also significant. To the degree that theory remains useful
in specific ways, it is important to clarify the topic of theory. (If
all theory is useless and of no value, then clarifying the concept of
theory and describing its appropriate applications is a useless
project. Since you have also written on the concept of theory
development, I did not think this is what you meant.)
It is never possible to address all issues at any one moment. So far,
I have attempted to describe the term theory with examples of what it
means and a set of definitions from useful sources. I will address
these other issues as I move through the list of twenty-eight topics.
As I mentioned in my response to Terry Love, Francois (1997: 368)
drew on your work in developing some of his material on theory.
I would welcome your views on the ways of knowing, describing,
languaging, and acting that you contrast against theory. If you feel
there is some combination of approaches that establish a condition of
sufficiency, it would be interesting, but I am not necessarily asking
that. Rather, I would welcome a note that goes beyond your critique
of the current way that theory is used today.
What is your current view on the directions you see as useful?
Best regards,
Ken
Reference
Francois, Charles. 1997. International encyclopedia of systems and
cybernetics. Munich: K. G. Saur.
--
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
|