Dear Rosan,

Your last three posts raise important and challenging issues.

The theory notes I am writing will address these issues in ways that
I hope you find reasonable. The topic of the qualities that
characterize appropriate theory is particularly significant. So are
the ways in which theories of different fields may be adequate or
inadequate.

In my view, Terry Love's standards of epistemological adequacy do not
conflict with the needs of design practice. Quite the contrary.
Terry's views are based on a position that requires robust theory to
support serious design knowledge and effective design practice.

Many of us on this list work in design practice as well as working
with design research. This may not always be apparent. One reason is
that list members often choose to focus on theories and philosophies
of design, research methods, and comparative research methodology.
Despite requests that people post research reports and notes on
current research, few have done so.

Another reason involves the fact that some of us are unable to
discuss our applied and clinical research. I know that other list
members face a problem that I face in discussing our research work in
the field because our applied and clinical research often do not
belong to us. Except for a few EU projects that have been published,
I am rarely at liberty to discuss applied or clinical work. In some
cases, I am under a legal obligation NOT to do so.

This makes it difficult for me to discuss applied design work unless
I argue a position or make claims based on secret or restricted
knowledge. As Chris Rust and David Sless noted, discussing research
requires transparency of facts and methods. Proprietary information
forms an inadequate basis for argumentation in an open research
community. In contrast, I am free to discuss my work on theory
construction and comparative methodology. Even though my
argumentation does not continually refer to applied practice, the
issue is as important to me as it is to you and to most members of
this list.

Terry developed his views on theory over many years of working
experience as a designer and engineer. Terry argues for
epistemological adequacy in theory precisely for the contribution
that epistemological adequacy makes to effective practice.

In your last three posts, you are carefully articulating a serious
position. Compared to your earlier notes, it is almost as though a
different person is writing these crisp, well-structured comments. I
welcome this approach. I respect the fact that you are attempting to
articulate a new and different vision. This does not require you to
make a full statement. All that anyone can expect is a good effort.
In this, you make sense.

Last week, you offered several strong questions and challenges. I
answered. My pointed comments were the result of my increasing
frustration over a situation in which you asked questions of everyone
while apparently avoiding the questions asked of you.

I would like to request that you answer the questions I asked my last
post. Most of us answer the questions you ask. Last week, I asked you
a few questions. I would appreciate your answers.

Best regards,

Ken

--

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