dear chuck,
i had responded to terry's question regarding theory. you may have
overlooked my response and i am adding it here.
i suspect, you have a definition of theory in mind that differs from my more
standard scientific one. i published a long critical article on the role of
theory in the social sciences (not on design, though). i could send it to
you if you care to read it. but then i had also sent you the comparison of
different approaches to language, and i wonder why you are still settled on
only one.
you are asking how i could support a theory of social constructionism while
arguing that design cannot (i'd prefer should not) be governed by theory. i
never said that i support a theory of constructionism and wonder where this
idea comes from.
klaus
here is my response to terry:
dear terry,
to answer your question, first what is a theory?
a theory is constructed by a detached observer, as the greek origin
suggests, by a spectator who is outside the events described. designers by
contrast do things. the knowledge that designers need must come from and be
applied to insiders of the design process,
a theory is always a generalization. the validity of a theory depends on
whether it accounts for the events it claims to generalize, that is to
events that are not yet observed. prediction is one criteria. a theory
that does not generalize to anything else is sometimes referred to as an
explanation. explanations may make sense but if they do not do more than
that, one cannot say anything about their validity.
to be generalizable, there has to be an underlying continuity, a mechanism
that is determinate, a recurrent pattern, an at least stochastic invariance.
without that theories have nothing to say.
i maintain that design is an inherently unpredictable activity. it is an
undisciplined discipline, as i once said. if designers would do what is
predictable, they would not be designers but unimaginative replicators of
what their job requires. if design is inherently geared to the novel design
theory is either invalid or predictive of features that are not essential to
design.
this is why i think it is futile or does a disservice to design to theorize
it. the inability to theorize design is far from rendering design magical.
one can teach it, one can reproduce it in various situations, one can earn a
living with it suggesting it is useful to someone, but what it takes is an
embodied knowledge, one that must be practiced to be demonstrably valid (not
validated by further observations).
klaus
-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2004 8:23 PM
To: klaus krippendorff; [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: Theories of design cognition, perception, sensory-motor etc
Klaus:
Can you elaborate on what you mean by your statement:
"precautions should map behavioral theories into the
design process, which by itself, cannot be theory
governed" The last part seems particularly
problematic. i.e. how can you support a theory of
social constructionism while holding the view that
design cannot be theory governed? Your theory, in my
view is a product of design.
Best regards,
Chuck
|