Dear Klaus:
My model of a good theory is one whose purpose is
clear, that defines and relates its elements in ways
that are relevant to the situations it addresses, that
communicates these situations clearly, supports the
actions necessary to realize its purposes, provides
evidence of its own effectiveness and generates useful
knowledge. I suspect that your good "standard"
scientific theory fits this model. I would appreciate
a copy of your paper on the role of theory in the
social sciences, as I always learn something from how
you view the world.
As for the different approaches to language, you
apparently did not receive my off-line response adding
three more theories of language to your chart.
(Evidence, I hope that I do not recognize a single
theory of language.) I surmised, perhaps erroneously,
that yours was a social constructivist view of
language based on your chart heading "socially
constitutive" "constructive" which I interpreted as
your favored view of language, statements like "there
is another feature of objectification and that is to
deny the constructedness of phenomena in question."
and your strong feeling for "languaging" as a social
consensus seeking activity. I'm sorry if I
misunderstood you.
I disagree with at least part of your statement that
theory "to be generalizable, there has to be an
underlying continuity, a mechanism that is
determinate, a recurrent pattern, and at least
stochastic invariance. Without that theories have
nothing to say." If you follow my model of a good
theory, it need not be determinate in the sense that I
think you mean it, and the "stochastic invariance" can
reach goals that vary with the intent and the
situation. I suggest there is a generalizable and
recurrent pattern to designing, that its application,
context and behavior varies and it is not necessarily
linear and predictable (i.e. deterministic.) In my
view designing is responsive to theory as is all human
thought and behavior.
Best,
Chuck
Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD
studies and
related research in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of klaus krippendorff
Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2004 5:18 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Theories of design cognition, perception,
sensory-motor etc
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
|