Terence et al,

I think I fall into the same category as you: practical and pragmatic aims
of theory.

While I haven't yet had the time to digest all of your detailed message, I
would like to contribute the following:

Basically, in every kind of design I've found out about, there are a
certain set of steps.  The order in which these steps occur and the
relative amount of overlap between them vary from field to field, but
generally, I've found:

* problem identification
* problem analysis
* concept design
* concept expansion to full design
* design evaluation

to be the basic units.  Perhaps the most important feature that
distinguishes one field from the other is the context in which these steps
occur.  Sometimes, the context is very well-defined; other times it is not.
  And I've yet to find a case where I cannot come up with suitable
definitions of these steps/phases/stages/whatever you want to call 'em that
don't make sense to individuals from given fields.

I believe this is the place to start, not only to look for theories of
design(ing), but also for developing a language that would allow us all to
communicate with less chance of hurting ourselves as we bump into other
people's conceptions of design(ing).

Just 2 cents.
Cheers.
Fil

Terence Love wrote:
> Dear Klaus,
>
> Thank you for your comments. I'm not sure, but it seems to me our differences are from a difference in purpose. Perhaps it might be moire transparent if I set down the underlying reasoning I've been using? I welcome your thoughts and comments.
>
> My aims on theory foundations are practical and pragmatic. The focus is addressing the problem of building a coherent useable foundation for design research and design theory across the design field. In doing this, I'm aware of its breadth - over 650 sub-fields that divide roughly into three groups:
>
> "       Technical design sub-fields. These a mainly subfields such as those of engineering design, computer systems design etc that are mainly identified by designers' use of information that is codified mathematically.
> "       The "Art and Design" or "Art and Craft" design sub-fields. These sub-fields of design are mainly marked by their origins either in the crafts of Art-focused fields or via the "Art and Design" education programs that were until recently taught in colleges rather than universities.
> "       The new 'other' sub-fields of design in which design activities are clearly and obviously central to their operationalization, yet to date do not usually have specific design-focused education programs or well established and catalogued areas of design research literature. Examples include: government policy design, organisation design, change management design, education program design, and social program design.
>
> I'm assuming in theory terms that the design field as a whole is in a serious mess - this is on the basis of my own and others reviews of the literature. I know there are individual pockets of sound theories. The reality seems to be, however, most theories and research are problematically parochial, typically assuming that the field in which research is undertaken or theory made is 'all of the design field'. Lack of attention to epistemological detail and inaccurate overgeneralisation is rife.
>
> Underlying my interest in theory foundations is the awareness that there are several large-scale practical problematic issues in design research and practice that need urgently addressing:
>
> "       Poor inclusion of qualitative social, ethical and environmental factors in design activities and theories in the technical/engineering design sub-fields. This is reflected in the almost exclusive use of rationalist/ objectivist theoretical perspectives and a weakness of understanding, or knowledge, about other theoretical perspectives. From a review of the literature, it also appears to be accompanied by a neglect of critical analysis of epistemological issues; alack of understanding the practical benefits to designers and researchers of qualitative  information about  design contexts and a poor awareness of the significant problems associated with quantifying qualitative information asn in multi-attribute weighting methods. .
> "       Technical weakness, particularly relating to areas of science involving mathematical modelling, in the skills and practices of designers and design researchers from most of the 'Art and Design' domains. This is reflected in the almost exclusive use of interpretive theoretical perspectives. From a review of the literature, it also appears to be accompanied by a neglect of critical analysis of epistemological issues and also of understanding the practical benefits to designers and researchers of the causal representations central to the objectivist theoretical perspectives.
> "       Lack of substantial coherent epistemologically-focused literature in the 'other' design sub-fields that form 40% or so of the overall design field.
> "       Lack of awareness in most sub-fields of design research,  education and practice of the ongoing significant impact of theory findings from cognitive neuro-science that are progressively and quickly refuting and replacing many established theories and research approaches, particularly in sciences that research and theorise about individual, group and social behaviours (e.g. sociology, psychology, anthropology, ethics, aesthetics, history, and philosophy).
> "       A general appearance of lack of strength in the research and theory making endeavour of the broad design field as compared to other disciplines. This is reflected mainly in weakness in the epistemological foundation on which design research is being, and has been, undertaken and on which design theories have been developed. It is also reflected in a lack of status of design research by research funding institutions in ways that adversely impact in the levels of funding of design research relative to other disciplines.
> "       Lack of a single coherent theoretical and conceptual foundation for the overall design field.
>
> All of these issues appear to require a focus on epistemological foundations for the broad design field.
>
> As I see it, the main  issues in finding an answer that is practically and pragmatically useful are:
>
> "       The current widespread lack of expertise across the design field in critical/philosophical/epistemological/methodological analyses suggests that the solution should be simple; avoiding theoretical perspectives whose use requires a long period of  highly intellectual training.
> "       That engineering design theory is extended to include human qualitative, social, ethical and environmental factors.
> "       That 'Art and Design' sub-fields have a basis for including technical quantitative factors coherently,  in an integrated fashion, alongside qualitative data-gathering, interpretation and analyses.
> "       That there exists a reference 'utility' epistemological perspective that can be taught in a straightforward manner for direct use by designers wishing to get the main benefits of design research in the shortest time.
> "       That the theoretical perspective must be one that strongly supports the development of a strong, well, justified and respected research literature.
> "       The solution must allow that some individuals, skilled in difficult theoretical perspectives such as phenomenology or the different forms of hermeneutic analysis, can integrate them alongside other design researchers findings into a broader theory picture.
> "       That the level of sophistication of design theory and research will rise over time - though perhaps at different speeds in different sub-fields.
>
> After researching this issue in the 1980s and 1990s, in part through a PhD, I concluded that what was needed is  a theoretical perspective that addresses these issues whilst bridging objectivist, interpretivist and critical traditions. During the 1990s, I explored a broad range of epistemological perspective, building design theory frames with the aim of identifying a suitable approach. In the early days, I favoured a phenomenological perspective because 'in theory' it has  extensive scope. I rejected in on the basis that it was practically problematic.
>
> II concluded the most suitable unifying utilitarian theoretical perspective useable across all the sub-fields of design lay in the area spanned by Popper's post-positivism and the social constructivism advocated by Berger, Luckman and Guba. Popper's post-positivism allows that knowledge is created and interpreted subjectively by humans and is based directly on an objectivist position that integrates easily with scientific theory. The social constructivism allows that human constructed theory can be objectivist. Both positions stem fro/ allow a critical perspective on theory.
>
> In reaching this point, I was also thinking about the relative balance of the three main areas of the design field. As far as I can see with a  very rough 'finger in the wind' estimation of organisation numbers, size of literatures, amount of research, contribution to GDP, the three sections  are in the following approximate proportions of the overall design field:
>
> "       Technical design sub-fields - 40-50%
> "       The "Art and Design" or "Art and Craft" design sub-fields -5-10%
> "       The new 'other' sub-fields of design in which design activities are clearly and obviously central to their operationalization - 35-45%
>
> From this weighting perspective, the most important things seemed to be: finding an epistemologically sound basis for the inclusion of human qualitative social, ethical and environmental actors alongside technical issues in the engineering/technical design fields; and establishing some straightforward 'utility' epistemological foundation that would help bring together a coherent body of research and theory in the new 'other' design fields. The change in the wind on theory in all domains due to brain research meant that any theory perspective on design would be more likely to be satisfactory if it comports well with the realities emerging in the research literature of cognitive neuro-science, particularly in the areas relating to the physiology of emotion and feelings where they underpin peoples' interactions with, and sense-making of, their physical environments and other people.
>
> As you pointed out, the position on theory perspective I came to goes along with a combined interpretivist/objectivist representational position on theory, epistemology and ontology. I think this is one of its strengths, particularly as it builds theory that aligns well with what is currently respected by research funding agencies and journal editors. Its also a position in which the information, theory and findings can be easily reutilised and  reanalysed using more holistic perspectives
>
> Practically, the reason for using the above theory perspective and the definitions of ontology, epistemology and theory in my email is:   It works.
>
> The other positions don't seem to work as well except for when used by highly skilled expert specialists.
>
> Some of the above reasoning is set out in more detail in my PhD. I'm happy to email you a copy of the thesis if you are interested.
>
> Best wishes and thanks again,
>
> Terry
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: klaus krippendorff
> Sent: 23/04/2004 12:26 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Theory-focused understanding of ontolog & epistemology
>
>
> terry,
> i hate to be short to your length and carefully worded elaboration of
> ontology and epistemology
> i appreciate you trying to make the concepts useful in very narrow problem
> driven areas
> what i think you do not realize, and if you do, you should at least admit
> it, that by locating epistemology in the relationship between real world
> objects and theories about these real world objects you identify yourself
> with the cartesian paradigm with the kind of representationalism that
> philosophers have tried to get out of since vico, which has been recognized
> as a failure in conceptions of perception since gibson, etc. etc.
> your need for an ontology is the logical consequence of adopting this view.
> it has nothing to do with how objects are.
> i found the conception of humans that this view entails dispicable, and the
> notion of epistemology eroded to simple representationalism.
>
> klaus krippendorff
> gregory bateson term professor for cybernetics, language, and culture
> the annenberg school for communication
> university of pennsylvania
> 3620 walnut street
> philadelphia, pa 19104.6220
> phone: 215.898.7051 (O); 215.545.9356 (H)
> fax: 215.898.2024 (O); 215.545.9357 (H)
> usa
>
>
> -----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 Terence Love
> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 11:07 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Theory-focused understanding of ontolog & epistemology
>
>
> Hello,
>
> During the 80s and 90s, I worked on addressing theory foundations of design
> research.  I found it is much easier to define ontology and epistemology in
> specific contexts. General definitions are very hard to project to local
> analysis - particularly for words like ontology and epistemology that are
> used as a 'grab bag' into which to put anything that is convenient. Their
> main use is in discursive brevity rather than precision. ('Research' is a
> similar problematic 'grab bag' word as is 'knowledge' - in each case,
> clarity of analysis is gained by focusing on what they contain, e.g.
> 'gathering data', analysing data', 'making theory', 'memorising
> information', 'reading' etc).
>
> There are of course serious problems with the definitions of ontology and
> epistemology in research contexts because their definitions depend on
> theoretical perspective. They are separate concepts in
> positivist/objectivist perspectives yet overlap to different extents in
> post-positivist theory perspectives - or any theory perspectives that
> include human influence on cognition. (This is a central theme of Guba's
> 'Paradigm Dialog', Sage).
>
> Careful definition of ontology and epistemology from a specific use is
> easier and more precise - especially when the details of the specific use is
> epistemologically unpacked.
>
> An approach that has worked for me for several years on defining ontology
> and epistemology in the context of research goes as follows. I've separated
> it into pieces for convenience:
>
> 1.      Theory is the central focus. The primary productive aim of
> researchers is to produce new theory.
> 2.      Theory is a special kind of representation of real world objects and
> their behaviour.
> 3.      Researchers aim to produce a special kind of theory that is:
> usefully representative of real world objects and behaviours; communicable;
> unambiguous; usable across a variety of contexts; reliable; testable;
> coherent with other theories; and in a symbolic language whose rules of
> manipulation result in accurate predictions of real world objects and
> behaviours. A central interest of research theory is to represent _causal_
> behaviours as this enables the main aspect of utility - prediction. The
> preliminary exploratory initial stages of theory building may, however,
> focus on the weaker relationships of correlation between behaviours.  This
> is central to a hypothetical speculative phase of  theory representation.
> 4.      To fulfil the above criteria, the special forms of 'research theory'
> representation require formal technically-defined representational symbolic
> languages that have their own representative objects, and behavioural
> relations between those objects.
> 5.      The picture thus far is of two parallel streams: 'real world objects
> and their behaviours'; and 'theory representation objects with their
> behaviours and relationships that are arranged to represent real world
> objects and behaviours'.
>
>>From the above position on theory, defining 'ontology' and 'epistemology'
> becomes fairly  straightforward.
>
> 1.      There is ontology of being of 'real world objects'.  The core issue
> of ontology in this context is the units of being and their boundaries, i.e.
> what is an 'X'?  For example, addressing questions such as 'What is an
> organisation?' (I.e. referring to the real world group of people and
> behaviours). In the physical word this is brought to a peak with the
> concerns of physicists at quantum and cosmic levels about real objects. In
> the mid-range, there are many ontological concerns of disciplines in the
> social studies and psychological areas that I suspect will prove irrelevant
> with increasing information and theory emerging from brain research. This is
> because many of the 'objects of concern' are abstracted in ways that
> facilitate making theory that is relatively second hand and remote. I
> suspect that this applies for example questions involving romantically
> defined emotions like 'What is the ontology of happiness? (where happiness
> is seen as a real world phenomenon)' Instead, I suspect we will see the
> development of new interests in the ontology of ethologically-defined
> behaviours. To recap, the focus in this aspect of ontology is on   'real
> world' objects in their unrepresented form.
> 2.      In parallel is the ontology of being of 'theory representations'.
> The foci of this aspect of ontology are the theory objects used in
> representation and their behaviours and relationships. In the above question
> of 'What is an organisation?' the 'theory ontology' focus is on: the concept
> of organisation; its beng in representational symbolic language; the
> exisitnce in that symbolic language of particular behaviours and
> relationships that are of interest; and the exisitence of interconnections
> of  this new theory representation with other more established and better
> justified theory objects. To recap, the focus of this  aspect of ontology is
> on the being of the theory objects and their behaviours and relationships.
>
> At this point, defining epistemology emerges effortlessly:
>
> 1.      Epistemology is the study of the relationships between the 'real
> world' objects and their behaviours' and the research-based 'theory objects
> and their behaviours that are used as representations of real world objects
> and behaviours'.
> 2.      Central concerns of epistemology and theory building in research
> contexts are: that symbolic theory representations can be manipulated
> according to rules in ways that will then result in correct prediction of
> future, as yet unknown, behaviours in the real world; and that these
> predictions correlate closely with the outcomes of independent empirical
> data gathered from a real world enactment of the predicted situation. The
> primary aim is to theoretically model causal behaviours.
> 3.      Defined in symbolic terms, theory objects and their behaviours and
> relationships also become real world objects, behaviours and relationships
> so there is a natural recursion.
>
> Following this 'theory-focused' path to defining ontology and epistemology
> helps clarify relationships and differences between research and design
> activities.
>
> 1.      Researchers build theory representations of real world objects and
> their behaviours. Their central focus is creating theoretical presentations
> that enable prediction of behaviours -  in the main through building
> theories that model real world causality in ways that can be manipulated
> according to the ontological characteristics of the symbolic
> representational languages that are used to emulate real world situations.
> 2.      Designers create representations (designs). The two main foci of
> their choice of symbolic language are:  as a means of unambiguously
> conveying the manufacturing specifications of the objects to be actualised;
> and as a means of communicating their thoughts about the form of the
> designed outcome and its intended behaviours. These are epistemologically
> different interests from those of researchers and usually require different
> forms of symbolic languages whose purposes and use-values  are different
> from those used by researchers.
>
> Designers that have also learned to undertake and understand research use
> both modes.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Terry
> ____________________
>
> Dr. Terence Love
> Love Design and Research
> PO Box 226
> Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel/Fax: +61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> www.love.com.au
>
> Curtin Research Fellow
> Dept of Design
> Curtin University
> Western Australia
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Visiting Research Fellow
> Institute of Entrepreneurship and Enterprise Development
> Management School
> Lancaster University
> Lancaster, UK
> [log in to unmask]
> ____________________

--
Prof. Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University                         Tel: 416/979-5000 x7749
350 Victoria St.                           Fax: 416/979-5265
Toronto, ON                                email: [log in to unmask]
M5B 2K3  Canada                            http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/