Dear List

[Warning: this post is way too long and maybe not crafted well  
enough. Well, at least I warned you... ;-) ]

I have with interest read the thread on theory in design. One of the  
interesting aspects is what constitutes a theory that has the power  
to influence practice. Some valuable comments have been made on this  
issue. Another aspect that has been mentioned has to do with the  
possibility of knowing if a design is an actual result of a theory. I  
just want to make a few comments on these two issues.

First, there is a basic paradox involved when it comes to the idea of  
theories influencing design. If we accept a very simple definition of  
design as a process aimed at producing something new, something  
unexpected, something not already known or existing, then any "tool"  
we are able to create and develop (such as a theory) will to some  
extent lead to a situation where a larger part of the final result  
will be dependent or a consequence of the used "theory".

So, in a world where we have really, really good theories, we will  
have a design process that with certainty will lead to the "best"  
solution. However, at the same time the design process will not be a  
design process anymore, at least not in the sense we defined it  
above. So, our ambition to come up with design theories that will  
"help" designers is (in the very extreme case) an attempt to reduce  
the very aspects of the  design process that we usually see as the  
core, character, and sign of design.

This is of course no problem in itself. If we can create theories  
that actually fully reduces uncertainty in design it might be a good  
thing. However, I am pretty sure that if we get closer to that  
situation the very foundation from where we judge design results will  
change, maybe not because we are not happy with our "perfect"  
designs, but because we might be bored and seek variation. This  
paradox is not today a real problem, neither to design practice or  
design research, but I think it is important to reflect  on the  
paradox while we pursue our intentions (both in practice and research).

My second comment is on the idea that we can "measure" the success of  
a theory. The idea that design is to produce something new makes it  
almost impossible to measure the influence of theory in practice.  
This is also a kind of paradox. If we assume that a specific design  
is a result of a specific theory we have to assume that there is a  
logical causation between the ideas of the theory and the final  
outcome. This is something that might be the case all the time  
without us being able to detect such logical connections in the  
extreme complexity that is manifested in every design situation. In  
order to make the case that a theory is (to some extent) actually  
"responsible" for the design outcome also means that we have to  
reduce the influence and importance of the designer (and especially  
designer qualities such as experience, imagination, intuition,  
intelligence,...). This is again not necessarily a problem, but it is  
a "paradox" that we need to be aware of in our attempts to understand  
the role and place of theories in design.

In both the cases I have discussed above there is a paradox that we  
have to acknowledge. These paradoxes are not present in the world of  
science. The paradoxes does not constitute anything that necessarily  
lead to any answers when it comes to how to approach or develop  
theories. Some people will probably argue it is a question of balance  
or that the paradoxes are only important at the extreme ends of a  
continuum, and are not anything relevant in the "real" world. This  
might be true, and maybe that kind of realization is valuable as a  
reality check when it comes to our hopes and aspiration on what role  
theories can play.

So, I am not sure what I actually want to say with this posting.  
Maybe it is only to make the case that the role and place for theory  
is a question of  definition and will, but not of the idea of  
"theory". Instead it has to do with how we define design. There are  
some aspects of what theories are, that are consequences of the way  
we define design and maybe also want design to be. We can re-define  
design in a way that actually removes the paradoxes. However, at the  
same moment we will remove some of the very qualities of design that  
we love and are drawn to.

Some of the postings have mentioned other ways to understand theories  
in design. The idea that theories can "inform" designers opens up for  
a way of understanding and working with theories that changes the  
preconditions for the paradoxes. However, this position is not well  
developed. It is a position that should benefit from more deliberate  
reflection from our community, both practitioners and researchers.  
Even if there are many advocates for this position it is not clear,  
for instance, how such a position should/could be implemented in  
design education.

Well, I really have to stop......

Erik Stolterman


-----------------------------------------
Erik Stolterman, Ph.D.
Professor of Informatics
Director of HCID Program
School of Informatics
Indiana University
Bloomington, IN