David asked some *fine* questions (below). Here's my 2 cents.
David's provocations seem to focus on the need for theory to support
practice. This is - and I'm confident David would agree - only one
important use of theory. If we regard theory as in the service of
practice, then a suitable theory will somehow improve the practice, not
just in the abstract, but in the 'real-world'.
Perhaps we could say "a good theory will noticeably improve the
effectiveness or efficiency of a more than half of designers who use it
properly."
We could then set up some kind of 'program' to take a theory
in/about/for/of design or some element thereof, and study it to
determine what aspects of practice could possibly be improved by it.
From this, one may establish criteria for assessing the theory.
We then render the theory in a form suitable for the practitioner to
absorb, observe the practitioner use the theory (having accounted for
the transient effects of implementing the theory), and then assess the
theory with respect to the criteria we established beforehand.
We then decide if the theory "works" per our defintion.
We do that often enough until we start to get a sense of the total
minimum amount of theory needed to sustain practice.
This is, ahem, a sketch of a program of scientific research. It would
be *very* long term, and fraught with political intrigue (just how do
you get a bunch of practitioners to want to adopt some new element of
practice just for the sake of evaluating a theory?)
Still, it would be 'way cool to do!
Cheers.
Fil
David Sless wrote:
> Jacob wrote:
>
>> David Sless claims that as a professional 'one must always seriously
>> question the value of theory', and nicely provokes us with the
>> question 'what is the minimum body of theory I need to deploy to
>> successfully design information?'
>> So, does this mean that 'too much' theory is trouble?
>
>
> Perhaps I need to elaborate, as well as provoke. Let me begin with your
> question.
>
>> does this mean that 'too much' theory is trouble?
>
> Taking two steps back. The first question, in my mind, is: what
> criteria do we use to judge the value of theory?
> The question that follows on from that is what body (or bodies) of
> theory fall within these criteria, and which fall outside. The issue is
> not about 'too much theory' being 'trouble', but about limiting oneself
> to those theories that are of some value in ones work-- neither too
> much or too little.
>
> Any researcher, including a phd student, faces the task of making
> decisions between theories that are of some value in that particular
> research, and theories which are of lesser or no value in that
> research. I don't think that is in any way controversial. What might be
> more controversial is the idea that students may select particular
> theories because they are more likely to be acceptable to phd examiners
> than other theories, and further, that phd students may focus on theory
> and theoretical issues at the expense of other matters because that is
> an institutional requirement for getting a phd.
>
> None of this is anti-theory. Theory is a necessary part of all research
> and practice. Moreover, we have to be as explicit and clear as we can
> about the theories we use. If we are not, then the theory uses us, not
> the other way round, as it were.
>
> So, my provocation is in part to suggest that you need to make clear
> the criteria which determine your choice of theory. This is something
> that most researchers and professionals do when they put together a
> proposal for funding. Simply asserting that theory has value is not
> good enough.
>
> But there is another part to my provocation which is related to
> professional practice on the one hand, and intellectual debate on the
> other. Not everything is useful for professional practice, though I
> grant that we can never know with any certainty when something might be
> useful. Most professional bodies put a lot of effort into defining the
> necessary skills that make up that profession.
>
> So, it's a legitimate question to ask of any professional practice:
> 'what is the minimum body of theory I need to deploy to successfully
> practice my profession?' This question does not imply, though it may
> seem to do so, that the minimum is necessarily also the best. It is
> simply asking what is necessary, without which professional practice in
> this area would be impossible. Again, I don't see anything particularly
> controversial or even provocative in such a question.
>
> The intellectual question--the one with which I am most preoccupied at
> the moment, and which may be at odds with contemporary intellectual
> debate within the academy--is to do with finding out the minimum set of
> assumptions and inferences (theory) needed to undertake designing in my
> own field of information design, and possibly in some other areas of
> design. This does seem at odds with the question I often hear from
> university colleagues who ask: how much theory do I need, to make
> design respectable in the university? I can imagine what the potential
> long term value--intellectually and professionally-- of trying to
> answer my own intellectual questions, but I have some difficulty in
> imagining the long term value in the quest for respectability within
> the university, though I can see the short term career benefits. If
> that seems provocative, then so be it.
>
> None of which is a criticism of individuals. We all work as best we can
> within the environments in which we find ourselves.
>
> But let me be absolutely clear about a potential outcome of my inquiry.
> It is conceivable that the body of theory needed to sustain design
> practice may be so simple that it can be taught and applied to practice
> at a level which is below that which is taught and practiced in
> universities. Will that turn out to be the case? I don't know. There
> are certainly people involved in design teaching at both primary and
> secondary school levels who have thought about this issue. To think
> through that possibility within the framework of discussion about phd's
> in design may be provocative, even frightening, but why not?
>
> David
--
Filippo A. Salustri, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering
Ryerson University
350 Victoria St, Toronto, ON, M5B 2K3, Canada
Tel: 416/979-5000 ext 7749
Fax: 416/979-5265
Email: [log in to unmask]
http://deed.ryerson.ca/~fil/
|
