Ken et al, see embedded comments.
Ken Friedman wrote:
> Dear Rosan,
> [...]
> Theorizing is itself a practice. So is research. One may engage in
> the practice of theory while undertaking the practice of design -- or
> any other practice, for example nursing, engineering, management,
> mathematics, philosophy, chess. Any form of practice may be a process
> of inquiry, but this is not always the case.
I agree. I also suggest that 'practice' might be considered the
application of a body of knowledge to some *object* domain that the BOK
describes, whereas 'theory' has more to with reflection about the
*subject* domain (the BOK itself). So one can practice research, or
theorise about design, and any other reasonable combination thereof.
And while such a distinction may be useful in some ways, I don't think
it should be seen as a definitive or prescriptive statement of an actual
separation. Reflection is an important part of designing, and as such I
think any good designer is doing some kind of research as an element of
designing. 'Practice' versus 'theory' are for me two different
frameworks that have to co-exist.
> [...]
> If one completely formalizes any practice, one removes both the
> elements of design and of theory development. To completely formalize
> a practice means providing all process descriptions as a priori
> statements. When everything is described in advance, there is no need
> for inquiry. This is the idea behind many of the ISO standards. It is
> also the idea behind certain kinds of development in design methods,
> and this is partly why John Chris Jones turned away from the concept
> of design methods. Kari Hans's response hit the nail on the head when
> suggesting that overly rigorous description removes the design
> element of human judgment from the design process.
> [...]
Wellll, I'm not so sure. I don't even think the 'scientific method' is
actually taken as prescriptive. While it is a common conception that
methods may be prescriptive, I think it's actually a *misconception*
albeit a fairly unsurprising one. Every method I'm aware of is either
derived from arbitrary decision making or from inductive inference (it's
a method cuz we've found it applies well in our experience). As such,
they're only as good as the context in which they were defined.
Methods also tend to get tweaked with time, usually in response to
contextual changes. If they were prescriptive, would this happen? I
don't think so.
> The careful and precise descriptions of much research and theory
> construction involves describing what the researcher did to reach a
> conclusion. This is descriptive. The purpose of this description is
> to represent the process clearly and carefully so that others can
> understand it. The goal is not normative prescription of each step in
> the process. The goal is process description for reflective and
> analytical understanding.
Right on!
> [...]
>
> Warm wishes,
>
> Ken
>
>
> References
>
> Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism. Perspective and
> Method. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
> [...]
Cheers.
Fil
--
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/
|